Wilt the "Choker"

[PHILA]

a quick question, why Luke Jackson got to sit in the middle, didn't it supposed to be Wilt's place?

Not sure, here's another team photo with Wilt in the middle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTMfGVjfwbM#t=2m53s

[jlauber]

You think glorious standards is just pumping up the past players while disregarding anything today? Read some of the posts by jlauber and phila claiming that 60s teams would DOMINATE the top teams of 2010. Its just disrespect to today's players as it is disrespectful to completely dismiss players of the past. Two different eras that you can't compare but these two clowns continue to do it and its only worse when they claim that there is no contest between teams back then and teams now. All they post is stats and they don't even acknowledge the VERY weak competition that those players faced(I'm not saying every player was bad back then).

I have been on record as saying the GENERALLY, the players of today in the three major sports (baseball, football, and basketball) are bigger, stronger, and faster. They are probably slightly more skilled as, well, because they have had previous generations of athletes from their particular sport to build upon.

However, aside from the fact that football players of today, are considerably bigger than those of 50 years ago (my god, we have 260 lb. quarterbacks today), almost every other area has, ...IMHO...only seen a SLIGHT increase.

Most uneducated posters here believe that Wilt was a stumbling frankenstein that dunked on helpless, nerdy, skinny, 6-6 white centers. Here are some interesting FACTS: One, the average starting center in Wilt's historic 1962 season was 6-10. In fact, in the following season, Wilt wasn't even the tallest player in the league (Swede Halbrook was 7-3...and barely on a roster.) The average starting center in Wilt's last season of 72-73, was 6-11. How about in 2010? 7-0. That is a whopping two inch increase in nearly 50 years. Not only that, but those that even use the height argument are overlooking,..Two, that there has never been a 7-3+ center to ever lead the league in rebounding. In fact, there have only been THREE 7-2 centers to lead the league in rebounding, in a TOTAL of FOUR seasons. If you take Wilt and his ELEVEN rebounding titles out of the discussion, there have been far more players at 6-10, or less, who have won rebounding titles. And you only need go back a few years when 6-7 Ben Wallace (that's right...6-7, NOT 6-9) won TWO rebounding titles in a row.

Ok, let's get back to my original point here, which is that the players of today are MARGINALLY better, on AVERAGE, than those of yesteryear.

If I were to tell you that a peak Babe Ruth would be a great player in TODAY's game, you, and perhaps the vast majority of this forum would probably laugh me off the board. How could that rotund, tooth-picked legged "athlete" be a GREAT player in TODAY's game?

This is where the "bridges" come in. Players like Ted Williams, Willie Mays, Henry Aaron, and Nolan Ryan.

Ted Williams is a good place to start. His career spanned FOUR decades. In his rookie season, in 1939, he batted .327 with 31 HRs. In his LAST season, in 1960, he batted .316 with 29 HRs (in only 310 ABs.) Back to his rookie season. In his rookie year, Jimmy Foxx batted .360 with 35 HRs. So, we know that Foxx was a better player, in 1939 than Williams was. And just the year before, in 1938, Foxx batted .349 with 50 HRs. In 1932 Foxx batted .364 with 58 HRs. In that same season, Ruth, at well past his prime, batted .341 with 41 HRs. And just five years prior, Ruth slugged 60 HRs.

Ok, continuing...there were pitchers that Williams faced in 1939 that Foxx faced in 1938. There were also pitchers in 1932 that Foxx faced, that also pitched to Ruth in that season.

But wait...those players played before integration. There is no way they would have accomplished those numbers against the players post-1947. Hmmm...interesting point...except that Williams batted .406 in 1941 (pre-integration), and then, in 1957, he batted .388 (with 38 HRs in 420 ABs)...or POST-integration.

In that 1957 season, Mickey Mantle batted .365 with 34 HRs. Just the year prior, in 1956, Mantle batted .356 with 52 HRs. And just the year before that, in 1955, Willie Mays hit 51 HRs. Why is that significant you ask? Those players not only faced many of the same pitchers in the decade of the 50's, they also faced pitchers who pitched in the 40's, and pitcher's who would pitch in the 60's. Incidently, I will get back to Mantle a little later, but for now, let's go with Mays. Mays had a long career. Once again, in 1955, he hit 51 HRs. Ten years later, in 1965, he hit 52. So, his great seasons lasted for many years. How about Aaron? In 1957 he hit 44 HRs. In 1973, and well past his peak, he hit 40 in 392 ABs. He faced pitchers like Robin Roberts, Warren Spahn, Don Newcombe, and many other great hurlers in the 50's. He also faced Koufax, Gibson, Marichal, and Seaver in the 60's. And, in the 70's, he faced Carlton, Palmer, and even Ryan.

Ryan is the next "bridge." He pitched for 27 years, and in FOUR decades. In the early 70's, he was clocked (by a SLOW radar gun) at 101 MPH, in the eighth inning of a game in which he had thrown 162 pitches. His very LAST pitch, in the early 90's, and on an injured arm, was clocked at 98!

