Who was the better PF? Barkley or Malone....

[mjbulls23]

Well I'd give Barkley the slight edge personally because I felt he was a better at his peak than Malone was, although Malone had the edge of playing longer.... not to mention his offseason workouts which speak for themselves.... but he played with the 2nd best PG ever in Stockton and played in Sloan's structured offense......... yes Barkley did play with KJ, but I've always felt he was slightly better than Malone at their peaks...... But you certainly can't go wrong with either one, and you can make as strong a case, if not stronger case, for Malone....

(BTW here are their career stats below in case anyone is interested)

Karl Malone
http://i27.tinypic.com/13zo8wl.jpg


Charles Barkley
http://i26.tinypic.com/fx77ya.jpg

[mjbulls23]

.. also another reason Barkley would get the edge is because he actually won an MVP award that he deserved, unlike Malone

[Psileas]

I'd take Malone to build a team on, although, admittedly, Barkley was usually a better big-game performer. Primes, you can also suggest Barkley as being more versatile (though Malone has an edge in defense that many forget). But overall, I can't overlook Malone's ability to dominate his position at an almost unchanged level for like 13 seasons in a row. If he could perform like a Duncan or Barkley in certain clutch situations (especially in the 1997-98 NBA Finals), we'd be talking about an-at least-weak GOAT candidate.

BTW, although I agree that Malone wasn't worthy of his 1997, 99 MVP's, I would still think he should win the 1998 one (i.e, switch MVP's with Jordan in '97 and '98 and give the 1999 one to Duncan). He led the team to the best record in the league for the only time in their history and posted his usual dominant stats, on tremendous stability (for example, his season low was 17 points, which would normally point to a 33-35 ppg scorer, not a 27 ppg one).

[BIZARRO]

Malone was a little better scorer, a better defender, and lasted a lot longer due to conditioning, leading to a more consistent career.
But at his best Sir Charles was a better (offensive especially) rebounder and passer, and ran the court better when he was young, before his relatively early breakdown.
Charles at his peak was better IMO; not something you can necessarily tell by statistics, but just by WATCHING them.

In retrospect, many people have Barkley lower than Malone all time. I don't agree. The only time they played together however, on the Dream Team, both were 28-29, Barkely was the far superior player. It doesn't mean all that much of course, but it is something.

In fact, there were many games where Barkley looked superior to the GOAT and Magic in Barcelona.

Sir Charles is underrated all time in his talent, though he could have worked harder. It is hard to say that a 6'4 and a half Hall Of Famer at power forward underachieved, but in Sir Charles case it may be true.

Anyway, both Barkley and The Mailman were sick. But at their best, Barkley was better.

[Lakers13]

I'll go with Sir Charles. He took a Suns team on his back and got to the Finals. Malone got there too, but he also had a fellow HoF'er on his team.

Chuck was also a better clutch shooter then Mailman.

[Sonic R]

I always liked Chuck's game and what he brought to the court. Im a bit bias as Charles Barkley is one of my personal all time favorites

[Ghetto Phenom]

Karl Malone is the second-leading scorer in NBA history. Plus he was an all-NBA defensive team FOUR times (3 1st team and 1 2nd team), Barkley was never named to the all defensive squad. Also, Malone's teams never missed the playoffs. Barkley missed the playoffs at least twice.

They were the two best PFs of their generation, but honestly when you take a closer look at it, it's pretty clear that Malone stands taller than Barkley, both literally and figuratively.

[Real Men Wear Green]

.. also another reason Barkley would get the edge is because he actually won an MVP award that he deserved, unlike Malone
He wasn't better than Jordan in his year either. I give Malone the edge because he was lightyears ahead defensively and lasted longer, along with being the better player when he was older. There are those that take Barkley though, because he was better at creating offense out of his own hands. This is kind of an old argument.

[dwade3ai3]

Malone was better.

[mlh1981]

I'm going with Malone b/c of his conditioning and the height advantage he had over Barkley.

[White Chocolate]

.. also another reason Barkley would get the edge is because he actually won an MVP award that he deserved, unlike Malone


Barkley actually deserved 2, though they only gave him 1. Both guys were great scorers, though Malone has the advantage in that category. Barkley was the better player, pound for pound. In all honesty, you couldn't go wrong with either guy.

[raiderfan19]

malone. barkley wasnt just worse than malone defensively he was terrible. malone was pretty much the most consistent player ever. he wasnt quite as exciting as barkley(though the young malone was a beast) the thing is alot of you guys are actually penalizing malone for being durable. barkley averaged more than 25 ppg 5 times and played 80 games 3 times. malone avged more than 25 12 times and played 80 games 17 times. malone was clearly the better offensive player and the better defender. barkleys very slight edge in rebounding doesnt come close to overrunning malones advantages in everything else.

[KWALI]

Karl Malones D is being overrated....He gave a more consistent effort but he got burned badly by all the PF's who had offensive games from begining to end...That's Kemp, DC, Webber, TD, all the guys who burned Charles...he didn't block shots and is not a better defensive rebounder than Charles either....

Charles Barkley was more skilled. Period. He's the first one to deprecate his defensive effort but I rarely see any player involved in the creation of offense as he is give a greater effort defensively...and no Karl Malone was not involved much in teh creation of offense until he has already past his physical prime (around 99)

But it's just a matter of choice really it's Emmit vs Barry

Peyton vs Brady...who's really better?:confusedshrug:

[Geandily]

Karl Malone for sure. Proof:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=SBeAmIMtly4

[raiderfan19]

Karl Malones D is being overrated....He gave a more consistent effort but he got burned badly by all the PF's who had offensive games from begining to end...That's Kemp, DC, Webber, TD, all the guys who burned Charles...he didn't block shots and is not a better defensive rebounder than Charles either....

Charles Barkley was more skilled. Period. He's the first one to deprecate his defensive effort but I rarely see any player involved in the creation of offense as he is give a greater effort defensively...and no Karl Malone was not involved much in teh creation of offense until he has already past his physical prime (around 99)

But it's just a matter of choice really it's Emmit vs Barry

Peyton vs Brady...who's really better?:confusedshrug:
malone wasnt hakeem defensively or anything but chuck was just terrible. he was the worst defensive pf(among good players) in the last 20 years.

[raiderfan19]

Why do so many people say stuff like "clearly", "hands down" and "not even close" when it's not the case?? Karl Malone's ppgs may have been higher (and they weren't exactly hurt because he played with Stockton), but they weren't a lot higher. It's like David Robinson Vs Hakeem Olajuwon, David's career high in ppg is higher than Hakeem's and most who have seen the two play will tell you that Hakeem was a better offensive player. Also, check out Chuck's FG%, not only was he a great scorer, but mad efficient - more efficient than Malone even though Malone had around 3 inches on him. And check out their assist numbers while you're at it before you call Malone clearly a better offensive player. Plus Charles could score in more ways and had 3 point range. Also, I can't help but mention that Charles Barkley led BOTH the 92 and the 96 dream teams in scoring. That's two intnernational tournaments, playing with great scorers like Jordan, Bird, Shaq and Hakeem (and Malone was on both teams as well). And his FG% was through the roof in both olympics. And before you start thinking that everyone's fg% was high, you should see Jordan's and you'll see that he struggled.
international and nba arent the same at all. if they were melo would be better than lebron. as for fg% and assists they are pretty close. and no chuck didnt have 3pt range. he just thought he did. every three he took was a bad shot. he was a terrible 3 pt shooter.

[OutOfPlace]

Something I haven't seen mentioned yet is the athletic gap between the two. Barkley was an absolute freak while Malone was an average athlete.

[Y2Gezee]

Charles Barkley was the better player. Malone had the better career.

Malone was a better defensive player I'd say, but Charles wasn't even as bad as he'll have you think, especially not earlier on prior to injuries, but he was by no means a dominating defender.

But I think Charles is actually the better offensive player, passer, rebounder and just more versatile. He could matchup against some perimeter players on either ends and do the same against some of the greatest bigs of all time

[dejordan]

i preferred charles. he was so versatile, always a mismatch, a closer, and an incredible creator for others. malone's numbers look better because he played for a high pace team and was the perfect finisher for one of the game's all-time best passers, but imo charles was a superior offensive player because of his creative ability, explosiveness, and versatility.

defensively malone worked a lot harder and had more size but i bet charles came up with more big plays. when phoenix beat chicago in chicago in the finals, charles came up with a big steal and drove half the length of the court (beat mj down court) for the dunk to put it away (don't get me wrong - malone's the better defender, i'm just saying charles could make plays when he wanted to).

as rebounders, malone was consistant and strong, but charles was spectacular and dominant.

both could beat you in a lot of different ways and really showed the ability to excel in a number of different systems. can't go wrong either way.

[raiderfan19]

i preferred charles. he was so versatile, always a mismatch, a closer, and an incredible creator for others. malone's numbers look better because he played for a high pace team and was the perfect finisher for one of the game's all-time best passers, but imo charles was a superior offensive player because of his creative ability, explosiveness, and versatility.

defensively malone worked a lot harder and had more size but i bet charles came up with more big plays. when phoenix beat chicago in chicago in the finals, charles came up with a big steal and drove half the length of the court (beat mj down court) for the dunk to put it away (don't get me wrong - malone's the better defender, i'm just saying charles could make plays when he wanted to).

as rebounders, malone was consistant and strong, but charles was spectacular and dominant.

both could beat you in a lot of different ways and really showed the ability to excel in a number of different systems. can't go wrong either way.
barkley gambled for steals. he did it for his whole career. he also went for a steal and missed that cost them the series. as for scoring like i said ill take the guy who averaged more than 25 12 times over the guy who did it 5 times. and please dont act like chuck had lesser players around him than malone. its just stupid. another thing chuck averaged more than 27 twice. malone did it 8 times. there is absolutely no question who the better scorer was.

[raiderfan19]

I believe LeBron put up better numbers than Carmelo in the latest international tournament. Anyway, I didn't mention their performances for team USA as the only reason for why Chuck was better offensively, but as a bonus to the other reasons. If their fg% and assists are close, then so are their ppgs, with Malone's scoring still carrying the asterisk that is John Stockton. Chuck was by no means a great 3 point shooter, but he certainly had more 3 point range than Malone.
he didnt shoot enough for it to really matter but i bet youd be suprised to know that malone shot a higher percentage from 3. shooting 26.6% from 3 for your career isnt an asset any way you slice it. malone also shot a higher ft%.

[mjbulls23]

he didnt shoot enough for it to really matter but i bet youd be suprised to know that malone shot a higher percentage from 3.

ya well that makes sense since Malone didn't attempt as many 3's as Barkley did....

[Psileas]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=barklch01&p2=malonka01

These are their head to head games. Seems to me that, after becoming both superstars (1988), Malone usually played a little better even during Barkley's absolute prime (1988-93).

[Snow]

You could make good cases for both but I likes Malone's work ethic and longevity. Plus Barkley only played on one side of the court most of career. If only Malone didn't get that deer in the headlights look in the NBA finals we would be talking about Malone versus Duncan.

[raiderfan19]

ya well that makes sense since Malone didn't attempt as many 3's as Barkley did....
barkley has the lowest career 3pt percentage of anyone who took more than 500 threes in his career in nba history.

[Loki]

I'd take prime Barkley over prime Malone for a playoff series assuming similar quality teammates and I'd win 8 out of 10 times. Chuck was just a more dominant player and way more clutch. Dude has like 6 games of 40+/20+, three of them in the playoffs. Malone never had a single 40/20 game in his career. Barkley was way more dominant, and a better offensive player by a fair margin regardless of ppg output.

Malone had the better career (barely; I rate them both in the 14-17 range all-time), but Barkley's peak play was more impressive imo.

[dejordan]

barkley gambled for steals. he did it for his whole career. he also went for a steal and missed that cost them the series. as for scoring like i said ill take the guy who averaged more than 25 12 times over the guy who did it 5 times. and please dont act like chuck had lesser players around him than malone. its just stupid. another thing chuck averaged more than 27 twice. malone did it 8 times. there is absolutely no question who the better scorer was.
it has nothing to do with who's supporting cast was better (though barkley's phili crew is inarguably worse than just about any utah team malone had), and everything to do with role and pace. malone's team played at a faster pace, and it was his job to score. barkley's team played at a slower pace, and it was his job to create. amare scores more than tim duncan. doesn't make him a better offensive players, makes him the primary finisher on a running team with a great p & r point guard who isn't expected to create open shots for his perimeter teammates.

[Shep]

give me malone anyday.

- malone had a much better career

- barkley could show up unmotivated any night, malone gave you 100% every night

- malone was more durable (playing in atleast 98% of his teams games in his first 18 seasons, barkley did this 3 times)

- malone actually deserved 1 mvp ('98), barkley didn't deserve his. malone was also top 3 most valuable in '95 (3rd), '97 (2nd), '99 (2nd), and '00 (3rd). barkley was top 3 most valuable only in '86, and '93.

- malone was a much better defender

- malone was the best power forward in the nba for alot more years: '89, '90, '91, '92, '94, '95, '96, '97, and '98, compared to barkley's '86, '87, '88, and '93.

- malone led his team to two finals, barkley led his team to one

- the jazz never missed the playoffs with karl malone in uniform, barkley missed the playoffs twice when he was in his prime

easy decision

[pierced]

Chuck was better than Malone.. He's one of my favorite players together with Scottie that havent played for the C's.. Malone put up good #'s but he choked during the playoffs.. Chuck was just lazy..

[raiderfan19]

it has nothing to do with who's supporting cast was better (though barkley's phili crew is inarguably worse than just about any utah team malone had), and everything to do with role and pace. malone's team played at a faster pace, and it was his job to score. barkley's team played at a slower pace, and it was his job to create. amare scores more than tim duncan. doesn't make him a better offensive players, makes him the primary finisher on a running team with a great p & r point guard who isn't expected to create open shots for his perimeter teammates.
i generally respect your opinions but you know you are completely and utterly wrong on pace right? barkleys teams played at a faster pace every year after 1987 with the exception of 91(the numbers are available on the team pages at basketballreference/databasebasketball). pace really isnt a factor and if it was the slower pace argument would favor malone. malone was the better player than barkley. its not really debateable unless people decide to start throwing out myths like his 3pt range which he never really had(again he is the worst 3pt shooter of all time with more than 500 attempts.) it is arguable that he was more capable of a dominant single game though.

[ikoiko]

Charles Barkley was the better player. Malone had the better career.

spot on my friend!

[fos]

give me malone anyday.

- malone had a much better career

- barkley could show up unmotivated any night, malone gave you 100% every night

- malone was more durable (playing in atleast 98% of his teams games in his first 18 seasons, barkley did this 3 times)

- malone actually deserved 1 mvp ('98), barkley didn't deserve his. malone was also top 3 most valuable in '95 (3rd), '97 (2nd), '99 (2nd), and '00 (3rd). barkley was top 3 most valuable only in '86, and '93.

- malone was a much better defender

- malone was the best power forward in the nba for alot more years: '89, '90, '91, '92, '94, '95, '96, '97, and '98, compared to barkley's '86, '87, '88, and '93.

- malone led his team to two finals, barkley led his team to one

- the jazz never missed the playoffs with karl malone in uniform, barkley missed the playoffs twice when he was in his prime

easy decision

Agreed... I don't understand the reasons why people like to hate on Malone, other than Michael Jordan there isn't a player from the 90's I'd rather have on my team.

[LJJ]

Remember how a few years ago Malone was unquestionably the GOAT power forward?

You hear this "Prime Barkley is better than Malone" stuff all the time nowadays, but Barkley's prime lasted about half a season, so give me Malone.

[Loki]

Remember how a few years ago Malone was unquestionably the GOAT power forward?

You hear this "Prime Barkley is better than Malone" stuff all the time nowadays, but Barkley's prime lasted about half a season, so give me Malone.

Barkley's prime lasted from '89-'93.

[GOBB]

Karl Malone did his thing but I love Charles Barkley game and versatility. He'll always be the better PF in my eyes. Better rebounder, playmaker and could score in more ways than Karl even if Karl was a better scorer arguably. Give me that.

[Manute for Ever!]

