Bleacher Report exposes Wilt Chamberlain's 100-point game

[IllegalD]

If anything, what's not going to make you seem "kewl" in the real world is posting ad hominem drivel and mixing stupid conspiracy theories (=moon landing "hoax") and counter-"arguments" that make zero sense, like a game with no footage meaning that it can't be the GOAT performance.
Btw, what's wrong with 60 y.o men posting? Their experience and sense of logic easily trump the ones that posters like you have. I'd rather have a talk with a 60 y.o than a "kewl" 20 y.o who, due to his inexperience, thinks he brings new stuff to the table while most of the time his ideas are either too vague/theoratical tired stuff that pretty much any average 20 y.o repeats or, even worse, completely out of reality.

I guess that answers which one you are.

Relax, gramps.

[Psileas]

Even if you are right about his offensive game and even if we all agree that Wilt will be a 15 ppg in todays game, the fact is that Wilt was the best rebounder in his era (he outrebounds Russell in their H2Hs by won almost every year the rebounding tittle), was the best passer (among centers), was the best shotblocker even in his twilight years.
And yet people still talked about his FT ,as if he wouldn't excel in today's league ?

DeAndre Jordan. One of the best centers in NBA nowadays. The guy is even poorer FT shooter then Wilt and opposing teams intentionally fouled him in order to send him to the FT line. He is 11 ppg in his prime/career year. Why his coach keep him on the floor for 35 minutes per game ? Is he an idiot ? And why his team agreed to pay him more then 20 millions a year salary ?

And then ask Kareem and Russell if they think DeAndre was better player then Wilt.

He isn't and we aren't, respectivaly. A 29 ppg scorer against prime Russell isn't going to average 15 ppg in any league unless he plays blindfolded.

[Psileas]

I guess that answers which one you are.

Relax, gramps.

I guess that answers which one you are.

Relax, kiddo.

[LAZERUSS]

Wilt would average about 15 and 9 if he were lucky in today's league

A scrawny gay dude with no post moves, no jumper, and deplorable FT shooting just isn't going to cut it these days

Yep...

A full 7-1+, with a measured 7-8 wingspan, weighing around 290 lbs, with a 40 " vertical...and THESE post moves...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCWrGWuU2Ak

Would be lucky to be a 15-9 guy in today's NBA.

Pretty amazing that a 6-9 1/2 Cousins, at around 280 lbs, with a known 28 vertical, and only playing 34 mpg, can put up 24-13 seasons in TODAY's NBA, isn't it?

[DavisIsMyUniBro]

He isn't and we aren't, respectivaly. A 29 ppg scorer against prime Russell isn't going to average 15 ppg in any league unless he plays blindfolded.

Wilt probably is at the very worst the 2nd greatest peak center ever (when it comes to all time rankings, he was very unlucky throughout his career. I realize that these "excuses" are actually usually legitimate, but Fair or not, it is what it is. I'm willing to say that peak wilt was far above (in a peak sense, so it's still always splitting hairs) Russell, and that wilt may or may not have won 11 championships Russell did if they switched teams (personally, I feel those teams needed defense rather than offense, and while wilt is the greatest or second greatest shot blocker in nba history by such a large margin it isn't even funny, Russell is another class, and in an era where palming, 3 pointers, etc weren't invented yet, I feel that dominating through defense would be more possible, though I personally feel that Russell's defensive expertise lies in things like the pick and roll)

But is it fair to rank Russell ahead of wilt, when the other way around would be possible, if not probable if wilt was drafted to the celtics? Personally, while it isn't fair, it is what it is.

Wilt is still a absolute lock for top 10, and in my opinion, top 5 as well. I'm not as high on him as other posters for certain reasons I won't disclose, because really, I don't see the point in hating on players for no reason. It works both ways in my opinion. Unless we are arguing with a Stan, I see no need to bring down other players achievements. I'm arguing with 3ball over that classic debate and tbh I don't even like who I'm arguing for. I'll just never understand is forum's obsession with trying to put down the accomplishments of certain players for the sake of their own favorite players. Saying something like "derp weak era" only convinced me, before, when I was a casual fan, that wilt played In a great era when Lazarus or cavs started shouting out facts that nobody could dispute.

If people wanted to show who was better, post facts or stats, not simple terms like killer instinct over and over again, and while it may exist, I don't believe that it's what separates players that high up, know what I mean?)

Otoh, I do understand the arguement for kobe's game being equally impressive. Pace is important, because even though its effects are largely overblown

If we look at this situation, when a player is on fire, it isn't a matter of how many he will score, it's how many shots he will put up.

I believe that wilts performance was a better basketball performance, but I do understand that while it was against a bottom feeder team (Kobes game I mean) the game was close, so there is some extra dramatic effect.