BTW, I mentioned a SLOW gun. Here is an interesting article about Ryan's speed... and it might actually have been as high as 108 MPH...

http://www.efastball.com/baseball/st...major-leagues/

Oh, and BTW, how about the name of Steve Dalkowski? He never made it the major's, but he was pitching in the 1950's and 60's. Just take a moment and read this article...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Dalkowski

Estimates of Dalkowski's top pitching speed abound. Cal Ripken Sr. guessed that he threw up to 115 miles per hour (185 km/h).[18

Back to Ryan. While we know that Ryan was a great pitcher, and for many years, he was seldom the best in his era. There were spectacular seasons turned in by Ron Guidry and Doc Gooden, among others. Furthermore, as hard as Ryan threw (and he may have been the fastes of all time), there were MANY pitchers that threw hard long before him. Koufax reportedly was clocked at 98 MPH in the mid-60's...and after he had SLOWED down his fastball to control it. Back in the 30's and 40's, Bob Feller was throwing nearly 100 MPH. And, think about this...as hard as Feller was throwing, hw didn't have the K/9 IP that many of the pitchers of today do. In other words, even with his blinding fastball, the players of his era were hitting him. Before him it was rumored that Walter Johnson was probably close to 100 MPH in the "dead ball" era.

Ok, so we have basically covered the Williams thru the Ryan eras...or from the 30's thru the 90's...and there were MANY great players. Williams was certainly among the best, but he played against guys like Aaron, Mays, and Mantle...all of whom were as great, or nearly as great.

We have covered the hard-throwers, but how about the power-hitters? Certainly the players of TODAY hit the ball much farther, right? I recall reading an article in SI about five years ago. The writer claimed that Barry Bonds' LONGEST measured HR was 490 ft. Interesting...Reggie Jackson's HR in the '71 All-Star game may have still been rising at that distance. BTW, Jackson would clear that wall in 1984. Lou Brock, of all people, hit a HR in the Polo Grounds that cleared the 505 ft. sign. Furthermore, there were many power hitters that were hitting tape measure shots back then. 6-8 250 lb. Frank Howard, Harmon Killebrew, Willie McCovey, and Willie Stargell to name just a few.

But the most powerful HR hitter of all-time? I will submit a player that was all of 5-11, and 195 lbs. Not only that, but he was hitting "tape measure" HRs from BOTH sides of the plate. In fact, the term "tape measure home runs" was coined after him.

Mickey Mantle hit MANY HRs over 500 ft.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mickey_Mantle

Mantle also hit some of the longest home runs in Major League history. On September 10, 1960, he hit a ball left-handed that cleared the right-field roof at Tiger Stadium in Detroit and, based on where it was found, was estimated years later by historian Mark Gallagher to have traveled 643 feet (196 m). Another Mantle homer, hit right-handed off Chuck Stobbs at Griffith Stadium in Washington, D.C. on April 17, 1953, was measured by Yankees traveling secretary Red Patterson (hence the term "tape-measure home run") to have traveled 565 feet (172 m). Though it is apparent that they are actually the distances where the balls ended up after bouncing several times,[4] there is no doubt that they both landed more than 500 feet (152 m) from home plate. Mantle twice hit balls off the third-deck facade at Yankee Stadium, nearly becoming the only player (along with Negro Leagues star Josh Gibson, though Gibson's home run has never been conclusively verified) to hit a fair ball out of the stadium during a game. On May 22, 1963, against Kansas City's Bill Fischer, Mantle hit a ball that fellow players and fans claimed was still rising when it hit the 110-foot (34 m) high facade, then caromed back onto the playing field. It was later estimated by some that the ball could have traveled 620 feet (190 m) had it not been blocked by the ornate and distinctive facade. While physicists might question those estimates, on August 12, 1964, he hit one whose distance was undoubted: a center field drive that cleared the 22-foot (6.7 m) batter's eye screen, beyond the 461-foot (141 m) marker at the Stadium.

As amazing as those numbers are, how about this link...

http://www.themick.com/10homers.html

Ok, now, after all of that, is it still laughable to presume that Babe Ruth would be a GREAT player today? Incidently, Ruth reportedly swung a 42 ounce bat. Try to swing one if you can even find one. Furthermore, can you imagine what players of yesteryear could accomplish with all of the benefits of modern technology.

Now, we have covered baseball...on to football...

[jlauber]

Continuing...

I already admitted that the average football player of TODAY, is considerably bigger than those of 50+ years ago. And I will be the first to admit that the AVERAGE NFL player of today is faster than those of 20-30-40-50 years ago. However, are TODAY's football players the fastest?

Let's start with another "bridge." Darrell Green played from 1983 to 2002. At his fastest, he was clocked at 10.08 in the 100 meters. Remember that number. Now, you can dispute hand-held 40 yard times if you like, but Green had some downright ridiculous one's. There was even one at 4.09. In any case, Green won the "NFL's fastest man" competition FOUR times. Furthermore, at age 40 he was clocked eletronically at a 4.35.

How about Bo Jackson in the 80's, He was a WORLD-CLASS 60 meter man. AND, he has the fastest recorded time at the NFL combine ever, of 4.13.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bo_Jackson

he won the 1985 Heisman Trophy, the prize annually awarded to the most outstanding collegiate football player in the United States. He also reportedly ran a hand-timed 4.13 40 yard dash, still considered the fastest verifiable 40 time at an NFL Combine.

Deion Sanders was timed at 4.18 in the 40.

Before him, there was Hershel Walker, who reportedly ran a 10.1 100 meters in the early 80's. And before him were players like Cliff Branch and Mel Gray who were running 9.2 100 yard dash times (or probably around 10.2 in the 100 meters.) Back in the 60's OJ Simpson was part of USC's STILL world-record holding 4x100 yard relay team (I know, it is a little deceptive, since there have been teams in the last few years that ran a faster 4x100 meters.) In any case, OJ was a 9.3 or 9.4 sprinter in the 100 yards. And, players like Henry Childs and Travis Williams were running 9.3's in the 60's as well.

