Kareem vs Shaq vs Hakeem vs Russell vs Wilt

[TmacsRockets]

Top 5 Centers of all time, what order though.

Here is mine.

1. Hakeem
2. Kareem
3. Shaq
4. Russell
5. Wilt


Hakeem was the best, he played both ends well and dominated.
Kareem was next but needed another top 5 player all time to win in Magic.
Shaq was too dominant in his prime and unstoppable
Russell was the greatest winner ever but only shot 44% in the 60's which is terrible and couldn't score
Wilt was good against 6'5" guys in the 60's and hardly showed up in the playoffs. Needed 2 top 15 players to win a title in West and Baylor.

[Quickness]

I think you got shaq a lil bit overrated

[mjbulls23]

Wilt at #5? :roll:

He actually did win a title with the Sixers, before he ever joined the Lakers. He should be no lower than # 2 on this list (Wilt vs Kareem is arguable depending on how you look at it).

[kobeFANNER]

1. Wilt
2. Kareem
3. Olajuwan
4. Shaq
5. Russel

[Low End Theory]

1. Wilt
2. Kareem
3. Shaq
4. Russell
5. Hakeem

I would consider moving Russell up to #3 but Shaq is too dominant. Russell might be last in terms of skill on this list but you can't argue against the best winner to ever play.

Actually, I could flip this list every which way. Each time I go over it in my head I come up with a new order. :oldlol:

[Jimmy2k8]

1. You are horrible at making threads for discussions. I woud suggest you spend more time posting before you create topics. Not sure why ISH hasnt come up with post requirements to prohibit this. May hurt the knowledgable poster who just joins but helps the board

2. Melo/Wade are worth more than the #1 pick. Neither Miami nor Denver are lookin to move thier young (keyword) franchise superstar who arent that much older than the kid you draft #1. Think about it

Quoted for truth. Btw, I am 100% sure this guy is Kgisbigticket.

[TmacsRockets]

Wilt at #5? :roll:

He actually did win a title with the Sixers, before he ever joined the Lakers. He should be no lower than # 2 on this list (Wilt vs Kareem is arguable depending on how you look at it).

He only won twice and that was with a stacked team. Put Shaq or Hakeem with those team with Jerry West and they win 5 titles at least.

[iggy>]

1. Wilt
2. Kareem
3. Shaq
4. Russell
5. Hakeem

I would consider moving Russell up to #3 but Shaq is too dominant. Russell might be last in terms of skill on this list but you can't argue against the best winner to ever play.

Actually, I could flip this list every which way. Each time I go over it in my head I come up with a new order. :oldlol:
hakeem last? hes the best defensive center of all time. and the center position is mainly about defense.

[rzp]

TmacsRockets as nickname and Hakeem at first place...nothing suspect and biased here :rolleyes: :lol

Kareem
Shaq
Hakeem
Wilt









Russel (like BULLS :lol )

[Psileas]

Hakeem was the best, he played both ends well and dominated.

He did play great both ends of the floor, but he definitely wasn't the best. Although he might be more talented individually than Russell (and arguably Shaq), career-wise he may very well rank behind all of the other guys you listed.


Kareem was next but needed another top 5 player all time to win in Magic.

Magic wasn't top-5 GOAT in 1980, neither was Oscar in his prime in 1971 and 1974.


Russell was the greatest winner ever but only shot 44% in the 60's which is terrible and couldn't score

Sounds like BULLS already. If you knew everything about NBA history you'd know that 44% in the 60's was not terrible. Not great either, but certainly not what 44% is today. But...


Wilt was good against 6'5" guys in the 60's and hardly showed up in the playoffs. Needed 2 top 15 players to win a title in West and Baylor.

...oh, yes, but it seems that you are just another ignorant kid to be added in the long catalogue of ISH. I won't even bother to analyze this in depth for obvious reasons, but not only didn't Wilt face 6'5 guys in any era of his career (honestly, something like this would be in my signature if they were available that's how annoying this stupid myth has become), but he didn't even play with Baylor during the title season of 1972. As for West, he was top-10 ever, but Wilt was the reason he won the title, not vice-versa, especially after West's disappointingly bad WCF and NBA Finals' appearances.

[Lebron23]

Top 6 GOAT Center

1. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
2. Shaquille O'Neal
3. Hakeem Olajuwon
4. Wilt Chamberlain
5. Bill Russell
6. Moses Malone

[~LA's fine$t~]

1. Kareem
2. Wilt
3. Shaquille
4. Russell
5. Hakeem

[~LA's fine$t~]

Get Russell the hell out of there. He hardly compares to Ewing and Robinson, so please don't mention him with the 4 greatest centers of all-time.

1. Wilt
2. Kareem
3. Shaq
4. Hakeem










5. Russell
:oldlol: He's always good for a laugh.

[iggy>]

no way kareem is #1. wilt, hakeem, and shaq are all better. i guess none of u remember kareem getting dominated by moses in the early 80's.

[Psileas]

no way kareem is #1. wilt, hakeem, and shaq are all better. i guess none of u remember kareem getting dominated by moses in the early 80's.

I bet you also don't remember Hakeem getting dominated by the Sonics in 1996 or Shaq getting outplayed by Duncan in 2001.

[Lebron23]

no way kareem is #1. wilt, hakeem, and shaq are all better. i guess none of u remember kareem getting dominated by moses in the early 80's.


Moses Malone is severely underrated in this forum, and i think he is one of the greatest rebounding Center in the history of the NBA.

[TruthKGRay3412]

1.Wilt
2.Kareem
3.Russell
4.Shaq
5.Hakeem

[iggy>]

Moses Malone is severely underrated in this forum, and i think he is one of the greatest rebounding Center in the history of the NBA.
i agree, top 4 center of all time to me. he was the best player on what may be the best team ever, the 1983 sixers.

id still put kareem ahead of moses because i think moses underachieved a bit when it came to championships. but head to head, moses>

[iggy>]

I bet you also don't remember Hakeem getting dominated by the Sonics in 1996 or Shaq getting outplayed by Duncan in 2001.
your talking about hakeem getting dominated by a team, kareem was dominated by another player. and how did duncan outplay shaq? the lakers swept the spurs in 01.

[db23]

Wilt blew in the playoffs, so many chokes and his ppg bombed from his regular season stats.He is like the orignal Kobe, he can get great stats during the regular season when defences are looser and there is no pressure but cracks up come playoff time.Winners raise their play in the playoffs, I dont consider anyone who doesnt at least equal their regular season stats in the playoffs consistently to be a great player IMHO.Its starting to get to the point where I feel regular season stats should be ignored completely when it comes to judging the top 10/15 of all time.

[Psileas]

your talking about hakeem getting dominated by a team, kareem was dominated by another player. and how did duncan outplay shaq? the lakers swept the spurs in 01.

a) Hakeem was seriously limited by nobodies. Teams with mediocre centers didn't dominate Kareem in a similar way. And if you have any problems with that, let me give you another example: Hakeem getting dominated by Shaq in 1999-before you mention his age, bear in mind that Hakeem was just as old as Kareem was in your example against Moses.
b) Are we talking about teams now? Shaq has been swept like 6-7 times, so that's not exactly an issue. ;) BTW, I meant 2002, not 2001. Yes, the Lakers still won, but Duncan pretty clearly outplayed Shaq.

[joe lucky]

if we go with the "of all time" part of the the term that would definitely refer to a long and productive career:
(1) Kareem (stayed amazingly good for a long time)
(2) Wilt
(3) Shaquille (I'll forgive the last two years and remember that near decade of dominance)
(4) Bill

If we are talking who would play the best on a given night better than any of the others:
(1) Hakeem
(2) Shaq
(3) Kareem

When Hakeem is on he is the perfect center at both ends. Quick, versatile, nearly-unstoppable on offense. Can outright stop really good centers from having good nights on defense. He played smart defense allowing him to stay on the floor.

Shaq comes in second because if he decided to dominate in his prime he could. Foul problems on both sides bump him down a bit.

While I only got to watch the tail end of Kareem's career he wasn't nearly as imposing on defense on a given night than either Shaq or Hakeem. Scoring wise on a given night he could decimate the other team.

I'm too young to give a fair rating of Wilt or Bill's ability on a given night to dominate (well maybe the 100 point game is evidence enough that Wilt should be on top). Bill Russell just based on classic game clips seems like a guy who didn't dominate (definitely not on offense) but definitely worked hard enough on every play to give the other team fits.

[1987_Lakers]

1. Wilt Chamberlain
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3. Shaquille O'Neal
4. Bill Russell
5. Hakeem Olajuwon

[Psileas]

Wilt blew in the playoffs, so many chokes and his ppg bombed from his regular season stats.He is like the orignal Kobe, he can get great stats during the regular season when defences are looser and there is no pressure but cracks up come playoff time.Winners raise their play in the playoffs, I dont consider anyone who doesnt at least equal their regular season stats in the playoffs consistently to be a great player IMHO.Its starting to get to the point where I feel regular season stats should be ignored completely when it comes to judging the top 10/15 of all time.

It's "kinda" hard to produce the very same numbers (let alone better) as long as you're guarded by 2 of the 5 best defensive centers of all time in 40%+ of your playoff games. No high scoring center would be able to up his numbers if he had to face his competition. Kareem is a great example: The only time Kareem played in Wilt's era and produced more than in his regular season was in 1970, when he didn't face a top-2 defensive center (Willis Reed wasn't at Wilt's or Thurmonds level, even back then-yes, even then, not all all-D team choices were 100% valid and objective). In 1971, he faced Wilt and guess what: His scoring averages dropped significantly. In 1972, he faced Wilt and Thurmond and his averages fell even more. In 1973, he faced Thurmond and his averages collapsed. In 1974, no Wilt, no Nate and, surprise, his averages went up...Wilt had to endure this crap for practically his whole career, having to face either Russell or Thurmond or both (not to mention Kareem himself), in playoffs with less rounds and with most of his playoff games coming from the years he stopped caring about scoring as much, so his averages fell significantly.

BTW, it's at least funny how averages of 22.5 ppg, 24.5 rpg, 4.2 apg and countless blocked shots can seriously be consider "blowing", at least if you don't compare these numbers with Wilt's own numbers from the regular season...

[Lax4422Chik1342]

1 Kareem
2 Wilt (if he had had a stronger mindset would be number one by far) Was the best athelete of the group, tremendous track n field man and world class vollyballer
3 Russell (his unparalled will to win overcomes his shortcomings, 11 0f 13 NBA and 13 of 15 including college championships speak volumes)
4 Hakeem
5 Shaq

Most underrated, most underappreciated and 'forgotten' center, Nate Thurmond. Wilt, Russ and Kareem all have said their toughest opponent was Nate Thurmond I am not a fan of the so-called double stats but Thurmond is the only player to achieve a quadruple double, the 4th double being blocked shots. Both #6 and #13 would've have several quad doubles in their careers had blocked shots been kept as an official NBA stat, Karrem might have had one or two as well in his early career.

I've seen them all live and on TV, I've been a NBA-er since 1962, I'm 58.

[millwad]

a) Hakeem was seriously limited by nobodies. Teams with mediocre centers didn't dominate Kareem in a similar way. And if you have any problems with that, let me give you another example: Hakeem getting dominated by Shaq in 1999-before you mention his age, bear in mind that Hakeem was just as old as Kareem was in your example against Moses.
b) Are we talking about teams now? Shaq has been swept like 6-7 times, so that's not exactly an issue. ;) BTW, I meant 2002, not 2001. Yes, the Lakers still won, but Duncan pretty clearly outplayed Shaq.

Tell me one time Hakeem was "seriously limited by nobodies"? You're full of bs.
And Shaq getting dominated by Shaq may have been caused by Hakeem being 36 and injurieplagued while Shaq being in his prime? 4 years earlier Hakeem swept Shaq's ass in the finals.

[VCMVP1551]

1.Shaquille O'Neal
2.Wilt Chamberlain
3.Kareem Abdul Jabbar
4.Hakeem Olajuwon
5.Bill Russell

[millwad]

1 Kareem
2 Wilt (if he had had a stronger mindset would be number one by far) Was the best athelete of the group, tremendous track n field man and world class vollyballer
3 Russell (his unparalled will to win overcomes his shortcomings, 11 0f 13 NBA and 13 of 15 including college championships speak volumes)
4 Hakeem
5 Shaq

Most underrated, most underappreciated and 'forgotten' center, Nate Thurmond. Wilt, Russ and Kareem all have said their toughest opponent was Nate Thurmond I am not a fan of the so-called double stats but Thurmond is the only player to achieve a quadruple double, the 4th double being blocked shots. Both #6 and #13 would've have several quad doubles in their careers had blocked shots been kept as an official NBA stat, Karrem might have had one or two as well in his early career.

I've seen them all live and on TV, I've been a NBA-er since 1962, I'm 58.

Hm, you forgot Hakeem's, Robinson's and Alvin Robertson's quadruple double, didn't you? And Hakeem almost had two in the same month, the league took away one of his assists in one of the games.

[Manute for Ever!]

1.Wilt
2.Kareem
3.Russell
4.Shaq
5.Hakeem

I agree with this. As much as I love Hakeem, I think he does get overrated on this board. I got to see 3 of those guys play, very few on here saw all 5, most probably saw just Dream and Shaq and are basing it off of those two.

[Jimmy2k8]

shaq is not the greatest center of all time.

[VCMVP1551]

I bet you also don't remember Hakeem getting dominated by the Sonics in 1996 or Shaq getting outplayed by Duncan in 2001.

Shaq wasn't outplayed by Duncan in 2001. Shaq outplayed Duncan.

Shaq vs Duncan AND Robinson during the 2001 Western Conference Finals

Shaq- 27.0 ppg, 13.0 rpg, 2.5 apg, 1.3 bpg, 54.1 FG%
Tim Duncan- 23.0 ppg, 12.3 rpg, 4.3 apg, 4.3 bpg, 47.8 FG%

Shaq averaged 27 and 13 on 54% vs two top 5 post defenders while Duncan averaged 23 and 12 on a subpar 48% shooting while getting swept.


shaq is not the greatest center of all time.

A legit argument for Shaq can be made.

[Lax4422Chik1342]

In the never to be settled dispute, my top 5 are listed in a previous post of this thread....


Other honorable mentions for a top ten
Nate Thurmond
Moses Malone
Lynn Parish
Artis Gilmore.....including his ABA time served
Patrick Ewing
David Robinson
Bob Lanier


For a few years Bill Walton was as good as almost anyone.
Special getting the most of size at center mention:
Wes Unseld and Dave Cowens

Just like baseball where there's pre-modern & modern
pre-modern George Mikan

[Carbine]

I know why, but don't agree with people using per game stats as the sole reason why so and so outplayed so and so. It only tells part of the story.

Obviously it's hard to argue against someone when they throw the stat thing at you - that's why people use them, to defend their player or whatever - that will never change.

Remember Shaq/Hakeem in the finals? I remember coming away from that series thinking to myself that Hakeem clearly out-played Shaq - but this many years later I see the stat card pulled. It certainly makes Shaq look a lot better compared to what actually transpired - and those who like Shaq will obviously use it to their advantage. However, the statistical out-put compared to the actual out-put by both players are not close. If that makes sense.

