Charles Barkley vs. Kevin Garnett

[2010splash]

Who you got between Chuck Barkley and Kevin Garnett? Two of the greatest PFs we'll ever see.

Charles Barkley career: 22.1 ppg, 11.7 rpg, 3.9 apg, 1.5 spg and 0.8 bpg with 54.1% FG.

Kevin Garnett career: 19.7 ppg, 10.8 rpg, 4.1 apg, 1.4 spg, 1.6 bpg on 49.8% FG

[BarberSchool]

Barkley via heart and grit...




....and more talent.

[creepingdeath]

The one who hasn't gotten fat yet.

[MasterDurant24]

Who you got between Chuck Barkley and Kevin Garnett? Two of the greatest PFs we'll ever see.
Barkley easy. Better scorer, better rebounder, a better passer, a better everything. Only thing Garnett has over him is a ring and defense, which Barkley was pretty damn good at.

[tommy3]

You mean who's the better thrash talker or the better player?

[lilWesleyJ4]

Easily Garnett, Garnett plays defense.

[8BeastlyXOIAD]

Barkley easy. Better scorer, better rebounder, a better passer, a better everything. Only thing Garnett has over him is a ring and defense, which Barkley was pretty damn good at.


notsureifserious

[lilWesleyJ4]

Barkley easy. Better scorer, better rebounder, a better passer, a better everything. Only thing Garnett has over him is a ring and defense, which Barkley was pretty damn good at.
Barkley a better passer than Garnett?:facepalm SMH

[8BeastlyXOIAD]

Barkley a better passer than Garnett?:facepalm SMH

thats what i said:lol

[Kasper]

Barkley easy. Better scorer, better rebounder, a better passer, a better everything. Only thing Garnett has over him is a ring and defense, which Barkley was pretty damn good at.

Hmm.. Barkley was better. But not by that much. Its close.

And Garnett is vastly better defender. The ring doesn't matter too much but the defense was far and away better.

But you are right, on offense Barkley was easily better and more versatile.

[Kasper]

Barkley a better passer than Garnett?:facepalm SMH

Barkley wasn't a better passer than Garnett?

[BarberSchool]

Anyone who think Prime Garnett could wax Prime Barkley, must've never saw Prime Barkley play an entire PLAYOFF SERIES. Folks are quick to forget that Garnett got bounced out of the first round EVERY year except one with Minny. Garnett got swept by Dirk, guarding Dirk the netire series, and Dirk avergaed 36 and 16 ON KG.....how's that for great defense? :lol Plus, Garnett was pretty much anorexic his entire career....Barkley would physically dominate Garnett.

[Kasper]

Anyone who think Prime Garnett could wax Prime Barkley, must've never saw Prime Barkley play an entire PLAYOFF SERIES. Folks are quick to forget that Garnett got bounced out of the first round EVERY year except one with Minny.

hmm... you must have forgotten a few with the Celtics?

[Warners0]

Who you got between Chuck Barkley and Kevin Garnett? Two of the greatest PFs we'll ever see.

I hope you consider Tim Duncan a center otherwise this is a ludacrious statement

[lilWesleyJ4]

Barkley wasn't a better passer than Garnett?
Garnett was easily the better passer between the two. Barkley was no slouch in that area but to call him a better passer than Garnett is absurd.

[Bigsmoke]

KG. i like my players that could stay in shape and play defense.

[Kasper]

Garnett was easily the better passer between the two. Barkley was no slouch in that area but to call him a better passer than Garnett i absurd.

I think you saying "easily" is a stretch.

If I had to pick I would say Sir Charles was the better passer.

[BarberSchool]

I hope you consider Tim Duncan a center otherwise this is a ludacrious statementBarkley was the GOAT PF, Duncan is 2nd, Malone 3rd, Moses 4th.

[lilWesleyJ4]

I think you saying "easily" is a stretch.

If I had to pick I would say Sir Charles was the better passer.
Did you watch prime Garnett or just the Celtic version of Garnett?

[Kasper]

Did you watch prime Garnett or just the Celtic version of Garnett?

I watched prime Barkley and Garnett.

[Kasper]

Barkley was the GOAT PF, Duncan is 2nd, Malone 3rd, Moses 4th.

This is false.

I won't get into the rest of the rankings... but Duncan is GOAT PF.

[ginobli2311]

Its close, but give me KG because of his dedication to the game and his far superior defense.

[MasterDurant24]

Barkley a better passer than Garnett?:facepalm SMH
Oh, how people are fooled by assist numbers. Kevin Garnett was/is a much more willing passer than Barkley ever was. I think KG is very overrated as a player. He's not even better than Kevin McHale.

[BarberSchool]

KG was probably a slightly better passer out of double teams, where his height helped him, but Barkley was the better passer leading the break. I never saw KG pass and handle the ball like Barkley in the open floor.

[lilWesleyJ4]

I watched prime Barkley and Garnett.
We will just have to disagree then:confusedshrug: :no:

[Warners0]

Barkley was the GOAT PF, Duncan is 2nd, Malone 3rd, Moses 4th.

You are insane. Even Barkley wouldn't say he is better than Duncan. Personally I consider Duncan to be a center. But if you are going to put the two in the power forward position than Duncan is clearly better.

The man has never played on a team that missed the playoffs and has different supporting cast transformed around him.

He has taken the bummiest supporting casts to 50 and 60 win seasons.

Duncan can score with anyone, don't let his unselfish nature fool you.

[BarberSchool]

Oh, how people are fooled by assist numbers. Kevin Garnett was/is a much more willing passer than Barkley ever was.True, he was never a DOMINANT DOMINANT scorer. Garnett only had 1 season over 22 PPG in his entire career....not to mention his FG% was like 57-60% ever year. KG was like high 40% every year. Barkley was like 25-28 PPG every damn year until the last few years. Garnett was always willing to pass, cause he only had a few moves in the post....Barkley had easily 5 moves mastered for every 1 KG had.

[Bigsmoke]

You are insane. Even Barkley wouldn't say he is better than Duncan. Personally I consider Duncan to be a center. But if you are going to put the two in the power forward position than Duncan is clearly better.

The man has never played on a team that missed the playoffs and has different supporting cast transformed around him.

He has taken the bummiest supporting casts to 50 and 60 win seasons.