However, the FASTEST NFL player EVER? I will submit Bob Hayes, who played in the 60's, and was a LEGITIMATE HOF NFL player. (My god, the man AVERAGED 42 yards on his 76 career TD's.) He ran a 10.0 100 meters in the mid-60's! There has NEVER been a LEGITIMATE NFL player (not some two-bit track star that got cut, but legitimate) who has run a faster 100 meters.

Furthermore, as big as the players of today are, there were huge athletes back in the 60's. Buck Buchanon was 6-9 285 lbs. Ernie Ladd was over 300 lbs. And how about Jim Brown, who was 6-2 and 230 lbs back then (and a 9.6 sprinter)?

Ok, that was a much more brief look at the football players of today, compared to those of yesteryear...

Next up, basketball. But it will be a little later...I have to run for now...

[PHILA]

Furthermore, at age 40 he was clocked eletronically at a 4.35.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gWL-Oafx2w

He ran a 4.2 at age 40 and 4.4 at age 50 this year.

[aau]

"choker" is too harsh imo

"loser" "underachiever" are more apt

per the average height of his opponents , , here's a list of
all star bigs beginning with wilt's 69-70 rookie season

WILT 7'1 275

russell 6'9 215
wdukes 7'0 220
w embry 6'8 240
lovellette 6'9 234

1962

bellamy 6'11 225
red kerr 6'9 230
larusso 6'7 220

1965

zelmo 6'9 225
w reed 6'9 235
w unseld 6'7 245
thurmond 6'11 225

1970

kareem 7'2 225
e hayes 6'9 235

1972

lanier 6'11 250
cowens 6'9 230

.

wasn't a height issue . . . these cats lacked
the size and ability to compete with wilt

who was far ahead of his time . . . .

[G.O.A.T]

"choker" is too harsh imo

"loser" "underachiever" are more apt

per the average height of his opponents , , here's a list of
all star bigs beginning with wilt's 69-70 rookie season

WILT 7'1 275

russell 6'9 215
wdukes 7'0 220
w embry 6'8 240
lovellette 6'9 234

1962

bellamy 6'11 225
red kerr 6'9 230
larusso 6'7 220

1965

zelmo 6'9 225
w reed 6'9 235
w unseld 6'7 245
thurmond 6'11 225

1970

kareem 7'2 225
e hayes 6'9 235

1972

lanier 6'11 250
cowens 6'9 230

.

wasn't a height issue . . . these cats lacked
the size and ability to compete with wilt

who was far ahead of his time . . . .

Your premise isn't totally flawed, but you need to do a lot more research. You got guys on the list who weren't centers, heights and weights wrong and a 18 year old Wes Unseld included in 1965 though he'd never even played a varsity college game yet.

[jlauber]

"choker" is too harsh imo

"loser" "underachiever" are more apt

per the average height of his opponents , , here's a list of
all star bigs beginning with wilt's 69-70 rookie season

WILT 7'1 275

russell 6'9 215
wdukes 7'0 220
w embry 6'8 240
lovellette 6'9 234

1962

bellamy 6'11 225
red kerr 6'9 230
larusso 6'7 220

1965

zelmo 6'9 225
w reed 6'9 235
w unseld 6'7 245
thurmond 6'11 225

1970

kareem 7'2 225
e hayes 6'9 235

1972

lanier 6'11 250
cowens 6'9 230

.

wasn't a height issue . . . these cats lacked
the size and ability to compete with wilt

who was far ahead of his time . . . .

Interesting...

Here is a list of some of the players Chamberlain faced in his career. And, by the way, there is YouTube footage of Chamberlain easily outplaying 7-2 Artis Gilmore in the '71-72 NBA-ABA All-Star game...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1R6UI738MI&NR=1

There is also a story told by Kiki Vandewege, who witnessed Chamberlain overpowering 7-4 Mark Eaton in a ummer league game in the mid-80's, and when Wilt was in his mid-40's...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4Qw1-ssViw

But, back to that that list...

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...7234728AAZxTUR

Two of the NBA's greatest players, Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain, are often criticized for playing in a "weak" era. This is far from the truth, as the 1960s were a very good time for basketball. A much smaller league meant more competition for fewer spots. The fact that only the 121 best basketball players in the world could play in the NBA condensed the talent pool to nine teams. In the modern NBA, over half of the teams don't even have one all star player, nevertheless hall of famers. Examining the teams in the mid 1960s, all nine of them had Hall of Fame talents:

Boston Celtics: Bill Russell, John Havlicek, Sam Jones, Tommy Heinsolm
Cincinnati Royals: Oscar Robertson, Jerry Lucas
Philadelphia 76ers: Hal Greer
New York Knicks: Willis Reed
San Francisco Warriors: Wilt Chamberlain, Nate Thurmond
St. Louis Hawks: Bob Pettit
Los Angeles Lakers: Jerry West, Elgin Baylor
Detroit Pistons: David Bing, Dave Debusschere
Baltimore Bullets: Walt Bellamy

Russell and Chamberlain faced various legends on a nightly basis, yet still were known as the best players of their generation. Throughout the decade, the two were subject to strong competition Some of the great players Russell and Chamberlain faced included:

1960-1964:
Dolph Schayes
Bob Pettit
Walt Bellamy
Jerry Lucas

1965-1968:
Willis Reed
Elvin Hayes
Wes Unseld
Nate Thurmond

1969-1972:
Kareem Abdul Jabbar
Bob Lanier
Artis Gilmore
Billy Cunningham
Dave Cowens

One reason fans tend to lash out at these legends is the absurd stats of not only Russell and Chamberlain, but average players as well, as it was not uncommon for a player to average 15-20 rebounds per game. There are several reasons for the high rebound rates of these players:

a. A high tempo offense. The average team in 1965 shot about 600 more shots than a team in 1985 and about 1400 more shots than a team in 2005.

b. Less fouls called. In 1965, the average team had 2076 personal fouls per season. In 2005, 1856 personal fouls were called. But keep in mind that 1400 more shots were attempted, yet only 200 less fouls called. The result, a lowing field goal percentage, and more shots allowed to be rebounded.