[Lax4422Chik1342]

[QUOTE=Carbine]I know why, but don't agree with people using per game stats as the sole reason why so and so outplayed so and so. It only tells part of the story. Obviously it's hard to argue against someone when they throw the stat thing at you - that's why people use them, to defend their player or whatever - that will never change. Remember Shaq/Hakeem in the finals? I remember coming away from that series thinking to myself that Hakeem clearly out-played Shaq - but this many years later I see the stat card pulled. It certainly makes Shaq look a lot better compared to what actually transpired -/QUOTE]


Statistics can be very misleading and fail to paint the accurate picture e.g those opposed to legalizing marihuana often state it leads to hard drug use because 90% of all heroin users began smoking grass, so what, 100% of all heroin users began drinking milk so shall we ban milk too?

[VCMVP1551]

I know why, but don't agree with people using per game stats as the sole reason why so and so outplayed so and so. It only tells part of the story.

Obviously it's hard to argue against someone when they throw the stat thing at you - that's why people use them, to defend their player or whatever - that will never change.

Remember Shaq/Hakeem in the finals? I remember coming away from that series thinking to myself that Hakeem clearly out-played Shaq - but this many years later I see the stat card pulled. It certainly makes Shaq look a lot better compared to what actually transpired - and those who like Shaq will obviously use it to their advantage. However, the statistical out-put compared to the actual out-put by both players are not close. If that makes sense.

I watched the 2001 Western Conference Finals and Shaq wasn't outplayed by Duncan at all. Shaq had to go against constant double and triple teams and still dominated the low post and the boards.

Edit: I saw Psileas meant 2002.

[plowking]

I bet you also don't remember Hakeem getting dominated by the Sonics in 1996 or Shaq getting outplayed by Duncan in 2001.

I bet you remember Wilt only having two championships, and only one as the main option. No one can ever be considered the greatest at their position with only 1 title as the main option when others around him have 11, 5 and 4 championships to compete with.

Those of you who say Wilt is the best, please explain how. The guy wasn't a winner.

[plowking]

Shaq wasn't outplayed by Duncan in 2001. Shaq outplayed Duncan.

Shaq vs Duncan AND Robinson during the 2001 Western Conference Finals

Shaq- 27.0 ppg, 13.0 rpg, 2.5 apg, 1.3 bpg, 54.1 FG%
Tim Duncan- 23.0 ppg, 12.3 rpg, 4.3 apg, 4.3 bpg, 47.8 FG%

Shaq averaged 27 and 13 on 54% vs two top 5 post defenders while Duncan averaged 23 and 12 on a subpar 48% shooting while getting swept.



A legit argument for Shaq can be made.

It sucks when your own argument gets debunked doesn't it Psileas. If you seem to throw random comments out like "Shaq got dominated" when he was obviously the better player, then I'm going to have an even harder time listening to your case for Wilt being the greatest centre.

[VCMVP1551]

I bet you remember Wilt only having two championships, and only one as the main option. No one can ever be considered the greatest at their position with only 1 title as the main option when others around him have 11, 5 and 4 championships to compete with.


Well if you're going by total titles for Shaq, Kareem, Russell, Hakeem and Wilt then it's.

1.Russell- 11
2.Kareem- 6
3.Shaq- 4
T/4.- Wilt/Hakeem- 2

Titles as the teams best player

1.Russell- obviously the most, I don't know how many titles he was the best player but it was atleast 6-7 and arguably as many as 9 or 10
T/2.Shaq/Kareem- 3
3.Hakeem 2
4.Wilt 1

However that isn't the argument people will make for Wilt. The argument is how much Wilt dominated at both ends of the court, how important he was to the game of basketball, how much he changed the game, how many things he could do on the court ect.

Wilt has a very good case for best center ever as do the other 4 mentioned in the thread. They all have a good case for different reasons though.

[knicks4eva]

1.wilt
2.shaq
3.Hakeem
4.Kareem
5.Rusell

[millwad]

1. The Dream and Jabbar
3. Wilt Chamberlain
4. Shaq
5. Bill Russell

Yeah, you heard me right, Hakeem and Jabbar are the 2 best centers to ever play the game of basketball.

Like comparing Wilt and Bill to the Dream isn't a bit fair, the two of 'em dominated the worst era of basketball, Hakeem played in the best era of basketball and played hof-centers on daily bases and he did it often with crappy teammates and still he took them to the playoffs year after year and he always dominated his fellow-center on the opposing team.

Bill Russell played with the best players of his era and his offensive dominance against those crappy teams is no where close to Hakeem's dominance on offensive end. I know you shouldn't stare blind with the stats but Bill Russell's offensive stats are pure crap, he was terrible from the FT-line, people are always talking about Shaq being pure crap from the FT-line, so was Russell but nobody are talking about that. Russell's FG-percentage is damn low too, and that against white midgets, the level of competition in the Wilt and Russell-era was nowhere close to the players Hakeem faced and still dominated.

So, I think Hakeem is better than Wilt because Wilt never really faced the competition The Dream did and and considering the fact that Wilt wasn't able to win anything without a fellow-superstar in the way Dream did. The domination of Wilt under his prime was sick but only 2 titles in that crappy era when you dominate like Wilt did isn't that impressive.

And Bill Russell relied on his teammates, having no chance against Wilt he won with the help of his teammates, 11 rings wouldn't be one if he was playing on the teams the Dream did. Considering the fact that Russell was on the best team of his era with the best players it isn't that impressive to win 11 titles. AND(!), he has a career-average of 15 ppg against white midgets with a very bad FT-percentage and FG-percentage which is too freaking low for playing in the era he did. He wasn't good enough on the offensive end of the court to be compared to Olajuwon and everyone knows how freaking good Olajuwon was on D and even if Bill according to some of you was better on the defensive end it wasn't as much difference as the offensive skills of them both.

The reason why I didn't mention Jabbar in this message is that it's kinda obvious that he is the best already...

[DarkSephiroth]

This whole thread is creating chaos because the term "Greatest of All Time" can mean many different things.

Are we talking about a player, at his peak on any given day, playing against the other players on the list?
Are we talking about a player's total career achievements in his era?

It's not really fair to compare eras because almost everyone can understand the competition back then was not what it is now. That being said, for a player to stand out back then, he had to in some way revolutionize the game and do things other people didn't really do. To accomplish such things in their own era still deserves great respect.

On the other hand, the players of today are bigger, faster, more athletic and more skilled. If you place them in battles with players of the past they will obviously dominate. But the real discussion here is factoring in the eras that players played in with their success. This may be one of the most difficult things to analyze in Basketball.

[nycelt84]

1.Bill Russell
2.Wilt Chamberlain
3.Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
4.Shaquille O'Neal
5.Hakeem Olajuwon

[Psileas]

Tell me one time Hakeem was "seriously limited by nobodies"? You're full of bs.

Wow, 7 posts here and you're already trying to judge people. The usual quality of ISH newcomers...
Search Hakeem against the Supersonics in the 1996 WCS. He scored a pitiful 6 points (and had only 4 rebounds) in game 1, 17 points on 8/21 fg in game 2 and had only 6 rebounds and 0 blocked shots in game 4, with his team getting swept. All these against the all-time greats Ervin Johnson and 35-year old Sam Perkins. Go on, find me one such series that Kareem had up to the same age, let alone while having to face centers like the ones I mentioned.


And Shaq getting dominated by Shaq may have been caused by Hakeem being 36 and injurieplagued while Shaq being in his prime? 4 years earlier Hakeem swept Shaq's ass in the finals.

So what? Someone mentioned Kareem getting beaten by Moses in 1983 as if this would supposedly hurt his legacy. Guess what: Kareem was also 36, he beat Artis Gilmore one round before, and then got beaten by the league's MVP and probably the best center of the 80's. If people use this case against Kareem, I, for sure, can use Hakeem's defeat to Shaq back then. Not to mention of course that, after the respective ages of 35, Kareem was inarguably the better player and beat more great opponents than Hakeem did at the same age.


Shaq wasn't outplayed by Duncan in 2001. Shaq outplayed Duncan.

Shaq vs Duncan AND Robinson during the 2001 Western Conference Finals

Shaq- 27.0 ppg, 13.0 rpg, 2.5 apg, 1.3 bpg, 54.1 FG%
Tim Duncan- 23.0 ppg, 12.3 rpg, 4.3 apg, 4.3 bpg, 47.8 FG%

Shaq averaged 27 and 13 on 54% vs two top 5 post defenders while Duncan averaged 23 and 12 on a subpar 48% shooting while getting swept.

Read my old post, I meant 2002, not 2001. Shaq in 2002 against the Spurs was a shell of his usual self. I even remember him placing himself only like 3 feet away from the basket and preferring to softly try and lay the ball in instead of bringing down the basket, as he usually did.


I bet you remember Wilt only having two championships, and only one as the main option. No one can ever be considered the greatest at their position with only 1 title as the main option when others around him have 11, 5 and 4 championships to compete with.

Those of you who say Wilt is the best, please explain how. The guy wasn't a winner.

Wilt was the best player in both titles he won. The "first option" thing is based only on the perception of who was the leading scorer of his team and is very inadequate for translating his overall presence. Kobe in 2003 and 2004 was also the "first option" for his team judging from his scoring and FG attempts. Hell, he almost matched Shaq's scoring even in 2001 (and took more shots). Does this make Kobe the more valuable player because of this?

As for the rest, only Bill Russell was inarguably the bigger winner but he fell short in other areas. Shaq won only 1 title more as the best player of his team. Kareem also won only 1 title more up to the same age (and 0 titles more as the overall best player of his team-he did win the 1985 Finals' MVP, but he wasn't better than Magic overall, only during the Finals). Hakeem didn't even win as much: 2 titles and 1 more trip to the Finals compared to 2 titles and 4 trips to the Finals (sure, the number of teams does pla a role, but only if the legit title contenders are equally increased. After all, once Wilt got better teams, he won more than he did before, even though he also faced more teams than he did before).


Like comparing Wilt and Bill to the Dream isn't a bit fair, the two of 'em dominated the worst era of basketball, Hakeem played in the best era of basketball and played hof-centers on daily bases and he did it often with crappy teammates and still he took them to the playoffs year after year and he always dominated his fellow-center on the opposing team.

In the supposedly "worst era of basketball", Wilt, even during his early years, would have to face Russell 12+ times a year, Walt Bellamy another 12, Clyde Lovelette and Bob Pettit 10 more in a 75-80 game schedule. After this, Nate Thurmond was added, Willis Reed was added, Zelmo Beaty was added. If that's the "worst era in basketball", then the average center Hakeem faced should be at the level of Patrick Ewing. Instead, there were only 3 such guys (or 4 at best, if you consider Mourning at the same level). Hof-centers on daily basis? Go no further than Wilt himself.


Bill Russell played with the best players of his era and his offensive dominance against those crappy teams is no where close to Hakeem's dominance on offensive end. I know you shouldn't stare blind with the stats but Bill Russell's offensive stats are pure crap, he was terrible from the FT-line, people are always talking about Shaq being pure crap from the FT-line, so was Russell but nobody are talking about that. Russell's FG-percentage is damn low too, and that against white midgets, the level of competition in the Wilt and Russell-era was nowhere close to the players Hakeem faced and still dominated.

:oldlol: And this guy is saying that I am the one full of bs. Let's play the same funny game once more: Who were these crappy midgets that Russell faced? Wilt? Thurmond? Bellamy? Lovelette? It's easy to put blames and half judge things you have no knowledge about. How about trying to prove the things you claim?


So, I think Hakeem is better than Wilt because Wilt never really faced the competition The Dream did

You're right. He faced far better competition at center than Hakeem. At least, when Wilt went out, it happened while facing teams with centers like Russell or Kareem or Reed. Not against teams with centers like Ervin Johnson, Alton Lister, James Donaldson, a past prime Michael Cage or a young Vlade Divac...


And Bill Russell relied on his teammates, having no chance against Wilt he won with the help of his teammates, 11 rings wouldn't be one if he was playing on the teams the Dream did. Considering the fact that Russell was on the best team of his era with the best players it isn't that impressive to win 11 titles.

Is that why, historically, so many other great teams won 11 titles (or even 6-7 for that matter)? Is that why the Celtics never won more than 62 regular season games? Is that why the Celtics won championships even without having the best record in the league? Is that why the Celtics never approached the Finals before Russell and didn't even make the playoffs just one year after his retirement? If 11 titles in 13 years (with the only lost finals' series coming at the time Russell got injured), "aren't that impressive" what on earth would be impressive? Like 15 in 13 seasons?

I guess Magic's/Kareem's titles with the Lakers and Bird's with the Celtics weren't impressive either, since they played for the best teams in the league, as well.

[Psileas]

Ops, I missed this:


It sucks when your own argument gets debunked doesn't it Psileas. If you seem to throw random comments out like "Shaq got dominated" when he was obviously the better player, then I'm going to have an even harder time listening to your case for Wilt being the greatest centre.

And it sucks for you that I had already corrected this by saying that I meant 2002. Also, I didn't say he was dominated, I said he was "pretty clearly outplayed", and I'm staying by it:

Shaq vs Spurs in 2002 playoffs: 21.4 ppg (44.7% FG), 12.2 rpg, 3.2 apg, 3.0 bpg
Duncan vs Lakers in 2002 playoffs: 29.0 ppg (42.5% FG), 17.2 rpg, 4.6 apg, 3.2 bpg

Duncan beats Shaq in almost every category (in some by a considerable margin) and even in the sole category Shaq has the upper hand (FG%), his regression from his usual numbers in still bigger than Duncan's.
Note that some people would even call this kind of numbers' margin "domination". I don't, but it's quite easy to see that Shaq was clearly outplayed.

It's quite obvious that you're trying your best to find ways to accuse me of telling lies, while you are the one who's misinterpreted my words and ignored the conscious correction I made to my own post. Try better next time.

[Lax4422Chik1342]

In the never to be settled dispute, my top 5 are listed in a previous post of this thread....


Other honorable mentions for a top ten
Nate Thurmond
Moses Malone
Lynn Parish ***********
Artis Gilmore.....including his ABA time served
Patrick Ewing
David Robinson
Bob Lanier

For a few years Bill Walton was as good as almost anyone.
Special getting the most of size at center mention:
Wes Unseld and Dave Cowens

Just like baseball where there's pre-modern & modern
pre-modern George Mikan


My bad, I have occasional brain farts as I approach my 58th, but of course the Chief is Robert and not Lynn. My brain cramps are caused by my overindulgence of nearly 40 years for what got Parrish in a bit of turmoil a few years back.

[millwad]

Wow, it was easy to forget Schrempf, ha? You know the Power Forward-Center who averaged almost 20 a game with the Sonics that year who had a great series against the Rockets who is not anywhere close a "nobody" like you liked to call him and Perkins. And Ervin Johnson didn't do a s*** on Dream during that series, he averaged 10 minuter per game and did in all like 15 points for the whole series. So when you said that Dream was "seriously limited by nobodies", did you mean that the 3 powerforward/centers, Sam Perkins (who's like one year older than Dream so don't talk bs about him being old), Schrempf and Kemp for nobodies? And how did Hakeem get seriously limited, the dude averaged more than 18 ppg, 10 rbp, 2.5 apg, 2 bpg on 45% shooting from the field (higher than Bill Russell's career average in FG-percentage). So I don't see how Hakeem got "seriously limited" by nobodies, the Sonics had great big-men in Kemp and Schrempf and a great playing Perkins and the team got all the way to the finals so it was a darn good team in all, from PG's to Big-men.