Duncan can score with anyone, don't let his unselfish nature fool you.

i agree.

Barkley played with great players throughout his career so you're telling me the "best PF EVER" could play with both Hakeem and Moses Malone and cant win a title?

put 2nd year Tim Duncan on the 86 Sixers = championship

put Prime Timmy on the 94 Suns = Championship

Put Tim Duncan now on a team with Hakeem, Drexler and Willis = Finals :pimp:

[BarberSchool]

Duncan can score with anyone, don't let his unselfish nature fool you.Only in downtempo half court games, and downtempo series is Duncan the undisputed GOAT PF. When we factor in uptempo games, or better yet, uptempo series, Duncan, as an individual performer, sits proudly at #2....Behind who is easily the best transition PF of all time, who was also a menace in the half court...Barkley.

[tpols]

Garnett easily. Garnett can anchor a defense with the best of them. His vocal leadership and general play on that side of the court boosts his whole team's level of defense and this is something barkley can't even touch. Sure barkley will get you 1 or 2 more ppg on 5% better efficiency but that offensive differential isn't even close to what I just described about garnetts ability to play elite defense and make his teammates do the same.

[NoEasy9]

KG...and I say this because his defense was significantly better than Barkley's....while Barkley's offense was just slightly better than Garnett's.

[Yung D-Will]

KG...and I say this because his defense was significantly better than Barkley's....while Barkley's offense was just slightly better than Garnett's.
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:


'Lmao

there was just as big a gap between Garnett's defense and Barkley's defense as there was between their offense

BARKLEY was on another level as a scorer

[ProfessorMurder]

Folks are quick to forget that Garnett got bounced out of the first round EVERY year except one with Minny. Garnett got swept by Dirk, guarding Dirk the netire series, and Dirk avergaed 36 and 16 ON KG.

You're quick to forget how f*cking God awful those T'Wolves were. Barkley had good-great role players in Philly and Mose/Dr.J, KJ/Majerle in Phoenix and Hakeem/Pippen in Houston.

[heyhey]

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:


'Lmao

there was just as big a gap between Garnett's defense and Barkley's defense as there was between their offense

BARKLEY was on another level as a scorer

true but it depends on what you need for your team.

It's easier to build around Garnett imo because he could do so much without having to pound the ball and score the rock. In that way it's easier to build a championship team with Garnett than Barkley

I think Garnett-Hakeem-Clyde would been more succesful than Barkley-Pierce-Allen

[NoEasy9]

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:


'Lmao

there was just as big a gap between Garnett's defense and Barkley's defense as there was between their offense

BARKLEY was on another level as a scorer
Sure, Barkley was another level as a scorer, but that doesn't mean he was on an other level offensively...there is more to offense than scoring.

[Mr Clutch Melo]

Sure, Barkley was another level as a scorer, but that doesn't mean he was on an other level offensively...there is more to offense than scoring.

What ? Rebounding ? Passing ?

Barkley better than KG on both categories.

[NoEasy9]

What ? Rebounding ? Passing ?

Barkley better than KG on both categories.
They are relatively close in those categories...would I say Barkley is better at those categories? Yeah, I would, but I wouldn't say it is significant enough to make me say Barkley was better than Garnett. I mean, I dont know about you, but I have a high value for defense...and Garnett is probably a top 3 defensive power forward of all-time.

[az00m]

Duncan>Malone>Barkley>KG

Barkley was ****ing amazing in his prime.

[BarberSchool]

Another thing everyone her seems to be forgetting, is the fact that Barkley was a far more dominant, physically superior rebounder. Barkley is one of the game's all time elite rebounders....and anyone thinking Kg's rebounding is equivalent....think again....

[ginobli2311]

They are relatively close in those categories...would I say Barkley is better at those categories? Yeah, I would, but I wouldn't say it is significant enough to make me say Barkley was better than Garnett. I mean, I dont know about you, but I have a high value for defense...and Garnett is probably a top 3 defensive power forward of all-time.

this.

barkley himself said he never cared about defense. and that means he never fully committed himself to his team or winning a title. barkley was a lazy player both on and off the court at times throughout his career. he didn't want to fully commit to win a title.

that is why i'd take KG over barkley. defense and commitment to winning. both of which barkley readily admits he lacked.

[necya]

:wtf:
the one who put Garnett ahead of Barkley is a ignorant. Prime Barkley was unguardable. that's it. Barkley is top 3 PF all time. but stop thinking TD would destroy prime Barkley. Duncan has met what, old Malone and old Barkley (and he didn't dominate them)...then? Nowitzki, injured Mcdyess, Garnett. Garnett's defense is as overrated as his winning spirit. he was a looser for his entire career until he joined the celtics. he needed sam cassel and Spree to pass the first round. McHale is on my 4th spot, followed by the great Pettit.

Barkley would be a 5 time MVP in the 00's and Kevin Willis would be a mega star in the 00's. just make a list against who Barkley fought in the paint and compare xith the soft league after 97...

:facepalm Garnett being a better passer. what a band of trolls...

[NoEasy9]

:wtf:
the one who put Garnett ahead of Barkley is a ignorant. Prime Barkley was unguardable. that's it. Barkley is top 3 PF all time. but stop thinking TD would destroy prime Barkley. Duncan has met what, old Malone and old Barkley (and he didn't dominate them)...then? Nowitzki, injured Mcdyess, Garnett. Garnett's defense is as overrated as his winning spirit. he was a looser for his entire career until he joined the celtics. he needed sam cassel and Spree to pass the first round. McHale is on my 4th spot, followed by the great Pettit.

Barkley would be a 5 time MVP in the 00's. :facepalm Garnett being a better passer. what a band of trolls...
If we are talking about who is the better player during their primes, then the answer might be Barkley...as far as who has had the better career and who has accomplished more? You are a fool if you don't think it's Garnett.

[The_Yearning]

Give me KG.

[ginobli2311]

:wtf:
the one who put Garnett ahead of Barkley is a ignorant. Prime Barkley was unguardable. that's it. Barkley is top 3 PF all time. but stop thinking TD would destroy prime Barkley. Duncan has met what, old Malone and old Barkley (and he didn't dominate them)...then? Nowitzki, injured Mcdyess, Garnett. Garnett's defense is as overrated as his winning spirit. he was a looser for his entire career until he joined the celtics. he needed sam cassel and Spree to pass the first round. McHale is on my 4th spot, followed by the great Pettit.