When adjusting the field goal percentage to 45% and reducing the shots taken to the normal rate today, the rebounding rate drops to a more familiar rate for most players. Elgin Baylor would dropped to around 9 boards a game and Nate Thurmond to around 12. However, both Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain, even with the adjusted stats, still averaged between 16-20 rebounds per game, showing that they truly did dominate like few others.

Another common misperception is that Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain played against only 6'6" white centers. That is completely false. Here are the NBA players from 1960-1972 6'11" or taller who played at least 3 years in the NBA: (list does not include Wilt Chamberlain)

Kareem Abdul Jabbar: 7'2"
Dennis Awtrey: 6'11"
Walt Bellamy: 6'11"
Tom Boerwinkle: 7'0"
Nate Bowmen: 6'11"
Mel Counts: 7'0"
Walter Dukes: 7'0"
Jim Eakins: 6'11"
Ray Felix: 6'11"
Hank Finkel: 7'0"
Artis Gilmore: 7'2"
Swede Halbrook: 7'3"
Reggie Harding: 7'0"
Bob Lanier: 6'11"
Jim McDaniels: 6'11"
Otto Moore: 6'11"
Dave Newmark: 7'0"
Rich Niemann: 7'0"
Billy Paultz: 6'11"
Craig Raymond: 6'11"
Elmore Smith: 7'0"
Chuck Share: 6'11"
Ronald Taylor: 7'1"
Nate Thurmond: 6'11"
Walt Wesley: 6'11"

Also, regarding Russell, who was really 6-10, was that he was a WORLD-CLASS high-jumper (he was ranked 7th in the WORLD in 1957), ...AND, there was a post here recently which stated that Russell had a higher standing reach than 7-2 Kareem (so does anyone really believe that Russell would not have been able to defend Kareem?)

Regarding standing reach...even Wilt admitted that Thurmond had him by an inch or so.

Furthermore, how many "great" players have been 7-3+? Virtually NONE. As for "all-star" centers in the 60's...there were only 9-10 teams...and Wilt and Russell tied up two of the four slots almost every year. BTW, how many taller centers would Ben Wallace (who was nowhere near as skilled as Russell) beaten out in the NBA if the league had only had 9-10 teams in the mid-00's?

Also, are we going to say that the ONLY reason that Shaq dominated in the NBA was that he was the ONLY 350 lb. player? Do we ignore his athleticism just as you ignore not only Wilt's, but Russell's, Thurmond's, Kareem's, and so many other GREAT centers of the 60's and 70's.

Furthermore, in Wilt's 65-66 season, when he scored 33.5 on a then record .540 FG% (and a year later shattered that with a .683 mark), there were nine teams with centers like Bellamy, Russell, Thurmond, Reed, ...all in the HOF, as well as Beatty (an all-star), and quality centers like Dierking, Counts, and Imhoff...centers who could shoot,(unlike some of the centers of the 00's.) So, Wilt was facing these centers 9 times each a year, not counting the playoffs.

As for Wilt being a "loser", I have never seen anyone here that would consider Olajuwon a "loser." Hakeem played in the NBA and won two rings. Wilt played in the NBA 14 seasons, and won two rings. But, not only that, Hakeem was part of EIGHT first-round playoff exits. Now, who was the bigger "loser?"

I also read about Bird the "winner", or Bird the "clutch" player here too. PLEASE! Bird played with loaded rosters in the 80's, and had three rings. And that doesn't even begin to take into account just how much more DOMINANT Wilt was in not only the regular season, but in the POST-SEASON. Wilt was a MUCH bigger player in the clutch and in the post-season than Bird ever was. Bird actually had some mediocre Finals, and some even worse playoff series. He also shot much lower than the LEAGUE AVERAGE in terms of FG% in the post-season, and as bad as that was, he was even WORSE in his five Finals (he NEVER even shot 50% in any of his Finals, and had Finals of .488, .481, .449, .445, and .419.) He was not nearly the scorer, nowhere near the rebounder, and not even in the same galaxy in terms of defensive impact. And Wilt was a better passer. How many assist titles did Bird ever win?

Ok, back to my take on basketball from the 60's to today...

[G.O.A.T]

I would say Wilt had a slightly greater physical advantage over his competition than guys like Shaq and Kareem. Kareem's advantage was part tactical and part physical in that he had a shot that could never be blocked by a man unless he was near or over 7'0" and had great athleticism and timing. Shaq's was pure power, but in his era there was a greater emphasis on bulk and weight lifting which resulted in more 240-260 post players than in the 1970's and 60's when most 4's were 210-225 and 5's 220-245.

Still all three have one common characteristic and that is that officials allowed players to foul these three on every possession essentially just to make it "fair".