And you can't compare someone stats at a special age with someone else's, every player are in their prime once, Hakeem wasn't in his prime when he lost in the playoffs against Shaq, Kareem was scoring more than 21 ppg and in all putting on a show on the offensive and defensive end. He went on scoring 20+ in 3 seasons after that, Hakeem basically died after the season he lost to Shaq in the playoffs and was darn injuryplagied., it's not fair to compare them when one isn't in his prime and when the other one is.

It's not fair comparing Hakeem's titles with Russell's, Hakeem was always the main guy on his teams and he was the team's eveything and only all-star during those 2 titles he won. Hakeem didn't have anywhere close the help Russell had, he had at best an injuryplagued Sampson or a 30+ Drexler or a 30+ Barkley. How the hell was Dream supposed to win more or even be close matching Bill Russell's titles when he played in the best era of basketball against players like Magic, Jabbar, Shaq, Jordan, Bird etc. when he was playing on bad teams without any all-stars beside himself. Just look at the players Russell had one his team, he was never better than the 2nd best scorer and he was the fourth option on the offensive end most of his career, a fourth option on the offensive end on a normal team Hakeem was in was like Mario Elie, getting my point? Russell played with the best of his era, players like Bill Sharman, Bob Cousy, Tom Heinsohn, Frank Ramsay, Sam Jones, KC Jones, John Havlicek, Bailey Howell. I've probably forgot some great player now but I hope you're getting my point, it would be strange if he wouldn't have won all those titles than normal if he wouldn't, just look at these players, if Bill Russell wasn't more than the 4th option on the offensive end for the most of his career it says pretty much of the greatness of his teammates.

While Russell was the 4th option on the offensive end Hakeem was like the nr 1 option in Houston for like more than 15 years and the nr option on the defensive end. Those Boston-teams with Bill in 'em wouldn't have been as great without him but they would still have one a couple of titles with those players with out no doubt, ant of those championteams with Hakeem in it would have been in the lottery pick without The Dream. Hakeem had a much bigger part in the winning than Russell had and that's the truth.


And c'mon, no way Wilt faced better Centers during his career, 6 of those who are considered as being among the 10 best Center by all-time played during Hakeem's era. Nate Thurmond, Walt Bellamy, Clyde Lovette, Willis Reed are no where close to the centers Hakeem faced, Shaq, Jabbar, Moses, Robinson, Ewing, Walton etc.. Hell, even Mourning had greater stats and would play all those you mentioned.

And Patrick Ewing is better than any center Bill Russell and Wilt faced during their career.


And c'mon, mentioning guys like Ervin Johnson (the guy that played Dream for 10 minutes in a playoff-series), Vlade and Lister as Dream's opponents' a joke. You forgot when The Dream dominated 3 of the 10 best centers in the two titleruns and dominating them all and Dream faced 6 of 10 best centers during his career when Wilt and Russell only faced each other from the 10 best center-list.

[haji_d_robertas]

I call it a tie.

Hakeem=Shaq=Russell=Kareem=Wilt= 5 great NBA centers.

You just can't argue that.

[OutOfPlace]

Wilt and Russell shouldn't even be in the argument. Put either of them in today's game and they'd be struggling to make it off the D-league bench.

[Scott Pippen]

Wilt and Russel shouldn't even be in the argument. Put either of them in today's game and they'd be struggling to make it off the D-league bench.

:wtf:

i think Wilt would be fine today in NBA:applause:

[iamgine]

1. Russell
2. Wilt
3. Kareem
4. Shaq
5. Hakeem

[haji_d_robertas]

Wilt and Russell shouldn't even be in the argument. Put either of them in today's game and they'd be struggling to make it off the D-league bench.

Oh, it's another one of these guys again. You should look at a book about basketball. Maybe a word book , not just a picture book.

[OutOfPlace]

Oh, it's another one of these guys again. You should look at a book about basketball. Maybe a word book , not just a picture book.


LOL. This coming from a guy with a Wes Unseld avatar.

Get outta here sucka.:roll:

[millwad]

LOL. This coming from a guy with a Wes Unseld avatar.

Get outta here sucka.:roll:

Don't be a hater, Wes Unseld is cool.

http://mikulski.senate.gov/images/Bball.jpg

[haji_d_robertas]

LOL. This coming from a guy with a Wes Unseld avatar.

Get outta here sucka.:roll:

Someday you will regret the things you say.

[Lax4422Chik1342]

LOL. This coming from a guy with a Wes Unseld avatar.
Get outta here sucka.:roll:

If you got as much out your brain that Wes got out of his body and skills set, you might be intelligent. Wes Unseld is on my list of getting the most of what motha nature gave him. At 6 6 1/2 he would hang with all the giants. He had one of the best outlet passed of a defensive board ever!!! I saw him grab a board turnaround in midair and deliver a perfect pass to the outlet man time and time again, plus once he grabbed the ball not even King Kong could take it away from him.

[1987_Lakers]

LOL. This coming from a guy with a Wes Unseld avatar.

Get outta here sucka.:roll:

Wes Unseld is one of the most underrated players. People just look at how many points he scored per game and judge him. Unseld was a GREAT player. Great Rebounder. Great Passer. Great Shooting %. He set GREAT picks. And one of the greatest outlet passers of all time.

It was actually Wes Unseld NOT Elvin Hayes who won the 1978 NBA Finals MVP.

[Psileas]

Wow, it was easy to forget Schrempf, ha? You know the Power Forward-Center who averaged almost 20 a game with the Sonics that year who had a great series against the Rockets who is not anywhere close a "nobody" like you liked to call him and Perkins. And Ervin Johnson didn't do a s*** on Dream during that series, he averaged 10 minuter per game and did in all like 15 points for the whole series. So when you said that Dream was "seriously limited by nobodies", did you mean that the 3 powerforward/centers, Sam Perkins (who's like one year older than Dream so don't talk bs about him being old), Schrempf and Kemp for nobodies?

Perkins was 35. That's pretty old if you ask me (and anyone else). Not to mention that neither him nor Schrempf were noted for their defense. Overall, it's pretty clear that in this series, with this type of competition, Hakeem underachieved.


And how did Hakeem get seriously limited, the dude averaged more than 18 ppg, 10 rbp, 2.5 apg, 2 bpg on 45% shooting from the field (higher than Bill Russell's career average in FG-percentage). So I don't see how Hakeem got "seriously limited" by nobodies, the Sonics had great big-men in Kemp and Schrempf and a great playing Perkins and the team got all the way to the finals so it was a darn good team in all, from PG's to Big-men.

Compare his overall numbers (regular season or playoffs, it doesn't matter) with that series and it's pretty clear Hakeem didn't play up to his standards. Among all these 4 stats you mention, only assists were close to Hakeem's actual productivity and you know very well that it's not enough to save his case.


And you can't compare someone stats at a special age with someone else's, every player are in their prime once, Hakeem wasn't in his prime when he lost in the playoffs against Shaq, Kareem was scoring more than 21 ppg and in all putting on a show on the offensive and defensive end. He went on scoring 20+ in 3 seasons after that, Hakeem basically died after the season he lost to Shaq in the playoffs and was darn injuryplagied., it's not fair to compare them when one isn't in his prime and when the other one is.

Sorry, 36 year-old Kareem wasn't at his prime, either. No basketball player at the age of 36 is considered to be at his prime, no matter how well he plays. He did age very well though and that's my overall point. You can't penalize Kareem for this reason and therefore accuse him after a defeat to someone like prime Moses.


It's not fair comparing Hakeem's titles with Russell's, Hakeem was always the main guy on his teams and he was the team's eveything and only all-star during those 2 titles he won. Hakeem didn't have anywhere close the help Russell had, he had at best an injuryplagued Sampson or a 30+ Drexler or a 30+ Barkley. How the hell was Dream supposed to win more or even be close matching Bill Russell's titles when he played in the best era of basketball against players like Magic, Jabbar, Shaq, Jordan, Bird etc. when he was playing on bad teams without any all-stars beside himself. Just look at the players Russell had one his team, he was never better than the 2nd best scorer and he was the fourth option on the offensive end most of his career, a fourth option on the offensive end on a normal team Hakeem was in was like Mario Elie, getting my point? Russell played with the best of his era, players like Bill Sharman, Bob Cousy, Tom Heinsohn, Frank Ramsay, Sam Jones, KC Jones, John Havlicek, Bailey Howell. I've probably forgot some great player now but I hope you're getting my point, it would be strange if he wouldn't have won all those titles than normal if he wouldn't, just look at these players, if Bill Russell wasn't more than the 4th option on the offensive end for the most of his career it says pretty much of the greatness of his teammates.

While Russell was the 4th option on the offensive end Hakeem was like the nr 1 option in Houston for like more than 15 years and the nr option on the defensive end. Those Boston-teams with Bill in 'em wouldn't have been as great without him but they would still have one a couple of titles with those players with out no doubt, ant of those championteams with Hakeem in it would have been in the lottery pick without The Dream. Hakeem had a much bigger part in the winning than Russell had and that's the truth.

I didn't really compare Russell and Hakeem as to who had the more contributions to his team, that's for another topic. But if we are to make assumptions, let's make assumptions for everyone. Karl Malone would win multiple titles if he played for a team like the Lakers. So would Barkley. Magic wouldn't win titles if he played for the Clippers. Jordan wouldn't win titles if he played for the Kings of his era. Like it or not, luck does play a role to a player's place in history.
BTW, Russell might be the 4th option in scoring, but his overall offensive presence was much more important than this, due to his great passing, offensive rebounding and fast break opening.


And c'mon, no way Wilt faced better Centers during his career, 6 of those who are considered as being among the 10 best Center by all-time played during Hakeem's era. Nate Thurmond, Walt Bellamy, Clyde Lovette, Willis Reed are no where close to the centers Hakeem faced, Shaq, Jabbar, Moses, Robinson, Ewing, Walton etc.. Hell, even Mourning had greater stats and would play all those you mentioned.

And Patrick Ewing is better than any center Bill Russell and Wilt faced during their career.

Among the centers you mentioned, Hakeem faced Moses only during the end of his prime. Also, Walton has no job there, since, after 1978, he never again became the player he once was. He was a valuable 6th player for the Celtics in 1986, but of course that's not enough to qualify him. The centers I mentioned are not the only great ones Wilt faced. He also faced Kareem, Unseld, Lanier, Cowens. Add the fact that all these were spread in 10-15 teams (compared to 23-29 for Hakeem's opponents) and it's becoming pretty clear that Wilt had actually a lot of competition. Hey, he actually faced Bill Russell alone more times than Hakeem faced Shaq, Robinson, Ewing and Zo combined. To be exact, Wilt faced Russell 142 times, while Hakeem faced the 4 guys mentioned above 29+48+34+15=126 times. And that's considering the fact that Wilt and Russell faced each other for "only" 10 years (1960-1969), while Hakeem faced all these opponents from 1986 (for Ewing) to the end of his career (2002). So, the more you elaborate on it, the more clear it's becoming what a blatant lie it is that Wilt faced no competition compared to Hakeem.


And c'mon, mentioning guys like Ervin Johnson (the guy that played Dream for 10 minutes in a playoff-series), Vlade and Lister as Dream's opponents' a joke. You forgot when The Dream dominated 3 of the 10 best centers in the two titleruns and dominating them all and Dream faced 6 of 10 best centers during his career when Wilt and Russell only faced each other from the 10 best center-list.

No, I didn't forget this great 2 year title run, but, unlike others, I know that Hakeem wasn't always that dominant neither did he face that good opponents all the time. If that was the case, Hakeem should be a very valid option for being the greatest overall player ever.


LOL. This coming from a guy with a Wes Unseld avatar.

Get outta here sucka

And this coming from a guy who uses expressions like "Get outta here sucka", followed by a rolling emoticon and that comprises like 40% of his response. Give me the Unseld guy.

(Although I strongly feel you're just trying to be annoying :) )

[OutOfPlace]

And this coming from a guy who uses expressions like "Get outta here sucka", followed by a rolling emoticon and that comprises like 40% of his response. Give me the Unseld guy.

(Although I strongly feel you're just trying to be annoying :) )

Look Alex Delarge, I can assure you that I'm not trying to be annoying. I'm just trying to see things objectively.

[haji_d_robertas]

Look Alex Delarge, I can assure you that I'm not trying to be annoying. I'm just trying to see things objectively.

This is not objective:


Wilt and Russell shouldn't even be in the argument. Put either of them in today's game and they'd be struggling to make it off the D-league bench.

This is speculative.

[OutOfPlace]

Yep. Objective speculation.

Wilt, Russell or any other 60's scrub would be nothing more than a designated towel waver today. In the D-league. A European D-league.

[Hehe]

Wow, it was easy to forget Schrempf, ha? You know the Power Forward-Center

Schrempf was a PC/C? News to me

[Manute for Ever!]

Yep. Objective speculation.

Wilt, Russell or any other 60's scrub would be nothing more than a designated towel waver today. In the D-league. A European D-league.

Care to give an original reason why, as opposed to the same crap you guys spew that constantly gets debunked?

C'mon, Adam and Jamie are waiting

http://charliedean.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/mythbusters_iso.jpg

[Jimmy2k8]

BULLS certainly turned a number of people on this board to Brainwashed morons.

I propose that a forum should be made in honour of BULLS. I got it....the First Church of BULLS.

[OutOfPlace]

Care to give an original reason why, as opposed to the same crap you guys spew that constantly gets debunked?

C'mon, Adam and Jamie are waiting



How about this:

Wilt, Russell and other 60's scrubs would be outclassed in terms of strength, conditioning and athleticism by today's players. 60's players possessed very little basketball skill, as evidenced by the extant clips which show a league that resembles something played by 12 year olds. 12 year olds in the junior special olympics.