Barkley would be a 5 time MVP in the 00's. :facepalm Garnett being a better passer. what a band of trolls...
:facepalm

this isn't a one on one round robin to determine the best player. i have no idea what you are smoking nor why you think individual matchups should be so prevalent in this debate.

barkley was an amazing offensive player and rebounder. amazing. but he was also a lazy ass defender that hardly had an impact on that side of the court. he wasn't fully committed to doing the things necessary to win in the playoffs or titles. if he was, he would have won a couple titles and would arguably be a top 10 player ever. but he was lazy both on and off the court and wasn't fully committed to winning.

ask pippen. LOL...pippen thought barkley was a big fat joke. and rightfully so at times.

and LOL at calling KG at loser (not looser???LOL). he was given nothing in minny. nothing. the fact that he got to the conference finals and the 1 seed with an aging cassell and sprewell is a positive not a negative moron. you really expect KG to beat shaq/kobe without cassell in that series? LOL

sorry. barkley had more talent and should have been the superior player...but his laziness on and off the court and his inability to impact the game defensively put him slightly behind KG.

[necya]

If we are talking about who is the better player during their primes, then the answer might be Barkley...as far as who has had the better career and who has accomplished more? You are a fool if you don't think it's Garnett.

me a fool? :roll:
i'm not one of those morons who put someone ahead because he grabed a ring, leaving his team cause he wasn't able to put it on the best tier. the timberwolves weren't able to take a playoff spot after the Spree-Cassell episode.

[HisAirness3]

Barkley.

[catch24]

Barkley a better scorer; Garnett a better defender. There's more of a gap between their defense than there is on offense. It's close, but factoring in the one championship KG has (whom I still think should have been Finals MVP), I'd go with him.

[ginobli2311]

me a fool? :roll:
i'm not one of those morons who put someone ahead because he grabed a ring, leaving his team cause he wasn't able to put it on the best tier. the timberwolves weren't able to take a playoff spot after the Spree-Cassell episode.

really?

so now wally is good enough to be the 2nd best player on playoff teams?
ricky davis is good enough to be a heavily relied on player?

seriously. GTFO with this garbage.

KG played for a joke franchise with little to no help his entire time there. He stayed loyal and never really threatened to leave or demanded a trade. He felt he owed minny and he wanted to stay there.

listen carefully. listen:

his best team consisted of a 34 year old cassell and a 33 year old sprewell. wally/hudson/hoiberg/hassell/olowkandi

are you ****ing serious? my god you people never want to talk about facts or reality. no player in history could have won a title with that garbage. seriously. nobody. KG was insane that year in both the regular season and playoffs.

he put up 24 points 15 boards 5 assits in the playoffs while providing top 5 defense in the league. LOL

a big LOL and :facepalm

[NoEasy9]

me a fool? :roll:
i'm not one of those morons who put someone ahead because he grabed a ring, leaving his team cause he wasn't able to put it on the best tier. the timberwolves weren't able to take a playoff spot after the Spree-Cassell episode.
Do you not know who his teammates were before Cassell and Spree came along? It's not like he was playing in the weak east either, he was playing in the west which has been strong all decade long...

It's one thing to be a role player and win a ring, and it is another to be the main reason why your team won a ring. Horry can win as many rings as he wants, but he'll never be better than Barkley...not even in his wildest dreams. Garnett on the other hand is already relatively close as talented of a player as Barkley is, and Garnett winning the ring just puts him above Barkley...don't make mention about his DPOY award too.

[dallaslonghorn]

In his prime, KG was a seven-footer who could defend all FIVE positions and play them on offensively too. He's one of the best defensive players of all-time IMO, and he's also one of the most skilled big men too. Probably a top 10-20 player of all-time.

The only thing Barkley has is on him is that he was a more dominant scorer.

But I'll take a great defensive forward over a great offensive one every time.

[MayCeltics]

6'5 power Forward Vs 7'0 power forward.

[Stoney]

Another thing everyone her seems to be forgetting, is the fact that Barkley was a far more dominant, physically superior rebounder. Barkley is one of the game's all time elite rebounders....and anyone thinking Kg's rebounding is equivalent....think again....

Barkley wasn't far more dominant as a rebounder. You could also make the case that Garnett was a better rebounder, because he lead the league in rpg 4 years in a row, while Barkley only led the league once, plus Garnett got nearly the same amount of rebounds in a slower paced era, so at the very least there close in rebounding

[tpols]

LOL at everyone overrating charles' rebounding in comparison to garnett's. You guys realize garnett has like a foot of standing reach on barkley right? If these guys went head to head barkley would not outrebound garnett. It would be close but I'll put my money on the former DPOY 7'0 guy.

[BarberSchool]

LOL at everyone overrating charles' rebounding in comparison to garnett's. You guys realize garnett has like a foot of standing reach on barkley right? If these guys went head to head barkley would not outrebound garnett. It would be close but I'll put my money on the former DPOY 7'0 guy.Put Garnett's Anporexic @ss up against Kevin Willis, Charles Oakley, Buck Williams, Otis Thorpe and them....he 'd get ragdolled and wind up averaging 8.8 or 9.1 or some sh!t....

...I'd take your money son.:D

[ginobli2311]

Put Garnett's Anporexic @ss up against Kevin Willis, Charles Oakley, Buck Williams, Otis Thorpe and them....he 'd get ragdolled and wind up averaging 8.8 or 9.1 or some sh!t....

...I'd take your money son.:D

wrong. barkley was a slightly better rebounder. stop making this difficult.

barkley was a noticeably better offensive rebounder than garnett.
garnett was a slightly better defensive rebounder than barkley.

overall barkley was slightly better. just look at the rebounding numbers.

total rebound percentage in regular season:
KG - 17.1
Barkley - 18.2

total rebound percentage in playoffs:
KG - 17.0
Barkley - 18.9

Nobody is saying KG was a better rebounder, but these crazy statements that Barkley was far better are laughable. Barkley was slightly better....