Still the notion that Wilt or any player from the post-shot clock era dominated an NBA filed with 6'7" white stiffs is so far from the truth or anything resembling it, it should just be ignored.

[aau]

Your premise isn't totally flawed, but you need to do a lot more research. You got guys on the list who weren't centers, heights and weights wrong and a 18 year old Wes Unseld included in 1965 though he'd never even played a varsity college game yet.

no premise . . . just the facts as per basketball-reference

those are the bigs that made the all star game that decade
if there were other bigs , obviously they weren't good
enough to make ASG , thus requiring no mention
however i did leave off one guy , , clyde lee
6'11 200

as for unseld , he was listed in the 65-70 section

didn't think i needed to spell it out

[PHILA]

To quote from another forum:

Opposing Centers

The big names against whom Wilt played a lot were:

Bill Russell, Walt Bellamy, Wes Unseld, Willis Reed, Nate Thurmond, Spencer Haywood (during the last 3 years of his career, Spencer's 3 best years), he got 80 games of Bob McAdoo as a rookie and a dose of healthy Bob Lanier (Lanier's first three seasons, all 80+ games played).

Bells was at least 6'11, 250 and was drafted only two years after Wilt. Forget about Walter Dukes, worry about the 31+ ppg Bells dropped as a rookie. Yes, he was really only dominant for his first five years, but he was still an important and significant player thereafter.

And yeah, Kareem was a player during the last 4 years of Wilt's career (though Wilt only played 12 regular season games in Kareem's rookie year). Still, that includes Kareem's 3 best scoring seasons and two of his three best rebounding seasons.

Oh yes, and Cowens was there for the last 3 years of Wilt's career as well.

Wilt had competition and it's ludicrous to think otherwise. Yes, some of it didn't enter into the league until later in his career but you'll notice that while he didn't score as much as he did as a younger guy, his efficiency skyrocketed, his rebounding wasn't affected and he became a deadly passer while retaining his reputation for outstanding defense.

The inclusion of competition (much of it with significant size, such as Kareem, Lanier, etc) did NOTHING to affect his ability to impact the game at an elite level.

So arguing that Wilt's competition were all 6'7 white guys is not only wrong, but pointless.

For the sake of argument, let's break it down by year:

59-60 Bill Russell, Dolph Schayes, Red Kerr, Charlie Tyra, Willie Nauls, Ray Felix, Clyde Lovelette, Walter Dukes, Phil Jordon
60-61
61-62 Walt Bellamy,
62-63
63-64 Nate Thurmond*
64-65 Willis Reed
65-66
66-67 Reggie Harding, Joe Strawler, Walt Wesley, Leroy Ellis, Mel Counts, Darrall Imhoff
67-68
68-69 Wes Unseld
69-70 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
70-71 Dave Cowens, Bob Lanier
71-72
72-73
72-73

* Thurmond and Wilt played together for their first two years, so I guess 65-66 is when they really became "competitors."

There were certainly shorter guys in the NBA in his earliest days but then, he also played Bill Russell and the others more often because the league was smaller.

So here, we've covered the standard argument.

But let's take this a little further, let's look at the average height of your generally NBA starting center in 1995, 2000 and 2008.

1995:

The entire Atlantic division had someone at least 7'0 tall starting more games at the 5 than any other player, including Shaq, Ewing, Montross, Willis, Benoit Benjamin, Shawn Bradley and Gheorge Muresan.

And Shaq, a physically imposing presence, still managed 29.3 ppg on 58.3% shooting over 20.2 FGA/g because the defense, despite the increase in height over previous eras, was insignificant. Shawn Bradley was a rag, Muresan couldn't move, Benoit Benjamin wasn't special and even good players like Ewing couldn't touch him. Shaq at this stage of his career was still under 315 pounds. Montross and Willis weren't really significant barriers either.

Wilt wasn't as heavy as Shaq but was ridiculously strong and considerably more skilled; there was nothing in the Atlantic division that would have been any more difficult than what he dealt with in his own career and plenty less than some of the other guys Wilt faced later in his career when he'd bulked up and slowed down a bit.

There were 3 legit 7-footers starting in the Central division and that's only if you count the 32 starts that Alton Lister had for the Bucks (that was more than anyone else at that spot and even if you don't ignore Vin Baker, who was only 6'11). They were Rik Smits and Will Perdue. I dare you to say anything about either. The division included Alonzo Mourning, of course, who didn't suck, but you're still not discussing anything that Wilt hadn't seen before in terms of defensive package and such.

In the Mid-West, you're talking about 34 starts out of Felton Spencer, David Robinson and Dikembe Mutombo as the seven-footers. You had a tiny guy (Lorenzo Williams, IIRC, about 6'9), some guys near the right height (including Olajuwon, of whom Wilt spoke highly).

The Pacific division was even worse; the only legit 7-footer was Divac and, like the Central division, there wasn't a soul with a prayer of guarding Wilt.

So, in '95, there were 27 teams in the league and of those teams, there were a fairly pedestrian 4 7-footers who could have really done anything against Wilt and only three of those were also offensive threats (Mutombo basically taking the Thurmond role, only less offense and more defense). There were two other guys (Mourning and Olajuwon) who looked similar in terms of height differential to Wilt's competition of the time.

Now, notice something...

What I'm saying about Wilt applies also to Shaquille O'neal, who was the same height as Wilt and, at the time, as heavy as Wilt was at his peak (and, for the 95-96 season and on, at least 15 pounds heavier than even that... the weight differential grew with time, of course).