I always loved Chuck, HATED Karl, but if I had to have a PF to go in and bat for me, it'd be the Mailman.

[guy]

Agreed... I don't understand the reasons why people like to hate on Malone, other than Michael Jordan there isn't a player from the 90's I'd rather have on my team.

I would take Hakeem Olajuwon over Karl Malone without hesitation.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

Remember how a few years ago Malone was unquestionably the GOAT power forward?

You hear this "Prime Barkley is better than Malone" stuff all the time nowadays, but Barkley's prime lasted about half a season, so give me Malone.
well, you could hear that even ten years ago, these arguments are not new at all. Actually, I remember myself arguing about how Barkley or Kemp had been more dominant than Malone in their primes, when a Malone=GOAT PF topic started.

[raiderfan19]

im sorry but i just dont get where this he had a better prime argument is coming from. even in his absolute peak(from 88-93) he missed the playoffs once. He also averaged over 27 twice. that it in his entire career(and is impressive) but malone averaged over 27 8 times and didnt miss the playoffs. chucks absolute single season peak was probably 92-93 where he put up 25.6-12.2-5.1-1-1.6 the blocks and steals are slightly rounded up on 52 percent shooting. malone had about 10 seasons that compare to that. everyone seems to be giving barkley credit for what he COULD have done and ignoring what malone actually did do. ive said before, barkley was capable of a more explosive individual game but malone was better and more consistent.

[Sir Charles]

Give me a break, any person that has played Basketball well and has seen Basketball talents knows by fact that Sir Charles is the greatest PF ever period!!!...

Excelling to the tops is what makes you a better player than another and that is what Sir Charles did over Malone always.

Even Bill Walton said that Sir Charles is along Larry Bird and Magic, the third player that really doesn`t have a position and can do all (pass, shoot, rebound, steal, block, dunk etc) naturally, not just learning it through the years.

The stats clearly show the greatness of Barkley over Malone and even more in the clutch matches such as for example in 1993 he was guarded by a by David Robinson a center!!! Result= Barkley outrebounded him, Barkley blocked his dunks in the clutch, Barkley outshooted him and Barkley outran him all day. Barkley was the only player that could not be guarded nor by Small Forwards nor Powerforwards because he always outmusculed and outquicked them both at the same time. Even centers feard Barkley because he could out block them face up with no question (especially when he was 276 lbs they couldnt even move him) and let`s not forget when Barkley was mad and motivated= expect near too cuadrouple double stats, offensive rebounds at clutch matches like no one and ofcourse big baskets.

Another thing to add, is that when i watched Barkley and Rodman in the seasons id see Rodman win the rebound titles (id laugh inside) but i just waited for the matches betwee them (one on one) or in the play-offs, Result= Sir Charles always won against him (vs him). I laugh at Rodman`s rebound titles while rebounding for Charles was one more thing as also Dunking over people, Shooting, Running the Court like a Guard, Passing etc while the idiot Rodman concentrated in only his rebounds and defense (lack of talent made him do that).

Malone never reached the level of compelte game or intensity that Barkley had which is a clear evidence of lower level player. When Barkley was fit (at 252 lbs) he not only showed that he was better but MUCH BETTER than Malone.

Believe me Sir Charles between (1986-1996) was much better than Malone. In fact, in those the times where he was not so overweight (going down from 276 lbs too 252 lbs) and before his Injury in 1996 = Charles was right up there with the Birds, Magics, Jordans and by far a more onstoppable player than Malone (even Karl knows that in his heart). He did not win a title but always played alone or in aging teams, nor he played along the second greatest player maker ever to play for him all day , Jhon Stockton.

And lets not forget, he was not healthy all his career like Malone due to the fact that Charles did many more things than Malone, who just stood under the basket waiting for the pass or ran from the same lane to recieve a Stockton pass.

A)Season Stats:

Charles Barkley

(54.5% FG, 22.1 Points, 11.7 Rebounds, 3.9 Assists, 1.5 Steals, 0.8 Blocks)


Karl Malone

(51.7% FG, 25.0 Points, 10.1 Rebounds, 3.6 Assists, 1.4 Steals, 0.8 Blocks)

Also...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------


B)Playoff Stats:


Charles Barkley

(51.3% FG, 23.0 Points, 12.9 Rebounds, ***4.1 Ofensive Rebounds!!!, 3.9 Assists, 1.57 Steals, 0.88 Blocks and 3-Point 25.5% = 64/251)


Karl Malone

(46.3% FG, 24.7 Points, 10.7 Rebounds, *2.6 Offensive Rebounds only, 3.16 Assists, 1.3 Steals, 0.70 Blocks and 3-Point 16.2% = 6/37)

*2.6 offensive rebounds is a disgrace to a 6.9 ft PF with 257 lbs, when the game is on the line he always choked. He only excled over mediocre PFs!!!

............

SIR CHARLES MIGHT HAVE NOT HAVE HAD A BETTER CAREER THAN MALONE, BUT WAS DEFINETLY, A BETTER PLAYER AND BY FAR A MORE UNSTOPPABLE AND CLUTCH PLAYER THAN KARL.

Also add to it that Malone was always fit and Sir Charles was not: he came to the NBA close to 280 pounds and still dominated. A Fit and healthy Barkley not overweight and playing like the years between 1986 and 1996 was not match for any PF ask even Jordan!

A person that is 6.4 feet 1/2 and 276 pounds usually could not even move or jump to the whoop and dunk but this guy ran the court like a guard, jump like a manic, outmuscled centers (blocked centers), and destroyed PFs in rebounding (especially offensive rebounds, wich are harder and even more in clutch games). Add to all this: clutch game winning shots, monster dunks over anyone, important 3 pointers, steals on the run and coming back as fast as he could to block guards (and doing it as if here where a center, feet movement like a center). We are talking about a 6.4 feet PF that was overweight doing all this and gettring 11 rebounds in one quarter hahaha how can you dare compare Sir Charles to Malone or any PF off today!!!

SIR CHARLES IS THE GREATEST POWERFORWARD EVER!!!

Being 6.4 feet and a half and 276 pounds overweight in his first 3-4 seasons, was a cute advantage for many of the supposed great PFs in the complete stats. No PF excelled over him in his 1st 10 years.

A healthy and fit Barkley in his 1st 10 seasons, between 1986-1996 is =
By Far THE GREATEST PF Ever and For Ever and up there with the Birds, Magics, Jordans, Pistol Petes etc.

Comparing the level Charles with Malone is like comparing Koby Bryant with Jordan.

Michael and Charles had different leves of excelling and game :rolleyes:

[dejordan]

im sorry but i just dont get where this he had a better prime argument is coming from. even in his absolute peak(from 88-93) he missed the playoffs once. He also averaged over 27 twice. that it in his entire career(and is impressive) but malone averaged over 27 8 times and didnt miss the playoffs. chucks absolute single season peak was probably 92-93 where he put up 25.6-12.2-5.1-1-1.6 the blocks and steals are slightly rounded up on 52 percent shooting. malone had about 10 seasons that compare to that. everyone seems to be giving barkley credit for what he COULD have done and ignoring what malone actually did do. ive said before, barkley was capable of a more explosive individual game but malone was better and more consistent.
i think you're putting way too much emphasis on stats and in particular on points. i ran a player comparison through 1999 (barkley's last full season), and the only advantage i see for malone is that he had four more points per game but took 4 more fgas and 1 more fta to do it. everything else is either even or favors charles though karl played another minute / gm. the biggest disparity in chuck's favor is offensive rebounds. so factor in the stockton effect - you know the one where everybody who ever played with stockton got a ton of open looks and malone in particular was rewarded with layups by running as fast as he could and catching and finishing (and he should be commended for being able to motor the way he did all game long, but come on, taking 4 more shots at a lower percentage does not, to me, indicate that malone is superior when he didn't have to personally manufacture those shots) and the difference is really not that impressive.

as for chuck missing the playoffs in 1992 - there are a few reasons for that. the most important is that charles was pushed out of his natural position to make room for gilliam. chuck dropped 4.5 pts / gm and 2% fga, but that would be fine if gilliam was a great pf. he wasn't. he could score. but honestly he wasn't as good as either of the starting forwards in new york at the time, and phili's starting center was charles shackleford (backed up by manute). the other problem that created was that without charles kicking out of the low post, hawkins wasn't getting the same easy looks. his scoring dropped 3 points / game and his shooting percentage dropped. their defense was for **** because chuck was defending 3s, gilliam was an average defender at best, shack sucked, and dawkins was tiny. hawkins was good though.

in terms of clutch play i don't think there's any question. in terms of rebounding i don't think there's any question.

in terms of playmaking, there might be a question because malone's assist totals are great, but if you actually watched them both play, you'd see chuck dropping dimes on the break (like lebron), from perimeter doubles (like dirk) and traps, and on the kickout from the deep post (like shaq). karl on the other hand got the vast majority of his assists on his high post passing when guards made rub cuts and with his excellent outlet passing. in short, he had good passing skills but didn't create shots for others. sloan created shots. karl executed. which again, is great, but not something you could necessarily attribute to his ability and count on in any circumstance.

karl's one major advantage, and it's one i don't think you can ignore, is his defense. now maybe he wasn't really as good as advertised when you look at him making all d teams. some people say he made those on his name more than his ability. and i guess i can see that. off the top of my head, i'd say there was never really a time when he was a better defender than oakley, rodman, grant, pippen, mckey, mchale, ac green, augmon, camby, duncan, hill, thorpe, buck, or davis (dale or antonio - take your pick), and i think if you look at it 4 of them were all probably all-d options at the forward position throughout most of his career. but he was still a much more consistant defender than barkley, not quite as versatile in who he could cover in his prime, but more consistant and much more reliable. i could definitely see that being a deciding factor in people's minds.

to me, in terms of having a great career, karl should and does rank higher. but in terms of ability and who i'd draft first if i was starting a team, i wouldn't think twice about going with charles (i'd take duncan over either of them though), though i defintely value clutch performance and the ability to play multiple positions more highly than most.

[raiderfan19]

i understand your argument dejordan and i appreciate you actually making an argument instead of just saying "chuck was so much better". i value durability quite a bit. no matter how good you are, you cant help your team if youre on the bench. and malone was on the court alot more which did have value. also again defensively whether malone was overrated or not, which he slightly was, he was light years ahead of chuck by virtue of how bad chuck was.(and good call on grant, sidenote i always thought he was underrated part on the early 90s bulls teams because of his insane athletecism)

[dejordan]

i understand your argument dejordan and i appreciate you actually making an argument instead of just saying "chuck was so much better". i value durability quite a bit. no matter how good you are, you cant help your team if youre on the bench. and malone was on the court alot more which did have value. also again defensively whether malone was overrated or not, which he slightly was, he was light years ahead of chuck by virtue of how bad chuck was.(and good call on grant, sidenote i always thought he was underrated part on the early 90s bulls teams because of his insane athletecism)
and i think that's totally legit. karl's durability and endurance have to factor into any discussion about him. it all boils down to what you value.

[Niquesports]

Well I'd give Barkley the slight edge personally because I felt he was a better at his peak than Malone was, although Malone had the edge of playing longer.... not to mention his offseason workouts which speak for themselves.... but he played with the 2nd best PG ever in Stockton and played in Sloan's structured offense......... yes Barkley did play with KJ, but I've always felt he was slightly better than Malone at their peaks...... But you certainly can't go wrong with either one, and you can make as strong a case, if not stronger case, for Malone....

(BTW here are their career stats below in case anyone is interested)

Karl Malone
http://i27.tinypic.com/13zo8wl.jpg


Charles Barkley
http://i26.tinypic.com/fx77ya.jpg


Well for 1 Barley was more of a small forward that played Big. This is what makes it so hard to pick. Lets look at a few things

Barkley was better at getting his own points Malone relied on Stockton
Barkley was better on the open court
AT 6'4 Barkley might be the beat lil big man in league history
Malone was IMO the 3 greatest PF in history Duncan and Elvin Hayes 1 and 2
IF I had to pick 1 with Stockton give me malone without give me Sir Charles

[glidedrxlr22]

Malone was better and more durable.

[Jasper]

Barkley was a freak of nature - playing at PF-(SF) at 6'6"

how many PF's you know lead the break , and just plan ol' took it to the hole with that head down here I come attitude.

Malone - was the ultimate prototype.

If barkley was better than Malone , than why did he quit ?

Malone played 3 more years , and only his last year was he hampered by a warriors body that finally give in , but only then did his numbers go down.

Stats aren't everything (even though he was the NBA's 2nd highest scorer ) - Malone is the guy.
Even when Malone retired - other teams were knocking on his door .... I don't remember anyone asking Sir Charles to come back out and play...

[Sir Charles]

Barkley was a freak of nature - playing at PF-(SF) at 6'6"

how many PF's you know lead the break , and just plan ol' took it to the hole with that head down here I come attitude.

Malone - was the ultimate prototype.

If barkley was better than Malone , than why did he quit ?

Malone played 3 more years , and only his last year was he hampered by a warriors body that finally give in , but only then did his numbers go down.

Stats aren't everything (even though he was the NBA's 2nd highest scorer ) - Malone is the guy.
Even when Malone retired - other teams were knocking on his door .... I don't remember anyone asking Sir Charles to come back out and play...

[B]1st of all Barkley was not 6'6" he was 6'4" and half going close to 3/4. That is near to 5 inches shorter.

Secondy, Barkley quit like Larry Bird quit due to back problems and aging knees.

[Da_Realist]

Well I'd give Barkley the slight edge personally because I felt he was a better at his peak than Malone was, although Malone had the edge of playing longer.... not to mention his offseason workouts which speak for themselves.... but he played with the 2nd best PG ever in Stockton and played in Sloan's structured offense......... yes Barkley did play with KJ, but I've always felt he was slightly better than Malone at their peaks...... But you certainly can't go wrong with either one, and you can make as strong a case, if not stronger case, for Malone....

100% agree. Stats say Malone, but impact on games say Barkley was better. Malone didn't have the highest basketball IQ either.

Anyone that doubts this should go back and look at 3 different finals. Look at how Barkley dominated the Bulls in 93 and look how Malone played in 97,98. What Barkley did against (imo) a better Bulls team in 93 should speak for itself.

Also, Barkley was always considered the better power forward until the end of their careers when Barkley gained weight and Malone was still playing at a high level. So some people may reward Malone due to longevity, but he never had the impact on the game that Barkley had.

[Da_Realist]

for what it's worth, here's this guys opinion.. (from http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/7886588/Nuggets-look-good,-but-can-they-keep-it-up? ) Not only does he say Malone was overrated defensively, but he says Horace Grant was underrated. This puts in perspective what Barkley did in the 93 finals against the Bulls. It's just this guy's opinion, but I totally agree with him.
================================================== ===============
Straight Shooting

Vox Populi

I know that you love lists, Charley, so here's one for you: Who are the most underrated and the most overrated defensive players in NBA history? Cheers. — Paul Calnon, Perth, Australia

As I've written several times before, steals and blocked shots are not reliable measures of a player's defensive prowess. Too many stealers take too many risky gambles. And too many shot-blockers are much too ball-centric, and are therefore easily lured out of position.

Overrated

Marcus Camby tends to vacate his assigned spot on defense in favor of chasing any shots that he thinks he can reach. Ditto for Alonzo Mourning.

Karl Malone could use his strength to move an opponent off a favorite post-up spot, but tried to intercept too many entry passes. After the ball was in the hands of his defendee, Malone's defense consisted of trying to swipe it away, which often left him off-balance and unable to react to a quick move.

Elvin Hayes was more interested in collecting rebounds than playing solid defense. But he was big, strong, mobile and had extremely powerful hands. In fact, his favorite defensive technique was to grab ahold of his opponent's hip and not let go.

Patrick Ewing stopped playing defense when he was out of John Thompson's clutches.

Gary Payton was strictly a gambler, and in the Seattle-Chicago championship series of 1996, the Bulls were delighted to expose all of the holes in the Glove's overly celebrated defense.

Shaq's defense was purely a function of his mass. Any opponent who could either face-and-go or quickly change direction could usually catch Shaq flat-footed.