[monkeypox]

Anyone who actually read the history and not the box score knew that the 100 point game wasn't a normal game. But then the league was very different back then and much smaller. They needed the spectacle to survive. A lot of that era should just be considered on it's own apart from the modern era because it's not really a valid comparison. Wilt's 45 rebound game is probably as unbreakable at this point as his 100 point game.

[ClipperRevival]

Wilt probably is at the very worst the 2nd greatest peak center ever (when it comes to all time rankings, he was very unlucky throughout his career. I realize that these "excuses" are actually usually legitimate, but Fair or not, it is what it is. I'm willing to say that peak wilt was far above (in a peak sense, so it's still always splitting hairs) Russell, and that wilt may or may not have won 11 championships Russell did if they switched teams (personally, I feel those teams needed defense rather than offense, and while wilt is the greatest or second greatest shot blocker in nba history by such a large margin it isn't even funny, Russell is another class, and in an era where palming, 3 pointers, etc weren't invented yet, I feel that dominating through defense would be more possible, though I personally feel that Russell's defensive expertise lies in things like the pick and roll)

But is it fair to rank Russell ahead of wilt, when the other way around would be possible, if not probable if wilt was drafted to the celtics? Personally, while it isn't fair, it is what it is.

Wilt is still a absolute lock for top 10, and in my opinion, top 5 as well. I'm not as high on him as other posters for certain reasons I won't disclose, because really, I don't see the point in hating on players for no reason. It works both ways in my opinion. Unless we are arguing with a Stan, I see no need to bring down other players achievements. I'm arguing with 3ball over that classic debate and tbh I don't even like who I'm arguing for. I'll just never understand is forum's obsession with trying to put down the accomplishments of certain players for the sake of their own favorite players. Saying something like "derp weak era" only convinced me, before, when I was a casual fan, that wilt played In a great era when Lazarus or cavs started shouting out facts that nobody could dispute.

If people wanted to show who was better, post facts or stats, not simple terms like killer instinct over and over again, and while it may exist, I don't believe that it's what separates players that high up, know what I mean?)

Otoh, I do understand the arguement for kobe's game being equally impressive. Pace is important, because even though its effects are largely overblown

If we look at this situation, when a player is on fire, it isn't a matter of how many he will score, it's how many shots he will put up.

I believe that wilts performance was a better basketball performance, but I do understand that while it was against a bottom feeder team (Kobes game I mean) the game was close, so there is some extra dramatic effect.

You play basketball to win, not to put up great, individual numbers. Russell won. And I don't think it's a coincidence. He took his craft seriously and thought it was a mental battle as much as it was a physical battle. Just as MJ thought it was a mental battle also. And I agree with them. You never want to show weakness against an opponent and when you have them down, you want to bash them harder. That's the harsh reality of competition. I don't know if Wilt embraced the challenge like Russell did. And if he didn't, he didn't maximize his talents.

God given talent only takes you so far. It's the greats who want to maximize their talents by working harder and mentally focusing on the task at hand that get the job done. The guy who doesn't want it as much usually comes up short. That's how I view the Russell/Wilt rivalry. One guy just wanted it a bit more and it showed on the court.

[DavisIsMyUniBro]

Yep...

A full 7-1+, with a measured 7-8 wingspan, weighing around 290 lbs, with a 40 " vertical...and THESE post moves...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCWrGWuU2Ak

Would be lucky to be a 15-9 guy in today's NBA.

Pretty amazing that a 6-9 1/2 Cousins, at around 280 lbs, with a known 28 vertical, and only playing 34 mpg, can put up 24-13 seasons in TODAY's NBA, isn't it?

While I'm not saying cousins is comparable to wilt, I believe that's not a fair comparison.

Wilt is a 28-16.7 guy per 36 minutes in the nba today

He could play 48 minutes, but I don't see why. It just increases the chance of injury.

Btw, I would take some of those measurements with a grain of salt. In my opinion, many players grow as they age later now. For example, Davis came in as a 6ft 9.5 guy with a 7ft 5 wing span and a 9ft standing reach.

Now he is probably around 6ft 11 (the higher side) and is rumored to have a 7ft 8 wing span, and probably closer to a 9ft 6 reach. (He have arsed his standing reach, because no way it's only 9ft lol)

I mean, wilt was an athletic beast, but I hardly see how that applies. He would be the most athletic player in the nba today, but I am more impressed with his vertical than anything else.