[dallaslonghorn]

wrong. barkley was a slightly better rebounder. stop making this difficult.

barkley was a noticeably better offensive rebounder than garnett.
garnett was a slightly better defensive rebounder than barkley.

overall barkley was slightly better. just look at the rebounding numbers.

total rebound percentage in regular season:
KG - 17.1
Barkley - 18.2

total rebound percentage in playoffs:
KG - 17.0
Barkley - 18.9

Nobody is saying KG was a better rebounder, but these crazy statements that Barkley was far better are laughable. Barkley was slightly better....

But he played in the 80's! With short shorts!

There certainly hasn't been a dramatic increase in athletic/weight-based training in the sport and an influx of talent from all over the world.

But people back then played with fundamentals! There were back cuts!

No this has nothing to do with race.

[dallaslonghorn]

They were also "tougher" back then. Not like these "prima-donnas" who play today who care more about "being on sportscenter" and "showboating" then "doing what it takes to win".

[Kasper]

me a fool? :roll:
i'm not one of those morons who put someone ahead because he grabed a ring, leaving his team cause he wasn't able to put it on the best tier. the timberwolves weren't able to take a playoff spot after the Spree-Cassell episode.

Yeah, good thing Barkley didnt leave his team to try to get a ring.

Oh wait..

[MasterDurant24]

wrong. barkley was a slightly better rebounder. stop making this difficult.

barkley was a noticeably better offensive rebounder than garnett.
garnett was a slightly better defensive rebounder than barkley.

overall barkley was slightly better. just look at the rebounding numbers.

total rebound percentage in regular season:
KG - 17.1
Barkley - 18.2

total rebound percentage in playoffs:
KG - 17.0
Barkley - 18.9

Nobody is saying KG was a better rebounder, but these crazy statements that Barkley was far better are laughable. Barkley was slightly better....
What makes him far better was that he was a short, fat man. Really, a chubby 6'4-6'5 man should not be outrebounding a slim 7'0 footer with great athletic ability. (Of course Barkley was a athletic freak himself)

[ginobli2311]

What makes him far better was that he was a short, fat man. Really, a chubby 6'4-6'5 man should not be outrebounding a slim 7'0 footer with great athletic ability. (Of course Barkley was a athletic freak himself)

his size does not make him better. its all about impact and production. i don't care if barkley was 8 feet tall for 5 feet tall. his numbers and impact are the same.

LOL at size making one better than another. that makes absolutely no sense.

[Harison]

I'll put it from the other perspective, I cant imagine any GM picking Barkley over Garnett. Pure scoring wise Barkley was better, but it doesnt offset his shortcomings, KG is better all around player, with way better work ethics and leadership. Put Barkley on '08 Celtics and they wont win the rings, put KG on stacked Barkley's teams and they win a few. Defense wins championships, not nice scorers who doesnt play the lick of the defense, thats why Nash/Amare have as many rings as Barkley, and probably will remain this way.

[MasterDurant24]

his size does not make him better. its all about impact and production. i don't care if barkley was 8 feet tall for 5 feet tall. his numbers and impact are the same.

LOL at size making one better than another. that makes absolutely no sense.
Haha, this is an idiot at his best. A 6'5 man getting 11 rebounds is much more impressive than a 7'0 footer getting 11 rebounds. You can not tell that Barkley did not have a huge disadvantage at getting rebounds.

I want somebody to tell me what makes Garnett better than Kevin McHale, let alone Charles Barkley.

[MasterDurant24]

I'll put it from the other perspective, I cant imagine any GM picking Barkley over Garnett. Pure scoring wise Barkley was better, but it doesnt offset his shortcomings, KG is better all around player, with way better work ethics and leadership. Put Barkley on '08 Celtics and they wont win the rings, put KG on stacked Barkley's teams and they win a few. Defense wins championships, not nice scorers who doesnt play the lick of the defense, thats why Nash/Amare have as many rings as Barkley, and probably will remain this way.
And that is absurd.

[Harison]

Haha, this is an idiot at his best. A 6'5 man getting 11 rebounds is much more impressive than a 7'0 footer getting 11 rebounds. You can not tell that Barkley did not have a huge disadvantage at getting rebounds.

I want somebody to tell me what makes Garnett better than Kevin McHale, let alone Charles Barkley.
*Adding another troll to ignore list*

[Sarcastic]

Depends on the team I have. If I need a number 1 scoring option, I would go with Barkley. If I need a defensive anchor, I would go with Garnett.

[Samurai Swoosh]

I like Chuck, but Garnett plays defense.

[Sarcastic]

I'll put it from the other perspective, I cant imagine any GM picking Barkley over Garnett. Pure scoring wise Barkley was better, but it doesnt offset his shortcomings, KG is better all around player, with way better work ethics and leadership. Put Barkley on '08 Celtics and they wont win the rings, put KG on stacked Barkley's teams and they win a few. Defense wins championships, not nice scorers who doesnt play the lick of the defense, thats why Nash/Amare have as many rings as Barkley, and probably will remain this way.

First of all, they won 1 ring so far. And secondly, do you mean prime Barkley or Houston Rockets version of Barkley?

[SinJackal]

Barkley a better passer than Garnett?:facepalm SMH

Barkley was a pretty good passer.

Even his APG, if this is what you're using as your only mesuring stick, which I'm sure it is since you're laughing at the notion of barkley being a good passer, which means you have barely seen him play, if at all. . .Barkley's career APG is nearly identical to KG's.

Barkley played PF his whole life, not SF for a good while like KG, then switch to PF.

Or does no one remember how KG used to be a 6'11" "SF"? :lol

[NoEasy9]

What makes him far better was that he was a short, fat man. Really, a chubby 6'4-6'5 man should not be outrebounding a slim 7'0 footer with great athletic ability. (Of course Barkley was a athletic freak himself)
I hope you realize rebounding is far more than size...I mean Yao is probably the greatest rebounder for his size (7'6), and his rebounding numbers are not impressive. It is not typical to see a player over 7'3+ to average 10+ rpg, it just hasn't happened in nba history very often...they are not mobile or athletic enough.

[nycelt84]

Put Garnett's Anporexic @ss up against Kevin Willis, Charles Oakley, Buck Williams, Otis Thorpe and them....he 'd get ragdolled and wind up averaging 8.8 or 9.1 or some sh!t....

