Was Peak Charles Barkley better than Peak Karl Malone?

[Round Mound]

I agree Barkley was the better athlete. I meant jumper as in jumpshot if you're talking to me. Malone was the superior defender and shooter and it's not close. Barkley is the better rebounder, passer. Pros and cons to both. Peak it's Barkley, overall all time rank it's Malone.

Karl Malone the Better Shooter? Are You taking About Far Range, Mid Range and Post Range? Barkley destroys Malone as a Shooter. Malone always had some Range but Never Better than Barkley.

Just Compare their FG% especially inside the 3-Pointline and it Goes to Barkley by Miles

Barkley was More Skilled Offensively
Barkley had Better Fundementals
Barkley could Put it On the Floor 1 on 1
Barkley was the Better Off Man Defender for Blocks and Steals
Barkley was the Better Creator and Passer
Barkley was the Better Post Player and Overal Floor Shooter
Barkley was the Better Ball Handler and Dribbler
Barkley could Go Coast to Coast himself (not relying on a Stockton pass)
Barkley was the Better Rebounder

Barkley was Better than Malone the only things Malone was Better at was Man to Man D (certainly not in the level of Duncan or Garnett) as a FT Shooter and as Finish-Catch Player (Best Ever at it).

A The End Barkley was Better. Sadly He Did Not Last As Long Do To His Back Problems and Later on Knee Problems.

[Whoah10115]

Charles was not a better shooter than Malone. No way.

[k0kakw0rld]

Tough one ! But i'll go with The Mailman

[Poodle]

yes but Malone was overall better imo. Barkley peaked when he was old, but his early years he was very overrated. Malone was the model of consistent workhorse throughout.

[magnax1]

Definitely better then Malone IMO. Barkley was a more versatile offensive force, and just much easier to build an offense around. Malone was stronger, probably faster, had a better jumper and was a much better defender, but none of that really mattered when he couldn't get a shot up without his team mates setting him up in one form or another.

[bizil]

Give me peak Chuck over peak Malone. Peak value wise, I think Chuck is the best PF of all time. U got the premium PF aspects from him in dominating the glass. But u got small forward and point forward elements from him as well. And on top of it he was a freakish athlete at 6'6 and 265 pounds. He was undersized in height at PF, but had one of the biggest weight advantages EVER at SF. Malone was a beast and he's probably number two all time in terms of peak. But once again, guys like Duncan and KG were more versatile than Malone and were better on defense. And were just as good or even better rebounders than Malone. But in any aspect, I feel the top 4 PF's in term of peak are:

Barkley
Duncan
Garnett
Malone

But for that fifth spot it could be:

Hayes
Pettit
Dirk
McHale
Webber

[Deuce Bigalow]

They both sure did lose like a man

[bwink23]

Charles Barkley and not sure why this is even a question....

[Round Mound]

Where do people get the idea that Malone was a Better Shooter than Barkley?

- Maybe Malone Got Better as a Shooter Later on his Career. Thats what you Probably Mean

Malone`s "Shot Form" Might have Looked Nicer but he was NEVER A BETTER SHOOTER THAN BARKLEY!

Barkley actually could hit 3s. Not efficiently but he could hit them unlike Malone.

Barkley was not a jump shooter he was "Stand Shooter like Bird".

So if you say Malone had a nicher jumper i will agree...but a Better Shooter? Funny as Hell...Since Barkley had a Higher FG% Per Shot Taken and a MUCH HIGHER 2-POINT FG% (AND...its not like Barkley just got offensive put backs or rebounds or dunks...he could do it all)

Malone was not Faster or Stronger than Barkley either.

Malone worked harder on the Weight Room Thats why He Lasted Longer and his Body Looked Intune compared to Barkley (his body did not break as fast) but he Never Had The Torso and Lower Body Strength-Legs That Barkley had. That strength is Only Matched by Shaq.

Barkley Never Liked to Strengthen his Upper Body because He Prefered To Maintaing His Shooting Touch in the Post

[Kblaze8855]

Malone was the superior defender and shooter and it's not close.

Karl Malone couldnt shoot nearly as well as Barkley until like 96. And even then he didnt have his range or ability to shoot off the dribble.

[Round Mound]

For Better Understanding of Barkley`s Game i Suggest You Take a Look at This Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwxGT...eature=related

[Cali Syndicate]

Karl Malone the Better Shooter? Are You taking About Far Range, Mid Range and Post Range? Barkley destroys Malone as a Shooter. Malone always had some Range but Never Better than Barkley.

Just Compare their FG% especially inside the 3-Pointline and it Goes to Barkley by Miles

Barkley was More Skilled Offensively
Barkley had Better Fundementals
Barkley could Put it On the Floor 1 on 1
Barkley was the Better Off Man Defender for Blocks and Steals
Barkley was the Better Creator and Passer
Barkley was the Better Post Player and Overal Floor Shooter
Barkley was the Better Ball Handler and Dribbler
Barkley could Go Coast to Coast himself (not relying on a Stockton pass)
Barkley was the Better Rebounder

Barkley was Better than Malone the only things Malone was Better at was Man to Man D (certainly not in the level of Duncan or Garnett) as a FT Shooter and as Finish-Catch Player (Best Ever at it).

A The End Barkley was Better. Sadly He Did Not Last As Long Do To His Back Problems and Later on Knee Problems.

Barkley may have had more range, Malone had the more consistent 10-15 footer. HOWEVER, so you don't get all ape shit, Malone got a lot of clean looks playing with Stockton while Barkley like you stated was creating more of his shots on his own.

[Jotaro Durant]

mos def barkley

he was something else

[knickswin]

Barkley easy . . .

to me, Barkley is the one guy who really should have won a championship that didn't. He fit into everything I believe a finals MVP is. Dominant post scorer who could also create looks for his teammates.

I guess his problems were poor teammates and a poor attitude for most of his career. Didn't really get it all together until he went to the Suns, and then his body started breaking down giving him too small a window.

[Whoah10115]

Karl Malone was a more out-and-out PF and hardly stretched his range.



There are guys here like Round Mound and Kblaze, who have watched more ball than me and whose opinions I respect....but there is NOOO way that Karl Malone isn't a better shooter than Charles Barkley.



Charles is a better shooter off the dribble because he's better, more skilled, more talented. He's more capable of getting his shot off. That's just being that good. The shooting itself isn't close. Charles should have shot an even higher percentage throughout his career (and never under 50% during any of the Phoenix years) if he shot fewer 3's. Even more range, he didn't have. He had the ability to get that shot and he was more willing to jack them up. Malone ran the floor, used the high post, pick n' roll. He didn't shoot 3's unless he had to. He shot 40 3's, 3 times in his career. He averaged .2 attempts per game. Barkley averaged 1.9.




Come on...how many PF's, prior to Dirk, were better jumpshooters than Karl Malone?