David Robinson was a terrific helper when coming from the weak side, but couldn't contain a high-powered scorer in hand-to-hand combat.

Dan Majerle was a White Hope who was protected by the league's referees.

John Starks got away with blatantly fouling Michael Jordan, but only in New York.

Manute Bol was a freak who could block careless shots but couldn't move up, down or sideways.

Underrated

Jimmy Cleamons never stopped working and making his opponent sweat.

Bill Walton mastered the intricacies of team defense.

Micheal Ray Richardson had fast hands, fast feet, long arms and the desire to embarrass any and all foes.

Horace Grant was simply one of the best post defenders of his era.

Scott Wedman was tough, smart and had terrific defensive instincts.

Lonnie Shelton was a burly 6-foot-8, 250-pounder who had the quickness of a guard. In fact, he was too quick for the refs to deal with. Their logic was that a guy that big couldn't have made that steal without doing something illegal. That's why Shelton was always in foul trouble.

[Dwight_Howard12]

The Mailman....

[Da_Realist]

PEOPLE WHO SAY KARL MALONE IS BETTER THAN SIR CHARLES BARKLEY, ARE EITHER THE SAME IDIOTS WHO SAY KOBRE IS BETTER THAN JORDAN OR ARE JUST PISSED OFF BECAUSE OF HIS PERSONALYT:hammerhead: DEEP WITH WIN THEY KNOW SIR CHARLES (LIKE HIS PERSONALITY OR NOT) IS BY FAR A BETTER PLAYER, MORE COMPLETE PLAYER, MORE DOMINATING PLAYER, TRUE CLUTCH PLAYER , MORE VERSITAILE, BETTER LEADER AND PLAYER THAT MAKES HIS TEAMATES BETTER

Sir Charles, you don't have to convince me. I'm not going to denigrate Karl Malone because he is a great player. But John Stockton was the motor of the Utah Jazz. Not Karl Malone. When the Jazz needed something to happen, it was Stockton that did it. Stockton-to-Malone is not just a saying.

Barkley never had a Hall of Fame teammate. Trust me, guys...it makes a difference. He took Kevin Johnson, Dan Majerle and Oliver Miller within 2 games of the title. And it can be said that Barkley stood toe-to-toe with MJ in the finals that year. We're talking about Michael Jordan in 1993 guys. One Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety Three. No one was better than MJ this year, but Barkley held his ground and "almost" pulled it off.

I don't remember Barkley getting stripped on a key possesion down the stretch like Malone did in Game 6 in 1998. Or the year before in the finals during one of the games Chicago had a one point lead and possesion down the stretch. Malone had 5 fouls and chose not to foul even though the team desperately needed it. Even Bill Walton kept saying, "Karl you gotta foul...you gotta foul RIGHT NOW. WHAT ARE YOU DOING???".

(If anyone wants to see the clip, let me know and I'll post it on my youtube page tonight to prove I'm not making this up. I forgot what game it was but it was in Utah.)

James Worthy was also a great player. Hall of Fame player. But it's crazy to think that a guard named Magic Johnson didn't have a little something to do with his great career. Same thing with Malone and Stockton.

[mjbulls23]

^ great point. although KJ was indeed a good player himself

[Da_Realist]

^ great point. although KJ was indeed a good player himself

You're right. I was saying this to illustrate that Charles was driving the bus that year. KJ was indeed a good player, but great? Was he ever on Stockton's level? I don't think so.

Also it bears mentioning that Stockton-to-Malone didn't come out of the West until 1997. They had a good run in 88 when they extended the Lakers to 7 games, but what about all those years in between? TWO Hall of Famers and you can't get to the finals until Magic retires, Portland loses Drexler, Seattle self-destructs and Hakeem slows down? Yet Barkley does it in 93.

What would have happened if instead of playing on a dead-end team like the Sixers, Barkley had been in the West full time with good players around him? And remember, the East was STRONG back in the early 90's. Stronger than the West in my opinion, although it was not by much. The Sixers had to get by Jordan's Bulls, Isiah's Pistons, Ewing's Knicks, and the Cavaliers. Karl Malone would not have done any better on that Sixers team.

[Glove_20]

You kidding me?


Careerwise it's Stockton hands down.


But in their primes, and especially in their peaks....KJ was better than Stockton....Bottom line, KJ at his best was better than Stockton at his best, but KJ is so underrated that people forget that

[dejordan]

You kidding me?


Careerwise it's Stockton hands down.


But in their primes, and especially in their peaks....KJ was better than Stockton....Bottom line, KJ at his best was better than Stockton at his best, but KJ is so underrated that people forget that
i thought for sure this post was going to be in response to De_Realist calling GP an overrated defender who gambled all the time and got shown up against the bulls. i figured you'd have a page and half of ripping him a new one.

i won't argue the stockton v. kj point, but as it pertains to the poster who brought it up originally, kj missed a ton of games that season, charles was clearly the offensive force on that team, and i don't think you can argue that kj influenced barkley's personal game for the better all that much. certainly not to the extent that stockton did karl's. now if you want to talk about how kj turned chambers into a scoring machine, that's definitely worth bringing up in a kj / stock debate.

[Glove_20]

i thought for sure this post was going to be in response to De_Realist calling GP an overrated defender who gambled all the time and got shown up against the bulls. i figured you'd have a page and half of ripping him a new one.

i won't argue the stockton v. kj point, but as it pertains to the poster who brought it up originally, kj missed a ton of games that season, charles was clearly the offensive force on that team, and i don't think you can argue that kj influenced barkley's personal game for the better all that much. certainly not to the extent that stockton did karl's. now if you want to talk about how kj turned chambers into a scoring machine, that's definitely worth bringing up in a kj / stock debate.

Yeah I missed that Payton part. Didn't read it until you brought it up. Though obviously it is a myth. But I don't think Da_Realist was actually believed it, I think he was just quoting the article.



Back to KJ, he said that "KJ was never on the level of Stockton", which is false since KJ was once on a level higher than Stockton ever was.

1993, it is true that KJ was injured a lot and the season was on Barkley's shoulders. However KJ still was huge in the first round for example. I'm not 100% sure on this, but I believe the Suns fell 0-2 against the 8th seeded Lakers in the 1st round losing both games at home. KJ was injured for both games, I think he totally missed the first game and was very limited the 2nd game. However when he came back, he led a fierce Suns comeback and I think he had a couple of big performances to win some close games against hte Lakers. Without KJ, Barkley might've been known as Dirk Nowitzki right now. MVP choking in the 1st round as the 8th seed.


Then you go into 94 and 95. These were the years I believe the Suns should've one at least one championship if it wasn't for Charles Barkley. KJ had an amazing series both times against Houston dropping 40+ points multiple times in the series. Yet in the end it was Barkley that fell short.

How close were they to beating Houston? In 94, they won the first 2 games on the road, and lost the series 4-3. And in 95, they had a 3-1 series lead, and lost 4-3 in Game 7 by one point. Right there, KJ like I said had an amazing series, it was Barkley who couldn't put his team over the top. Olajuwon even said, "We are more worried about Kevin Johnson than Barkley" at one point.

[dejordan]

Yeah I missed that Payton part. Didn't read it until you brought it up. Though obviously it is a myth. But I don't think Da_Realist was actually believed it, I think he was just quoting the article.



Back to KJ, he said that "KJ was never on the level of Stockton", which is false since KJ was once on a level higher than Stockton ever was.

1993, it is true that KJ was injured a lot and the season was on Barkley's shoulders. However KJ still was huge in the first round for example. I'm not 100% sure on this, but I believe the Suns fell 0-2 against the 8th seeded Lakers in the 1st round losing both games at home. KJ was injured for both games, I think he totally missed the first game and was very limited the 2nd game. However when he came back, he led a fierce Suns comeback and I think he had a couple of big performances to win some close games against hte Lakers. Without KJ, Barkley might've been known as Dirk Nowitzki right now. MVP choking in the 1st round as the 8th seed.


Then you go into 94 and 95. These were the years I believe the Suns should've one at least one championship if it wasn't for Charles Barkley. KJ had an amazing series both times against Houston dropping 40+ points multiple times in the series. Yet in the end it was Barkley that fell short.

How close were they to beating Houston? In 94, they won the first 2 games on the road, and lost the series 4-3. And in 95, they had a 3-1 series lead, and lost 4-3 in Game 7 by one point. Right there, KJ like I said had an amazing series, it was Barkley who couldn't put his team over the top. Olajuwon even said, "We are more worried about Kevin Johnson than Barkley" at one point.
no doubt about any of that, but it's not chuck's fault that team couldn't get by houston. the truth in those series is that the houston's role players like horry, cassell, smith, and elie always seemed to hit those big shots to put them over the top, and phoenix had no one capable of defending hakeem.

barkley was actually nursing injuries in both of those series against the rockets (back & knee). couldn't get off the floor at all in 4th quarter of the 7th game of the second one, yet if i recall right he pulled down 20+ boards. actually, hell. looking at the numbers i see kj outplaying charles in 4 of the 7 games against houston in 95, but charles only really had one bad game (and it was really bad, but kj had a bad game on the same night). charles got 26 & 9, 17 & 20, and 18 & 23 in three of their losses. those numbers are better than duncan's or lebron's in the finals series last year.


i'm looking at the 94 series now, and actually charles had better games than kj in 2 of the 4 losses and 2 of the 3 wins. he had crappy games twice as well but none as bad as kj's stinker in game 5 (10 pts, 2 dimes on 31% shooting - chuck had 30 on 56% shooting). even on his bad nights barkley gave you 18pts and 14brds. and again in game 7 kj & chuck both had great games, but hakeem went ballistic and horry, elie, and cassell were unconscious while majerle couldn't buy one.

honestly i think the way the scoring played out is similar to the seattle matchup where charles did the heavy lifting because kj had gp on him. we don't have stats from that series, but charles had incredible games in game 5 (40 pt trip doube) and 7 (40+ pt, 20 + brd). on the other hand, kenny smith is a toy for kj, while hakeem is the best post defender ever, and he covered charles most of those series.

anyway, the point was nothing to do with who was better for the suns and everything to do with the fact that kj didn't raise barkley's game the way that stockton did malone's. which is unarguable.

[mjbulls23]

You're right. I was saying this to illustrate that Charles was driving the bus that year. KJ was indeed a good player, but great? Was he ever on Stockton's level? I don't think so.

Also it bears mentioning that Stockton-to-Malone didn't come out of the West until 1997. They had a good run in 88 when they extended the Lakers to 7 games, but what about all those years in between? TWO Hall of Famers and you can't get to the finals until Magic retires, Portland loses Drexler, Seattle self-destructs and Hakeem slows down? Yet Barkley does it in 93.

What would have happened if instead of playing on a dead-end team like the Sixers, Barkley had been in the West full time with good players around him? And remember, the East was STRONG back in the early 90's. Stronger than the West in my opinion, although it was not by much. The Sixers had to get by Jordan's Bulls, Isiah's Pistons, Ewing's Knicks, and the Cavaliers. Karl Malone would not have done any better on that Sixers team.


:oldlol: I wasn't arguing that KJ helped Barkley as much as Stockton did Malone :hammerhead:


you just made it sound as if KJ was another role player or scrub. I guess I took it out of context... Obviously he didn't raise Barkley's level of play as much as Stockton raised Malone's game

And I've already stated my opinion for Barkley at the beginning of the thread....

[Da_Realist]

Yeah I missed that Payton part. Didn't read it until you brought it up. Though obviously it is a myth. But I don't think Da_Realist was actually believed it, I think he was just quoting the article.



Back to KJ, he said that "KJ was never on the level of Stockton", which is false since KJ was once on a level higher than Stockton ever was.

1993, it is true that KJ was injured a lot and the season was on Barkley's shoulders. However KJ still was huge in the first round for example. I'm not 100% sure on this, but I believe the Suns fell 0-2 against the 8th seeded Lakers in the 1st round losing both games at home. KJ was injured for both games, I think he totally missed the first game and was very limited the 2nd game. However when he came back, he led a fierce Suns comeback and I think he had a couple of big performances to win some close games against hte Lakers. Without KJ, Barkley might've been known as Dirk Nowitzki right now. MVP choking in the 1st round as the 8th seed.


Then you go into 94 and 95. These were the years I believe the Suns should've one at least one championship if it wasn't for Charles Barkley. KJ had an amazing series both times against Houston dropping 40+ points multiple times in the series. Yet in the end it was Barkley that fell short.

How close were they to beating Houston? In 94, they won the first 2 games on the road, and lost the series 4-3. And in 95, they had a 3-1 series lead, and lost 4-3 in Game 7 by one point. Right there, KJ like I said had an amazing series, it was Barkley who couldn't put his team over the top. Olajuwon even said, "We are more worried about Kevin Johnson than Barkley" at one point.

No I wasn't arguing that the Glove was overrated. You're right, I was just quoting Charley Rosen. I agreed with him about Malone, however.

KJ was a good player. He may even have had a better upside than John Stockton for a given year. But John Stockton is the career leader in assists and steals. He WAS the Utah offense and a significant part of the defense as well. Stockton had more to do with Malone's career than KJ had in Barkley's career.

I know KJ had a field day on Houston against Kenny the Jet and Sam Cassell. Barkley was busy dealing with Hakeem Olajuwon and Robert Horry down low. That Hakeem guy was pretty darn good those years. KJ wasn't the focus of Houston's defense, Charles was. It was Charles' team.

Remember...Tony Parker had an amazing series in the finals last year and won MVP but that doesn't mean he was the Spurs best player.

[lakers_forever]

Karl Malone.

Because of Jordan and the Bulls , people tend to forget how great Malone was. Dude was a freak of nature in his prime. Malone was a better scorer and defender than Charles.

Don't get me wrong. Charles Barkley was superb too. In fact, Malone and him were probably better than Duncan , although Tim Duncan's career accomplishments put him as the top PF ever (if you don't consider him a C , of course).

And Kevin Johnson was not better than Stockton in his prime.
KJ was just a better scorer, that's it. Stockton a much better playmaker, defender and miles ahead as a shooter.

Stockton and Malone were the propotype of a PG and PF. I still have sad memories of them raping the Lakers in the beggining of the Shaq-Kobe Era.

[Steven A.Smith]

Look at the NBA 2K8 allstar team. Malone starts, Barkley doesn't.

[Da_Realist]

Karl Malone.

Malone was a better scorer and defender than Charles.



Malone shot fade-away jump shots and easy layups set up by John Stockton. He had nothing else in his arsenal. And oh yeah...a LOT of free throws. You take away the opportunities created by Stockton's presence in the pick-and-roll...what kind of career does Malone have then?

[Glove_20]

no doubt about any of that, but it's not chuck's fault that team couldn't get by houston. the truth in those series is that the houston's role players like horry, cassell, smith, and elie always seemed to hit those big shots to put them over the top, and phoenix had no one capable of defending hakeem.

barkley was actually nursing injuries in both of those series against the rockets (back & knee). couldn't get off the floor at all in 4th quarter of the 7th game of the second one, yet if i recall right he pulled down 20+ boards. actually, hell. looking at the numbers i see kj outplaying charles in 4 of the 7 games against houston in 95, but charles only really had one bad game (and it was really bad, but kj had a bad game on the same night). charles got 26 & 9, 17 & 20, and 18 & 23 in three of their losses. those numbers are better than duncan's or lebron's in the finals series last year.


i'm looking at the 94 series now, and actually charles had better games than kj in 2 of the 4 losses and 2 of the 3 wins. he had crappy games twice as well but none as bad as kj's stinker in game 5 (10 pts, 2 dimes on 31% shooting - chuck had 30 on 56% shooting). even on his bad nights barkley gave you 18pts and 14brds. and again in game 7 kj & chuck both had great games, but hakeem went ballistic and horry, elie, and cassell were unconscious while majerle couldn't buy one.

honestly i think the way the scoring played out is similar to the seattle matchup where charles did the heavy lifting because kj had gp on him. we don't have stats from that series, but charles had incredible games in game 5 (40 pt trip doube) and 7 (40+ pt, 20 + brd). on the other hand, kenny smith is a toy for kj, while hakeem is the best post defender ever, and he covered charles most of those series.

anyway, the point was nothing to do with who was better for the suns and everything to do with the fact that kj didn't raise barkley's game the way that stockton did malone's. which is unarguable.