He ran a 4.6 40 yard (willing to say it might have been more on the 4.5 side, since his clothing, though I don't know much about hand timed vs computerized time) which I of is more applicable in terms of a basketball sprint, but since Lebron ran a 4.6 yard as well, and he was measured to be about as fast as Paul top speed wise, who was measured slower than reke, who tied in a sprint with Davis, the only thing I see separating those 2 athletically is an embarrassing strength difference and a obvious vertical jump difference, ATHLETICALLY SPEAKING of course, in a basketball sense

Obviously Davis isn't even on that stratosphere yet


(I think it's 6 inches personally my their vert difference. Davis's vert is 37 right now, I think it jumped, and wilts was probably in the low 40s, as some say he couldn't touch the top of the backboard, but I tend to believe it. Video evidence is very awkward in terms of camera angles, but I wouldn't be shocked if he could)

[kurple]

what did they expose? did he not score 100 points....

[Hey Yo]

Wilt would average about 15 and 9 if he were lucky in today's league

A scrawny gay dude with no post moves, no jumper, and deplorable FT shooting just isn't going to cut it these days

Is that what the high school coach told you when deciding who makes the team?

[DavisIsMyUniBro]

You play basketball to win, not to put up great, individual numbers. Russell won. And I don't think it's a coincidence. He took his craft seriously and thought it was a mental battle as much as it was a physical battle. Just as MJ thought it was a mental battle also. And I agree with them. You never want to show weakness against an opponent and when you have them down, you want to bash them harder. That's the harsh reality of competition. I don't know if Wilt embraced the challenge like Russell did. And if he didn't, he didn't maximize his talents.

God given talent only takes you so far. It's the greats who want to maximize their talents by working harder and mentally focusing on the task at hand that get the job done. The guy who doesn't want it as much usually comes up short. That's how I view the Russell/Wilt rivalry. One guy just wanted it a bit more and it showed on the court.

I mean, I would definitely attribute his better teammates (though his teammates, despite their how credidentials, are overblown talent wise. Offensively, assuming Russell is a positive, which I'm not assuming, they were actually pretty bad, worst in the league usually. Defensively their defensive rating was league average with Russell out)

I mean, I would agree to disagree. I feel like the talent difference is overblown. Every one of them makes mistakes. Wilt ffed up that last half season as a warrior (I wouldn't call heart problems an excuse, because was putting up his regular numbers)

While Russell ffed up an inbounds pass or something.

I personally think that they both did their own thing.
As for the rivalry, here is my opinion. Wilts stats are too hard to overcome in terms of their head to head stats, but Russell was the time of guy that could dominate going 0-5 from the field, and getting only 8 or so rebounds.

I can't say who was better, I feel like they did what they had to do, that wilt would have won many titles with Russell's team and Russell wouldn't win many titles with wilts teams (though he might fare better with the lakers portion of wilts career, wilt was the second best post man to man defender ever Imo, 2nd at rim protection, but I question him into other defensive areas (jerry Lucas, who was like long range big man, seemed to fare pretty much like he would against other centers against wilt, though I don't know if they guarded each other.

I respect you as a poster, so let's just agree to disagree

[ClipperRevival]

I mean, I would definitely attribute his better teammates (though his teammates, despite their how credidentials, are overblown talent wise. Offensively, assuming Russell is a positive, which I'm not assuming, they were actually pretty bad, worst in the league usually. Defensively their defensive rating was league average with Russell out)

I mean, I would agree to disagree. I feel like the talent difference is overblown. Every one of them makes mistakes. Wilt ffed up that last half season as a warrior (I wouldn't call heart problems an excuse, because was putting up his regular numbers)

While Russell ffed up an inbounds pass or something.

I personally think that they both did their own thing.
As for the rivalry, here is my opinion. Wilts stats are too hard to overcome in terms of their head to head stats, but Russell was the time of guy that could dominate going 0-5 from the field, and getting only 8 or so rebounds.

I can't say who was better, I feel like they did what they had to do, that wilt would have won many titles with Russell's team and Russell wouldn't win many titles with wilts teams (though he might fare better with the lakers portion of wilts career, wilt was the second best post man to man defender ever Imo, 2nd at rim protection, but I question him into other defensive areas (jerry Lucas, who was like long range big man, seemed to fare pretty much like he would against other centers against wilt, though I don't know if they guarded each other.

I respect you as a poster, so let's just agree to disagree

It's a misconception that Russell had all this talent and poor little Wilt had no help. That's the easy conclusion to come to when you look at their ring counts. But if you dig deeper, you can see that Wilt had plenty of legit chances to beat Russell but simply couldn't get it done, several times with the clearly better team.

Wilt is also 0-7 in game 7s against Russell. That is saying A LOT.

I won't get all into this as you don't seem to be in the mood to do so but if you are bored one day, I suggest you look deeper into their rivalry and not just the ring count or individual numbers. Context is crucial.