...I'd take your money son.:D

Garnett played against all of those players and held his own against them all.

[Harison]

First of all, they won 1 ring so far. And secondly, do you mean prime Barkley or Houston Rockets version of Barkley?
KG was passed his prime in '08, so Rocket's Barkley as well.

[ginobli2311]

Haha, this is an idiot at his best. A 6'5 man getting 11 rebounds is much more impressive than a 7'0 footer getting 11 rebounds. You can not tell that Barkley did not have a huge disadvantage at getting rebounds.

I want somebody to tell me what makes Garnett better than Kevin McHale, let alone Charles Barkley.

moron. 11 boards is 11 boards. who cares about size? its all about impact. barkley's lack of size does not mean it impacts the game more.

yes. it may be more impressive, but its not more impactful.

do you understand moron?

[BarberSchool]

Put Barkley on '08 Celtics and they wont win the rings, put KG on stacked Barkley's teams and they win a few.Shut up, you know nothing.:blah
http://images2.fanpop.com/image/photos/10900000/Self-defense-against-Fresh-Fruit-monty-python-10984447-458-263.jpg

[MasterDurant24]

*Adding another troll to ignore list*
Wow, I've never been called a troll. That actually hurt. Am I really that wrong for thinking that made Barkley so great at rebounding is that he pulled so many down while being so short and stocky? Am I wrong for thinking that Kevin McHale, possibly the greatest low post player of all time, is better than Kevin Garnett?

[Sarcastic]

KG was passed his prime in '08, so Rocket's Barkley as well.

Yea, I think KG has been able to stay closer to his prime than Barkley did, due to conditioning. Rocket's Barkley probably won't win the ring with the Celtics, so I agree with that.

[StillKill24]

Garnett played defense. Barkley was fat

[BarberSchool]

Garnett played against all of those players and held his own against them all.http://www.billzilla.org/forumpics/incorrect.jpg
He was an anorexic sexually confused small forward when these MEN played. Know your history son.

[MasterDurant24]

I hope you realize rebounding is far more than size...I mean Yao is probably the greatest rebounder for his size (7'6), and his rebounding numbers are not impressive. It is not typical to see a player over 7'3+ to average 10+ rpg, it just hasn't happened in nba history very often...they are not mobile or athletic enough.
Well yes, because players that tall are usually clumsy and not very coordinated.

[MasterDurant24]

moron. 11 boards is 11 boards. who cares about size? its all about impact. barkley's lack of size does not mean it impacts the game more.

yes. it may be more impressive, but its not more impactful.

do you understand moron?
I don't think you are grasping what I'm saying. Yes, it has the same impact. But for Barkley, it's harder to get that 11 boards than it is for Garnett. Well, it should be.

[ginobli2311]

I don't think you are grasping what I'm saying. Yes, it has the same impact. But for Barkley, it's harder to get that 11 boards than it is for Garnett. Well, it should be.

and again. so what? when you start using size as a factor it changes the debate. we could say a number of things that kg's size makes it more impressive that he can do over barkley.

i just care about impact on the glass. and barkley's size has nothing to do with impact. it just makes it more impressive....which again has no factor here.

its like saying "dirk is actually a better rebounder than he gets credit for because he's not that athletic and its harder for him to get his 11 boards in the playoffs than it is for KG because KG is way more athletic and has a much longer wingspan"

how does that make any sense in terms of impact on the court?

[MasterDurant24]

Garnett played against all of those players and held his own against them all.
Kevin Willis and Otis Thorpe were both 37 by the time Garnett first averaged 10 rebounds. Oakley was 36. Buck Williams was retired. Don't say something if you don't know what you're talking about. Unless you got some head-to-head stats I don't know about.

[MayCeltics]

I don't think you are grasping what I'm saying. Yes, it has the same impact. But for Barkley, it's harder to get that 11 boards than it is for Garnett. Well, it should be.

Stat lie. Stats can't measure intagibles. Its can't measure the defensive impact of a player. Whether its defending the Pick-N-Roll or redirecting shots. 7footer will always have a bigger impact on a game than a 6'5 player with similar stats. Carl Landry is prime example.

[MasterDurant24]

and again. so what? when you start using size as a factor it changes the debate. we could say a number of things that kg's size makes it more impressive that he can do over barkley.

i just care about impact on the glass. and barkley's size has nothing to do with impact. it just makes it more impressive....which again has no factor here.

its like saying "dirk is actually a better rebounder than he gets credit for because he's not that athletic and its harder for him to get his 11 boards in the playoffs than it is for KG because KG is way more athletic and has a much longer wingspan"

how does that make any sense in terms of impact on the court?
Well okay then, I was just saying Barkley has a disadvantage, Garnett doesn't. It's just like taller guys having a disadvantage at ball handling. Or really short guys at shooting. But anyways, not all rebounds have the same impact. Do you really think Dirk's 11 rebounds was the same as Barkley's, Oakley's, Duncan's, or Hakeem's? We all know all those guys were better rebounders than Dirk was.

[nycelt84]

Kevin Willis and Otis Thorpe were both 37 by the time Garnett first averaged 10 rebounds. Oakley was 36. Buck Williams was retired. Don't say something if you don't know what you're talking about. Unless you got some head-to-head stats I don't know about.

So averaging 10 rebounds for a season is the only way how a player is good? You make no sense with that foolish statement. These guys are all at least 10 years older than KG so it should not be a surprise to you of their age also coupled with the fact that KG came to the league straight out of high school.

Garnett was a better player than every one of those guys in his 2nd year in the league. I'd like to see your head to head stats or game footage to show where they dominated Garnett.

[MasterDurant24]

Stat lie. Stats can't measure intagibles. Its can't measure the defensive impact of a player. Whether its defending the Pick-N-Roll or redirecting shots. 7footer will always have a bigger impact on a game than a 6'5 player with similar stats. Carl Landry is prime example.
I feel like Barkley's defense is a little underrated here. Yes, he was a lazy bum, but he still got in the passing lanes and got quite a few steals. And of course he pulled down a load of rebounds. It's not like he's the worst defensive PF ever.

[MasterDurant24]

So averaging 10 rebounds for a season is the only way how a player is good? You make no sense with that foolish statement. These guys are all at least 10 years older than KG so it should not be a surprise to you of their age also coupled with the fact that KG came to the league straight out of high school.