Wow didn't know that basketball-reference has playoff stats for 94/95. Thanks for tha. :cheers: Don't have to go all off memory anymore.

Well there is no doubt that Stockton did more for Malone than KJ did for Barkley.


I was just saying that KJ played like a superstar in the Rocket's series and Barkley still couldn't finish it off. The Sun's actually had many chances to finish the series off but they didn't.


I think better than I can ever sum up 94/95, you should just take a look at this post. (By another poster, won't take you to guess long who posted it)


The guy who wasn't committed and focused was Barkley himself, as he kept golfing, clubbing, partying, and carousing during the playoffs' most crucial times. As a result, he faded as those Houston series progressed and despite K.J.'s mammoth efforts (he averaged 27.2 points and 9.6 assists over the 14 playoff games versus the Rockets in '94 and '95), the Suns lost in seven both seasons (even though K.J. averaged 35.5 points in those Game Sevens, just short of Olajuwon's 37.0-point average). K.J. was the focused and committed one, not Barkley.

Consider that the Suns went up 2-0 on the Rockets in the 1994 Western Conference Semifinals, winning both games in Houston and coming home to finish off the series. Before the game, however, the unfocused Barkley went on a 15-minute media monologue in which he addressed everything from night games at Wrigley Field to his eventual plans of running for Governor of Alabama. The Suns led by 14 after the first quarter of Game Three in Phoenix and still led by 8 at halftime, with Barkley scoring 16 in the first half. As so often happened, however, Barkley's late nights and poor conditioning caused him to collapse in the second half, where he scored just 2 points. In fact, for the entire game, Barkley didn't attempt a single free throw. K.J. did everything he could to try and counter, pouring in 26 points in the second half for game totals of 38 points and 12 assists, but it wasn't enough. The Suns lost and had missed their first opportunity to place Houston in a chokehold.

Still, the Suns were up 2-1 and had Game Four at home, with Barkley vowing to rebound from his Game Three fade. Once again, however, he played lethargically, offering up 19 points on 7-21 shooting from the field. Once again, K.J. picked up the slack, posting 38 points with 12 assists for the second straight game and even dunking on Hakeem Olajuwon in the fourth quarter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifx_gRF-ouU

However, with Barkley's sluggish play, K.J.'s heroics weren't enough and the Suns again fell at home, completely blowing their early series success.

Phoenix dropped Game Five back in Houston before finally rebounding at home in Game Six. Once again, it was K.J. who led the way with 28 points and 13 assists, while Barkley chipped in with 18 points and 15 rebounds. However, the Suns dropped a tense Game Seven in Houston.

The next year, the Suns had a chance for redemption, again meeting the now defending champion Rockets in the Western Conference Semifinals. Phoenix clobbered Houston during the first two games at home, winning by an average of 23 points to take another 2-0 series lead. However, Barkley boarded the team plane to Houston with one of his golfing and partying pals, and he collapsed in Game Three, scoring 5 points on 0-10 shooting from the field as the Suns lost by 33. Still up 2-1, the team had to play Game Four in Houston the very next day. Barkley started strongly with 19 points in the first half before again fading in the second half, scoring 7 to finish with 26 points, 9 rebounds, and 4 assists for the game. Fortunately, Kevin Johnson, who also scored 19 in the first half, took over. The Suns were down 15 in the third quarter on the road, but K.J. scored 15 in the period and 9 more in the fourth as the Suns pulled out a 114-110 victory in the final two minutes. K.J.s 24 second half points gave a him a game total of 43 (18-24 FG, 7-7 FT), plus 9 assists, 6 rebounds, and 3 steals.

The Suns now led the series 3-1 with two of the remaining three potential games at home. In Game Five, Barkley scored 14 points in the first half before again fading in the second (yes, it's a pattern). In the second half and overtime with the chance to clinch the series at home and finally stamp out the Rockets, Barkley scored a grand total of 3 points, shot 1-13 over his final 13 field goal attempts, and shot 1-6 from the free throw line for the game, including 1-4 in the last two minutes of regulation. Even though he was frigid, Barkley also kept demanding that K.J. forget the called play and just give him the ball. K.J. (28 points) protested briefly before reluctantly obliging Barkley, to disastrous effect. The Suns lost in overtime, with the Suns' brass coming to believe that Chuck had been at less than his best because he'd been keeping late hours since Phoenix took its commanding 2-0 series lead.

Back in Houston for Game Six, the Suns again lost, with Barkley loudly joking in the locker room after the game that the loss would take some of the fun out of his visit to a topless bar later that night. For Game Seven in Phoenix, Barkley showed up 40 minutes after the assigned arrival time (which marked his regular routine), but scored 8 points in the first quarter. He only managed 10 more the rest of the way, though, and had to receive cortisone shots in his rear end before the first and third quarters to counter the effects of a knee injury that he'd suffered in Game Six. In the third quarter, Suns' head coach Paul Westphal told Danny Ainge to tell Barkley that K.J. would be clearing out and going one-on-one against Kenny Smith on every possession. Barkley rolled his eyes, but he didn't have much of a case by this point. K.J. scored 46 points (21-22 FT) with 10 assists against just 1 turnover, but the Suns lost by one, 115-114.

Ultimately, the man who lacked for focus and commitment was one Charles Barkley, who always preferred parties to practice and late nights to punctual arrival times and strong second half finishes.

To quote a recent article by Peter Vecsey in the New York Post :

Just when I thought Mike D'Antoni had reached the penthouse in my esteem, he crushed Charles Barkley with the truth. During a recent TNT telecast the monotonous mope criticized the Suns coach's stunted rotation, ignorantly claiming Phoenix had the deepest bench in the league and arguing the reserves should be used more.

D'Antoni responded by saying he wasn't sure he should take basketball advice from someone who "choked" away championships and had his own playoff conditioning questioned.

Last year during the playoffs, I told Jerry Colangelo I was aghast he had retired Barkley's number. For a decade or so he ostracized his former franchise player with good reason; the Suns outgoing chairman/CEO believed Barkley's after-hour playoff carousing had cost him a championship.

"Two championships," Colangelo replied.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02252007/sports/why_big_deals_were_duds_sports_peter_vecsey.htm?pa ge=2

Oh, and if you think that Nash could have reined in Barkley and caused him to curtail the carousing, then you know nothing about Chuck. Barkley, not Nash, would have been the dominant personality on that team.



If you had to pick one player, Barkley or KJ, who had a better series, it would be KJ hands down.

I really look back to first of all in 94. After they got the 2-0 lead with 2 wins on the road, they at least should've got 1 more win at home in their next 2 home games.

Barkley struggled in both games and couldn't come up with anything. KJ had big games both times.


Or how about Game 5 in 95? They were up 3-1 in the series, and this was the best chance to finish the series off. The Suns lost in overtime. As you saw in the post above, Barkley finished with a grand total of 3 points in overtime and 2nd half combined. Shot 1-13 over his final 13 field goal attempts, and shot 1-6 from the free throw line for the game, including 1-4 in the last two minutes of regulation. I mean, that defines a choke. And that game the Suns should've won for sure if Barkley didn't choke so bad. And yeah, KJ had 46pts in Game 7 that year, and they still lost by 1, if only Barkley could step up a little at times.


But yeah read that post and tell me what you think. I think the Suns should've won that series if Barkley played a bit better. Kind of like taking your game to the next level like Kevin Johnson did. It's unfortunate the Suns didn't come up on top.

[Glove_20]

No I wasn't arguing that the Glove was overrated. You're right, I was just quoting Charley Rosen. I agreed with him about Malone, however.

KJ was a good player. He may even have had a better upside than John Stockton for a given year. But John Stockton is the career leader in assists and steals. He WAS the Utah offense and a significant part of the defense as well. Stockton had more to do with Malone's career than KJ had in Barkley's career.

I know KJ had a field day on Houston against Kenny the Jet and Sam Cassell. Barkley was busy dealing with Hakeem Olajuwon and Robert Horry down low. That Hakeem guy was pretty darn good those years. KJ wasn't the focus of Houston's defense, Charles was. It was Charles' team.

Remember...Tony Parker had an amazing series in the finals last year and won MVP but that doesn't mean he was the Spurs best player.

Yeah I agree that Stockton did more for Malone than KJ did for Barkley. I was just saying a Peak Kevin Johnson was better than a Peak John Stockton.

However I was just saying Barkley had a golden oppurtinity to win the championship in 94 and 95. Too bad he didn't step up when it counted, KJ easily outplayed him both years. Though the defense Barkley faced was tougher, some of his performances were big choke jobs.

But I agree, for Malone, Stockton was more than KJ was for Charles.

[bdreason]

I prefer Barkley...

but Malone had the better career.

[dejordan]

glove (not going to copy in all that gmat stuff) - while i agree kj had a better series in 94, i do think it bears mentioning (as somebody did) that barkley's bad games were still better than anybody but hakeem on the rockets in most cases, and it just wasn't enough. i don't see how you put that on charles who is going against hakeem. the team just needed a dependable third scorer to counter that horrible matchup.

kj undressed poor kenny smith and rook cassell, but he didn't get any help from other perimeter scorers (ac had a couple big games while hakeem was hexing charles). if you want to say that kj played well enough to win those series, i would agree. actually, i haven't broken down the series stats, charles might have too. he certainly did as a rebounder and scorer, but since they didn't need to double him with hakeem on him, i think his playmaking suffered and the supporting shooters weren't able to do their thing.

it's the thunders, ceds, millers, and persons who didn't match the horrys, elies, kennys, and cassells (esp. cassell actually), and it's probably more because they weren't able to get the kick out passes from chuck because he didn't merit a steady double like he normally would. it also bears mentioning that ced was supposed to be their third scorer in 94 but was hobbled in the playoffs and manning in 95 but was hurt for the end of the season and the playoffs.

and no doubt charles attitude towards practice and defensive prep made them a worse team. but without him they don't get close, and that's just a game flaw in chuck, one that he had as an mvp in 93 and a coulda been mvp in 89 and 90. it's a valid point like blaming karl for not being good in the clutch or shaq for not making free throws. you get the bad with the good, and in chuck's case the bad is laziness. i've said over and over that i would have liked to see what he could have become on a jordan or riley team - just so long as there was somebody there to force him to give his all.

[Glove_20]

glove (not going to copy in all that gmat stuff) - while i agree kj had a better series in 94, i do think it bears mentioning (as somebody did) that barkley's bad games were still better than anybody but hakeem on the rockets in most cases, and it just wasn't enough. i don't see how you put that on charles who is going against hakeem. the team just needed a dependable third scorer to counter that horrible matchup.

kj undressed poor kenny smith and rook cassell, but he didn't get any help from other perimeter scorers (ac had a couple big games while hakeem was hexing charles). if you want to say that kj played well enough to win those series, i would agree. actually, i haven't broken down the series stats, charles might have too. he certainly did as a rebounder and scorer, but since they didn't need to double him with hakeem on him, i think his playmaking suffered and the supporting shooters weren't able to do their thing.

it's the thunders, ceds, millers, and persons who didn't match the horrys, elies, kennys, and cassells (esp. cassell actually), and it's probably more because they weren't able to get the kick out passes from chuck because he didn't merit a steady double like he normally would. it also bears mentioning that ced was supposed to be their third scorer in 94 but was hobbled in the playoffs and manning in 95 but was hurt for the end of the season and the playoffs.

and no doubt charles attitude towards practice and defensive prep made them a worse team. but without him they don't get close, and that's just a game flaw in chuck, one that he had as an mvp in 93 and a coulda been mvp in 89 and 90. it's a valid point like blaming karl for not being good in the clutch or shaq for not making free throws. you get the bad with the good, and in chuck's case the bad is laziness. i've said over and over that i would have liked to see what he could have become on a jordan or riley team - just so long as there was somebody there to force him to give his all.

Yeah, I'm not totally blaming it on Charles. But there were games no matter what the case was he coudl've done better.

How about Game 5 after the Suns had a 3-1 lead in 95? Barkley finished the game shooting 1-13 over his final 13 field goal attempts, and shot 1-6 from the free throw line for the game, including 1-4 in the last two minutes of regulation. They lost that game in Overtime. That is definately a choke, if he had played even close to his regular self no matter who was on him, the Sun's would've won that game and series.

And even when they got a 2-0 lead in 94, what did Barkley do next? 0/10 night with 5 points total. He followed that game with another bad game blowing a 2-0 lead after winning those 2 games on road


Overall, Barkley still did a solid job considering Hakeem was playing him. However, when it mattered most in 94/95, Barkley did worse than usual, and that cost them the series.

[dejordan]

Yeah, I'm not totally blaming it on Charles. But there were games no matter what the case was he coudl've done better.

How about Game 5 after the Suns had a 3-1 lead in 95? Barkley finished the game shooting 1-13 over his final 13 field goal attempts, and shot 1-6 from the free throw line for the game, including 1-4 in the last two minutes of regulation. They lost that game in Overtime. That is definately a choke, if he had played even close to his regular self no matter who was on him, the Sun's would've won that game and series.

And even when they got a 2-0 lead in 94, what did Barkley do next? 0/10 night with 5 points total. He followed that game with another bad game blowing a 2-0 lead after winning those 2 games on road


Overall, Barkley still did a solid job considering Hakeem was playing him. However, when it mattered most in 94/95, Barkley did worse than usual, and that cost them the series.
that's all true, though i wonder if i could get a hold of the numbers from the sonics series that they won in 93 where charles went ballistic and kj was (to my memory which is now 15 yrs old and crusty) pedestrian by his standards, would it make a difference that majerle stepped up and hit big shots for them to win in that series but not against houston the next year?

i guess i wouldn't blame that loss on kj if the series had gone wrong, because he had to contend with the glove. just like i don't blame pippen for the bulls not beating the pistons in 89 and 90. he had rodman on him. somebody else (other than mike who had a typical jordan series) needed to step up with scottie going against a dpoy every night. my point, which you really did acknowledge already, is that the nba is often about matchups.

but you are correct charles had a couple of inexcuasably bad flops and it hurt the team badly because he was the main facilitator for the jump shooters' games.

[RainierBeachPoet]

there are some really good discussions here and i wont rehash much of what has been said. here are my highlights:

they are both great players and very similiar statistically

karl had the advantage of a system that catered to his strength with an hof-er feeding him the ball on the unstoppable pick and roll. how great would charles have been if he played that many years with stockton?

i would choose charles over malone for these reasons:

charles had a strength of personality that carried his teams and made his teammates believe in themselves. it developed as he matured-- especially after leaving philly

charles put his teams on his back and willed many wins

his unique combination of skills, size, strength and speed caused many matchup problems

with the game on the line, you could depend on charles to get the key rebound or take the key shot. he didnt always make the shot-- but you wanted him to take it and he wanted that responsibility

off the court, charles was TONS more entertaining than malone and endeared himself to the fans in his own unique way. this popularity ought not be underestimated

[hito da god]

wasn't barkley 6'4?

with those rebounding numbers :eek:

[Da_Realist]

Sir Charles, you don't have to convince me. I'm not going to denigrate Karl Malone because he is a great player. But John Stockton was the motor of the Utah Jazz. Not Karl Malone. When the Jazz needed something to happen, it was Stockton that did it. Stockton-to-Malone is not just a saying.

Barkley never had a Hall of Fame teammate. Trust me, guys...it makes a difference. He took Kevin Johnson, Dan Majerle and Oliver Miller within 2 games of the title. And it can be said that Barkley stood toe-to-toe with MJ in the finals that year. We're talking about Michael Jordan in 1993 guys. One Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety Three. No one was better than MJ this year, but Barkley held his ground and "almost" pulled it off.

I don't remember Barkley getting stripped on a key possesion down the stretch like Malone did in Game 6 in 1998. Or the year before in the finals during one of the games Chicago had a one point lead and possesion down the stretch. Malone had 5 fouls and chose not to foul even though the team desperately needed it. Even Bill Walton kept saying, "Karl you gotta foul...you gotta foul RIGHT NOW. WHAT ARE YOU DOING???".