So anyone who wants to make the argument that height is at ALL meaningful to what Wilt achieved needs to wonder how much Shaq padded his stats against teams that started, say.... Bo Outlaw or Tony Massenburg on any given night. Or Lorenzo Williams. Or BUCK Williams. Or AC Green. Or any random stiff who was just tall, of which there were PLENTY in the league at that time.

Let's put to bed height as a valid argument, hey?

When Wilt hit the league, he had competition. In his earliest years, his league was only 8 teams large and the proportion of competition represented that. There were perhaps 2 guys in the league who gave him a lot of trouble, so about a quarter of the teams in the league threw someone at him 12 times that gave him some trouble (Russell and Bells, mostly).

In the NBA of 1995, there were 5 guys of that type, 6 if you generously include Mutombo.

5 guys would be 17% of the league; 6 guys would be 20% of the league.

The proportion of significant competition had actually DECLINED by this period, suggesting that the exploits of players such as Olajuwon, Robinson, Shaq, Mourning, Ewing, etc were all inflated by a lower proportion of competition despite a significant peak in centers... a peak not unlike what Wilt would experience during his own career.

Now we fast forward to 2000, with two MORE teams in the league.

The significant players to consider are Mourning, what remained of Ewing (he was a 15/10 player at this point), Theo Ratliff (who posed no offensive threat), Shaq, David Robinson (steeply into his decline), Tim Duncan, and then Arvydas Sabonis (but he was old, injured and couldn't guard Shaq either). So really, scratch Sabonis, because Wilt was even MORE mobile. You could try to put 'Sheed on him but that wouldn't have worked either.

So again, you're talking about Mourning, Ewing, Shaq, Duncan instead of Robinson and that's it. In a 29-team league, that's down to 4 guys, representing just under 14% representation of significant competition. If you feel especially frisky, you can add Kevin Garnett to the list to bring it up to 17% or so. Garnett was a long, rangy defender but he would have gotten badly outpowered by Wilt, especially at that stage of his career because he hadn't finished filling out/bulking up yet. Webber never defended anyone and Karl Malone didn't have a prayer for guarding Wilt any more than did the strong 6'9 players of Wilt's own era. The PFs of the time didn't really stand a chance.

Flash forward to 2008 and 30 teams.

The only guys who would be of any significant offensive threat to him would be Yao Ming, Dwight Howard, Amare Stoudemire and Tim Duncan. Actually, you can probably look at Al Jefferson and Andrew Bynum, as well as Chris Kaman.

But Amare certainly doesn't stand a chance at defending Wilt; remember, this is a guy who gets ruined by Rasheed Wallace, he's not actually a competent defender 4 out of 5 nights. Kaman doesn't stand a chance either and his offense would be problematic against someone with the sort of size and mobility possessed by Wilt. And Bynum... is unproven as a primary option, heavily reliant on the triangle action and playing off Kobe. How he'd react to someone larger, stronger and a lot more athletic than he would be interesting.

So sticking with that first list, the guys that posed some notable threat to Wilt make a list 4 long, 6 if you're generous. That means you're looking at about 13-20% as your proportion for competitive players.

[PHILA]

And that's AGAIN lower than what Wilt had even in the early portions of his career and that includes me ignoring good players who were under 6'10 or who aren't commonly discussed and thus have no reputation amongst younger posters.

Ultimately, height is nothing more than the argument of the petulant who refuse to accept that Wilt was a dominant player and would remain so today. Even at the peak of the center in modern times, proportional competition did not match the days of old and there were some absolutely spectacular centers during Wilt's career and against whom Wilt did not falter.

* * * *

Now, something else people don't like to talk about; what about Jordan's average height advantage?

Or did we forget that Jordan was projected as a small forward coming out of North Carolina and prefer to ignore that he generally enjoyed a noticeable height advantage against his competition as well?

Between 84-85 and 97-98, just how many large guards were there? Remember, small forwards generally don't count because he had the aid of Scottie Pippen for the bulk of his career in Chicago.

I'm not going to treat this in further depth because I'm lazy, but when the big names of the mid/late 80s and the 90s come up at the 2-guard, of whom do you think?

The top scorers from the guard position during Jordan's Chicago career (84-85 through 97-98) and who played at least 600 games in this time-frame:

Michael Jordan 31.5
Mitch Richmond 23.1
Clyde Drexler 21.5
Magic Johnson 20.4
Reggie Miller 19.7
Jeff Malone 19.7
Tim Hardaway 19.6
Isiah Thomas 18.8
Reggie Theus 18.5
Rolando Blackman 18.0
Kevin Johnson 18.0

Then it drops off into players like Dale Ellis, hersey Hawkins, Joe Dumars, Gary Payton, Ricky Pierce, Kendall Gill, etc, etc.

If you look at guys who played 300+ games, you get Latrell Sprewell and Penny Hardaway.

Obviously, Payton's average in that timeframe is a bit skewed by the low-scoring days of the earliest portions of his career, so we should adjust to remember that he was a 20-24 ppg All-Star, a DPOY, center of a team dynamic with Kemp, blah blah. But he was also 2 inches shorter than Jordan.

Now, let's take out the PGs. Bye, bye Kevin Johnson, Tim Hardaway and Isiah Thomas (all of whom were at most 6'2). That leaves Magic (whom Jordan faced at most twice a year except in 90-91), Richmond (who was 6'5), Reggie (who was a skinny punk who couldn't D up on MJ), Jeff Malone (6'4), Reggie Theus (6'7) and Rolando Blackman (6'6).