[LAZERUSS]

It's a misconception that Russell had all this talent and poor little Wilt had no help. That's the easy conclusion to come to when you look at their ring counts. But if you dig deeper, you can see that Wilt had plenty of legit chances to beat Russell but simply couldn't get it done, several times with the clearly better team.

Wilt is also 0-7 in game 7s against Russell. That is saying A LOT.

I won't get all into this as you don't seem to be in the mood to do so but if you are bored one day, I suggest you look deeper into their rivalry and not just the ring count or individual numbers. Context is crucial.

Please do some real research before posting.

Here were the FACTS.

Wilt had only TWO teams that was favored over Russell's in their eight post-season series. His '67 team, in which Wilt had an EQUAL roster, and in which he absolutely destroyed Russell and Boston en route to a 4-1 (near sweep) of the Celtics.

And POSSIBLY in '69...when Chamberlain had the worst post-season series of his career, and yet, he still outplayed Russell...particularly in game seven. In fact, Russell HID the entire 4th quarter of that game seven. Had Wilt not been benched, there was a strong possibility that LA beats Boston in that game seven.

And speaking of Game Seven's...the two met in FOUR of them...with Russell's TEAMs winning by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points...and in games (and series) in which Wilt either outplayed Russell, or downright annihilated him.

BTW, none other than John Wooden commented that had Wilt and Russell swapped rosters, and coaches, and it would have been Wilt holding all those rings.

[DavisIsMyUniBro]

Please do some real research before posting.

Here were the FACTS.

Wilt had only TWO teams that was favored over Russell's in their eight post-season series. His '67 team, in which Wilt had an EQUAL roster, and in which he absolutely destroyed Russell and Boston en route to a 4-1 (near sweep) of the Celtics.

And POSSIBLY in '69...when Chamberlain had the worst post-season series of his career, and yet, he still outplayed Russell...particularly in game seven. In fact, Russell HID the entire 4th quarter of that game seven. Had Wilt not been benched, there was a strong possibility that LA beats Boston in that game seven.

And speaking of Game Seven's...the two met in FOUR of them...with Russell's TEAMs winning by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points...and in games (and series) in which Wilt either outplayed Russell, or downright annihilated him.

While I'm not disagreeing with you or clipper revival...

STOP DOING THIS...

Like seriously lol, I mean, I get doing it once but don't you just bold it. Jk

While I'm not denying that wilt outplayed Russell, I will say that I dont think Russell was exactly a box score stuffer.

I mean, I kind of understand how the celtics would be really close with the wilts teams.

i think we all agree that Russell is the best defender ever.

I personally would not call him the best post defender ever, yes, he is one of the best, top 5 for sure, but Thurmond was superior in this regard.

Now, his off-ball impact was immense, the only person who could even score in the pick and roll against him was Oscar, and it might have been a fluke,

But with wilt being the type of guy you need to occupy at all times, I wonder how Russell's off-ball impact would work out when defending wilt.

I mean, looking at the 1967 I think series in the end of game 3, I can't remember it vividly but Russell looked as if the only thing he could do was defend wilt man to man in that game. Might have been a matchup advantage,

I am probably wrong in this, but it's just a thought.

Honestly, here's how I always view it, to build a team, I would pick wilt, to build a dynasty, I would pick Russell.

Also, in 1968, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't celtics win by 4 points on average in the rs anyway?

(Now, this is because there were a ridiculous amount of blowouts, but still)

[ClipperRevival]

Please do some real research before posting.

Here were the FACTS.

Wilt had only TWO teams that was favored over Russell's in their eight post-season series. His '67 team, in which Wilt had an EQUAL roster, and in which he absolutely destroyed Russell and Boston en route to a 4-1 (near sweep) of the Celtics.

And POSSIBLY in '69...when Chamberlain had the worst post-season series of his career, and yet, he still outplayed Russell...particularly in game seven. In fact, Russell HID the entire 4th quarter of that game seven. Had Wilt not been benched, there was a strong possibility that LA beats Boston in that game seven.

And speaking of Game Seven's...the two met in FOUR of them...with Russell's TEAMs winning by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points...and in games (and series) in which Wilt either outplayed Russell, or downright annihilated him.

BTW, none other than John Wooden commented that had Wilt and Russell swapped rosters, and coaches, and it would have been Wilt holding all those rings.

I was watching a documentary on them and they said Russell was 0-7 in game 7s. If you can't trust a documentary, what can you trust? But doing quick research, I think Wilt was 0-4 in game 7s, as you suggested.

But anyways, Wilt clearly had the superior team in 3 seasons.

1967 - No explanation needed.
1968 - Wilt's 76ers were 62-20 and Celtics were 54-28
1969 - Wilt's Lakers were 55-27 and Celtics were 48-34. No one expected the Celtics to even have a chance. That was Russell's last year and he was on his last legs.