Garnett was a better player than every one of those guys in his 2nd year in the league. I'd like to see your head to head stats or game footage to show where they dominated Garnett.
They never dominated them. But I have no memory of him playing very good against them. The other guy(who the guy I quoted had quoted) had mentioned that Garnett's rebounding numbers would go down if he was rebounding against the likes of those guys. When did I say Garnett wasn't good because he didn't average 10 rebounds?

[NoEasy9]

I feel like Barkley's defense is a little underrated here. Yes, he was a lazy bum, but he still got in the passing lanes and got quite a few steals. And of course he pulled down a load of rebounds. It's not like he's the worst defensive PF ever.
Being 6'4-6'6 in a position where the average height is 6'9-6'11 doesn't help...there were some flashes in Barkley's career where he had played good defense but his size was always going to be a problem.


Barkley wasn't far more dominant as a rebounder. You could also make the case that Garnett was a better rebounder, because he lead the league in rpg 4 years in a row, while Barkley only led the league once, plus Garnett got nearly the same amount of rebounds in a slower paced era, so at the very least there close in rebounding
This post is money... :applause:

[MasterDurant24]

So averaging 10 rebounds for a season is the only way how a player is good? You make no sense with that foolish statement. These guys are all at least 10 years older than KG so it should not be a surprise to you of their age also coupled with the fact that KG came to the league straight out of high school.

Garnett was a better player than every one of those guys in his 2nd year in the league. I'd like to see your head to head stats or game footage to show where they dominated Garnett.
Oh, and I misread your post. I thought u said he handled them well.

[ginobli2311]

Well okay then, I was just saying Barkley has a disadvantage, Garnett doesn't. It's just like taller guys having a disadvantage at ball handling. Or really short guys at shooting. But anyways, not all rebounds have the same impact. Do you really think Dirk's 11 rebounds was the same as Barkley's, Oakley's, Duncan's, or Hakeem's? We all know all those guys were better rebounders than Dirk was.

I think Dirk is an amazing defensive rebounder in the playoffs. but of course he's not on the level of the guys you mention. never said he was. i just don't think dirk's far inferior athleticism makes him a better rebounder than he actually was/is.

same goes for barkley. his size makes his rebounds more impressive...but does not change their impact. just like barkley's size makes it harder for him to defend the way KG does. but that does not change the impact...and simply KG is an all time great defender and barkley was average at best.

[MasterDurant24]

I think Dirk is an amazing defensive rebounder in the playoffs. but of course he's not on the level of the guys you mention. never said he was. i just don't think dirk's far inferior athleticism makes him a better rebounder than he actually was/is.

same goes for barkley. his size makes his rebounds more impressive...but does not change their impact. just like barkley's size makes it harder for him to defend the way KG does. but that does not change the impact...and simply KG is an all time great defender and barkley was average at best.
That is true. But you can't deny Barkley didn't have a great impact on his team.

[ginobli2311]

That is true. But you can't deny Barkley didn't have a great impact on his team.

I never said he didn't. Check my posts. I think Barkley was the superior rebounder and the superior offensive player that had the ability to take over a game and dominate much more easily than KG.

But Barkley was not fully committed to winning. He played little to no defense and he was lazy both on and off the court a lot throughout his career.

Just look up what Pippen said about Barkley and his dedication after their time together in Houston.

I just view KG as one of the ultimate team players of all time. He doesn't dominate the ball. He cleans the glass and is an unselfish and willing passer. He's a great screen setter and one of the best defensive players of all time.

I have nothing against barkley. I believe he had more raw talent than KG and could have easily been a top ten player of all time. I probably have Barkley around 18th all time and KG around 15th....so its hardly a huge gap for me or anything.

But there is just no way in hell i'm taking barkley over kg for the 12 best years of their careers to build a title team around them. no way in hell....and that speaks to barkley's mindset and lack of commitment to winning.

[chris2010]

haha i got a feeling that if barkely and garnett played and garnett started talking smack he would have kicked his ass. Barkely went and talked trash to a prime shaq diesel, and got a whippin. Garnett goes after Jerryd Bayless, charlie v, reggie evans, etc. nuff said

[Nobler]

KG, length, decent footwork in prime, and post defense on bigger pf's. Apples and oranges tho really

[Kasper]

haha i got a feeling that if barkely and garnett played and garnett started talking smack he would have kicked his ass. Barkely went and talked trash to a prime shaq diesel, and got a whippin. Garnett goes after Jerryd Bayless, charlie v, reggie evans, etc. nuff said

haha... most irrelevant post in this thread. haha.

[comerb]

As much as I like Barkley, he didn't play defense for shit. Gotta go w/ KG for the all-around game.

[eliteballer]

If I had to win one game I'm probably taking Barkley. If i had to build a contending team I'm going with Garnett for his ability to anchor a defense.

[alenleomessi]

1.Tim
2a.Sir Charles
2b.Karl
3.KG

[necya]

1.Tim
2a.Sir Charles
2b.Karl
3.KG

Malone
TD / Barkley
Pettit
McHale

[2LeTTeRS]

I'll put it from the other perspective, I cant imagine any GM picking Barkley over Garnett. Pure scoring wise Barkley was better, but it doesnt offset his shortcomings, KG is better all around player, with way better work ethics and leadership. Put Barkley on '08 Celtics and they wont win the rings, put KG on stacked Barkley's teams and they win a few. Defense wins championships, not nice scorers who doesnt play the lick of the defense, thats why Nash/Amare have as many rings as Barkley, and probably will remain this way.

Agreed. Barkley may have had a better career, but if you ask me to build a team and pick one of these players as my franchise guy I'm going with KG. I guess that means I value KG's ability to affect a game on both sides of the ball over Chuck's advantage as a scorer.

[necya]

Agreed. Barkley may have had a better career, but if you ask me to build a team and pick one of these players as my franchise guy I'm going with KG. I guess that means I value KG's ability to affect a game on both sides of the ball over Chuck's advantage as a scorer.

weird way to resume Barkley. i ask myself if people have already watched Barkley 86-91

so if you wanna build a team around someone you take the guy who wasn't able to avoid the elimination in the first round. plus, he missed the playoffs in 3 straihgt time during his prime (28, 29, 30yo). you know already you will be disappointed...