(If anyone wants to see the clip, let me know and I'll post it on my youtube page tonight to prove I'm not making this up. I forgot what game it was but it was in Utah.)

James Worthy was also a great player. Hall of Fame player. But it's crazy to think that a guard named Magic Johnson didn't have a little something to do with his great career. Same thing with Malone and Stockton.

as promised... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cj2ju7O1Qn8

[Brunch@Five]

.. also another reason Barkley would get the edge is because he actually won an MVP award that he deserved, unlike Malone

How did Malone not deserve it? Just compare his season to MJs:

Team wins: 64 -- 69
PPG: 27.4 -- 29.6
FG%: 55% -- 49%
TS%: 60% -- 57%
APG: 4.5 -- 4.3
RPG: 9.9 -- 5.9
MPG: 36.6 -- 37.9

27/10/5 on 55% or 30/6/4 on 49%. There really isn't much of an argument in favor of MJ.

Malone definitely wins the stats argument. More assists, way more rebounds, a little less scoring but far more efficiently. He won 5 less games, but that was still good for 64 wins. He also did it in less minutes.

I really don't see how Malone didn't deserve that one. And it's not like Mike was that much better a defender at that stage of his career.

[jbot]

i can't really vote since i'm biased against barkley. never really liked him at all.

[mjbulls23]

He wasn't better than Jordan in his year either.

ya but the MVP doesn't always go to the best player, instead to the best player on the best team, and IMO Phoenix was the best team that regular season.


How did Malone not deserve it? Just compare his season to MJs:

Team wins: 64 -- 69
PPG: 27.4 -- 29.6
FG%: 55% -- 49%
TS%: 60% -- 57%
APG: 4.5 -- 4.3
RPG: 9.9 -- 5.9
MPG: 36.6 -- 37.9

27/10/5 on 55% or 30/6/4 on 49%. There really isn't much of an argument in favor of MJ.

Malone definitely wins the stats argument. More assists, way more rebounds, a little less scoring but far more efficiently. He won 5 less games, but that was still good for 64 wins. He also did it in less minutes.

I really don't see how Malone didn't deserve that one. And it's not like Mike was that much better a defender at that stage of his career.


looking back in retrospect, IMO he didn't deserve the MVP in 97 especially after seeing him choke in the Finals that year.

But since it's a regular season award, based on the criteria there's no doubt he had a very strong case to win it that year.

[Loki]

How did Malone not deserve it? Just compare his season to MJs:

Team wins: 64 -- 69
PPG: 27.4 -- 29.6
FG%: 55% -- 49%
TS%: 60% -- 57%
APG: 4.5 -- 4.3
RPG: 9.9 -- 5.9
MPG: 36.6 -- 37.9

27/10/5 on 55% or 30/6/4 on 49%. There really isn't much of an argument in favor of MJ.

Malone definitely wins the stats argument. More assists, way more rebounds, a little less scoring but far more efficiently. He won 5 less games, but that was still good for 64 wins. He also did it in less minutes.

I really don't see how Malone didn't deserve that one. And it's not like Mike was that much better a defender at that stage of his career.

Jordan was still a far better defensive player than Malone in 1997. Not sure what games you were watching. Jordan's defensive impact on games was significantly greater than Malone's. Significantly.

[Sir Charles]

[B]In the only thing Malone is superior to Barkley is being fit (why he played longer) and having the second greatest passing PG of All Time in his prime for all of his career getting him the easy passes for him to score always (with no competition in the post in the West): Jhon Stockton.

That and maybe he was 5 and half inches taller than Sir Charles XD.

Other than that, Malone is in no ways a better Player than a Fit, Healthy and Prime Sir Charles from 1986 to about 1994-995, playing initialy for a pathetic aging Sixers team and then leading the Suns (a regular level team) to the finals pretty much by himself and going up against the Bulls, getting over 40 points and 20 in the Finals and triple doubles in many matches in the Play-Offs (clutch time). Not to forget, the way Sir Charles OWNED "Center" David Robinson in 1993 all by himself. He was so unstoppable that David had to guard him and could not!!!. Barkley outrebounded him in the offensive boards, made great assits, blocked him, scored on him and shot the final shot on his face in his home court to win.

[mjbulls23]

^^ :applause: :applause:

great post Sir Charles

[Psileas]

Other than that, Malone is in no ways a better Player than a Fit, Healthy and Prime Sir Charles from 1986 to about 1994-995, playing initialy for a pathetic aging Sixers team and then leading the Suns (a regular level team) to the finals pretty much by himself and going up against the Bulls, getting over 40 points and 20 in the Finals and triple doubles in many matches in the Play-Offs (clutch time).

Are you calling a team with Kevin Johnson, Majerle, Chambers, Ainge, Ceballos and Dumas "regular level"? And then imply that adding prime Barkley to this mix shouldn't be enough to make them title contenders? And then mention Stockton and Eaton to make Malone seem like a choker, because he couldn't lead such a team to a title in his first 10 years? Is that because Barkley failed to win the championship or even reach the finals again in the following years before slipping out of his prime?


Only reason why Malone`s scoring is better in the stats (in the Play-Offs strangely lowes while Sir Charles incease) is because he played in the Western Conference where its alot easier and teams just run the court. He did not have to face up to real defensive teams in the Eastern side Play-Offs such as a prime and experienced McHale, a Rodman, Lambieer and his Pistons, a Grant or an Oakley and The Bulls, Ewing and the Knicks etc.

This "western teams had no defense" argument is pretty overrated when it comes to individual scoring. Let's see. Let's take the 1990-95 period, which was great for both players:

Barkley's scoring vs opponent conference teams:

1990: 24.3 (vs west)
1991: 27.8 (vs west)
1992: 23.7 (vs west)
1993: 27.1
1994: 21.0
1995: 20.9

So, not only didn't Barkley reach another level of domination compared to his regular seasons against western teams, but he sometimes actually scored less.

Malone's scoring vs eastern teams:

1990: 30.4 (without including his games against Charlotte, which is actually an eastern team but played as a western in 1991 and would bring his averages up)
1991: 28.2 (without including his games against Orlando, which is actually an eastern team but played as a western in 1991 and would bring his averages up)
1992: 27.3 (includes a very rare injury-or suspension, can't remember-game against Detroit, when he only played 5 minutes. Taking this out, we get to 28.2.
1993: 26.9
1994: 25.1
1995: 24.8

Was his scoring affected negatively against eastern teams? Yes, but only slightly. In 1993 and 1994, the differential margin East-West was less than 0.2 ppg. In 1992, he actually scored more against eastern teams, taking out that game when he only played 5 minutes. In 1990 and 1991, he dominated 2 eastern teams which played in the west.


NOW LETS SEE


Chuck (Regular Season): 22.14 ppg, 11.7 rpg (4 orpg!), 3.9 apg, 1.54 spg, 0.83 bpg, FG% 54.1%, 3-Point FG% 26.6%

Karl (Regular Season):25.0 ppg, 10.1 rpg (2.4 orpg), 3.6 apg, 1.41 spg, 0.78 bpg, FG% 51.6%, 3-Point 27.4%

IN THE CLUTCH:

"Notice how Karls Numbers decrease in the clutch even do having better players in their Prime and watch how Chucks increase"

Chuck(In The Clutch, Play-Offs): 23.0 ppg, 12.9 rpg (4.15 orpg!), 3.9 apg, 1.57 spg, 0.88 bpg, FG% 51.13%, 3-Point FG% 25.5%

Karl (In The Clutch, Play-Offs): 24.7 ppg, 10.7 rpg (2.6 orpg), 3.2 apg, 1.34 spg, 0.699 bpg, FG% 46.3%, 3-Point 16.2%

Care to post their stats up to the same age? Barkley played up to 36 and actually had the "luxury" of missing many games in his past-prime period, which would drag his numbers down. Malone played up to almost the age of 41 and missed games only in his last year.


I Almost forgot to mention: HE WON THE M.V.P IN VOTES IN 1987 but the comission did everything for him not to win it. He was chosen as starer for the Dream Team (not Malone) and he played in a tougher more defensive confereceE: THE EAST!!!! and was prooven by all coaches in the late 80s and early 90s as a better player. Malone withouth Stockton would have gotten even lower numbers than the ones he has in the Play-Offs (where he usually chocked), while Sir Charles`s numbers always increased in the Play-Offs and in the East Conference for a long time.

The MVP voting thing was in 1990, not 1987. Stockton was also helped pretty much by playing alongside a guy who both knew how to play the pick and roll and how to cover him in defense in case an opponent guard slipped by him.


Then Again, lets also not forget that a Statistical analysis showed that Barkley was the most efficient non-guard in the league in the early 90s while Malone was 4th among power forwards. Forget the hype (from both sides)

And PER shows that Malone has 9 seasons with a 25+ rating (compared to 7) and a comparable career PER, despite playing for more years.

[Sir Charles]

^^ :applause: :applause:

great post Sir Charles

:confusedshrug:

[Solid Snake]

I'm biased towards the Barkleyster.

[mjbulls23]

:confusedshrug:

nothing man :oldlol:

I just agree with you that Barkley was better than Malone at their peaks :pimp: :cheers:

[KingJay718]

In my opinion, karl Malone got that '97 MVP award, because if you take MJ off the Bulls, they still win (as proven 3 years prior, when Scottie Pippen and Ho. Grant led them to 55 wins). But if you take K. Malone off the Jazz, they're still decent, but they're knocking scaring anyone.



Charles Barkley was the better player. Malone had the better career.

[Da_Realist]

In my opinion, karl Malone got that '97 MVP award, because if you take MJ off the Bulls, they still win (as proven 3 years prior, when Scottie Pippen and Ho. Grant led them to 55 wins). But if you take K. Malone off the Jazz, they're still decent, but they're knocking scaring anyone.

You can only judge a team for THAT year. 3 years prior is a different team even if they have some of the same players.

[Sir Charles]

nothing man :oldlol:

I just agree with you that Barkley was better than Malone at their peaks :pimp: :cheers:

You know your Basketball well and you can realize who is a better player. Carrer does not mean better player. Sir Charles by far better player in his prime :applause:

[mjbulls23]

:cheers: :cheers:

[Artillery]

Malone was better. At least his Finals appearances were legit.

Barkely and the '93 Suns got a boatload of help from Stern and the refs on their way to the Finals.

[Sir Charles]

Malone was better. At least his Finals appearances were legit.

Barkely and the '93 Suns got a boatload of help from Stern and the refs on their way to the Finals.

Yea right. Barkley led his team to the finals pretty much by himself. Malone reached the finals thanks to the Top 50 Player Of All Time Hall of Famer (Second Greatest Passer of All Time, Top Stealer of All Time) in his prime and For all of his career Jhon Stockton, when pretty much All Great 80s and Early 90s Contemporaries Teams where injured and aged (Celtics, Lakers, Pistons, Bulls, Houston Rockets) :hammerhead:.

Barkley reached the finals in 1993 pretty much by himself. He swept the Lakers, Owned David Robinson at "CENTER" whom had to guard him (Because he was unstoppable): lost the one on one match in scoring, rebounding, offensive rebouding, shooting, got blocked in the paint, made great passes, shot 3s, clutch shots including the one to end the conference. He then also owned the great Seattle Supersonics, same team that reached the finals in 1996 against the Bulls (before Malone), same team that Malone and Stockton could never go by.

Barkley was way more impressive also in the Tougher Eastern Conference Play-Offs while Malone played with his Top 50 Player Of All Time Hall of Famer (Second Greatest Passer of All Time, Top Stealer of All Time) in the weak Post and Defensive Game West Conference.

[Artillery]

Yea right. Barkley led his team to the finals pretty much by himself. Malone reached the finals thanks to the Top 50 Player Of All Time Hall of Famer (Second Greatest Passer of All Time, Top Stealer of All Time) in his prime and For all of his career Jhon Stockton, when pretty much All Great 80s and Early 90s Contemporaries Teams where injured and aged (Celtics, Lakers, Pistons, Bulls, Houston Rockets) :hammerhead:.

Barkley reached the finals in 1993 pretty much by himself. He swept the Lakers, Owned David Robinson at "CENTER" whom had to guard him (Because he was unstoppable): lost the one on one match in scoring, rebounding, offensive rebouding, shooting, got blocked in the paint, made great passes, shot 3s, clutch shots including the one to end the conference. He then also owned the great Seattle Supersonics, same team that reached the finals in 1996 against the Bulls (before Malone), same team that Malone and Stockton could never go by.

Barkley was way more impressive also in the Tougher Eastern Conference Play-Offs while Malone played with his Top 50 Player Of All Time Hall of Famer (Second Greatest Passer of All Time, Top Stealer of All Time) in the weak Post and Defensive Game West Conference.

That Suns team was carried by Stern all the way through the playoffs to ensure the highest possible ratings match-up...And it worked seeing as the '93 Finals was the highest rated Finals of all-time up to that point(the '98 Finals would eventually surpass the '93 series in ratings since it was Jordan's last year).

The fix was obvious from the first round when the the Suns were seconds away from getting eliminated by the 8th seeded Lakers. LA got ruined by a bad call in the final 30 secs of Game 5. Barkley dunked in a ball after the 24 sec clock expired, cutting LA's lead to 2 pts. The refs just disdained calling it...wiped away an extra possession that Phoenix would have needed. Worthy and Scott both threw themselves to the floor in disgust after the non-call. Then Majerle hit a shot to send the game to OT.

As if that wasn't enough, the Suns also needed 64 FTAs against the Sonics in game 7 of the WCF.

Fact is the '93 Suns STINK of taint. Sonics were robbed.

To quote Eddie Johnson:

[Sir Charles]

"That Suns team was carried by Stern all the way through the playoffs to ensure the highest possible ratings match-up...And it worked seeing as the '93 Finals was the highest rated Finals of all-time up to that point(the '98 Finals would eventually surpass the '93 series in ratings since it was Jordan's last year)."

The 1993 Finals was the highest rated Finals of All Time simple because there was finally a team that was not the Pistons, Celtics or the Lakers that could dispute Title against the Bulls. And this Team was lead by SIR CHARLES BARKLEY, the Greatest Power Forward Ever when fit, healthy and in his prime. Like it or not :)

It was David (Sir Charles) v.s Goliath (THE BULLS)!!! As You can see in this article:

http://blogs.laweekly.com/feelings/uncategorized/feelings-about-new-york-charle/

Feelings about New York, Charles Barkley, Tabloid News, and Baked Goods

by Joe Donnelly
May 10, 2007 9:05 PM

I've been in New York for the past few days. I've been to New York many times and lived here several times. I came there after college in 1986 and stayed a couple years. Returned around 1990, stayed a shortwhile and did a stint in the summer of '93 with the New York Daily News -- the hottest summer on record at that point. I had poison oak from head to toe and was staying on the 23rd floor of a tenement adjacent to Morningside Park on about 123rd Street. It was the summer one of my heroes, Charles Barkley, nearly singlehandely won the NBA championship but came up a little short against Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen and the rest of the Bulls. It was one of the most epic battles I've ever seen one person wage against great odds. Like the movie 300 epic. I really identified with Charles at the time. He's just 6'4", played power forward, and was relentless, pure will. It was the story of a mortal taking on the gods and the mortal nearly winning. If his bonehead point guard Kevin Johnson wasn't such a bonehead, they might have won. Charles played great in every game.