[Scott Pippen]

60's players possessed very little basketball skill, as evidenced by the extant clips which show a league that resembles something played by 12 year olds. 12 year olds in the junior special olympics.


you have confused fancy moves with fundamental basketball skills. Read below about Wilt greatness



* Former Celtics guard K.C. Jones remembered his casual run-in with Wilt. "He stopped me dead in my tracks with his arm, hugged me and lifted me off the floor with my feet dangling," Jones said. "It scared the hell out of me. When I went to the free-throw line, my legs were still shaking. Wilt was the strongest guy and best athlete ever to play the game. [Source: Goliath's Wonderful Life, Hoop Magazine; May 1999; Chris Ekstrand]

* Several years after Wilt stopped playing, he toyed with the idea of a comeback. On the day he visited the Knicks' offices in Madison Square Garden, he talked to Red Holzman, then strode out to the elevator. When it opened, two deliverymen were struggling with a dolly piled high with boxes of office supplies, mostly letterheads and envelopes. The load was so heavy, the elevator had stopped maybe four inches below the floor level and now the deliverymen were huffing and puffing, but they couldn't raise the dolly high enough to get it on the floor level. After maybe two minutes of the deliverymen's huffing and puffing, Wilt, his biceps bulging in a tank top, peered down at them and intoned, "Gentlemen, maybe I can help." They stepped back, he stepped into the elevator, grabbed each end of the rope slung under the dolly and without much exertion, quickly lifted the dolly onto the floor level. Looking up in awe, the deliverymen said, "Thank you." Wilt said, "You're welcome." Wilt stepped into the elevator and rode down to the street level as another witness followed the two deliverymen toward the Knick offices and asked, "How much does all this weigh?" They quickly surveyed the stack of big boxes of office supplies. "Close to 600 pounds," one said. [Source: The Good Natured Giant Wasn't Belligerent, Sports of the Times; Oct 13, 1999; Dave Anderson]


"When challenged, Wilt could do almost anything he wanted. In 1961 a new star named Walt Bellamy came into the league. Bellamy was 6-foot-10, and was scoring 30 points a game. First time they played against each other, they met at half court. Bellamy said, 'Hello, Mr. Chamberlain. I'm Walter Bellamy.' Chamberlain reached for Bellamy's hand and said, 'Hello, Walter. You won't get a shot off in the first half.' Wilt then blocked Bellamy's first nine shots. At the start of the second half Wilt said to Bellamy, 'Okay, Walter. Now you can play.'"


* "What's unfortunate is that most people regard the great leapers as being only the short guys who could dunk," said the 7-1 1/16 Wilt Chamberlain. "My sergeant [vertical leap] was higher than Michael Jordan's. When I went to Kansas, they had a 12-foot basket in the gym, because Dr. Phog Allen was advocating the 12-foot basket. I used to dunk on that basket. It was an effort, but I could do it." [2]

* Wilt Chamberlain claims that his sergeant, during his prime, was "46 to 48 inches, easy."

* Darrall Imhoff, who as a 6-foot-10 rookie center for the New York Knicks had the misfortune of guarding Chamberlain during his 100-point game in 1962, said, "I spent 12 years in his armpits, and I always carried that 100-point game on my shoulders. "After I got my third foul, I said to one of the officials, Willy Smith, 'Why don't you just give him 100 points and we'll all go home?' Well, we did." Two nights later, at Madison Square Garden, Chamberlain tried to go for the century mark again. But Imhoff held him to 54 points. The fans gave Imhoff a standing ovation. "He was an amazing, strong man," Imhoff said. "I always said the greatest record he ever held wasn't 100 points, but his 55 rebounds against Bill Russell. Those two players changed the whole game of basketball. The game just took an entire step up to the next level." [1]

* Former NBA center and Chicago Bull coach Johnny "Red" Kerr, who played part of one season in Philadelphia with Wilt and against him for six-plus years, said, "He was the NBA. He was the guy on the top. Wilt was the guy you talked about--he and Bill Russell. He was the most dominating center--the best center to ever play in the NBA."

# "Chamberlain played the game the same way Russell did, except he scored so much more. But his teams had to get more points from him. He'd score 45 points and his teams would still lose."
# "Wilt had to fight people's dissatisfaction that his teams didn't win. There he was, this great dominating player, and his teams didn't win championships. Well, Wilt wasn't playing for the right team. As an individual, he was in a class by himself, but his teammates--they were OK, but not the supporting cast Russell had."
# "If you want to get Wilt ticked off or bitter, just mention Bill Russell. You will incite him."

In 1982, when he was 45 and Philadelphia 76er owner Harold Katz was hot after him, the Houston Chronicle's George White asked Elvin Hayes if Chamberlain could still play. "Some things about Wilt, you never forgot," Hayes said. "He was such an awesome physical specimen. To go up under Wilt Chamberlain, to be down there and look up at him when he's towering up over you waiting to dunk, was a terrifying picture. To see him poised up there, knowing he was about to sweep down with that big jam . . . that must be the most frightening sight in sports. The ball goes shooting through the net and you better have your body covered up because he could really hurt someone. I was scared. Everyone was scared when he got that look in his eye, that don't-try-to-stop-this look that he got when he really wanted it. . . . "I think Russell realized there was no way he could have stopped Wilt if he had been fully intent on making it a two-man game. No one who ever put on a uniform could have done it. When I played him, I kept this foremost in my mind: Above all, don't make him mad. Don't embarrass him. You wanted to keep him quiet as long as possible."











so please don't disrespect the late great Wilt Chamberlain:no:

[Manute for Ever!]

How about this:

Wilt, Russell and other 60's scrubs would be outclassed in terms of strength, conditioning and athleticism by today's players. 60's players possessed very little basketball skill, as evidenced by the extant clips which show a league that resembles something played by 12 year olds. 12 year olds in the junior special olympics.

I said new arguments, genius. Do you think if they were playing today they would be travelling by bus a lot, using equipment and doing drills that are half a century old, eating crap, while their teammates and opponents use a modern weight room, modern training facilities, up to date coaching, first class travel, nutritionalists.....

http://www.c0t0d0s0.org/uploads/biometrics.serendipityThumb.jpg

[OutOfPlace]

I said new arguments, genius. Do you think if they were playing today they would be travelling by bus a lot, using equipment and doing drills that are half a century old, eating crap, while their teammates and opponents use a modern weight room, modern training facilities, up to date coaching, first class travel, nutritionalists.....


LOL. Dude, we are discussing how they would fair if taken directly from the 60's and placed on the court. Not if they had all the advantages associated with modern day players.

In the scenario I outlined, a guy like Wilt would be liable to get owned by the Brendan Haywood's and Brad Miller's of the world.

[Manute for Ever!]

LOL. Dude, we are discussing how they would far if taken directly from the 60's and placed on the court. Not if they had all the advantages associated with modern day players.

In the scenario I outlined, a guy like Wilt would be liable to get owned by the Brendan Haywood's and Brad Miller's of the world.

I would still see Wilt being a hybrid David Robinson / Shaq and Bill Russell would be Big Ben / Camby with heart.

[OutOfPlace]

I would still see Wilt being a hybrid David Robinson / Shaq and Bill Russell would be Big Ben / Camby with heart.

I could see him waving a towl at the end of the bench drinking gatorade.

[rzp]

irony about Shaq : people are always talking about his lack of work ethic ,lazyness ,always out of shape...but when it comes to compare to old guys , people come with the "modern training","advanced nutricion" ;then suddenly Shaq turns into a machine , a product of the new tecnology ,suddenly his body is a product of the new Nature

[haji_d_robertas]

Yep. Objective speculation.

Wilt, Russell or any other 60's scrub would be nothing more than a designated towel waver today. In the D-league. A European D-league.

It's Deja Vu all over again. Time to step off, nitwit. Bye.

[D-Fence]

George Mikan was the most dominating center ever. And, he did dominate a few 6'5" white centers (take that Leroy "Cowboy" Edwards, may you rest in peace). He whopped on some 6'4" black centers, too (historical ignorance and racism to boot--not a good combination), like Goose Tatum and Dolly King. But, still, once Mikan got to the NBA, most of the centers were at least listed at 6'8", or a 6'6" forward-center. Not that size mattered when you had two or three players from the opposition guarding you.

Big deal Mikan was slow and unathletic--didn't stop him from tearing apart the strategy of smaller, quicker centers (as in 6-8 to 6-9, 200 lbs to 220 listed) trying to out run him up and down the court. NBA pivots his own size didn't stand a chance (Don Otten, Ray Felix, a few others who didn't have pro ball careers worth much mention), either.

Ya know, there was a 6-8 or so forward, who had three-point range, and could rebound with the best bigs back in the 1950s: Dolph Schayes. Pretty impressive that Mikan played in an era when a man three inches above the average center height in Russell and Chamberlain's era played like Larry Bird ripped him off.

Mikan dunked the ball in college, stopped in the NBA when it was frowned upon, could knock down a mid-range set shot, shoot hooks with either hand, throw elbows and his weight around like an old, grainy, black-and-white, highlight film of Shaq. He could even put the ball on the court for a few dribbles and pass out of double teams. So what if it was sometimes awkward-looking. Probably not as impressive as his teammate (another center-sized forward at 6-4) Jim Pollard, the "Kangaroo Kid" dunking the ball from the charity stripe during warmups, though.

Mikan didn't have protein shakes, private planes, Air Jordans, lots and lots of money and benefits, but he did play in the NBA Finals wearing a cast over his fractured right wrist. The only time he lost in the Playoffs (aside for the failed comeback season... as though Jordan was the first) was when he wore a medieval cast-iron on his broken ankle.

Mikan only played during the shot-clock era during his failed comeback. If he had played outside the deadball era, I'm sure it would've ended his dominance as did banning defensive goaltending, ending the center jump after about every possession, widening the lane, and trying 12-foot baskets one game. It wouldn't be because he wasn't competitive enough, though. As he once said to his mother after beating his own brother (Ed Mikan, at 6-8, another overly-sized center even in the Russell-Chamberlain era) on the hardwood, "Momma, we were playing a game. If you had been in there, I'd have hit you, too." I'm certain, too, that if we had a time machine and used it to transport George Mikan to the present day, he'd destroy any organized game of mid-schoolers we unleashed him on.


If not Mikan, then I'll go with Bob Kurland. The NBA was so weak back then that Kurland decided to play AAU ball instead. And, in college, he could defend George Mikan. By the way, despite being all the way back in the 1940s, he was a goaltending, dunking legit 7-footer. And white.

[momo]

Wilt and Russell shouldn't even be in the argument. Put either of them in today's game and they'd be struggling to make it off the D-league bench.

I can see people downgrading Russell in todays game. Not that it pertains to the topic of greatness, but I can see it. Bill would probably be a role player in the league nowadays. Not in the D league.

But Wilt? Be serious. He was athletic as hell, strong as hell and would actually be better nowadays. Saying he would be a scrub is just junk. Wilt would be a year in, year out all star.

Have a reverse finger role and remember, crack kills.

[Manute for Ever!]

It's Deja Vu all over again.

:oldlol:

[millwad]

In which way did Hakeem get "seriously limited by nobodies"? The dude had as I said earlier more than 18 ppg, 10 rebounds, 2.5 assists and 2 blocks per game against a team with great big-men in Schrempf, Kemp and Perkins (Perkins was 1 year older than Olajuwon, don't talk bs about age) and great players in general who went on playing the Bulls in the finals and they took the series to 6 games.

So please, that's not getting seriously limited by nobodies, first of all, he had great stats against a team that good and second, Schrempf, Kemp and Perkins ain't "nobodies". Now that you talked smack about Hakeem getting limited by nobodies, give me a true example of him getting likited by nobodies, and not losing a series against the 2nd best team in the league while putting on good numbers.

That is true actually and I agree with you that luck has alot of doing with winning in general. What I'm saying though is that Hakeem had alot more part in winning those titles than Bill ever had with the Celtics. The fact that Bill Russell was the 4th option for the most of time one the offensive end says pretty much about the depth of those celtic-teams AND the Celtics would still have won a couple of titles without Russell and you got to agree with me on that one, he played with at least 2 HOF:ers or all-stars during his whole career.

Without Hakeem the Rockets wouldn't even have been in the playoffs those years they won back-to-back titles, in the first title-run Hakeem was MVP, DPOY and Finals MVP and this while being the only all-star on the team. Hakeem was killing on defense, being the DPOY he was very important for the Rockets defense and he wasn't voted the MVP for being bad offensively, 95% of the offensiveplays included at least one touch by The Dream.

In the 2nd titlerun he played Robinson in the WCF who was the MVP of the league and played Shaq in the finals and the Rockets swept them.
So what I'm saying is, Hakeem had a MUCH more part in the winning of his titles than Bill ever had, Bill was great but so was his teammates, being the 4th best scorer of his team says much about the greatness of his teammates.


You're a joke, you begin with saying that Hakeem only faced Malone in the end of his prime (which is not true, Moses but up big numbers and played great for more than 6 years after Hakeem entered the league, only Moses putting on 20+ seasons in scoring is more seasons than Wilt faced any of those last players you mentioned) but then you mention Wilt playing Kareem for 4 years when Wilt wasn't even in his true prime or Lanier and Cowens for 3and the poor Clyde Lovellette for 5 when Clyde was pretty far from his prime. Suddenly Moses 11 years in a league with Olajuwon in it which 6 year of those he put on big numbers and had 20+ seasons in scoring looks like more competition than playing Lanier and Cowens for 3 years (in 2 seasons really, he only played 12 games in one of those seasons against Kareem, Lanier and Cowens) and a non-prime Lovellette for 5 years?

And when you said that Wilt and Russell played each other more times than Hakeem playing some of the HOF-centers during his career is not because the league being better, less teams was probably because there wasn't enough good players, it makes no sense that the league would be that small with like 10 teams, there wasn't enough good players probably, eitherwise they would be idiots. And with less teams, it easier to win it all... So what MJ did is in my book a bigger accomplishment than what the Celtics did and Hakeem played in the better era and against better players on every single position.


http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1320/1408067140_236dc13920.jpg

"I know this like Oliver Miller knows food!"- Millwad

[nycelt84]

That is true actually and I agree with you that luck has alot of doing with winning in general. What I'm saying though is that Hakeem had alot more part in winning those titles than Bill ever had with the Celtics. The fact that Bill Russell was the 4th option for the most of time one the offensive end says pretty much about the depth of those celtic-teams AND the Celtics would still have won a couple of titles without Russell and you got to agree with me on that one, he played with at least 2 HOF:ers or all-stars during his whole career.


In the 2nd titlerun he played Robinson in the WCF who was the MVP of the league and played Shaq in the finals and the Rockets swept them.
So what I'm saying is, Hakeem had a MUCH more part in the winning of his titles than Bill ever had, Bill was great but so was his teammates, being the 4th best scorer of his team says much about the greatness of his teammates.



And when you said that Wilt and Russell played each other more times than Hakeem playing some of the HOF-centers during his career is not because the league being better, less teams was probably because there wasn't enough good players, it makes no sense that the league would be that small with like 10 teams, there wasn't enough good players probably, eitherwise they would be idiots. And with less teams, it easier to win it all... So what MJ did is in my book a bigger accomplishment than what the Celtics did and Hakeem played in the better era and against better players on every single position.

Before Russell came the Celtics won 0 championships and were considered to be a vastly underachieving team. There were actual calls for Red Auerbach's firing because of playoff failure after playoff failure. The Celtics traded 2 Hall of Famers in Cliff Hagan and Ed Macauley just to get Russell. In Russell's 1st year they finally won a championship and went on to win 11 overall with Russell. If you ask Red Auerbach, Bob Cousy or any Celtic from that era they will tell you Bill Russell is the reason why they won all 11 of those championships. Bill Russell was the Celtics.

[millwad]

Before Russell came the Celtics won 0 championships and were considered to be a vastly underachieving team. There were actual calls for Red Auerbach's firing because of playoff failure after playoff failure. The Celtics traded 2 Hall of Famers in Cliff Hagan and Ed Macauley just to get Russell. In Russell's 1st year they finally won a championship and went on to win 11 overall with Russell. If you ask Red Auerbach, Bob Cousy or any Celtic from that era they will tell you Bill Russell is the reason why they won all 11 of those championships. Bill Russell was the Celtics.