[Yung D-Will]

Malone
TD / Barkley
Pettit
McHale

Duncan
Barkley
Malone
Garnett
Pettit
Dirk
Mchale

[NoEasy9]

Agreed. Barkley may have had a better career, but if you ask me to build a team and pick one of these players as my franchise guy I'm going with KG. I guess that means I value KG's ability to affect a game on both sides of the ball over Chuck's advantage as a scorer.
There isnt much to backup that Barkley has had the better career...he may have been the better player, but he did not accomplish more than Garnett did.

Barkley could take over a game, but Garnett could too. Anyone recall 2004 Western Conference Semi-finals Game 7 vs. the Sacramento Kings? Maybe not as common as Barkley did, but people are acting like Garnett couldnt take over a game at all...which is blatantly false.

The difference between the two is the Kg has always answered the bell, while Barkley didn't.

[GiveItToBurrito]

Who you got between Chuck Barkley and Kevin Garnett? Two of the greatest PFs we'll ever see.

Garnett. Barkley was a bit better offensively (although he did pound the ball too much), but Garnett was 100x better on defense. That said, Barkley was still an all-time great, maybe even top five ever at power forward (in no particular order, Duncan, KG, Malone, Barkley, and maybe McHale would be my list).

[NoEasy9]

weird way to resume Barkley. i ask myself if people have already watched Barkley 86-91

so if you wanna build a team around someone you take the guy who wasn't able to avoid the elimination in the first round. plus, he missed the playoffs in 3 straihgt time during his prime (28, 29, 30yo). you know already you will be disappointed...
The biggest reason why Id rather build around KG instead of Barkley is the fact that KG made his teammates better, while Barkley didn't...

Players thrived when playing with Garnett...Chuck? Not so much...

I don't think people understand how selfish Chuck was.

Maybe Pippen's quote will convince you...

''I [Pippen] probably should've listened to Michael a year ago when he said that Charles will never win a championship because he doesn't show any dedication,'' Pippen said in an ESPN interview. ''He's a very selfish guy. He doesn't show the desire to want to win. That's my reason for wanting to get away from playing with him, because he just doesn't show the dedication.''

[1Time4YourMind]

Garnett, the guy excels at both ends of the floor, Chuck while only excels at one end.

[Yung D-Will]

"He's a very selfish guy," Pippen said of Barkley. "He doesn't show the desire to want to win. That's my reason for wanting to get away from playing with him anymore because he just doesn't show the dedication.
"I probably should've listened to Michael (Jordan) a year ago when he said that Charles will never win a championship because he doesn't show any dedication."

-Pippen on Barkley's will to win



I have to say Duncan. He is a true team leader. Garnett is a phenomenal player with great physical abilities but I don't think he is mentally strong enough to be a team leader. If he would have stayed in Minessota I don't think he would ever win a ring. He did the right move by going to Boston because there is Paul Pierce who is a true team leader that scores in clutch moments.

-Rasho on Garnett's abilty to lead a team to a championship



So they've both had players who doubted either one of them could have lead a team to a championship

[beermonsteroo]

Barkey not close

[ronniec]

Offensively, I think they are close.
Defensively, KG is better... so I pick him

[LJJ]

I'll take Barkley.

It's great that Garnett plays defense, but he can't be relied upon offensively as a franchise player.

[plUto or bUst]

I'll take Garnett over fat ass out of shape Barkley any day. That said, Barkley plays a mean game of golf.

[Pointguard]

-Pippen on Barkley's will to win

-Rasho on Garnett's abilty to lead a team to a championship

So they've both had players who doubted either one of them could have lead a team to a championship

LOL, what does Rasho know about leading a team to a championship. He had his best years when KG was getting on him. Rasho got his best contract because of his play with KG. SA resented the day. In fact when you read his statement he seemed upset that KG got after him to shoot in the WCF's. I doubt he knew much about Pierce either. I wonder if Rasho knew if it was team that was playing against Sacramento??? LOL, a quote from Rasho isn't an equivalent to a Pippen quote. In fact, when you start quoting Rasho its the end of the world of sanity.

[XxSMSxX]

The gap between their defense is far larger than the gap between there offense so Garnett, pretty easily

[necya]

The gap between their defense is far larger than the gap between there offense so Garnett, pretty easily

At 20yo, you have seen what, the last 2 years of Sir Charles while your mom was preparing your breakfast.

you don't know what you are talking about. Your "pretty easily" makes me laugh

[XxSMSxX]

At 20yo, you have seen what, the last 2 years of Sir Charles while your mom was preparing your breakfast.

you don't know what you are talking about. Your "pretty easily" makes me laugh

Ah yes because we all know VHS tapes didn't exist in the 90's. :hammerhead:

[Bigsmoke]

I'll take Barkley.

It's great that Garnett plays defense, but he can't be relied upon offensively as a franchise player.

KG's offense was good enough to lead the NBA in total ponts but thats not good enough offense?

[LEFT4DEAD]

I'd take Barkley by a small edge.
Garnett has edge on defense, but man, Barkley was a warrior. He has been guarding everybody on the court, so agresive. He was undersized but he has had speed advantage on any big. Y'all are underrating him on D. Someone who don't know who is Barkley would thought that he was nobody on D, so easy to past by him according to your posts.. It was not as that way. That man has had heart.

On offense it's different story. Barkley was unstopable. So fast and strong, so quick with his post moves and so efficient on rebounds. He could went out there and say "I'm going to win it by myself". And it was just like that. Unstopable force on the offense, good at passing to perimeter and great at avoiding double teams.

Garnett was a beast in his prime too, but I would take Barkley on this one.

[ronniec]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/g/garneke01.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/barklch01.html


Prime KG before moving to Boston, average
20.54 ppg, 11.37 rb, 4.47 ast, 1.38 stl, 1.7 blk

Prime Barkley before moving to Houston, average
23.30 ppg, 11.59 rb, 3.93 ast, 1.63 stl, 0.92 blk


I think picking either one is just a personal choice.

