Blasphemy Thread..How many of you think Russell > Shaq seriously?

[rodman91]

Almost in everyone's list Russell > Shaq. Do you really think Russell was really better than Shaq?

Do you really think Russell's achivements make him better than Shaq? or he was simply superior player?

[RRR3]

I have Shaq over Russell on my GOAT list, at least at the moment. That's just me, though.

[Odinn]

Bill Russell is the greatest champion of NBA History.

/Thread.

[RRR3]

Bill Russell is the greatest champion of NBA History.

/Thread.

Phil Jackson.

[swi7ch]

No offense to Mr. Russell but he would get injured if he tried to guard Shaq.

[Deuce Bigalow]

What Russell did in his era was win 11 championships in 13 seasons
Shaq was very dominating in his era, but Russell dominated his era more

[rodman91]

Bill Russell is the greatest champion of NBA History.

/Thread.

GOAT for you?

[Rnbizzle]

What Russell did in his era was win 11 championships in 13 seasons
Shaq was very dominating in his era, but Russell dominated his era more

Then why is MJ usually rated over him though, cuz MJ and Shaqs record are pretty similar, at least, when you're comparing them to Russell.

[jlauber]

If this would be allowed, Russell would have no chance...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ3FXLyNFew

[alwaysunny]

Some people just don't get it. Just because Russell is ahead of Shaq doesn't mean he's a better player if you put them in the same court. That's why people consider factors like competitions during that time when comparing players from different eras.

If I played in 50,000 B.C. era playing against bunch of monkeys putting 60/30/10 while winning 20 championships out of 20 years, I should be considered better than Shaq. If Russell had a time machine to play against prime Shaq in 2000 however, I think Shaq would destroy him.

[RRR3]

If this would be allowed, Russell would have no chance...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ3FXLyNFew

No one would have a chance. Guarding Prime Shaq was like guarding a ****ing tank.

[Deuce Bigalow]

If this would be allowed, Russell would have no chance...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ3FXLyNFew

neither would Wilt

[Deuce Bigalow]

Some people just don't get it. Just because Russell is ahead of Shaq doesn't mean he's a better player if you put them in the same court. That's why people consider factors like competitions during that time when comparing players from different eras.

If I played in 50,000 B.C. era playing against bunch of monkeys putting 60/30/10 while winning 20 championships out of 20 years, I should be considered better than Shaq. If Russell had a time machine to play against prime Shaq in 2000 however, I think Shaq would destroy him.

agreed

[ballup]

Phil Jackson.

[jlauber]

neither would Wilt

Maybe, maybe not. As PHILA pointed out, Chamberlain actually came into camp in the mid-60's at 320 lbs. And a Wilt in the early 70's was probably the strongest NBA player ever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...lt_Chamberlain

However, contemporary colleagues were often terrified to play against Chamberlain. Bill Russell regularly feared being embarrassed by Chamberlain,[3] Walt Frazier called his dominance on the court “comical”,[17] and when 6 ft 11 in 250-pound (in his early years)[18] Hall-of-Fame center Bob Lanier was asked about the most memorable moment of his career, Lanier answered: “When Wilt Chamberlain lifted me up and moved me like a coffee cup so he could get a favorable position.”[2