In his first year he played with, Bob Cousy, Bill Sharman, Tom Heinsohn, Frank Ramsey. You're acting like he was the whole team, he was the 4th best scorer, a 4th best scorer on a regular team wouldn't be Bill Russell, it would be like a Radmanovic.

[nycelt84]

In his first year he played with, Bob Cousy, Bill Sharman, Tom Heinsohn, Frank Ramsey. You're acting like he was the whole team, he was the 4th best scorer, a 4th best scorer on a regular team wouldn't be Bill Russell, it would be like a Radmanovic.

Bill Russell was better than Cousy, Sharman, Heinsohn, and Ramsey. Russell was a MVP in his 2nd season, 1961-1963 and 1965. He was their leader the Captain. Basketball isn't just about scoring. Those guys never won nothing without Bill Russell. The only reason they lost the Finals in '58 is because Russell was injured. Lakers head coach John Kundla praised Russell, stating, “We don’t fear the Celtics without Bill Russell. Take him out and we can beat them… He’s the guy who whipped us psychologically."

[AItheAnswer3]

1. Kareem
2. Wilt
3. Hakeem
4. Shaq
5. Russell

[Kiddlovesnets]

Wilt is way better than any other centers in NBA, end of the thread.

[millwad]

[QUOTE=nycelt84]Bill Russell was better than Cousy, Sharman, Heinsohn, and Ramsey. Russell was a MVP in his 2nd season, 1961-1963 and 1965. He was their leader the Captain. Basketball isn't just about scoring. Those guys never won nothing without Bill Russell. The only reason they lost the Finals in '58 is because Russell was injured. Lakers head coach John Kundla praised Russell, stating,

[Lax4422Chik1342]

Before Russell came the Celtics won 0 championships and were considered to be a vastly underachieving team. There were actual calls for Red Auerbach's firing because of playoff failure after playoff failure. The Celtics traded 2 Hall of Famers in Cliff Hagan and Ed Macauley just to get Russell. In Russell's 1st year they finally won a championship and went on to win 11 overall with Russell. If you ask Red Auerbach, Bob Cousy or any Celtic from that era they will tell you Bill Russell is the reason why they won all 11 of those championships. Bill Russell was the Celtics.

Bill Russell is the reason that Arnold Red Auerbach was able to light up all those cigars, and Red knew it which is why he passed the baton to William Fenton Russell

[nycelt84]

Turn it around, Bill Russell never won anything without those guys, always had 3 HOF:ers on his team.

And I never said that basketball was all about scoring but I'm only saying this, a player can't be called the best Center by all-time when he was only great at one side of the court. He wasn't a great scorer at all, it wasn't like he was letting all the Heinshon's, Cousy's, Sharman's and Havlicek's do the scoring because he was trying to get them involved, the case was that he was a weak offensive player, he may have the assists on his side, 4.3 during his career is great but he wasn't a good offensive player at all, 44% from the field is his career average, that is terrible, though worst of all is his FT-shooting, he was almost as bad as Shaq from the line and everyone is hating on Shaq for being crap from the line but it's not often someone talks about Russell choking from the line, at least Shaq has a high FG-percentage, Russell doesn't.

I repeat they were considered a team of underachievers who never won anything before Bill came. What's so hard to understand about this? Bll Russell was universally considered the best player on every one ecof those Celtics teams and the reason why they won so much. Bill Russell was named Athlete Of The Decade for the 1960's above Wilt Chamberlain. He was 5 time league MVP. In 1980 he was declared the best NBA player ever by the Professional Basketball Writers Association of America. Red Auerbach used to say he was the GOAT. The man won in college won in the Olympics and won in the NBA. There is a strong case for Bill Russell to be Number 1 center and was at one time considered by many to be the GOAT.

[Jimmy2k8]

You all forget how good Russell was on defense and rebounding.

[Lebron23]

Wilt is way better than any other centers in NBA, end of the thread.


How many Wilt Chamberlain games had you watched during the 1960's? :)

[millwad]

I repeat they were considered a team of underachievers who never won anything before Bill came. What's so hard to understand about this? Bll Russell was universally considered the best player on every one ecof those Celtics teams and the reason why they won so much. Bill Russell was named Athlete Of The Decade for the 1960's above Wilt Chamberlain. He was 5 time league MVP. In 1980 he was declared the best NBA player ever by the Professional Basketball Writers Association of America. Red Auerbach used to say he was the GOAT. The man won in college won in the Olympics and won in the NBA. There is a strong case for Bill Russell to be Number 1 center and was at one time considered by many to be the GOAT.

In the 60's he was the best... No way he could dominate in the 80's NBA. Dude was 6'10 without any kind of great talent on the offensive end. He would have been a good roleplayer in the 80's and 90's. You gotta understand that the NBA of the 50's and 60's was weak vs. 80's and 90's NBA. It's one thing to say that Bill Russell had a great career and was the best of his time BUT you can't honestly believe for a second that Bill Russell from the 60's could do any harm or limit players like Shaquille O'neal and Olajuwon in anyway. Basketball wasn't the same in the 80's as in 60's, it developed, players got bigger, stronger, smarter and better. A Bill Russell from the 60's would be equal to todays Ben Wallace, a great, though small defensive player, he wouldn't do a smack on the offensive end. Have you ever seen a game where Bill played in? The dude grabbed the rebound and took some silly looking bounces up the court as a freaking center and no one came in his way and he passed the ball to a teammate after as a center dribbling up the whole court or took a shot at the basket. Have you ever seen a Jabbar or Olajuwon do that crap? No, because there were no chance they could do something that easy in their era, the guards would strip them easily and it wasn't like a guy like Olajuwon had bad handles, he was a good dribbler for his size but there was no way they could do such things that easily. Just look at some old games, it's not the same game ffs, look at the dribbling, the shooting and passing, those guys from the 60's would get played by todays player. Like put a Deron Williams on Bob Cousy, that would be a fun game to watch...

[Psileas]

In which way did Hakeem get "seriously limited by nobodies"? The dude had as I said earlier more than 18 ppg, 10 rebounds, 2.5 assists and 2 blocks per game against a team with great big-men in Schrempf, Kemp and Perkins (Perkins was 1 year older than Olajuwon, don't talk bs about age) and great players in general who went on playing the Bulls in the finals and they took the series to 6 games.

So please, that's not getting seriously limited by nobodies, first of all, he had great stats against a team that good and second, Schrempf, Kemp and Perkins ain't "nobodies". Now that you talked smack about Hakeem getting limited by nobodies, give me a true example of him getting likited by nobodies, and not losing a series against the 2nd best team in the league while putting on good numbers.

You keep posting these stats and I agree that they are generally good numbers if we're talking about a marginally good center. They are not good numbers though for Hakeem, who, during the season, posted averages of almost 27 ppg, 11 rpg, 3+ apg, 3 bpg. How can someone excuse a 6-point, 4-rebound game? Hakeem had much better series against much better defenders than Perkins, Schrempf and even Kemp. I'm still trying to find a rationale how someone who knows how good Hakeem actually was can consider this series good or even standard.


That is true actually and I agree with you that luck has alot of doing with winning in general. What I'm saying though is that Hakeem had alot more part in winning those titles than Bill ever had with the Celtics. The fact that Bill Russell was the 4th option for the most of time one the offensive end says pretty much about the depth of those celtic-teams AND the Celtics would still have won a couple of titles without Russell and you got to agree with me on that one, he played with at least 2 HOF:ers or all-stars during his whole career.

Doesn't matter as much as you make it. Russell was still the man for his teams. He won the MVP's. Not Cousy (except 1957, when he played a part of the season without Russell), not Jones, not Havlicek. Actually, the only cases anyone of his teammates got even close to an MVP was Bob Cousy for a couple of seasons afterwards. And, to repeat: The Celtics never made the finals with Cousy, Sharman, Macauley. The Celtics missed the playoffs entirely with Havlicek, Howell, Jo Jo White.
I'm not going to repeat myself about Russell's role in offense. I'm just going to add that, when Russell retired, Havlicek said the Celtics missed him even more in offense than defense. That has to mean something...


You're a joke, you begin with saying that Hakeem only faced Malone in the end of his prime (which is not true, Moses but up big numbers and played great for more than 6 years after Hakeem entered the league, only Moses putting on 20+ seasons in scoring is more seasons than Wilt faced any of those last players you mentioned) but then you mention Wilt playing Kareem for 4 years when Wilt wasn't even in his true prime or Lanier and Cowens for 3and the poor Clyde Lovellette for 5 when Clyde was pretty far from his prime.

You were the one who mentioned Moses. So why shouldn't I mention Kareem? And you were the one who used the example of a washed-up Bill Walton for Hakeem's opponents. It seems like your jokes are worse than mine...BTW, even past prime Wilt was good enough to hold at times his own against prime Kareem, as he proved in the 1971 and 1972 playoffs.
You want to concentrate on just guys that Wilt and Hakeem faced for multiple seasons? Wilt faced Russell for 10 years. Thurmond for 8.5. Reed for 9. Belamy for 12. I already showed that Wilt faced Russell more times than Hakeem faced all his great rivals combined. If I add the rest of the great centers he faced, it will be a slaughter in favor of Wilt.


And when you said that Wilt and Russell played each other more times than Hakeem playing some of the HOF-centers during his career is not because the league being better, less teams was probably because there wasn't enough good players, it makes no sense that the league would be that small with like 10 teams, there wasn't enough good players probably, eitherwise they would be idiots. And with less teams, it easier to win it all... So what MJ did is in my book a bigger accomplishment than what the Celtics did and Hakeem played in the better era and against better players on every single position.

I can almost assure you, the possibilities to win 11 titles in 13 years in a 10-12 team league are comparable to (if not still smaller than) winning 6 in 13 years in a 27-29 team league.


and Hakeem played in the better era and against better players on every single position.

When you consider the average opponent, absolutely not, and I already showed you why. Having to face 5 great opponents spread in 30 teams is nowhere near as tough as to face 3 spread in 10.


In his first year he played with, Bob Cousy, Bill Sharman, Tom Heinsohn, Frank Ramsey. You're acting like he was the whole team, he was the 4th best scorer, a 4th best scorer on a regular team wouldn't be Bill Russell, it would be like a Radmanovic.

Maybe because the Celtics were a little deeper than the current Lakers, perhaps?


In the 60's he was the best... No way he could dominate in the 80's NBA. Dude was 6'10 without any kind of great talent on the offensive end. He would have been a good roleplayer in the 80's and 90's. You gotta understand that the NBA of the 50's and 60's was weak vs. 80's and 90's NBA. It's one thing to say that Bill Russell had a great career and was the best of his time BUT you can't honestly believe for a second that Bill Russell from the 60's could do any harm or limit players like Shaquille O'neal and Olajuwon in anyway. Basketball wasn't the same in the 80's as in 60's, it developed, players got bigger, stronger, smarter and better. A Bill Russell from the 60's would be equal to todays Ben Wallace, a great, though small defensive player, he wouldn't do a smack on the offensive end. Have you ever seen a game where Bill played in? The dude grabbed the rebound and took some silly looking bounces up the court as a freaking center and no one came in his way and he passed the ball to a teammate after as a center dribbling up the whole court or took a shot at the basket. Have you ever seen a Jabbar or Olajuwon do that crap? No, because there were no chance they could do something that easy in their era, the guards would strip them easily and it wasn't like a guy like Olajuwon had bad handles, he was a good dribbler for his size but there was no way they could do such things that easily. Just look at some old games, it's not the same game ffs, look at the dribbling, the shooting and passing, those guys from the 60's would get played by todays player. Like put a Deron Williams on Bob Cousy, that would be a fun game to watch...

The same "time machine" crap, once again?
Russell was one of the best athletes ever for his size, he was a world-class high-jumper, he was a runner, plus he had a basketball IQ off the charts. He revolutionized pretty much anything not concerning scoring: Team defense, blocking, dribbling and passing for a big man, rebounding. And all these while having the doubtful luxury to watch only George Mikan play. Take a today's child and expose it to '50's basketball alone and I assure you he won't play anything like today's game. Take a young Bill Russell and expose him to modern basketball and he becomes a modern day marvel, dominating the league. I don't care where you'll plant him, 80's, 90's, 2100's, he'll still find a way to dominate. That's what all-time greats are all about. They transcent eras. Imagining Bill Russell sucking at modern basketball is like imagining Newton sucking at today's physics. It's just not happening.

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

1st Kareem: most MVPs ever, rings, kicked butt in both 70s and 80s, played against clearly tough centers.

Wilt
Russell
Hakeem
Shaq

[millwad]

I wasn't happy after that series at all but that is not "being seriously limited by nobodies" for the 100th time. You brought it up so tell me a freaking time when he was seriously limited by nobdies, I don't consider a team with great big men who made the finals aand gave one of the best teams of basketball history a tough series in the finals as nobodies so freaking tell me when he was freaking "seriously limited by nobodies" often. You have given me one example and he wasn't seriously limited at all and it wasn't any nobodies.

Listen to what I'm saying, I'm not saying that he wasn't the best of the teams he played with, I did never say that but what I am saying is, he had very good teammates and those he played with wasn't named HOF and 50 greatest for nothing, they were damn good. Oh and bs about they missed him in the offense more than the defense, a crappy offensive player who was like 44 % from the field and almost as bad as Shaq from the line and in terms of assists he only handed out like 2 more than Hakeem for his career so it wasn't that either.

Prime Moses vs Prime Hakeem for 6 years isn't like an old non-prime Wilt vs prime Jabbar for four years. And Thurmond, Reed and Bellamy weren't close to Shaq, Moses, Mourning, Ewing, Robinson etc.

And please, add the rest of the great centers Wilt faced.


Bill played with the greatest of his time and what I tried to say was that Hakeem played with random-players who really wasn't that good and still managed to make them winners. When you say that Bill took a bunch of underachievers and made them winning, what did Hakeem do then? Magic?
Bill led Havlicek, Cousy, Howell, Sharman, KC Jones, Heinsohn, Ramsey, Sam Jones to titles.Under Houston's very first title ever, Hakeem led Kenny Smith, Robert Horry, Mario Elie (starter who bounced around the league after coming from CBA and some stint in Portugal), Maxwell (No, not the one you think about, Vernon), rookie Sam Cassell, Carl Herrera, Thorpe (the one-time all-star), Scott Brooks and Bullard, these players were starters or role players, do you see the difference between a random Bill Russell team and this team which won all thanks to the Dream?

Tell me this, are trying to tell me that Bill Russell from the 60's was a better baller than Dream or that he accomplished greater things than Dream? Knowing that would make this discussion hell alot easiser. Of course he accomplished greater things but there's no way that he was a better baller.

[TBurge]

I would put Shaq at number one during his prime years. People forget how good he was. I remember watching the Pacers get destroyed by him.

[millwad]

I would put Shaq at number one during his prime years. People forget how good he was. I remember watching the Pacers get destroyed by him.

Yeah, me too. I just loved how Shaq dominated Smits in his last year as a NBA-player and Dale Davis in that series, I was like, "WOW"! And the thing that impressed me the most was that Shaq was 30.6% from the line.

[Manute for Ever!]

Imagining Bill Russell sucking at modern basketball is like imagining Newton sucking at today's physics. It's just not happening.