[ATL_Bball_King]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/g/garneke01.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/barklch01.html


Prime KG before moving to Boston, average
20.54 ppg, 11.37 rb, 4.47 ast, 1.38 stl, 1.7 blk

Prime Barkley before moving to Houston, average
23.30 ppg, 11.59 rb, 3.93 ast, 1.63 stl, 0.92 blk


I think picking either one is just a personal choice.


Yea i think so too... This is a good question... They both are hall of famers for a reason...Well KG will be one...People who says one is that much arguably better than the other is just crazy...:facepalm

People on here talking like they just know for sure...:lol

[alenleomessi]

If Sir Charles won a ring this wouldnt have been a question, but yeah thats 'if'

[XxSMSxX]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/g/garneke01.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/barklch01.html


Prime KG before moving to Boston, average
20.54 ppg, 11.37 rb, 4.47 ast, 1.38 stl, 1.7 blk

Prime Barkley before moving to Houston, average
23.30 ppg, 11.59 rb, 3.93 ast, 1.63 stl, 0.92 blk


I think picking either one is just a personal choice.


While I think Barkley was better at putting the ball in the bucket, Garnett was just world's better as an overall defender, then again it might just be personal preference as you say

[insidehoops]

Charles Barkley career: 22.1 ppg, 11.7 rpg, 3.9 apg, 1.5 spg and 0.8 bpg with 54.1% FG.

Kevin Garnett career: 19.7 ppg, 10.8 rpg, 4.1 apg, 1.4 spg, 1.6 bpg on 49.8% FG

[Andrei89]

The one who plays defense.

His offensive numbers are a bit more low due to the fact he was a lot on D.

[Alhazred]

I was a huge Barkley fan growing up when he was in Phoenix, but I would have to pick KG if I had the option to build a team around either of them. As great as Barkley was, he wasn't anywhere near as great of a defender as KG, plus Garnett didn't need to dominate the ball on offense to be effective. Also, Barkley had a tendency to play while out-of-shape and his motivation was questionable at times. Still, I don't blame anyone for picking Barkley. He was a beast when he was in his prime.

[Yung D-Will]

LOL, what does Rasho know about leading a team to a championship. He had his best years when KG was getting on him. Rasho got his best contract because of his play with KG. SA resented the day. In fact when you read his statement he seemed upset that KG got after him to shoot in the WCF's. I doubt he knew much about Pierce either. I wonder if Rasho knew if it was team that was playing against Sacramento??? LOL, a quote from Rasho isn't an equivalent to a Pippen quote. In fact, when you start quoting Rasho its the end of the world of sanity.

O Because Pippen was the leader of his championship teams?

But apparently there's a ranking system for quotes so plz tell me it.

Is a greg pop quote useless in front of a John wooden quote

Is a Kobe quote 10x a lebron quote

Plz I'd like to be enlightened about this quote scale

[playtetris]

yeah garnett is a better defender, but barkley's offence was MILES ahead of garnett's. barkley DESTROYED people in the post; he was pretty much unguardable for a while there.

put it this way: they played against each other when barkley was well past his prime and he still had his way with garnett, good defence or not.

i take barkley.

[magnax1]

Barkley never played defense, and Garnett always played offense and defense at an all-NBA level. Pretty easy choice for me.

[dallaslonghorn]

Barkley never played defense, and Garnett always played offense and defense at an all-NBA level. Pretty easy choice for me.

:applause:

Agreed. Barkley > KG on offense. KG > Barkley on defense. Defense > Offense.

[magnax1]

:applause:

Agreed. Barkley > KG on offense. KG > Barkley on defense. Defense > Offense.
Not so much defense>offense in general but All NBA offense>>>>No defense

[Lebron23]

Give me Charles Barkley.

[iDefend5]

notsureifserious
Barkley was a great passer so it is not that dumb to say.

[Bigsmoke]

i dont know.

i just know that iDefend5 is a ******
.

[Micku]

Peak vs Peak is pretty debatable I feel. It depends on what you want.

Barkley was better offensively.

Garnett was better defensively.

Both of their prime was kind'a wasted.

It depends on what team that you build around them. But Barkley was better in the clutch.

[Magic bird]

Timberwolves Garnett is better than prime Barkley.Just my opinion though:)

[Harison]

Garnett easily. Garnett can anchor a defense with the best of them. His vocal leadership and general play on that side of the court boosts his whole team's level of defense and this is something barkley can't even touch. Sure barkley will get you 1 or 2 more ppg on 5% better efficiency but that offensive differential isn't even close to what I just described about garnetts ability to play elite defense and make his teammates do the same.

+2.

[Odinn]

Peak Barkley > Peak Garnett.

Prime wise; a little more debatable.

[sundizz]

If you have to draft someone to for the next 10 years i'd pick KG. He was consistent, always in shape (anorexic i guess, but strong) and he could be the centerpiece on any type of team.

Bark was a guard mixed with a center. Had the agility, speed and ballhandling of a guard and the strength and ferocity of the best centers.

His offensive game was unstoppable. Plain and simple, he was a beast. He was helluva lot more exciting to watch also.

They really are a tough two to compare. Bark may not have played defense but his crazy rebounding and style of play inspired his teammates more I would think. KG in his MVP season though was an insane beast as well and did everything. I think in a head to head matchup Bark would put the hurting on Garnett so I'll give him the edge. KG actually has the better matchup but doesn't have that killer go at him every play and try to embarrass him attitude Bark has.

[Whoah10115]

i agree.

Barkley played with great players throughout his career so you're telling me the "best PF EVER" could play with both Hakeem and Moses Malone and cant win a title?

put 2nd year Tim Duncan on the 86 Sixers = championship

put Prime Timmy on the 94 Suns = Championship

Put Tim Duncan now on a team with Hakeem, Drexler and Willis = Finals :pimp:


Put Duncan on the 93 Suns (the team that actually got to the Finals) and they don't get to the Finals. If they get there with Duncan in 94 it's because Barkley was expected to retire after the playoffs, due to the severity of chronic back issues and his concern for his quality of life after basketball. Put 93 Barkley on 94 Suns and the Suns win the title.



Put 2nd year Duncan on 86 Sixers and they won't beat LA or Houston. Period. End of.



If prime Duncan played on that Rockets team then they get to the Finals...same thing with prime Barkley. With prime Barkley, they even have a chance of beating the Bulls. But he wasn't in his prime.



So you didn't actually say anything.