[B]IN THEIR PRIME: 1985-1995

CHUCK (1984-85 DEBUT) AND KARL (1985-86 DEBUT)

1985-86 Player Efficiency Rating

1. Larry Bird*-BOS 25.6
2. Adrian Dantley-UTA 24.6
3. Hakeem Olajuwon-HOU 24.2
4. Magic Johnson*-LAL 24.0
5. Dominique Wilkins*-ATL 23.3
6. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar*-LAL 22.7
7. Charles Barkley*-PHI 22.4
8. Alex English*-DEN 21.7
9. Kevin McHale*-BOS 21.6
10. Isiah Thomas*-DET 21.2
11. Moses Malone*-PHI 20.6
12. Larry Nance-PHO 20.5
13. James Worthy*-LAL 20.4
14. Sleepy Floyd-GSW 20.0
15. Sidney Moncrief-MIL 20.0
16. Clyde Drexler*-POR 19.8
17. Kiki Vandeweghe-POR 19.7
18. Orlando Woolridge-CHI 19.6
19. Alvin Robertson-SAS 19.5
20. Mark Aguirre-DAL 19.2

[COLOR="Navy"]

[Psileas]

IN THEIR PRIME "PLAYER EFFICIENCY RATING"

CHUCK: 7 TIMES
MALONE: 5 TIMES

Ιn their "prime"? Since when was 1986 and 1987 Malone in his prime?

Let's play the same game on the opposite:

1996-97 Player Efficiency Rating

1. Karl Malone-UTA 28.9
2. Michael Jordan-CHI 27.8
3. Grant Hill-DET 25.5
4. Charles Barkley*-HOU 23.0


1997-98 Player Efficiency Rating

1. Shaquille O'Neal-LAL 28.8
2. Karl Malone-UTA 27.9
3. David Robinson-SAS 27.8
4. Michael Jordan-CHI 25.2
5. Tim Duncan-SAS 22.6
6. Charles Barkley*-HOU 21.6

1998-99 Player Efficiency Rating

1. Shaquille O'Neal-LAL 30.6
2. Karl Malone-UTA 25.6
3. David Robinson-SAS 24.9
4. Alonzo Mourning-MIA 24.6
5. Grant Hill-DET 23.9
6. Shawn Kemp-CLE 23.6
7. Tim Duncan-SAS 23.2
8. Charles Barkley*-HOU 23.1

1999-00 Player Efficiency Rating

1. Shaquille O'Neal-LAL 30.6
2. Karl Malone-UTA 27.1
3. Alonzo Mourning-MIA 25.8
4. Tim Duncan-SAS 24.8
5. David Robinson-SAS 24.6
6. Grant Hill-DET 24.5
7. Kevin Garnett-MIN 23.6
8. Gary Payton-SEA 23.6
9. Chris Webber-SAC 23.4
10. Vince Carter-TOR 23.4
11. John Stockton-UTA 22.4
12. Kobe Bryant-LAL 21.7
13. Sam Cassell-MIL 21.1
14. Terrell Brandon-MIN 20.8
15. Stephon Marbury-NJN 20.7
16. Ray Allen-MIL 20.6
17. Elton Brand-CHI 20.6
18. Shareef Abdur-Rahim-VAN 20.2
19. Allen Iverson-PHI 20.0
20. Tracy McGrady-TOR 20.0

Barkley nowhere in top-20.

And I've already shown how Malone fared against the "tough" east and Barkley against the "soft" east. It hardly made any difference to justify their numbers.

[Artillery]

[B][COLOR="Blue"]The 1993 Finals was the highest rated Finals of All Time simple because there was finally a team that was not the [U]Pistons, Celtics or the Lakers that could dispute Title against the Bulls. And this Team was lead by SIR CHARLES BARKLEY, the Greatest Power Forward Ever when fit, healthy and in his prime. Like it or not :)


Doesn't change the fact that the '93 Suns didn't deserve to make it out of the first round. The Sonics should have made the Finals but Stern and his 64 FTAs made sure the more popular team would advance.

[InspiredLebowski]

Malone all day.

ISH forum posters seem to love PER. You'd think guys like Stockton and Malone not being listed would show you it's not a perfect system.

[Sir Charles]

[/SIZE]
Ιn their "prime"? Since when was 1986 and 1987 Malone in his prime?

Let's play the same game on the opposite:

1996-97 Player Efficiency Rating

1. Karl Malone-UTA 28.9
2. Michael Jordan-CHI 27.8
3. Grant Hill-DET 25.5
4. Charles Barkley*-HOU 23.0


1997-98 Player Efficiency Rating

1. Shaquille O'Neal-LAL 28.8
2. Karl Malone-UTA 27.9
3. David Robinson-SAS 27.8
4. Michael Jordan-CHI 25.2
5. Tim Duncan-SAS 22.6
6. Charles Barkley*-HOU 21.6

1998-99 Player Efficiency Rating

1. Shaquille O'Neal-LAL 30.6
2. Karl Malone-UTA 25.6
3. David Robinson-SAS 24.9
4. Alonzo Mourning-MIA 24.6
5. Grant Hill-DET 23.9
6. Shawn Kemp-CLE 23.6
7. Tim Duncan-SAS 23.2
8. Charles Barkley*-HOU 23.1

1999-00 Player Efficiency Rating

1. Shaquille O'Neal-LAL 30.6
2. Karl Malone-UTA 27.1
3. Alonzo Mourning-MIA 25.8
4. Tim Duncan-SAS 24.8
5. David Robinson-SAS 24.6
6. Grant Hill-DET 24.5
7. Kevin Garnett-MIN 23.6
8. Gary Payton-SEA 23.6
9. Chris Webber-SAC 23.4
10. Vince Carter-TOR 23.4
11. John Stockton-UTA 22.4
12. Kobe Bryant-LAL 21.7
13. Sam Cassell-MIL 21.1
14. Terrell Brandon-MIN 20.8
15. Stephon Marbury-NJN 20.7
16. Ray Allen-MIL 20.6
17. Elton Brand-CHI 20.6
18. Shareef Abdur-Rahim-VAN 20.2
19. Allen Iverson-PHI 20.0
20. Tracy McGrady-TOR 20.0

Barkley nowhere in top-20.

And I've already shown how Malone fared against the "tough" east and Barkley against the "soft" east. It hardly made any difference to justify their numbers.

:rolleyes: Give me a Break Malone withouth Stockton is non existant.

Everyone who has watched basketball between 1984-85 and 1995-96 knows that Barkley was way better than Malone, by far: they`ve watched both play when "both" I reapet "both" = where "fit" and "healthy" and in their "prime". The kids of today :hammerhead: only saw Malone in better physicall condition at the end when Sir Charkes Barkley was already done with dead knees and a dead back in 1995-96.

In their 1st 10 years of play = Barkley Made his Teamates Better, Malone Did Not. Barkley Was a More Complete Game Player Than Malone Was: THE STATS PROOVE IT IN BOTH PLAY-OFFS AND REGULAR SEASONS, Had Way More Big Games in the Play-Offs, Was Way More Clutch than Malone Ever Will Be (even with him having Stockton in his team which guaranteed a pass to score easy baskets) and FINALLY, CHARLES LEAD HIS TEAM to the finals in an EPIC BATTLE. As that guy mentions here:

http://blogs.laweekly.com/feelings/u...w-york-charle/

Feelings about New York, Charles Barkley, Tabloid News, and Baked Goods

by Joe Donnelly
May 10, 2007 9:05 PM

I've been in New York for the past few days. I've been to New York many times and lived here several times. I came there after college in 1986 and stayed a couple years. Returned around 1990, stayed a shortwhile and did a stint in the summer of '93 with the New York Daily News -- the hottest summer on record at that point. I had poison oak from head to toe and was staying on the 23rd floor of a tenement adjacent to Morningside Park on about 123rd Street. It was the summer one of my heroes, Charles Barkley, nearly singlehandely won the NBA championship but came up a little short against Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen and the rest of the Bulls. It was one of the most epic battles I've ever seen one person wage against great odds. Like the movie 300 epic. I really identified with Charles at the time. He's just 6'4", played power forward, and was relentless, pure will. It was the story of a mortal taking on the gods and the mortal nearly winning. If his bonehead point guard Kevin Johnson wasn't such a bonehead, they might have won. Charles played great in every game.

[B]AND YES!!!, 10 YEARS IN THE LEAGUE IS PRIME TIME FOR ALL PLAYERS!!! :rolleyes:

NO TO MENTION THAT WHEN BOTH WHERE PRIME, THEY FACED THE 80s TEAMS, WHICH WHERE BY FAR SUPERIOR TO THE LATE 90s AND OFCOURSE, BARKLEY PLAYED IN A MUCH TOUGHER AND DEFENSIVE MINDED CONFERENCE: THE EAST :applause: AND IM NOT TALKING the "Hornets":hammerhead: :roll: but the...

BULLS, PISTONS, CELTICS, KNICKS, HAWKS, CAVALIERS :rolleyes: ...

WAY BETTER COMPETITION THAN THE WEST: WHOM JUST HAD: LAKERS-BLAZERS AND SOMETIMES ROCKETS IN THE 80s and Early 90s.

[COLOR="Blue"]

[mjbulls23]

Malone all day.

ISH forum posters seem to love PER. You'd think guys like Stockton and Malone not being listed would show you it's not a perfect system.

yes I agree it's not perfect system. And Malone did have the better career and was the more consistent player, but Barkley at his absolute best was indeed better than Malone at his absolute best, IMO

[jamal99]

Barkley anytime...

[Brunch@Five]

Jordan was still a far better defensive player than Malone in 1997. Not sure what games you were watching. Jordan's defensive impact on games was significantly greater than Malone's. Significantly.
He was better, but MJ wasn't close to the defender he was before his first retirement. He was considerably worse than Pippen defensively in the 2nd 3-peat. He had seriously regressed as a help-side defender and had clearly lost some of his legs and wasn't a true shut-down defender anymore as he was in the first 3-peat or Payton and Pippen that year.

He was still a great defender, and a better defender than Malone without a doubt, but recognizing that defense doesn't play a huge part in MVP voting, and the margin wasn't as big as before, I don't see how that would earn MJ the MVP over Malone.

edit: Malone also lead the league in PER that year :)

[mjbulls23]

He was better, but MJ wasn't close to the defender he was before his first retirement. He was considerably worse than Pippen defensively in the 2nd 3-peat. He had seriously regressed as a help-side defender and had clearly lost some of his legs and wasn't a true shut-down defender anymore as he was in the first 3-peat or Payton and Pippen that year.

He was still a great defender, and a better defender than Malone without a doubt, but recognizing that defense doesn't play a huge part in MVP voting, and the margin wasn't as big as before, I don't see how that would earn MJ the MVP over Malone.

edit: Malone also lead the league in PER that year :)

on second thought, I actually see a more deserving case for Malone in 97. But like Psileas said, I'd pick MJ as the '97 MVP and Malone as the '98 MVP. Basically switch them around

[kidachi]

97 and 98 MVP belongs to MJ..

[Brunch@Five]

97 and 98 MVP belongs to MJ..


funny how everyone saying this has yet to give reasons :confusedshrug:

[mjbulls23]

funny how everyone saying this has yet to give reasons :confusedshrug:


well he was the best player on the best team. He was more deserving than Malone in '97 IMO, and most people forget that in '96-'97 they were one loss short of back to back 70 win seasons, plus they say the media was giving Malone a "sympathy award" that year. Like I said in my post above, if I had to give it to both players I'd see a better case for Malone in '98 than in '97. But I wouldn't count out MJ that year either, mainly because of the amount of time that Pippen missed early in the 97-98 season and the fact that they still ended up with 60+ wins.

But now that I really think about it, it's not a stretch to say Malone deserved it one of those two years

[kidachi]

funny how everyone saying this has yet to give reasons :confusedshrug:

IDK.

-better W-L
-1 game away from a back-to-back 70 win season.
-he was "the man" of "the team"
-i mean he dominated the league...

the league was just tired of giving MJ the MVP.. so they passed it on to another for a year. :D

[Brunch@Five]

IDK.

-better W-L
-1 game away from a back-to-back 70 win season.
-he was "the man" of "the team"
-i mean he dominated the league...

the league was just tired of giving MJ the MVP.. so they passed it on to another for a year. :D

I meant legit reasons. Only legit reason is better W-L, but Malone won 64 games. So it's not like team record can be held against him.

[Psileas]

Oh, I never saw this. Quickly:


Give me a Break Malone withouth Stockton is non existant.

Yeah, very convincing. To Malone haters, "without Stockton, he's non existant". :rolleyes: Guess what: To Stockton haters it's the other way round.
All-time greats don't need a great passer next to them to make them "existant". Kareem didn't need Magic to make him "existant". Wilt didn't need Guy Rodgers and Jerry West. Gervin didn't need Moore and Lucas. Malone still averaged 25/11/4 with Howard Eisley as his team's starting PG in 1998, and Eisley was a below average PG. Pretty good for "non-existant", eh?

And, for all your rants, you haven't explained why you picked 1986 and 1987 Malone to prove your point, despite these years not being prime ones for Malone.



In their 1st 10 years of play = Barkley Made his Teamates Better, Malone Did Not. Barkley Was a More Complete Game Player Than Malone Was: THE STATS PROOVE IT IN BOTH PLAY-OFFS AND REGULAR SEASONS, Had Way More Big Games in the Play-Offs, Was Way More Clutch than Malone Ever Will Be (even with him having Stockton in his team which guaranteed a pass to score easy baskets) and FINALLY, CHARLES LEAD HIS TEAM to the finals in an EPIC BATTLE. As that guy mentions here:

http://blogs.laweekly.com/feelings/u...w-york-charle/

Feelings about New York, Charles Barkley, Tabloid News, and Baked Goods

by Joe Donnelly
May 10, 2007 9:05 PM

I've been in New York for the past few days. I've been to New York many times and lived here several times. I came there after college in 1986 and stayed a couple years. Returned around 1990, stayed a shortwhile and did a stint in the summer of '93 with the New York Daily News -- the hottest summer on record at that point. I had poison oak from head to toe and was staying on the 23rd floor of a tenement adjacent to Morningside Park on about 123rd Street. It was the summer one of my heroes, Charles Barkley, nearly singlehandely won the NBA championship but came up a little short against Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen and the rest of the Bulls. It was one of the most epic battles I've ever seen one person wage against great odds. Like the movie 300 epic. I really identified with Charles at the time. He's just 6'4", played power forward, and was relentless, pure will. It was the story of a mortal taking on the gods and the mortal nearly winning. If his bonehead point guard Kevin Johnson wasn't such a bonehead, they might have won. Charles played great in every game.

OK, the typical American "superstar promotion" article. Who cares about Kevin Johnson, Majerle, Dumas, Chambers, Ainge (who, BTW, were much better than anything Malone ever had), it's the superstar that counts...And despite this, they almost lost to one of the most mediocre Lakers' teams ever (Barkley can thank Kevin Johnson for returning soon after missing game 1), they beat S.A in game 1 despite Barkley going 5-21, they beat Seattle twice with Barkley scoring 12 and 16 points and then lost to the worst Jordan-led Bulls' team of the 90's, with Barkley having 2 great games, 1 average and 3 below average, while playing his usual sub-bar defense. Single-handedly, huh...And somehow, losing to the 57-win Bulls with a home-court advantage is considered a success, while the Blazers (and especially Drexler) were blamed for losing to a 67-win Bulls' team in 1992 without home-court advantage (same with Utah in 1997).


AND YES!!!, 10 YEARS IN THE LEAGUE IS PRIME TIME FOR ALL PLAYERS!!!

Your real prime is determined by your own performance, not your age or experience.

[QUOTE]

[dejordan]

I meant legit reasons. Only legit reason is better W-L, but Malone won 64 games. So it's not like team record can be held against him.
i don't personally have any problem with karl malone winning that mvp, but i do think there are legit reasons to have given it to jordan rather than karl. basically you've got an offensive statistical wash. karl gives more rebounds. mostly defensive. hooray. jordan plays better d. again, i'm seeing a wash here. but when it comes to intangibles, leadership, clutch play, competitive edge -- jordan's the best in the league at the time. karl's not the best on his own team. i guess you could factor that into the argument, but overall i agree that karl was as legit a pick for his mvp against mike as chuck was for his. close enough to negate the argument anyway.

[guy]

If it wasn't for the Bulls breaking the record the year before, Jordan would have the 97 MVP. The only reason he didn't get it was because the Bulls didn't live up to the 96 year, which is ridiculous cause it was still an all-time great year, and the media was tired of giving it to Jordan, which is also ridiculous. If the Bulls had won about 62 games in 1996, and then went on to win 69 games in 1997, there's no doubt that he would've won MVP. Can anyone refute that?