Now, how many of those guys were truly dynamic scorers and/or really good defenders?

Cooper was gone by the time the 90s started and Alvin Robertson was never a very good scorer. Payton's there, Theus was a dynamic offensive talent (if problematic in various ways), Drexler was extremely versatile but who else, you know? The talent pool at the 2 was a lot less diverse for Jordan than was the center pool for Chamberlain.

Iverson didn't get drafted until 1996, Kobe and McGrady weren't anything special until after Jordan retired, Magic was gone after 90-91, Drexler and Payton were out West...

So where was the nightly competition for Jordan?

Jordan was outstanding, don't get me wrong. He very much deserves to be mentioned in the top 5 and in the GOAT argument, I just want to make it abundantly clear that arguing height and competition (especially in Jordan vs. Wilt) is irrational and supports neither side because it is a patently ridiculous oversimplification of the facts.

* * * * *

Ultimately, what this argument comes down to is big over small.

Wilt was a nasty volume scorer but Jordan was better at the line.

Jordan was a great defender but a great big defender (like Wilt) will ALWAYS be more valuable than a wing defender of comparable talent. Wilt's rebounding is something that Jordan could never match and Wilt has the most prolific passing years of any center in NBA history. He was a master at both low- and high-post passing (though specific high-post guys like Walton, Russell and Kareem enter the discussion if you focus on the motion offense and such). Wilt routinely took over games offensively, dominated in other ways in which Jordan could not, etc, etc.

I think in any case made for Jordan, you have to somehow overcome the overwhelming potency of Wilt's ability to play lots of minutes in almost every game of the season for about as long as Jordan played for the Bulls.

Remember, in his 14 years, Wilt played in 1,045 of 1,148 games. He played 80+ games 9 times and averaged 45.8 mpg in the regular season, averaging over 47 mpg in 160 playoff games as well. He kept his defensive and rebounding efficacy as he grew older and even overcame a fairly significant knee injury when he was 33. It limited him to 12 regular season games but he played in 17 playoff games that year and then played in 82 games for each of his final three years. Durability despite heavy minutes logged is something to consider, especially given the impact he was able to exert in that timeframe in terms of rebounding and defense.

DrawF? He was immensely effective at putting pressure on opposition frontcourts, too; Jordan drew fouls at 0.356 FTA/FGA, which is pretty good for a wing... and pretty terrible for a big, something like an Al Jefferson or a Zach Randolph. Wilt drew at about 0.50 FTA/FGA. So you're talking about a guy who's got the ability (partially because of the nature of his game) to draw loads of fouls, moreso than Jordan. And while MJ was obviously a vastly superior free throw shooter and would have scored more points per game off of those FTAs, Wilt had the Shaq effect, where he could sabotage a team's gameplan by putting their entire frontcourt into foul trouble, limiting their effectiveness for the rest of the game or outright removing them from the game more frequently than could Jordan manage himself.

More to the point, it's infinitely easier to build a contender around a dominant big guy... it's the path you see taken with a lot of championship teams.

FWIW, check out some of the biggest names in NBA centers:

Bill Russell 11 titles
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 6 titles
Wilt 2 titles, Finals appearances with Philadelphia, Los Angeles and San Francisco
Hakeem 2 titles
Shaq 4 titles, Finals appearances with Orlando, Los Angeles and Miami

Wilt consistently led his team to contention and failed primarily when he ran into the superior Boston squads built around Bill Russell. The point remains, however, that he took three different teams to the Finals, teams built different ways with him filling different roles. Jordan, however, is an outlier in basketball. He had a very specific team built around him, a very difficult one to replicate in later eras (while the ability of a big man to remain the centerpiece has remained uch less difficult to emulate).

So in terms of his ability to translate across eras, you definitely have to penalize Jordan. In the 60s, Jordan might have been Jerry West, perennially turned away in the Finals by the Celtics. In the 90s/00s, Wilt might have been Shaq, enjoying a three-peat and maybe more on account of his superior defense and rebounding.

It's all speculative but if you're talking about who's the greatest, there are many angles to consider. Wilt has Jordan's number for statistical dominance but could not benefit from the sort of defensive recognition he deserved because All-Defensive squads didn't exist until late in his career (though he was All-Defensive First Team in his final season).

Despite radically altering his game mid-career, Wilt still held a comparable hold on the league in terms of scoring titles and has records Jordan never approached there, and as a rebounder... and he did things outside of his position better than did Jordan; such as Wilt leading the league in total assists one year while coming in 2nd in APG. He was top 10 in total assists 3 times over a four-year span (4th, skip a year, 7th and 3rd before finally leading the league to get his third consecutive top-10 finish).

Even if you ignore the entertaining Wilt lore that floats around, there is but one arena in which Jordan exhibits superiority to Wilt (well, two, since he has one more MVP but that's hardly a big deal since Wilt has 4 and is one of a select few to win three in a row): championships.

And since Wilt has two championships and won them in different ways, on different teams and faced competition earlier in his career the likes of into which Jordan never ran, I think it's hardly fair to draw upon that as a factor of any value.

But even if you penalize Wilt for that, I think he still comes out ahead on account of the fact that you go big over small. Jordan may be the guy who generally bucks that trend but Wilt is the guy who brings it back.

[PHILA]

just the facts as per basketball-reference

Same site that has Charles Oakley listed at 225 lbs & LeBron at 240 lbs?