Great analogy and whole-heartedly agree :applause:

[haji_d_robertas]

Tell me this, are trying to tell me that Bill Russell from the 60's was a better baller than Dream or that he accomplished greater things than Dream? Knowing that would make this discussion hell alot easiser. Of course he accomplished greater things but there's no way that he was a better baller.

Prove it.

[SirLaker]

Kareem is number one. I want to argue but I'm extremely tired. I'LL BE BACK> :cheers:

[millwad]

Prove it.

Ask, Wesley Snipes. Oh, my bad, I meant Unseld.

[Psileas]

I wasn't happy after that series at all but that is not "being seriously limited by nobodies" for the 100th time. You brought it up so tell me a freaking time when he was seriously limited by nobdies, I don't consider a team with great big men who made the finals aand gave one of the best teams of basketball history a tough series in the finals as nobodies so freaking tell me when he was freaking "seriously limited by nobodies" often. You have given me one example and he wasn't seriously limited at all and it wasn't any nobodies.

If you seriously believe that facing a drop in practically every category, including a drop of more than 30% in scoring isn't a serious limitation, what can I say. I'm not blind. I've seen Hakeem perform at his best, I've seen him perform at his average, but most of his performances in that series can't qualify even as average. I've already explained why I consider these guys nobodies. Hakeem was usually guarded by either Ervin Johnson or Sam Perkins. Ervin was a scrub, Perkins was a soft rebounder and defender. There's no way this can qualify as good competition.

And since you're so resistant about this, let me also bring this back: Who were all these "white midgets" Russell and Wilt faced? You made no effort at all to answer this. Maybe because you're wrong?


Listen to what I'm saying, I'm not saying that he wasn't the best of the teams he played with, I did never say that but what I am saying is, he had very good teammates and those he played with wasn't named HOF and 50 greatest for nothing, they were damn good. Oh and bs about they missed him in the offense more than the defense, a crappy offensive player who was like 44 % from the field and almost as bad as Shaq from the line and in terms of assists he only handed out like 2 more than Hakeem for his career so it wasn't that either.

It's not my call, it's Havlicek's call, whose opinion on Russell I'll trust more that yours. Russell's 44% is not the equvalent of 44% today, since the league average FG% was smaller back then. Not that it's great, but it was often better than the average shooting percentage of his team and visibly better than the percentages of star teammates Heinsohn, Cousy and, at times, Havlicek. In thebeginning of his career, he was among the FG% leaders for a few seasons. Also, Russell averaged 4.3 apg for a team that shared the ball a lot and at a time even a passer like Cousy only rarely could break the 8-9 apg barrier.


Prime Moses vs Prime Hakeem for 6 years isn't like an old non-prime Wilt vs prime Jabbar for four years.

Hakeem only very briefly faced prime Moses. Prime Moses was between 1978 and 1985. After then, he still remained a very good player, but not the beast he used to be earlier. Kinda like old Wilt, in other words-BTW, it was Wilt the one who was old, not his competitor (Kareem), so that analogy isn't the same with the Hakeem-Moses one.


And Thurmond, Reed and Bellamy weren't close to Shaq, Moses, Mourning, Ewing, Robinson etc.

OK, you lost the "great names they faced" debate, and now you start switching into the "let's discredit the rest of them" mode. Even if they were not 100% as great, they were still HOF'ers, universally recognised centers among NBA experts and, once again, they were spread in much fewer teams, which means that Wilt had to face them much more often than Hakeem had to face his own greatest rivals.


And please, add the rest of the great centers Wilt faced.

Considering that the NBA in Wilt's era consisted on less teams, there's no need to add more of them on my part. However, when I find the time, I'll show with even more detail how much more often than Hakeem Wilt had to face HOF opponents.


Bill played with the greatest of his time and what I tried to say was that Hakeem played with random-players who really wasn't that good and still managed to make them winners. When you say that Bill took a bunch of underachievers and made them winning, what did Hakeem do then? Magic?

Bill led Havlicek, Cousy, Howell, Sharman, KC Jones, Heinsohn, Ramsey, Sam Jones to titles.Under Houston's very first title ever, Hakeem led Kenny Smith, Robert Horry, Mario Elie (starter who bounced around the league after coming from CBA and some stint in Portugal), Maxwell (No, not the one you think about, Vernon), rookie Sam Cassell, Carl Herrera, Thorpe (the one-time all-star), Scott Brooks and Bullard, these players were starters or role players, do you see the difference between a random Bill Russell team and this team which won all thanks to the Dream?

If we were to judge on how bad teams X player led to the Finals/title during a couple of years, then Hakeem should be the GOAT. Magic led better teams than Hakeem. Bird led better teams than Hakeem. Jordan led better teams than Hakeem. Was Hakeem better than all of them because of this?

Rick Barry led a team with young Phil Smith and Jamaal Wilkes as his best teammates to the 1975 title, including sweeping the favorite, Bullets. He rarely had great teammates in general to win more titles. Does this make Barry greater than Bird?


Tell me this, are trying to tell me that Bill Russell from the 60's was a better baller than Dream or that he accomplished greater things than Dream? Knowing that would make this discussion hell alot easiser. Of course he accomplished greater things but there's no way that he was a better baller.

Maybe he wasn't the better individual player, because Hakeem was clearly the better scorer. But he accomplished more and was possibly the greatest winner ever.

[Lax4422Chik1342]

millwad wrote <<< Tell me this, are trying to tell me that Bill Russell from the 60's was a better baller than Dream or that he accomplished greater things than Dream? Knowing that would make this discussion hell alot easiser. Of course he accomplished greater things but there's no way that he was a better baller. >>>>

If we're talking bout skills set, Russell wasn't even the most talented center of the 60s as both Wilt and Nate Thurmond were superior, that said what Bill Russell is guilty of is having the most abstract approach to the game and a will to win unmatched in team sports history. He literally imposed his mindset on his teammates, he made them better quality players, he made his coach looked goood, all of his hall of fame teammates and those with their numbers retired in the rafters would tell you, it happened because of number 6. His team consistently beat superior talented teams. In locker rooms before games and at half time when the Cees were down the players and Auerbach would all look to Russell with what do we do now look?

I dispise the Celtics for whupping my team so many times, but it doesn't cloud my judgement, I remain objective. The bottom thing is the ring and in 13 seasons, Bill came away with 11 of them. Case Closed!!

[millwad]

I'm still waiting for you to tell me beside the time Hakeem averaged 18 points, 10 rebounds, 2.5 blocks and 2 assists against the 2nd best team in the league, when he was "seriously limited by nobodies often". You've told me one occasion where he was limited and it wasn't against nobodies, it was against the 2nd best team in the league with more than decent big-men.

Hakeem faced prime Moses for 6 seasons, no freaking player average more than 20 ppg and grabbing 10 when they're not in their prime. And Kareem vs Jabbar was like for 4 years when Wilt wasn't in his prime, what I'm saying is that Wilt put on his great numbers against worse players than Jabbar, it wasn't like he dropped 50 on Jabbar while grabbing 40 rebounds and getting dominated isn't something good you're comparing all-time greats.

You don't win something when you call it a win yourself, "great names they faced", how did I lost that, after you comparing guys like Beaty and Lovellette to Robinson and Ewing, look at the other side, homegirl? And why the hell do you think it consisted less teams? Do you think that Hakeem played in a league with like 3 times the teams than the 60's because it was less good? And please, show in detail how much more often than Hakeem Wilt had to face HOF opponents. You seem to have all the time in the world, you have sent almost 2000 comments in 2 years, I think you have some time of your pathetic life over to tell me about Wilt competing more HOF-opponents and opponents better than Malone, Shaq, Russell, Jabbar, Robinson, Mourning and Ewing.

And when I wrote about Hakeem's great performances during those two titleyears I didn't say that make him the G.O.A.T, only that he wasn't as fortunate as Bill Russell to have 3 HOF:ers by his side every year of his career. And that Hakeem meant more those 2 years to his team than Bill Russell ever meant to his team. A Celtic-team in the 60's would still have players like Sharman, Jones, Cousy, Havlicek, Heinsohn, Howell. They would still be very good. A Rocket-team during Hakeem's time would be terrible without Hakeem. So what I'm saying is that you're giving to much credit to Russell when he played with like 3 all-time greats during his whole career. He may have been the leader but it was still a damn good team.

Was it that hard? What I've said is that Hakeem was a better player than Bill Russell, if they would face each other 1 one 1, Bill from the 60's wouldn't have a real chance the level of basketball wasn't the same back in the days when Bill used to kick ass, the game was still pretty new and those players didn't have all these opportunities the players of the 80's had like, make a living when you play basketball, all the medical help after injuries and trainingfacilities. And I'm not saying that he didn't accomplish more than Hakeem, he obviously did that and his 11 titles proves that but you're not getting what I'm saying. Wilt played in a weak era compared to Hakeem's, he had great players by his side which made winning a whole lot easier. What you said about Bill playing with a couple of underachievers, a couple of these underachievers are among the 50 greatest and he had the luck of being with alot of HOF:ers during his career so cut the bs, he was great but you're acting like all the 11 titles was because of him, Bob Cousy is still one of the best PG's by all-time, Bill Sharman is still one of the best players of that era, Havlicek is still one of the best by all-time, Sam Jones is still one of the greats of that era and is among the 50 greatest etc..

[nycelt84]

I'm still waiting for you to tell me beside the time Hakeem averaged 18 points, 10 rebounds, 2.5 blocks and 2 assists against the 2nd best team in the league, when he was "seriously limited by nobodies often". You've told me one occasion where he was limited and it wasn't against nobodies, it was against the 2nd best team in the league with more than decent big-men.

Hakeem faced prime Moses for 6 seasons, no freaking player average more than 20 ppg and grabbing 10 when they're not in their prime. And Kareem vs Jabbar was like for 4 years when Wilt wasn't in his prime, what I'm saying is that Wilt put on his great numbers against worse players than Jabbar, it wasn't like he dropped 50 on Jabbar while grabbing 40 rebounds and getting dominated isn't something good you're comparing all-time greats.

You don't win something when you call it a win yourself, "great names they faced", how did I lost that, after you comparing guys like Beaty and Lovellette to Robinson and Ewing, look at the other side, homegirl? And why the hell do you think it consisted less teams? Do you think that Hakeem played in a league with like 3 times the teams than the 60's because it was less good? And please, show in detail how much more often than Hakeem Wilt had to face HOF opponents. You seem to have all the time in the world, you have sent almost 2000 comments in 2 years, I think you have some time of your pathetic life over to tell me about Wilt competing more HOF-opponents and opponents better than Malone, Shaq, Russell, Jabbar, Robinson, Mourning and Ewing.

And when I wrote about Hakeem's great performances during those two titleyears I didn't say that make him the G.O.A.T, only that he wasn't as fortunate as Bill Russell to have 3 HOF:ers by his side every year of his career. And that Hakeem meant more those 2 years to his team than Bill Russell ever meant to his team. A Celtic-team in the 60's would still have players like Sharman, Jones, Cousy, Havlicek, Heinsohn, Howell. They would still be very good. A Rocket-team during Hakeem's time would be terrible without Hakeem. So what I'm saying is that you're giving to much credit to Russell when he played with like 3 all-time greats during his whole career. He may have been the leader but it was still a damn good team.

Was it that hard? What I've said is that Hakeem was a better player than Bill Russell, if they would face each other 1 one 1, Bill from the 60's wouldn't have a real chance the level of basketball wasn't the same back in the days when Bill used to kick ass, the game was still pretty new and those players didn't have all these opportunities the players of the 80's had like, make a living when you play basketball, all the medical help after injuries and trainingfacilities. And I'm not saying that he didn't accomplish more than Hakeem, he obviously did that and his 11 titles proves that but you're not getting what I'm saying. Wilt played in a weak era compared to Hakeem's, he had great players by his side which made winning a whole lot easier. What you said about Bill playing with a couple of underachievers, a couple of these underachievers are among the 50 greatest and he had the luck of being with alot of HOF:ers during his career so cut the bs, he was great but you're acting like all the 11 titles was because of him, Bob Cousy is still one of the best PG's by all-time, Bill Sharman is still one of the best players of that era, Havlicek is still one of the best by all-time, Sam Jones is still one of the greats of that era and is among the 50 greatest etc..

The point is each and every one of the 11 championships the Celtics won between 1957 and 1967 was because of Bill Russell. The team was considered underachievers before he came with playoff failure after playoff failure and the year he got hurt in 1958 he lost. No Russell=no championships and instead of the 60's Celtics dynasty it would have instead been a Lakers dynasty.

[Lax4422Chik1342]

Millwad wrote <<<< Bill from the 60's wouldn't have a real chance the level of basketball wasn't the same back in the days when Bill used to kick ass, ***** the game was still pretty new ******

You lose credibility when you make an unfounded remark like that. Also, Bill rarely if ever kicked anyone's ass, he had few games of dominanting other centers or being the ace of his own team, however his team always won and isn't that what team sports is all about?

[millwad]

Hakeem kicked ass, Shaq kicked ass, Robinson kicked ass, Jabbar kicked ass, Wilt kicked ass. You're not the best center by all-time (according to some of you) if you don't kick ass and you don't win 11 championships if you don't kick ass.

And it's a fact that the level basketball in the 60' wasn't near as good as the 80's, it's not even the same game, do you think that Wilt would be able to score 100 points in the 80's or 90's? Do you think Wilt would be able to average 50 ppg and grabbing down 26 rpg in a season during the 80's against players like Moses, Olajuwon, Walton, Parish and Jabbar etc. and teams like the 86-celtics, the 90-Detroit or the 87-Lakers or the Bulls of the 90's?? The level of basketball was damn better in the 80's and 90's, no way Wilt could put on those stats in the 80's or 90's and there is no way that Bill Russell from the 60's would be able to be the franchiseplayer of a random-team in 80's and win 11 of the 13 season to come.

[Psileas]

I'm still waiting for you to tell me beside the time Hakeem averaged 18 points, 10 rebounds, 2.5 blocks and 2 assists against the 2nd best team in the league, when he was "seriously limited by nobodies often". You've told me one occasion where he was limited and it wasn't against nobodies, it was against the 2nd best team in the league with more than decent big-men.

Go back to page 2. I know exactly what I wrote and I never used the word "often", so bad effort from your side to misquote me.
If Ervin Johnson and 35-year old Sam Perkins (who was soft anyway) are considered decent competition, I don't want to imagine what "bad competition" would be by your logic.


Hakeem faced prime Moses for 6 seasons, no freaking player average more than 20 ppg and grabbing 10 when they're not in their prime. And Kareem vs Jabbar was like for 4 years when Wilt wasn't in his prime, what I'm saying is that Wilt put on his great numbers against worse players than Jabbar, it wasn't like he dropped 50 on Jabbar while grabbing 40 rebounds and getting dominated isn't something good you're comparing all-time greats.

Wilt was still a 20/20 player when he first faced Kareem and was still the leading rebounder, leader in FG%, obviously among the leading shot-blockers, an MVP candidate and an all-D member in some or even most of these years. If after 1985 Moses can qualify so can 1970-73 Wilt, period.
Wilt may have not scored 50 on Kareem (since he took many shots less than he used to), but he has done so against great competition: He scored 50+ against Russell about 5 times and 40+ countless others, while also grabbing a ****load of rebounds and even writing down some official triple-doubles. He scored 56 against Willis Reed the first time they met and had multiple other prolific games against him. He had some 40-pointers and triple-doubles against Thurmond. And he owned Walt Bellamy to the point of embarassment, averaging almost 55 ppg against him in 1962. Give me one 55-point game Hakeem had against any player ever. ONE. There isn't.