[mjbulls23]

If it wasn't for the Bulls breaking the record the year before, Jordan would have the 97 MVP. The only reason he didn't get it was because the Bulls didn't live up to the 96 year, which is ridiculous cause it was still an all-time great year, and the media was tired of giving it to Jordan, which is also ridiculous. If the Bulls had won about 62 games in 1996, and then went on to win 69 games in 1997, there's no doubt that he would've won MVP. Can anyone refute that?

that's a good point as well. I can agree because like I said before they were one win away from back to back 70 win seasons. But there was definitely a strong case for Malone as well like dejordan said above.

[dejordan]

that's a good point as well. I can agree because like I said before they were one loss away from back to back 70 win seasons. But there was definitely a strong case for Malone as well like dejordan said above.
out of curiosity, would anyone here take malone over jordan at any point in their utah / chicago careers? i know that's not evidence of being mvp-worthy, but i was thinking about that while debating the question of malone's 97 mvp, and it did occur to me that i would honestly rather have jordan on his own than malone and stockton together. anyway, has nothing to do with karl v. chuck, but it does sort of point out how little being mvp has to do with actual value some times.

[mjbulls23]

out of curiosity, would anyone here take malone over jordan at any point in their utah / chicago careers? i know that's not evidence of being mvp-worthy, but i was thinking about that while debating the question of malone's 97 mvp, and it did occur to me that i would honestly rather have jordan on his own than malone and stockton together. anyway, has nothing to do with karl v. chuck, but it does sort of point out how little being mvp has to do with actual value some times.

Ya I'd take MJ as well depending on the team I had. Also I agree that the MVP award has little to do with actual value to your team. It almost always, if not always, goes to the best player on the best team (or one of the best teams), not necessarily the "most valuable player" to his team. That's probably why different people have their own MVP criterias.

[TheHonestTruth]

Before Malone sold out and joined the Fakers, I'd choose him.
After he did, I'd take Barkley's racist ass.

[Da_Realist]

Before Malone sold out and joined the Fakers, I'd choose him.
After he did, I'd take Barkley's racist ass.

Racist? Did you know he has a white wife?

[mjbulls23]

Before Malone sold out and joined the Fakers, I'd choose him.
After he did, I'd take Barkley's racist ass.

:oldlol:

[jlitt]

Barkley. IN all honesty its not even close. However the problem with Barkley is that history will not look kind on him because his stats are not as impressive in some areas as Malone's. Malone is the model of consistency in the NBA. A huge powerful figure that always brought his "a" game to the table and performed on the biggest stages. However his game lacked the dominance that so few players have ever had. And Barkley possessed this dominance. He was 6 4 and dominated the paint.....only one guy ever that small has ever been as dominant and that is Jordan who too is around 6 4. No power forward has ever been a better passer, better dribbler, or as dominant in my opinion. It is sad to me that people forget that, but as time moves on his legacy will only continue to diminish sadly.

[InspiredLebowski]

They're both top 4 or so PFs (top 25 overall for that matter), but I gotta give it to Chuck. Karl had Stockton and a system that was built around the two. Yeah Barkley had KJ (who's GREAT), but he's nowhere near Stockton.

[Bodin]

summary:

Barkley at his best was better.


something to think about...

You had the #1 pick in the draft and had to choose between Barkley and Malone who would it be? ....

If we all knew how their careers played out: ???
...
If we didn't know (just like a regular draft): ???

[InspiredLebowski]

yes I agree it's not perfect system. And Malone did have the better career and was the more consistent player, but Barkley at his absolute best was indeed better than Malone at his absolute best, IMO

Did I seriously say that? Apparently so. Shows how my opinion changes with intoxication level. I'd have no problem with either being my 4 on my all-time team.

edit: this thread has gotten so colorful I may throw up

[zadok]

There is no Malone rule, but there is a Barkley rule. Barkley easily better IMO, though the stats are close since they don't record elbows thrown per game.

[mjbulls23]

Did I seriously say that? Apparently so. Shows how my opinion changes with intoxication level. I'd have no problem with either being my 4 on my all-time team.

edit: this thread has gotten so colorful I may throw up

ah ok :cheers: :cheers:

[loot]

funny how close their career averages are...

[elz]

Barkley i clearly and Obviously better for those that actually saw them play and grew up on them


Malone is a product of Sloan System
not taking away from how good he was
he was good and highly efficient
but You'd be a fool to think you can plug Malone into any system and get similar results.

Barkley was one of a Kind and a freak of Nature
to do what he was able to do at 6'4" is flat out amazing
and there's alot of thing that separate Barkley from Malone that stats don't show
I.E. Barkley's Ball handling to the point that in Phoenix he would run the offense from time to time.
Barkley also could not only create his own offense but could create for others
and make his teammates better
Barkley's Awareness that he kept track of everyone's foul count and would get your star player in foul trouble and on the bench.
He was one of the greatest offensive rebounders in history and he could finish and convert tons of 3pt plays
He shooting range shts on Malones as he got older his skill set diversified greatly.
Malone finished his career with the same skill set he started it with.
and Unlike Malone, Barkley clearly deserved his MVP award


Personally feel people are choosin Malone's hard work ethic over Barkley's Big Mouth
But Barkley's versality completely separates these 2. There's a ton of sht Barkley could do that Malone never could.

Its not even close if you grew up and watched em both regularly

[mjbulls23]

Barkley was one of a Kind and a freak of Nature
to do what he was able to do at 6'4" is flat out amazing

yes.

most people forget the kind of player he was in his Sixers days.

[Sir Charles]

Barkley. IN all honesty its not even close. However the problem with Barkley is that history will not look kind on him because his stats are not as impressive in some areas as Malone's. Malone is the model of consistency in the NBA. A huge powerful figure that always brought his "a" game to the table and performed on the biggest stages. However his game lacked the dominance that so few players have ever had. And Barkley possessed this dominance. He was 6 4 and dominated the paint.....only one guy ever that small has ever been as dominant and that is Jordan who too is around 6 4. No power forward has ever been a better passer, better dribbler, or as dominant in my opinion. It is sad to me that people forget that, but as time moves on his legacy will only continue to diminish sadly.

Barkley as others say "By Far Better Than Malone in His Prime" and also has better career averages too. This is not a race to see who plays longer its about who was batter B-Ball Player:rolleyes: , and in that department Barkley was a "Better, "More Efficient", "More Important for His Team" and Better All Around Player Than Malone".

The reason why Malone`s leveL in the play-offs always dropped is quite simple: it was because he was finally guarded by better players not the lousy players of lower teams in the West but the better teams and still his averages went down clearly.

Malone`s game is work of the coaches that is something that was seen in interviews where clearly his 1st coaches told him to go home work out more on his shooting and ball handling skills, exact reason why he was not in the top 10 picks in 1985 even though he was the PERFECT PF BODY PROTOTYPE: TALL, STRONG UPPER BODY, ATHLETIC and had GREAT WORK ETHICK ....

But He Was Simply, "Not Naturally Talented" :confusedshrug: Quite simple:)

If You are Not Naturally Talented you have to work harder in the skills departament, as like did for example Dennis Rodman, whom worked his body to become a great Defender and Rebounder (because thats all he could do). Malone worked his body movements to become like a football reciever from the quarter-back Stockton on the fast break, (Coach Designed) pick and rolls (for him to get loose from his defender because he obviously had trouble in the one on one game deprtment) etc pretty much to let the second best passer of All Time Do his Job to set him up for easy shots because it was always hard form him to work his own shot on the post or dribble one on one and go by another apponent his size or bigger. Later in his career 1996 on he developed a good fadeaway shot due to "Hard Work"

It is quite obvious for people whom have watched both Charles and Malone play in their primes, see that "Malone was All Hard Work" and "Charles was All Pure Natural Brutal Talent".

Only thing that Charles had to work on was going from 285 lbs to 250s and 260 and even when weighing 285 lbs or more between 1984 and 1988 he could do things that both Duncan and Malone could only dream of doing.

Lets analize Barkley`s, Malone`s and Duncan`s stats obviously taking into account that Barkley and Malone had way better competition in the 80s and 90s and also the fact that their averages dropped do the fact they played longer and age is age ofcourse.


CHARLES BARKLEY (Regular Season)

POINTS PER GAME: 22.14
SCORING EFFICIENCY FG%: 54.1%
REBOUNDS PER GAME: 11.7 (4 Offensive Rebounds Per Game)
ASSITS PER GAME: 3.9
STEALES PER GAME: 1.54
BLOCKS PER GAME: 0.83
3-POINT SHOOTING EFFICIENCY FG%: 26.6%

KARL MALONE (Regular Season):

POINTS PER GAME: 25.0
SCORING EFFICIENCY FG%: 51.6%

REBOUNDS PER GAME: 10.1 (2.4 Offensive Rebounds Per Game)
ASSITS PER GAME: 3.6
STEALES PER GAME: 1.41
BLOCKS PER GAME: 0.78
3-POINT SHOOTING EFFICIENCY: 27.4%

TIM DUNCAN (Regular Season):

POINTS PER GAME: 21.6
SCORING EFFICIENCY FG%: 50.8%

REBOUNDS PER GAME: 11.8 (3.1 Offensive Rebounds Per Game)
ASSITS PER GAME: 3.1
STEALES PER GAME: 0.8
BLOCKS PER GAME: 2.4
3-POINT SHOOTING EFFICIENCY: 19.0%

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

"IN THE CLUTCH" (PLAY-OFFS):

"Notice how Karls Numbers decrease in the clutch even do having better players in their Prime such as Stockton passing to him always and watch how Chucks increase"

CHARLES BARKLEY (In The Clutch, Play-Offs):

POINTS PER GAME: 23.0
SCORING EFFICIENCY FG%: 51.13%

REBOUNDS PER GAME: 12.9 (4.15 Offensive Rebounds Per Game!),
ASSITS PER GAME: 3.9
STALES PER GAME: 1.57
BLOCKS PER GAME: 0.88
FG% 51.13%
3-POINT SHOOTING EFFICIENCY FG%: 25.5%

KAR MALONE (In The Clutch, Play-Offs):

POINTS PER GAME: 24.7
SCORING EFFICIENCY FG%: 46.3%,

REBOUNDS PER GAME: 10.7 (2.6 Offensive Rebounds Per Game)
ASSITS PER GAME: 3.2
STEALES PER GAME: 1.34
BLOCKS PER GAME: 0.699
3-POINT SHOOTING EFICIENCY FG%: 16.2%

TIM DUNCAN (In the Clutch, Play-Offs)

POINTS PER GAME: 23.8
SCORING EFFICIENCY FG%: 50.7%

REBOUNDS PER GAME: 12.5 (3.47 Offensive Rebounds Per Game)
ASSITS PER GAME: 3.5
STEALES PER GAME: 0.67
BLOCKS PER GAME: 2.75
3-POINT SHOOTING EFFICIENCY: 13.0%

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

In Their Prime 11-12 Years of Chuck, Karl and Tim:

- I will take away Charles and Karl’s first year away since both of them where not starters giving the benefit to Duncan too. We are talking about 22-23 year old youngsters up untill they where 32-33 year old veterans.

PRIME YEARS (IN THEIR PRIME):

CHARLES (1985/86-1995/96)

Regular Season:

POINTS PER GAME: 24.2
SCORING EFFICIENCY FG%: 55.04%

REBOUNDS PER GAME: 11.87
ASSITS PER GAME: 4.16
STEALS PER GAME: 1.69
BLOCKS PER GAME: 0.909
3-POINT SHOOTING EFFICIENCY FG%: 25.94%

Play-Offs (Clutch Time):

POINTS PER GAME: 25.7
SCORING EFFICIENCY FG%:53.99%

REBOUNDS PER GAME: 13.29
ASSITS PER GAME: 4.41
STEALS PER GAME: 1.65
BLOCKS PER GAME: 0.96
3-POINT SHOOTING EFFICIENCY FG%:25%

KARL (1986/87-1996/97)

Regular Season:

POINTS PER GAME: 27.1
SCORING EFFICIENCY FG%: 52.90%

REBOUNDS PER GAME: 10.9
ASSITS PER GAME: 3.28
STEALES PER GAME: 1.46
BLOCKS PER GAME:0.836
3-POINT SHOOTING EFFICIENCY FG%:20.59%

Play-Offs (Clutch Time):

POINTS PER GAME: 27.1
SCORING EFFICIENCY FG%: 46.42%

REBOUNDS PER GAME: 11.84
ASSITS PER GAME: 2.59
STEALS PER GAME: 1.42
BLOCKS PER GAME: 0.79
3-POINT SHOOTING EFFICIENCY FG%: 11.53%

TIM DUNCAN (Regular Season):

POINTS PER GAME: 21.6
SCORING EFFICIENCY FG%: 50.8%

REBOUNDS PER GAME: 11.8 (2.4 Offensive Rebounds Per Game)
ASSITS PER GAME: 3.1
STEALES PER GAME: 0.8
BLOCKS PER GAME: 2.4
3-POINT SHOOTING EFFICIENCY: 19.0%

TIM DUNCAN (In the Clutch, Play-Offs)

POINTS PER GAME: 23.8
SCORING EFFICIENCY FG%: 50.7%

REBOUNDS PER GAME: 12.5 (3.47 Offensive Rebounds Per Game)
ASSITS PER GAME: 3.5
STEALES PER GAME: 0.67
BLOCKS PER GAME: 2.75
3-POINT SHOOTING EFFICIENCY: 13.0%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Summarize it All:

Scoring Per Game: Malone (Stockton Help)
Scoring Efficiency FG%: Barkley
Free-Throw Shooting Efficiency FT%: Malone
3-Point Shooting Efficiency FG%: Barkley
Rebounding Per Game: Barkley
Offensive Rebounding Per Game: Barkley
Passing/Assists Per Game: Barkley
Steals Per Game: Barkley
Blocks per Game: Duncan

Areas of Dominance:

Barkley = 6
Malone= 2
Duncan= 1

CHARLES IS THE GREATEST MODERN POWER-FORWARD OF ALL TIME::confusedshrug:

[Carbine]

That was a huge waste of time on your part. You aren't convincing anybody with that post. Typing down a bunch of stats and declaring who the better player was from those numbers is the easy way out. It's for the casual fan, the one who knows no better.

[Nickjoe3450]

Malone in his own right was great...rarely missed a game expect his last year with the lakers...solid 25 and 15 a night player every year. Barkely was a monster in the paint...all he did was grab boards and throw them to Dr.J back in his 76ers days...In his suns years, he was the best player on the team, won league MVP and took his team to the finals, but lost to Mj and the bulls(who didn't!) but i think Barkely is the better out of the 2 of them...If they played 1 on 1 in their prime...I gurantee they would fight at the end but Barkely would buy the steaks at dinner afterword

[Sir Charles]

Malone in his own right was great...rarely missed a game expect his last year with the lakers...solid 25 and 15 a night player every year. Barkely was a monster in the paint...all he did was grab boards and throw them to Dr.J back in his 76ers days...In his suns years, he was the best player on the team, won league MVP and took his team to the finals, but lost to Mj and the bulls(who didn't!) but i think Barkely is the better out of the 2 of them...If they played 1 on 1 in their prime...I gurantee they would fight at the end but Barkely would buy the steaks at dinner afterword

Malone could not move Barkleyin the paint: Chuck was 260 lbs of natural strenght he was a Small Shaq with the agressiveness of your tipical short pitbull. And then again Barkley would just dribble past him one on one because firstly: he had game and moves, secondly: was quicker, thirdly: had better ball handling skills and fourthly: could leap higher. Only thing Malone had over Charles was 5-6 inches of Advantages to shoot overhim but then Again Charles had higher FG% and higher 3-Point FG%. No contest

[B]Its a fact Barkley is the Greatest Powerforward of All Time, Stats to Proof it are there :) and I saw both of them in the late 80s and early 90's. If there are youngsters out there that don

[Chalkmaze]

Horrible posts Sir Charles... You and your self-proclaimed:cletus facts.

[Sir Charles]

Horrible posts Sir Charles... You and your self-proclaimed:cletus facts.

