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

[raiderfan19]

Why do so many people say stuff like "clearly", "hands down" and "not even close" when it's not the case?? Karl Malone's ppgs may have been higher (and they weren't exactly hurt because he played with Stockton), but they weren't a lot higher. It's like David Robinson Vs Hakeem Olajuwon, David's career high in ppg is higher than Hakeem's and most who have seen the two play will tell you that Hakeem was a better offensive player. Also, check out Chuck's FG%, not only was he a great scorer, but mad efficient - more efficient than Malone even though Malone had around 3 inches on him. And check out their assist numbers while you're at it before you call Malone clearly a better offensive player. Plus Charles could score in more ways and had 3 point range. Also, I can't help but mention that Charles Barkley led BOTH the 92 and the 96 dream teams in scoring. That's two intnernational tournaments, playing with great scorers like Jordan, Bird, Shaq and Hakeem (and Malone was on both teams as well). And his FG% was through the roof in both olympics. And before you start thinking that everyone's fg% was high, you should see Jordan's and you'll see that he struggled.

international and nba arent the same at all. if they were melo would be better than lebron. as for fg% and assists they are pretty close. and no chuck didnt have 3pt range. he just thought he did. every three he took was a bad shot. he was a terrible 3 pt shooter.

[OutOfPlace]

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

[Y2Gezee]

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

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

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

[dejordan]

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

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

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

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

[raiderfan19]

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

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

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

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

barkley gambled for steals. he did it for his whole career. he also went for a steal and missed that cost them the series. as for scoring like i said ill take the guy who averaged more than 25 12 times over the guy who did it 5 times. and please dont act like chuck had lesser players around him than malone. its just stupid. another thing chuck averaged more than 27 twice. malone did it 8 times. there is absolutely no question who the better scorer was.

[raiderfan19]

I believe LeBron put up better numbers than Carmelo in the latest international tournament. Anyway, I didn't mention their performances for team USA as the only reason for why Chuck was better offensively, but as a bonus to the other reasons. If their fg% and assists are close, then so are their ppgs, with Malone's scoring still carrying the asterisk that is John Stockton. Chuck was by no means a great 3 point shooter, but he certainly had more 3 point range than Malone.

he didnt shoot enough for it to really matter but i bet youd be suprised to know that malone shot a higher percentage from 3. shooting 26.6% from 3 for your career isnt an asset any way you slice it. malone also shot a higher ft%.

[mjbulls23]

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

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

[Psileas]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...1&p2=malonka01

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

[Snow]

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

[raiderfan19]

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

barkley has the lowest career 3pt percentage of anyone who took more than 500 threes in his career in nba history.

[Loki]

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

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

[dejordan]

barkley gambled for steals. he did it for his whole career. he also went for a steal and missed that cost them the series. as for scoring like i said ill take the guy who averaged more than 25 12 times over the guy who did it 5 times. and please dont act like chuck had lesser players around him than malone. its just stupid. another thing chuck averaged more than 27 twice. malone did it 8 times. there is absolutely no question who the better scorer was.

it has nothing to do with who's supporting cast was better (though barkley's phili crew is inarguably worse than just about any utah team malone had), and everything to do with role and pace. malone's team played at a faster pace, and it was his job to score. barkley's team played at a slower pace, and it was his job to create. amare scores more than tim duncan. doesn't make him a better offensive players, makes him the primary finisher on a running team with a great p & r point guard who isn't expected to create open shots for his perimeter teammates.

[Shep]

give me malone anyday.

- malone had a much better career

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

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

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

- malone was a much better defender

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

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

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

easy decision

[pierced]

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

[raiderfan19]

it has nothing to do with who's supporting cast was better (though barkley's phili crew is inarguably worse than just about any utah team malone had), and everything to do with role and pace. malone's team played at a faster pace, and it was his job to score. barkley's team played at a slower pace, and it was his job to create. amare scores more than tim duncan. doesn't make him a better offensive players, makes him the primary finisher on a running team with a great p & r point guard who isn't expected to create open shots for his perimeter teammates.

i generally respect your opinions but you know you are completely and utterly wrong on pace right? barkleys teams played at a faster pace every year after 1987 with the exception of 91(the numbers are available on the team pages at basketballreference/databasebasketball). pace really isnt a factor and if it was the slower pace argument would favor malone. malone was the better player than barkley. its not really debateable unless people decide to start throwing out myths like his 3pt range which he never really had(again he is the worst 3pt shooter of all time with more than 500 attempts.) it is arguable that he was more capable of a dominant single game though.