You don't win something when you call it a win yourself, "great names they faced", how did I lost that, after you comparing guys like Beaty and Lovellette to Robinson and Ewing, look at the other side, homegirl? And why the hell do you think it consisted less teams? Do you think that Hakeem played in a league with like 3 times the teams than the 60's because it was less good? And please, show in detail how much more often than Hakeem Wilt had to face HOF opponents. You seem to have all the time in the world, you have sent almost 2000 comments in 2 years, I think you have some time of your pathetic life over to tell me about Wilt competing more HOF-opponents and opponents better than Malone, Shaq, Russell, Jabbar, Robinson, Mourning and Ewing.

:oldlol: I like your personal attacks trying to somehow embarass me.

Since you want it, prepare to get so:

Hakeem's opponents (starting centers) in 1994, game-by-game:

Dwayne Schintzius
Chris Dudley
Victor Alexander
Christian Laettner
A.C. Green
Shawn Bradley
Dwayne Schintzius
Rik Smits
Stanley Roberts
Will Perdue
Felton Spencer
Mike Peplowski
Stanley Roberts
Danny Schayes
Patrick Ewing (Wow, why did it take so long?)
Jon Koncak
Brad Daugherty
Alonzo Mourning
John Salley
Michael Cage
John Salley
Popeye Jones
David Robinson
Dikembe Mutombo
Oliver Miller
Vlade Divac
Michael Cage
Luc Longley
Buck Williams
Popeye Jones
Shawn Bradley
Shaquille O'Neal
Will Perdue
Robert Parish (age: 41)
Dikembe Mutombo
Felton Spencer
Brad Daugherty
Mike Peplowski
Rik Smits
Felton Spencer
Vlade Divac
Luc Longley
Frank Brickowski
Olden Polynice
Jon Koncak
Marty Conlon
Oliver Miller
Dikembe Mutombo
Patrick Ewing
Felton Spencer
Felton Spencer
Shaquille O'Neal
Elmore Spencer
David Robinson
Michael Cage
David Robinson
Greg Dreiling
Buck Williams
Chris Gatling
Greg Anderson
Kevin Duckworth
Stacey King
Vlade Divac
Felton Spencer
Mark West
Chris Webber
Vlade Divac
John Williams
Chris Gatling
David Robinson
Dikembe Mutombo
Christian Laettner
Olden Polynice
Michael Cage
Buck Williams
David Robinson
Sean Rooks
Dikembe Mutombo

Playoffs

Buck Williams
Buck Williams
Chris Dudley
Chris Dudley
Oliver Miller
Oliver Miller
Mark West
Mark West
Mark West
Oliver Miller
Oliver Miller
Felton Spencer
Felton Spencer
Felton Spencer
Felton Spencer
Felton Spencer
Patrick Ewing
Patrick Ewing
Patrick Ewing
Patrick Ewing
Patrick Ewing
Patrick Ewing
Patrick Ewing

That's MVP+champion Olajuwon, during of the Centers' "golden era", when plenty of great centers (Shaq, DRob, Ewing, Zo, Mutombo) are either in their physical/game primes or pretty close to them. However, I'm not exactly blown away by the competition Hakeem faces in a lot of games.

Now, let's compare:

Wilt's opponents (starting centers) in 1967, game-by-game:

(A few games may vary, but not many, since no starting center missed more than 16 games all season)

Walt Bellamy
Zelmo Beaty
Leroy Ellis
Leroy Ellis
Bill Russell
Zelmo Beaty
Nate Thurmond
Bill Russell
Joe Strawder
Erwin Mueller
Connie Dierking (it might very well be Jerry Lucas instead, but let's consider him a PF and put the bigger, but much worse Dierking, instead. This helps your case, obviously).
Erwin Mueller
Walt Bellamy
Walt Bellamy
Erwin Mueller
Connie Dierking
Connie Dierking
Nate Thurmond
Leroy Ellis
Joe Strawder
Zelmo Beaty
Erwin Mueller
Darrall Imhoff
Leroy Ellis
Erwin Mueller
Erwin Mueller
Walt Bellamy
Zelmo Beaty
Bill Russell
Walt Bellamy
Zelmo Beaty
Joe Strawder
Darrall Imhoff
Nate Thurmond
Darrall Imhoff
Connie Dierking
Bill Russell
Joe Strawder
Walt Bellamy
Erwin Mueller
Walt Bellamy
Leroy Ellis
Erwin Mueller
Zelmo Beaty
Bill Russell
Walt Bellamy
Joe Strawder
Erwin Mueller
Darrall Imhoff
Zelmo Beaty
Bill Russell
Connie Dierking
Zelmo Beaty
Darrall Imhoff
Nate Thurmond
Nate Thurmond
Darrall Imhoff
Connie Dierking
Darrall Imhoff
Leroy Ellis
Bill Russell
Connie Dierking
Joe Strawder
Connie Dierking
Zelmo Beaty
Leroy Ellis
Connie Dierking
Erwin Mueller
Nate Thurmond
Joe Strawder
Joe Strawder
Darrall Imhoff
Bill Russell
Bill Russell
Walt Bellamy
Nate Thurmond
Darrall Imhoff
Nate Thurmond
Leroy Ellis
Leroy Ellis

Playoffs

Connie Dierking (again, it could be Jerry Lucas, but let's but the smaller name, instead)
Connie Dierking
Connie Dierking
Connie Dierking
Bill Russell
Bill Russell
Bill Russell
Bill Russell
Bill Russell
Nate Thurmond
Nate Thurmond
Nate Thurmond
Nate Thurmond
Nate Thurmond
Nate Thurmond

Although numerically Hakeem faces a few more great centers, he also faces a lot of mediocrities more, including the playoffs. Wilt faces Russell+Thurmond+Bellamy+Zelmo about 9+9+9+9=36 times in 81 games and exactly 11 times in 15 playoff games. Hakeem faced Shaq+Robinson+Ewing+Zo+Mutombo+Daugherty exactly 17 times in 81 games and 7 times in 23 playoff games. Again, contrary to your beliefs, Wilt faces HOF'ers much more often.


Wilt played in a weak era compared to Hakeem's, he had great players by his side which made winning a whole lot easier.

Wilt hardly played with a lot of great players for the first half of his career and helped them a lot more than they helphed him.


What you said about Bill playing with a couple of underachievers, a couple of these underachievers are among the 50 greatest and he had the luck of being with alot of HOF:ers during his career so cut the bs, he was great but you're acting like all the 11 titles was because of him, Bob Cousy is still one of the best PG's by all-time, Bill Sharman is still one of the best players of that era, Havlicek is still one of the best by all-time, Sam Jones is still one of the greats of that era and is among the 50 greatest etc..

I never used the term "underachievers". Of course he had many great teammates. However, the point remains: Cousy, Sharman and Macauley (above average center, Russell's predecessor) never reached the Finals by themselves. Russell won at least one title without at least one of his great teammates. Russell in 1958 missed 3 playoff games (2 whole and large parts of 2 others) due to an injury and guess what happened: The rest of the Celtics lost that series and title to the Hawks.
Oh, and players like Sanders, Nelson, Loscutoff, Ramsey and KC Jones, though good, would never enjoy honors like getting into the HOF or having their #'s retired were it not for Russell to lead them to titles.

[JohnRuck]

the dream was and always will be my favorite player. I could remember him getting quadruple doubles all the time. Shot blocking beast

[Lax4422Chik1342]

the dream was and always will be my favorite player. I could remember him getting quadruple doubles all the time. Shot blocking beast

A favorite player is not always the best player, don't let your heart rule your brain.

I love Happpy Hairston, one of my all time favorites but I would never claim him to be a top ten power forward. I currently have Ty Looooooooooo as one of my favorites, you don't see me claiming he's the best guard coming off the bench.

[Manute for Ever!]

I could remember him getting quadruple doubles all the time.

No

[VCMVP1551]

Wilt hardly played with a lot of great players for the first half of his career


That's not true.

He played with 5 hall of famers(Paul Arizin, Tom Gola, Nate Thurmond, Billy Cunningham, Hal Greer) in his first 7 seasons. All of them were atleast at or near their prime for part of the time they played with Wilt.

Then consider the fact that he played with 3 hall of famers after that(Jerry West, Elgin Baylor and Gail Goodrich). West and Goodrich were in their prime when they played with Wilt and Elgin was at the end of his prime and still an elite player when Wilt joined the team.

5 hall of famers in the first half of his career and then 3 more in the 2nd half.

[Psileas]

That's not true.

He played with 5 hall of famers(Paul Arizin, Tom Gola, Nate Thurmond, Billy Cunningham, Hal Greer) in his first 7 seasons. All of them were atleast at or near their prime for part of the time they played with Wilt.

The 5 HOF'ers is a somewhat deceiving reference. First of all, they belonged to seperate teams: Arizin and Gola to the Warriors up to 1962, then only Gola for a few games in 1963, then only Nate Thurmond for 1964 and 1965, then Billy C and Greer.
Second, the depth of the league was already enough to assure that even a core of Arizin+Gola (+young Guy Rodgers) would not form something so special to even make the playoffs. Indeed, the 1959 Warriors posted a mediocre 32-40 record and missed the post-season.
As for the rest: Thurmond was a center playing out of position as long as Wilt was there and although he showed glimpses of his talent in 1964, he was still developing. In 1965, he had developed enough to enter All-Star territory, but him and Wilt only played half a season together. Cunningham was no much different, really: Very talented, developing, but still a rookie. I'll give you Greer.


Then consider the fact that he played with 3 hall of famers after that(Jerry West, Elgin Baylor and Gail Goodrich). West and Goodrich were in their prime when they played with Wilt and Elgin was at the end of his prime and still an elite player when Wilt joined the team.

5 hall of famers in the first half of his career and then 3 more in the 2nd half.

Although I didn't talk about the second half and I already stated that Wilt played for better teams then, consider some things as well:

-Baylor was a completely non-factor after 1970. You might very well consider him retired already during 1970-71.
-Wilt missed 85% of the regular season in 1970. The Lakers had a mediocre season without him.
-Goodrich came to the team during the 1970-71 season.
-West missed the entire 1971 postseason.

In other words, apart from the fact that 3/4 of these HOF'ers were in their twilight, they never played altogether, either. At times, not even 3 of these 4 (including almost the whole 1970 season). They still formed better and deeper squads than Wilt's 1960-66 ones, though.

[millwad]

"a) Hakeem was seriously limited by nobodies. Teams with mediocre centers didn't dominate Kareem in a similar way. And if you have any problems with that, let me give you another example: Hakeem getting dominated by Shaq in 1999-before you mention his age, bear in mind that Hakeem was just as old as Kareem was in your example against Moses."-Psileas

Yepp, I misquoted you, my bad. But you wrote, "Hakeem was seriously limited by nobodies. Teams with mediocre centers in didn't dominate Kareem in a similar way."

You obviously said that Hakeem was dominated by nobodies. And when you said, that teamS with mediocre centers didn't dominate Kareem in a similar way you meant that Hakeem was dominated by mediocre centers a couple of times at least. So, you have still only told about him being limited by the 2nd best team in the league with good big-men. PLEASE, tell me about a couple of other times Dream being dominated by mediocre centers and limited by nobodies? Why is this so hard? Just tell when the dude got dominated by mediocre centers....? And "dominated by mediocre centers" isn't one single player, it's a couple, tell me, homie.


Hakeem's best centeropponents in 94 vs. Wilt's.

Chris Webber Russell
Shaq Bellamy
Robinson Beaty
Mourning Thurmond
Mutombo Ellis
Ewing
Daugherty
Divac
Parish
Smits

Now, let's compare:
Playing the same all-time greats more times is an easier task than playing different all-time greats. I mean, Russell probably knew every single move Wilt had in a pocket and new how to play him. And considering that Wilt only played 3 HOF:ers that season (Russell, Bellamy and Thurmond) And that Beaty almost missed half of the season doesn't make your case any stronger.
And among those Wilt played, only Russell is considered to be among the 10 greatest Centers by all-time while Hakeem faced Shaq, Ewing and Robinson who's on that list.


Not weird that they lost those games Russell was injured, missing your starting center is a big deal to any team. And correct me know if I'm wrong but if I remember correctly, Russell never won a title without having 2 or even 3 HOF:ers on the team, right? What I'm saying is that Hakeem was more important to his team those back-to-back than Russell ever was and that's a fact, look at Houston championteam from 94 n' 95, Hakeem was their all. A 60's celtic-team would still include all-time greats and that the fact, you're giving Russell a little bit much credit.

[Psileas]

"a) Hakeem was seriously limited by nobodies. Teams with mediocre centers didn't dominate Kareem in a similar way. And if you have any problems with that, let me give you another example: Hakeem getting dominated by Shaq in 1999-before you mention his age, bear in mind that Hakeem was just as old as Kareem was in your example against Moses."-Psileas

Yepp, I misquoted you, my bad. But you wrote, "Hakeem was seriously limited by nobodies. Teams with mediocre centers in didn't dominate Kareem in a similar way."

You obviously said that Hakeem was dominated by nobodies. And when you said, that teamS with mediocre centers didn't dominate Kareem in a similar way you meant that Hakeem was dominated by mediocre centers a couple of times at least. So, you have still only told about him being limited by the 2nd best team in the league with good big-men. PLEASE, tell me about a couple of other times Dream being dominated by mediocre centers and limited by nobodies? Why is this so hard? Just tell when the dude got dominated by mediocre centers....? And "dominated by mediocre centers" isn't one single player, it's a couple, tell me, homie.


You want to argue with such semantics? OK, find me only one such series, no problem. Oh, and all these white midgets that Russell supposedly faced (yes, "all these" is the correct phrase here instead of "just one or two", since you wrote "Russell's FG-percentage is damn low too, and that against white midgets", so you clearly imply that facing white midgets was the rule).


Hakeem's best centeropponents in 94 vs. Wilt's.

Chris Webber Russell
Shaq Bellamy
Robinson Beaty
Mourning Thurmond
Mutombo Ellis
Ewing
Daugherty
Divac
Parish
Smits

First of all, get Webber out of the way. C-Web obviously was a PF and only faced Hakeem once, when his team started with no center. After all, Jerry Lucas almost certainly faced Wilt during that season, but I had no problem to exclude him entirely and replace him with a considerably worse player.

Second, do you know what will happen if we reverse that list? Something like this:

Hakeem's worst center opponents in 94 vs. Wilt's.

Dwayne Schintzius--Joe Strawder
Chris Dudley--Erwin Mueller
Will Perdue--Connie Dierking
Mike Peplowski--Darrall Imhoff
Jon Koncak--LeRoy Ellis
Luc Longley
Shawn Bradley
Felton Spencer
Sean Rooks


Now, let's compare:
Playing the same all-time greats more times is an easier task than playing different all-time greats. I mean, Russell probably knew every single move Wilt had in a pocket and new how to play him.