They might be horrible for Stockton-Malone fans :oldlol: but not for people whom have watched both of them play since the begninning:) . Its about time people started t recognized that Barkley was by far a better player. If he did not fit the Power Forward Position because of his fat, lazy and short ass then he was atleast a "Better Player" and when you talk about who is the best in that positon or the other, you talk about "Who was the Better Player", and that was clearly is Barkley. Even the Dream Team had him as starter :violin:. People tend to think about Barkley with no knees and back of the Rockets but they clearly forget about the Barkley in the Sixers and Suns.

Yup even if you dont like it, after the Bird-Magic and Jordan legacy appeared a short fat guy that could do it all PLAY BIG AND SMALL. He was not liked initially by the media, reffs and Stern because he represend everything that a player should not be (too short for his position, to lazy, too overweight and too loudmouthed) but then again he was: SIR CHARLES, THE GREATEST POWER FORWARD OF ALL TIME :)

[Sir Charles]

Horrible posts Sir Charles... You and your self-proclaimed:cletus facts.

They might be horrible for Stockton-Malone fans :oldlol: but not for people whom have watched both of them play since the begninning:) . Its about time people started t recognized that Barkley was by far a better player. If he did not fit the Power Forward Position because of his fat, lazy and short ass then he was atleast a "Better Player" and when you talk about who is the best in that positon or the other, you talk about "Who was the Better Player", and that was clearly is Barkley. Even the Dream Team had him as starter :violin:. People tend to think about Barkley with no knees and no back of the Rockets but they clearly forget about the Barkley in the Sixers and Suns.

Yup even if you dont like it, after the Bird-Magic and Jordan legacy appeared a short fat guy that could do it all PLAY BIG AND SMALL. He was not liked initially by the media, reffs and Stern because he represented everything that a player should not be or do (too short for his position, too lazy, too overweight and too loudmouthed) but then again he was: SIR CHARLES, THE GREATEST POWER FORWARD OF ALL TIME :) :confusedshrug:

[Chalkmaze]

[B]They might be horrible for Stockton-Malone fans :oldlol: but not for people whom have watched both of them play since the begninning:)

I watched them both play from the beginning, so there goes your commentary on that. Barkley was a great power-forward, not better than Malone though.

[LuCKy_JuNiOr]

yes.

most people forget the kind of player he was in his Sixers days.

Is unbelievable a good enough word to describe?

[Sir Charles]

I watched them both play from the beginning, so there goes your commentary on that. Barkley was a great power-forward, not better than Malone though.

[B]

[mjbulls23]

Is unbelievable a good enough word to describe?

ya especially his athleticism. On the Sixers he was a lot more athletic than some people today might think.

And as we all know, he was obviously not the same player in Houston that he was in PHX & Philly

[Sir Charles]

Is unbelievable a good enough word to describe?

[B]Not quite. Unbelievable is a guy that is 6-4 and dominated guys that where 6-9, 6-10 and sometimes 7 footers but a guy that is not only 6-4 but we are talking about a guy that is is also 40 lbs or more overweight!!! :eek: (

[Chalkmaze]

Barkley could do so many things, guess that makes him better than Shaq too, since Shaq's very one-dimensional right?

It's all about what gets done on the court, not about how many back flips a guy can do. I've argued it too much over the years. You're a Barkley fan, an exceptionally biased one, I'm a Malone fan, though I try to keep some perspective on things. Barkley had more versatility, but Karl was much more dominant in the post. It was close there for a few years, but Karl was always as good or better than Barkley.

[B-Jax]

Malone was the better player. Not to take anything away from Barkley because he was a great player as well, but Malone could do more. Barkley had the slight edge in rebounding and he shot a higher percentage, but many big guys(Malone included) had their way with Barkley in the paint because his post defense was not that good. Just because you can average over 10 rebounds per game does not mean you can contain guys in the post.

[mjbulls23]

Malone could do more

http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/grin.gif

[Sir Charles]

http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/grin.gif


Could do More? Please don`t insult our intelligence :rolleyes: Not Even Duncan Could Do More:confusedshrug:

Better Players are the ones who are most dominating over others in their prime + can do more things + and make teams better. Only thing Malone got over Barkley Ill repeat again: is 5-6 inches of advantage, was harder off season worker (do to lack of talent:( , reason why better FT% Shooter) and lasted longer do the the fact he was more in shape (worked harder off season).

Barkley never cared for stats as Malone did, Barkley cared about winning and making his weak pathetic Sixers and Suns teams better: He had no help in the paint as Duncan did with Robinson (Duncan is a center that is a bit more versetaile like what Hakeem did when playing along Ralph Samson "but inferior obviously" he played with Robinson) and he had no Stockton or a Sloan to design a game for him to score easily because he actually different from Malone, could design his own shot off the dribble in a one on one game and post-score with higher FG% than both Malone and Duncan:confusedshrug:

The stats say it all, Barkley was better in his prime, got an MVP before Malone (when both where Prime and Healthy), Was Chosen as starter in the Dream Team over Malone and Lead the Team in PPG and was from the Dream Teamers the Most Efficient in Most Areas of the Game (as Magic said) and finally had better All-Around Game Averages than Malone and Duncan. And yes, Barkley and Malone played in a tougher Era than Duncan so this one is overrated.

Even when Barkley was done with no knees and no back to hold him playing and wile playing 29 minutes per game inm 1996 through 1999, he played against Duncan: he scored more on him, got more rebounds on him, got more steals over him, got more assits and we are talking abouth a Chuck that is 1-NOT HEALTHY, 2-OVER 34 YEARS OLD, 3-PLAYED LESS MINUTES AND 4-WAY PAST HIS "PRIME", which was 1986-1995.

The stats say it all :applause:

CHARLES BARKLEY (Regular Season)

POINTS PER GAME: 22.14
SCORING EFFICIENCY FG%: 54.1%

REBOUNDS PER GAME: 11.7 (4 Offensive Rebounds Per Game)
ASSITS PER GAME: 3.9
STEALES PER GAME: 1.54
BLOCKS PER GAME: 0.83
3-POINT SHOOTING EFFICIENCY FG%: 26.6%

KARL MALONE (Regular Season):

POINTS PER GAME: 25.0
SCORING EFFICIENCY FG%: 51.6%

REBOUNDS PER GAME: 10.1 (2.4 Offensive Rebounds Per Game)
ASSITS PER GAME: 3.6
STEALES PER GAME: 1.41
BLOCKS PER GAME: 0.78
3-POINT SHOOTING EFFICIENCY: 27.4%

TIM DUNCAN (Regular Season):

POINTS PER GAME: 21.6
SCORING EFFICIENCY FG%: 50.8%

REBOUNDS PER GAME: 11.8 (3.1 Offensive Rebounds Per Game)
ASSITS PER GAME: 3.1
STEALES PER GAME: 0.8
BLOCKS PER GAME: 2.4
3-POINT SHOOTING EFFICIENCY: 19.0%

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

"IN THE CLUTCH" (PLAY-OFFS):

"Notice how Karls Numbers decrease in the clutch even do having better players in their Prime such as Stockton passing to him always and watch how Chucks increase"

CHARLES BARKLEY (In The Clutch, Play-Offs):

POINTS PER GAME: 23.0
SCORING EFFICIENCY FG%: 51.13%

REBOUNDS PER GAME: 12.9 (4.15 Offensive Rebounds Per Game!),
ASSITS PER GAME: 3.9
STALES PER GAME: 1.57
BLOCKS PER GAME: 0.88
FG% 51.13%
3-POINT SHOOTING EFFICIENCY FG%: 25.5%

KAR MALONE (In The Clutch, Play-Offs):

POINTS PER GAME: 24.7
SCORING EFFICIENCY FG%: 46.3%,

REBOUNDS PER GAME: 10.7 (2.6 Offensive Rebounds Per Game)
ASSITS PER GAME: 3.2
STEALES PER GAME: 1.34
BLOCKS PER GAME: 0.699
3-POINT SHOOTING EFICIENCY FG%: 16.2%

TIM DUNCAN (In the Clutch, Play-Offs)

POINTS PER GAME: 23.8
SCORING EFFICIENCY FG%: 50.7%

REBOUNDS PER GAME: 12.5 (3.47 Offensive Rebounds Per Game)
ASSITS PER GAME: 3.5
STEALES PER GAME: 0.67
BLOCKS PER GAME: 2.75
3-POINT SHOOTING EFFICIENCY: 13.0%

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

In Their Prime 11-12 Years of Chuck, Karl and Tim:

- I will take away Charles and Karl’s first year away since both of them where not starters giving the benefit to Duncan too. We are talking about 22-23 year old youngsters up untill they where 32-33 year old veterans.

PRIME YEARS (IN THEIR PRIME):

CHARLES (1985/86-1995/96)

Regular Season:

POINTS PER GAME: 24.2
SCORING EFFICIENCY FG%: 55.04%

REBOUNDS PER GAME: 11.87
ASSITS PER GAME: 4.16
STEALS PER GAME: 1.69
BLOCKS PER GAME: 0.909
3-POINT SHOOTING EFFICIENCY FG%: 25.94%

Play-Offs (Clutch Time):

POINTS PER GAME: 25.7
SCORING EFFICIENCY FG%:53.99%

REBOUNDS PER GAME: 13.29
ASSITS PER GAME: 4.41
STEALS PER GAME: 1.65
BLOCKS PER GAME: 0.96
3-POINT SHOOTING EFFICIENCY FG%:25%

KARL (1986/87-1996/97)

Regular Season:

POINTS PER GAME: 27.1
SCORING EFFICIENCY FG%: 52.90%

REBOUNDS PER GAME: 10.9
ASSITS PER GAME: 3.28
STEALES PER GAME: 1.46
BLOCKS PER GAME:0.836
3-POINT SHOOTING EFFICIENCY FG%:20.59%

Play-Offs (Clutch Time):

POINTS PER GAME: 27.1
SCORING EFFICIENCY FG%: 46.42%

REBOUNDS PER GAME: 11.84
ASSITS PER GAME: 2.59
STEALS PER GAME: 1.42
BLOCKS PER GAME: 0.79
3-POINT SHOOTING EFFICIENCY FG%: 11.53%

TIM DUNCAN (Regular Season):

POINTS PER GAME: 21.6
SCORING EFFICIENCY FG%: 50.8%

REBOUNDS PER GAME: 11.8 (2.4 Offensive Rebounds Per Game)
ASSITS PER GAME: 3.1
STEALES PER GAME: 0.8
BLOCKS PER GAME: 2.4
3-POINT SHOOTING EFFICIENCY: 19.0%

TIM DUNCAN (In the Clutch, Play-Offs)

POINTS PER GAME: 23.8
SCORING EFFICIENCY FG%: 50.7%

REBOUNDS PER GAME: 12.5 (3.47 Offensive Rebounds Per Game)
ASSITS PER GAME: 3.5
STEALES PER GAME: 0.67
BLOCKS PER GAME: 2.75
3-POINT SHOOTING EFFICIENCY: 13.0%--------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Summarize it All:

Scoring Per Game: Malone (Stockton Help)
Scoring Efficiency FG%: Barkley
Free-Throw Shooting Efficiency FT%: Malone
3-Point Shooting Efficiency FG%: Barkley
Rebounding Per Game: Barkley
Offensive Rebounding Per Game: Barkley
Passing/Assists Per Game: Barkley
Steals Per Game: Barkley
Blocks per Game: Duncan

Areas of Game Dominance

Barkley = 6
Malone= 2
Duncan= 1

CHARLES IS THE GREATEST MODERN POWER-FORWARD OF ALL TIME::confusedshrug:

[mjbulls23]

damn Sir Charles :oldlol: :oldlol:

I disagreed with him :hammerhead:

that's why i posted the "http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/grin.gif" emoticon

[ShowtymeCA2NC]

CB4 hands down..not close as people think

[Sir Charles]

damn Sir Charles :oldlol: :oldlol:

I disagreed with him :hammerhead:

that's why i posted the "http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/grin.gif" emoticon

Yup I know, I forgot to add his quote i thought i Was:D . Incredible how someone would have the nerve to say that Malone could do more than Barkley, thats like saying Shaq was a more versetaile and complete game player than Hakeem O or that Bryant is better than Jordan:rolleyes:

[J.NelsonIsGOAT]

barkley cuz i like him more

[mjbulls23]

Yup I know, I forgot to add his quote i thought i Was:D . Incredible how someone would have the nerve to say that Malone could do more than Barkley, thats like saying Shaq was a more versetaile and complete game player than Hakeem O or that Bryant is better than Jordan:rolleyes:

ya some people are probably just biased toward certain players :ohwell:

[statman32]

Barkley cared about winning and making his weak pathetic Sixers and Suns teams better:

:wtf:

How were the Suns pathatic before Barkely got there?

[mjbulls23]

:wtf:

How were the Suns pathatic before Barkely got there?

:oldlol:

damn I didn't catch that at first

[Da_Realist]

bump :D

Video of Sir Charles (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1fpPYTedt4)

[Scott Pippen]

bump :D

Video of Sir Charles (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1fpPYTedt4)

very nice:applause:

[veilside23]

Bump . Sir Charles hands down ...

[AussieSteve]

:wtf:

How were the Suns pathatic before Barkely got there?

Four years that Chuck was at Phoenix, here's how the Suns performed with/without him.

1992-93 with Chuck, 61-15 (0.803). Without Chuck, 1-5 (0.167).
1993-94 with Chuck, 48-17 (0.738). Without Chuck, 8-9 (0.471).
1994-95 with Chuck, 49-19 (0.721). Without Chuck, 10-4 (0.714).
1995-96 with Chuck, 38-23 (0.535). Without Chuck, 3-8 (0.273).

Overall with Chuck, 196-84 (0.700). Without Chuck, 22-26 (0.458)

With the exception of 94-95, they sucked without him.

[AussieSteve]

Let's just say it how it is.

Malone was very good for a very long time. His main asset was his consistent elite scoring, but we can all agree that his scoring numbers are inflated somewhat by Stockton.

Barkley was better than Malone. He was quantitatively and qualitatively superior to Malone in most (can I say all?) areas of the game, but he could not sustain his peak level for as long, nor was he as consistent because of issues with attitude/conditioning/playing on crap teams and being prone to the odd tantrum.

I don't believe a good argument exists that could dispute this. At least I've never heard one. Every argument for Malone basically boils down to 'he was good for longer', because that's all he has on Barkley.

[Pointguard]

Let's just say it how it is.

Malone was very good for a very long time. His main asset was his consistent elite scoring, but we can all agree that his scoring numbers are inflated somewhat by Stockton.

Barkley was better than Malone. He was quantitatively and qualitatively superior to Malone in most (can I say all?) areas of the game,
quantitatively??? Naah. Points are not close no matter how you short you make the years. If you make it 7 years, its close to a 1000 point difference. That's too much to be attributing to Stockton. A side note here: Deron Williams was compared to CP3 his first three years in the league because of the P&R system in Utah. He sucks outside of that system. Stockton in allstar games and Olympics was not on the level of Nash. Malone benefitted from being great in the pick n roll, which every team does, but when a guy outscores another guy by 10,000 points its a huge discrepancy and you can't really attribute it to another player,

Malone was an iron man and a workhorse. Because of that in his best years he's going to outnumber Barkley in assist in their best years. I just checked and he does. So we are left only to rebounds which are pretty close in their top 7 years-total rebounds. Over a ten year period Malone has a comfortable edge. Its never mentioned how Barkley's rebounding numbers are a bit padded as he takes the weaker cover and still cheats underneath the boards. He was still a great rebounder but if Karl Malone slacks on defense and gets one or two more rebounds per game then Barkley has no edge in any category. There is absolutely no argument quanitatively in any category in an 9 year span.
10 years and beyond its a very significant difference.

[Duncan21formvp]

An 8 year old thread?

[Round Mound]

Its quite simple. For those who saw pre Houston Barkley play, will say Chuck. Those younger ones will say Malone since Barkley left to Houston pretty much done with injuries, back problems and weight problems..while Malone lasted longer on a good level. I saw Chuck in his prime when he was considered the best forward in the game.