[G.O.A.T]

no premise . . . just the facts as per basketball-reference

those are the bigs that made the all star game that decade
if there were other bigs , obviously they weren't good
enough to make ASG , thus requiring no mention
however i did leave off one guy , , clyde lee
6'11 200

as for unseld , he was listed in the 65-70 section

didn't think i needed to spell it out

By premise I meant Wilt having a physical advantage over his competition.

As for your list, that's the part I thought was flawed, because guys like Wayne Embry weighed closer to 280 pounds. Russell was usually listed at 6'10" and just like today, a number of teams had specific guys who would guard the leagues best centers, guys who weren't all-stars but did that well.

Other than the 1990's, I can't think of a decade where there was more than one or two all-star centers who were 7'0" or taller. I could be wrong, but the 70's had smaller centers, the 80's was sporadic and Moses was short. This last decade has been Shaq, Duncan and little else.

Anyway I was confused by Unseld because he and Hayes were in the same draft class, but in different groups.

[aau]

Interesting...

Here is a list of some of the players Chamberlain faced in his career. And, by the way, there is YouTube footage of Chamberlain easily outplaying 7-2 Artis Gilmore in the '71-72 NBA-ABA All-Star game...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1R6UI738MI&NR=1

There is also a story told by Kiki Vandewege, who witnessed Chamberlain overpowering 7-4 Mark Eaton in a ummer league game in the mid-80's, and when Wilt was in his mid-40's...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4Qw1-ssViw

But, back to that that list...

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...7234728AAZxTUR



Also, regarding Russell, who was really 6-10, was that he was a WORLD-CLASS high-jumper (he was ranked 7th in the WORLD in 1957), ...AND, there was a post here recently which stated that Russell had a higher standing reach than 7-2 Kareem (so does anyone really believe that Russell would not have been able to defend Kareem?)

Regarding standing reach...even Wilt admitted that Thurmond had him by an inch or so.

Furthermore, how many "great" players have been 7-3+? Virtually NONE. As for "all-star" centers in the 60's...there were only 9-10 teams...and Wilt and Russell tied up two of the four slots almost every year. BTW, how many taller centers would Ben Wallace (who was nowhere near as skilled as Russell) beaten out in the NBA if the league had only had 9-10 teams in the mid-00's?

Also, are we going to say that the ONLY reason that Shaq dominated in the NBA was that he was the ONLY 350 lb. player? Do we ignore his athleticism just as you ignore not only Wilt's, but Russell's, Thurmond's, Kareem's, and so many other GREAT centers of the 60's and 70's.

Furthermore, in Wilt's 65-66 season, when he scored 33.5 on a then record .540 FG% (and a year later shattered that with a .683 mark), there were nine teams with centers like Bellamy, Russell, Thurmond, Reed, ...all in the HOF, as well as Beatty (an all-star), and quality centers like Dierking, Counts, and Imhoff...centers who could shoot,(unlike some of the centers of the 00's.) So, Wilt was facing these centers 9 times each a year, not counting the playoffs.

As for Wilt being a "loser", I have never seen anyone here that would consider Olajuwon a "loser." Hakeem played in the NBA and won two rings. Wilt played in the NBA 14 seasons, and won two rings. But, not only that, Hakeem was part of EIGHT first-round playoff exits. Now, who was the bigger "loser?"

I also read about Bird the "winner", or Bird the "clutch" player here too. PLEASE! Bird played with loaded rosters in the 80's, and had three rings. And that doesn't even begin to take into account just how much more DOMINANT Wilt was in not only the regular season, but in the POST-SEASON. Wilt was a MUCH bigger player in the clutch and in the post-season than Bird ever was. Bird actually had some mediocre Finals, and some even worse playoff series. He also shot much lower than the LEAGUE AVERAGE in terms of FG% in the post-season, and as bad as that was, he was even WORSE in his five Finals (he NEVER even shot 50% in any of his Finals, and had Finals of .488, .481, .449, .445, and .419.) He was not nearly the scorer, nowhere near the rebounder, and not even in the same galaxy in terms of defensive impact. And Wilt was a better passer. How many assist titles did Bird ever win?

Ok, back to my take on basketball from the 60's to today...

iirc , , , wilt retired in 73

who cares that he faced gilmore on his way out

why no response to the clowns he faced earlier in his career when
he was posting rediculous numbers which is all you ever care
about . . . he sure as hell didn't hang 48/30 on artis

lmao
summer league vs mark eaton . . . you killin me

nobody in their right mind would consider hakeem a loser
you comparing wilt's 2 to hakeem's . . . repeat fmvp
vs a ring in 67 and another in a diff decade for
which he wasn't named fmvp . . . . . really?

come on man , , , , , , you reaching as usual with these
lame ass excuses . . . . shaq faced far more quality
bigs than wilt and he won . . . . . . . . no doubt
smits mutumbo and mccullough sounds more
like a law firm than a formidable opponent
but i seriously doubt i need to list the
centers that shaq faced thru out

now you want to bang on bird . . . how is this relevant
he won 3 titles during the greatest era in L history
there's no limit to the number of players you'd
shit on on wilt's behalf . . . . . that's sad

could care less about league fg% avg
how is that relevant to wilt literally
playing against a band of scrubs
just more excuses from you

as usual

[aau]

Same site that has Charles Oakley listed at 225 lbs & LeBron at 240 lbs?

i'm sure you have a more reputable site of reference

why don't you list the actuals