OK, and how's that supposed to be a good thing for Wilt?


And considering that Wilt only played 3 HOF:ers that season (Russell, Bellamy and Thurmond) And that Beaty almost missed half of the season doesn't make your case any stronger.

We've already gone through this a few lines ago. OK, Beaty missed 40% of the season. Still there remained Bill Bridges in one of the best seasons of his career (if not the best). Actually, he was an all-star that season, while Zelmo missed it.


And among those Wilt played, only Russell is considered to be among the 10 greatest Centers by all-time while Hakeem faced Shaq, Ewing and Robinson who's on that list.

Thurmond is considered top-10 by some, so that's arguably 2 top-10 centers in 9 opponents compared to 3 in 26 oppontnts. But if you like such details, I can also argue that Russell is the only guy from both lists who is widely (=among basketball experts, not youngsters and casual fans) considered top-5 greatest player of all-time.

[Psileas]

Not weird that they lost those games Russell was injured, missing your starting center is a big deal to any team. And correct me know if I'm wrong but if I remember correctly, Russell never won a title without having 2 or even 3 HOF:ers on the team, right? What I'm saying is that Hakeem was more important to his team those back-to-back than Russell ever was and that's a fact, look at Houston championteam from 94 n' 95, Hakeem was their all. A 60's celtic-team would still include all-time greats and that the fact, you're giving Russell a little bit much credit.

I've not said anything bad about Hakeem's title runs. You want to argue that he was more important to these titles than Russell for his team, fine. But Hakeem has under his belt 16 seasons more, is still left 9 titles short and although he didn't have teammates good enough to help him win a title up to '93, it's still not fair to compare favorably someone who often couldn't get past 1 playoff round (in a conference considered weaker than the opponent East) to the clearly best player of a champion team, no matter whether he had multiple good teammates or not.

[millwad]

Wow, mr smart guy. Bill Russell faced alot of small white guys and black for that case, just look at the heights yourself, Beaty who was one of the greats of that era was 6-9, then there were alot of guys like Mueller (6-8), Vern Mikkelsen (6-7), Nat Clifton (6-6), Neil Johnston (6-8), Dolph Schayes (6-7), Ed Macauley (6-8), Wayne Embry (6-8), Jerry Lucas (6-8), Gus Johnson (6-6), Bill Bridges (6-6), Billy Cunningham (6-6), Bob Rule (6-9), Jim Washington (6-6), Paul Silas (6-8), Fred Hetzel (6-8), Jim Washington (6-6), Jim Barnes (6-8), WAS THAT ENOUGH? And these guys were the good ones too, all of them got serious playing time and contributed to their respective teams.

Now tell me, beside the one time Hakeem got limited by the Sonics who reached the finals, when did Hakeem get seriously limited by nobodies, and nobodies aren't one player, it's a couple of them, hand em out, homie.



When the hell was Thurmond considered by anybody to be a top-10 center EVER? That's a joke, I've never seen anyone put Thurmond in that list, EVER.
Never won a thing, averaged 15 points on 42% shooting and 15 rebounds during his career and his playoff-stats are 11.9 points on 41% shooting combined with 13.6 rebounds.. So no, there's no top-10 in this guy and it's still 3 top-10:ers vs 1. Joke of the year, Nate Thurmond among the 10 greatest centers, nice try though....

[greymatter]

Wilt was good against 6'5" guys in the 60's and hardly showed up in the playoffs. Needed 2 top 15 players to win a title in West and Baylor.

When you're done talking out of your ass, you might find it interesting to learn that Baylor played 2 regular season games in 70-71, only 9 games in 71-72, and retired in the middle of the season after succumbing to injury. He played no part in the '72 Lakers' title.

[Psileas]

Wow, mr smart guy. Bill Russell faced alot of small white guys and black for that case, just look at the heights yourself, Beaty who was one of the greats of that era was 6-9, then there were alot of guys like Mueller (6-8), Vern Mikkelsen (6-7), Nat Clifton (6-6), Neil Johnston (6-8), Dolph Schayes (6-7), Ed Macauley (6-8), Wayne Embry (6-8), Jerry Lucas (6-8), Gus Johnson (6-6), Bill Bridges (6-6), Billy Cunningham (6-6), Bob Rule (6-9), Jim Washington (6-6), Paul Silas (6-8), Fred Hetzel (6-8), Jim Washington (6-6), Jim Barnes (6-8), WAS THAT ENOUGH? And these guys were the good ones too, all of them got serious playing time and contributed to their respective teams.

Now tell me, beside the one time Hakeem got limited by the Sonics who reached the finals, when did Hakeem get seriously limited by nobodies, and nobodies aren't one player, it's a couple of them, hand em out, homie.

First of all, unlike nowadays, players back then were measured without their shoes on, so in every listed height add 1-1.5 inch to convert them to modern type measurement (or take out 1-1.5 for today's players for their actual height).

Now, let's check your cases, one by one:

Mueller: Did play center for a while (mostly 1967), but is considered one of the worst starting big men in the whole Wilt-Russell era. No wonder that wherever he played good minutes he was doing so for bad teams and was winning nothing. Also, he was 6-9 with shoes on and played most of his career with C being his second position.

Vern Mikkelsen: Was a PF, Clyde Lovellette and later Larry Foust were the starting centers of the Lakers when Russell played in 57-59.

Nat Clifton: PF, who played only a bit more than 1 season against Russell's teams. Try Walter Dukes, Phil Jordon, Ray Felix for the C position instead.

Neil Johnston : At last one decent choice. Too bad he only managed to play at a good level up to 1958 and that Russell never faced any problems against him (this includes a game when rookie Russell left the high scoring Johnston scoreless for 40 minutes and another game when a 2nd year Russell grabbed 49 rebounds against him, including 32 rebounds in a single half...).

Dolph Schayes: PF, at least as long as Russell played. Red Kerr was the center.

Ed Macauley: Didn't play at C much in the end his his career. Charlie Share did. After all, Ed was considered pretty weak for a center at Russell's era.

Wayne Embry: You know what? His nickname was "The Wall". Not exactly what a midget would be called. He weighed 240 as a rookie and then put on more weight, making him one of the most immovable players in the league.

Jerry Lucas: Trying to qualify Lucas as a midget is like trying to qualify Ben Wallace and Dennis Rodman as midgets because of their height. Yes, he was pretty short for a center, and he still kicked ass. Not to mention that he mostly played as a PF, as well.

Gus Johnson: Not a center (still very strong and athletic overall).

Bill Bridges: Another PF you're trying to pass as a C, whereas Zelmo Beaty or Walt Bellamy were the main centers of the team.

Billy Cunningham: Duh, not a center, especially when Russell played, while even ignoring the fact that he was one of the most athletic guys his size.

Bob Rule: 6-9 without shoes is a midget? Is Alonzo Mourning a midget?

Jim Washington: Played C only occasionally, for an expansion team...

Paul Silas: Played the C occasionally. Was never considered anywhere close to tall during his own era. His long career as a C owes nothing to his height, pretty much the contrary, it was a barrier. Oh, and he did last up to 1980.

Fred Hetzel: And Nate Thurmond was the PF, I suppose. :rolleyes:

Jim Barnes: During the only 2 seasons he was relevant, he played one season as a PF alongside Willis Reed (for a team that still missed the playoffs) and another for a team that had 5 guys just as tall as him or taller.

So, let's see: You listed 16 players, with the smallest of them being 6-6 barefoot. Among these 16 players, exactly 2 played almost exclusively the C position (Johnston, Embry), another 1-2 (Rule-Silas) played frequently as centers and none of them was shorter than 6-8 barefoot. Most of the others played as second big men (PF's) for their teams, sharing center responsibilities only when there was an absolute need.
Not to mention that many of them peaked during the 50's and quickly fell off when Russell's and Wilt's era came, while others were respectable for only a couple of seasons and usually filled gaps for mediocre teams. Oh, and that some of all these were not as white or weak as you'd expect them to be.

In all, you did your best to show that Russell faced midgets and there are still a lot of big holes you have to cover.


When the hell was Thurmond considered by anybody to be a top-10 center EVER? That's a joke, I've never seen anyone put Thurmond in that list, EVER.
Never won a thing, averaged 15 points on 42% shooting and 15 rebounds during his career and his playoff-stats are 11.9 points on 41% shooting combined with 13.6 rebounds.. So no, there's no top-10 in this guy and it's still 3 top-10:ers vs 1. Joke of the year, Nate Thurmond among the 10 greatest centers, nice try though....

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/dailydime?page=dailydime-GreatestCenters

Finished 15th, which means he took a few votes. After all, Ewing is also arguable, so I can easily soften my own case by saying that they were 2, not 3.
In all, 21 centers were voted. Hakeem faced 10 of them, but 3 of them had clearly passed their physical/game primes years ago (Gilmore, McAdoo, Walton), another one had passed his own, but remained an All-Star (Kareem), while 2 others (Malone, Sabonis) were very near the end of their own primes (some may argue Sabonis was past his, anyway). Wilt faced 9 of them, but 7 of them were in their primes, while another was in he beginning of his (Haywood) and only one was a rookie (McAdoo)-still better than he was when he faced Hakeem.

[millwad]

All these guys I mentioned are either, Centers, C-PF or PF-C, ALL OF 'EM! I have hard time believing that they are written as a position just for fun. And fact remains that Bill Russell faced alot of shorter and whiter players...

Didn't you just say that Thurmond is arguably considered by some people to be a top-ten? I told you that I've never seen him being on that list and then you give me link and list where he's on 15th place and not even close to the top-10. And how is Ewing arguably, he got 4 times more votes than Thurmond and double as much as the 11th on the list.

And for ffs, stop with this BS about Malone being very near the end of his prime when Hakeem entered the league, Moses was voted all-star 5 times after the year Hakeem entered the league. That's as many or more times being an all-star than Unseld, Mcadoo, Haywood, 2 less than Thurmond for his career, 2 less than Cowens for his career. So those years you considered Moses as very close to the end of his prime he made at least as many all-star teams than Unseld, Mcadoo and Haywood did for their career (all Wilt's opponents) and almost as many as Cowens and Thurmond. He was in his prime for at least 6 years after Hakeem entered the league, cut the crap.

Uhm, and yeah, those 9 he faced, only two of them are even in the top 10.
And Cowens did only play Wilt for 3 years and Cowens is nr 15 on that list and shouldn't be higher. Wilt faced McAdoo for 1 year and dude is nr 16 on that list and shouldn't either be higher. Wilt faced Gilmore for 2 years and Gilmore isn't close the top then either. He faced Lanier for 3 years, and dude isn't a top-10 either. Haywood for 3 years too and he ain't no top-10 or even close.

Lol, and you tried to take away Malone as a real competitor for those 11 years he faced Hakeem. So what is this, Wilt only faced 2 players who's in the true top-10 and the rest of those 7 are in the low places of the list and he only faced those "bottom"-guys for a maximum of 3 years. So Hakeem faced 6 top 10-guys in his career and 5 of them in their prime. So nice try comparing those with 1 year against McAdoo, 2 years against Gilmore etc.. I'm proud of you.

[Psileas]

All these guys I mentioned are either, Centers, C-PF or PF-C, ALL OF 'EM! I have hard time believing that they are written as a position just for fun. And fact remains that Bill Russell faced alot of shorter and whiter players...

And I have a hard time believing that, whereas practically all the teams where the players you mentioned played had bigger guys than them, who also played big minutes, they would be stupid enough to use their second (or worse than that) tallest players to face Russell. You even went as far as to use guys like Cunningham, who, in Russell's era, had Wilt Chamberlain by him. Cunningham guarded Russell as much as Marion guarded Shaq or Kukoc guarded Hakeem, and so did others among the players you listed.
BTW, Kareem, whom I consider a top-3 player ever, also faced shorter centers than Russell and usually the difference between him and his opponents was bigger than Russell's compared to his. If you want to use a standard, make sure you use it eveywhere.


Didn't you just say that Thurmond is arguably considered by some people to be a top-ten? I told you that I've never seen him being on that list and then you give me link and list where he's on 15th place and not even close to the top-10. And how is Ewing arguably, he got 4 times more votes than Thurmond and double as much as the 11th on the list.

He took votes, didn't he? This automatically means that some people among these who voted in this list consider him top-10.


And for ffs, stop with this BS about Malone being very near the end of his prime when Hakeem entered the league, Moses was voted all-star 5 times after the year Hakeem entered the league. That's as many or more times being an all-star than Unseld, Mcadoo, Haywood, 2 less than Thurmond for his career, 2 less than Cowens for his career. So those years you considered Moses as very close to the end of his prime he made at least as many all-star teams than Unseld, Mcadoo and Haywood did for their career (all Wilt's opponents) and almost as many as Cowens and Thurmond. He was in his prime for at least 6 years after Hakeem entered the league, cut the crap.

Being an All-Star doesn't mean you're nesessarily in your prime. Dr.J was an all-star up to the end of his career, this doesn't mean his was in his prime in 1987. Hell, you tried to argue before against Wilt's competition in the 70's for exactly the same reason ("Wilt playing Kareem for 4 years when Wilt wasn't even in his true prime") and that's even while considering the primes of Wilt-Hakeem, not even the primes of their competitors. Plus, I've already mentioned that Wilt also was an All-Star and a valid MVP contestant up to 1973 (which Malone never was after 1985, BTW). How don't Wilt's 1970-73 seasons count but Malone's 1985-90 do?


Uhm, and yeah, those 9 he faced, only two of them are even in the top 10.

Also, 2 of them are in the top 3 (vs one for Hakeem, and that, past his prime), both in their primes and he faced them a total of about 170 times.


And Cowens did only play Wilt for 3 years and Cowens is nr 15 on that list and shouldn't be higher. Wilt faced McAdoo for 1 year and dude is nr 16 on that list and shouldn't either be higher. Wilt faced Gilmore for 2 years and Gilmore isn't close the top then either. He faced Lanier for 3 years, and dude isn't a top-10 either. Haywood for 3 years too and he ain't no top-10 or even close.

1) And despite this and the fact he was 34+, he was a consistant MVP contestant, all-NBA, all-NBA Defense, faced them mutliple times a year, outplayed these guys more often than they outplayed him and still had Kareem and the Bucks go against him, as well.

2) If Walton, after only 2 great seasons, is considered top-10 and Sabonis, whose name, judging from his NBA career alone, shouldn't even be on the list, is voted 11th, you bet they should be ranked higher, especially Cowens, who has to show an MVP and a ROY and an ASG MVP and 2 championships and a 68-win season and multiple double-double seasons. I'll take this resume over Walton's and Sabonis' any day of the week.


Lol, and you tried to take away Malone as a real competitor for those 11 years he faced Hakeem. So what is this, Wilt only faced 2 players who's in the true top-10 and the rest of those 7 are in the low places of the list and he only faced those "bottom"-guys for a maximum of 3 years. So Hakeem faced 6 top 10-guys in his career and 5 of them in their prime. So nice try comparing those with 1 year against McAdoo, 2 years against Gilmore etc.. I'm proud of you.

Walton is not a top-10 center (or at least, the Walton Hakeem faced) and Kareem never faced Hakeem in his prime. So, he went against 5 such centers, 3 in their primes and he faced them less frequently than Wilt faced his own rivals.