If Patrick Ewing played in the Russell/Wilt era

[Blue&Orange]

But that's even more ridiculous.

You'd have to be like "well, they didn't lift weights back then, so you'd have to figure Ewing would be 20 pounds lighter. Oh, and they didn't know about X, Y, Z, techniques back then, so Ewing wouldn't know about that."

By the time you get done with it, you have so many ridiculous hypotheticals that it makes no sense.

You can't just take Ewing's skills away from him and strip him down and then compare him. That makes no sense.

You can either compare them relative to the era they were playing in, or you can compare them straight up as they are. You can't throw in a bunch of hypotheticals about how good they would be if they grew up in that particular era. Makes no sense.

I love how you're worried about adding hypotheticals to something that itself it's a hypothetical scenario.

Yes time travel makes more sense, let's put Ewing 1994 on a time travel machine.

Know what? Since time travelling is allowed, before you putted Ewing on a time travel machine, i'v sent Hakeem with a lot of ped's like 3 years ago, now Russel and Wilt are even more skilled and stronger. Now what?

[Tking714]

Only thing Ewing has over Wilt and Russell is a jumper.

[Whoah10115]

If Patrick Ewing played in the Russell/Wilt era, the more honest refs of the time would have exposed his lack of fundamentals and called him out on his constant traveling.

10th ranked center at best.

8th. That's all.

[L.Kizzle]

If basketball in the 60's was as good as you say it was, Wilt Chamberlain would have never scored 100 points in a game, and he wouldn't have had as many 70 point games as he did, if any.

And as far as organized basketball goes, you named 3 people. The majority were not playing ball like kids do today. All of these NBA players today have known each other for years because they've played against each other in tournaments around the country growing up.

Stop it. Earl Monroe played in leagues when he was younger and their was AAU teams back in the 60s. The Rucker leagues in NYC were not exacly And 1 type of leagues. It was real shit. Bill Russell started playin at a young age, unlike guys like Akeem, Duncan, Bynum who started around 15-17 years old. More ball was being played 50 years ago then today.

[SilkkTheShocker]

An old, broken-down Ewing outplayed prime Zo in the playoffs. Think of what prime Ewing would do to Russell and Wilt Ewing would be the one with 11 rings.

[L.Kizzle]

An old, broken-down Ewing outplayed prime Zo in the playoffs. Think of what prime Ewing would do to Russell and Wilt Ewing would be the one with 11 rings.

Well and old Kareem outplayed a younger Pat. So we have Kareem >>> Pat >> Zo. And old Wlt kept young Kareem in check, so now its Wilt > Kareem >>> Pat >> Zo.

[La Frescobaldi]

If basketball in the 60's was as good as you say it was, Wilt Chamberlain would have never scored 100 points in a game, and he wouldn't have had as many 70 point games as he did, if any.

And as far as organized basketball goes, you named 3 people. The majority were not playing ball like kids do today. All of these NBA players today have known each other for years because they've played against each other in tournaments around the country growing up.

Ah, yes.
This post, I suspect, is the real point that you are trying to make. If you will pardon me, I will paraphrase it:

How could anybody dominate a sport the way Wilt Chamberlain did? It's simply not possible; therefore, there must be an excuse, some outside factor that allowed that to happen. No man could ever do such a thing.

Well I can tell you that people have been trying to find an excuse for Wilt Chamberlain since I was a grade schooler. Even today - FIFTY YEARS LATER - internet bulletin boards are absolutely filled with posts mocking Chamberlain for his accomplishments. It's almost frantic, the desperate attempts you see, over and over.

This whole thread is dedicated to Patrick Ewing stepping through some magical doorway to 1967 and tearing up the NBA. Well, as I commented earlier, I would think he'd be a starting NBA center all right, on some of the teams. And I'd bet a great deal of money that Chamberlain would just hand him his head on a nightly basis.

Bill Russell stood on the court at the Top 50 ceremony in 1996 and told the reporters there, that Wilt Chamberlain was the greatest basketball player of all time. You can say Bill was being kind to a friend, or he was using some bragging rights, or something else. But if you do, you clearly never watched Bill Russell because at least in public, that man is absolutely not like that. He was as coldly, bluntly realistic as any player I ever saw.

Brother, I'll just let it go at this; Chamberlain really was that good.

[guy]

I tend to agree more with bmd. Valid points are made about how inactive kids are today due to obesity and the more distractions advanced technology brings, but that doesn't change the fact that the talent pool is alot larger today, which in theory should result in greater talent because of the increased competition. Shit, if it wasn't for advanced technology, how many foreign kids in the most random countries that are playing today would have even heard of basketball? And by the way, obesity and technology applies more to the last 10-15 years. That wouldn't really apply to the NBA players of 80s, 90s, and even some of the 00s, so that wouldn't apply to someone like Patrick Ewing, but the significantly larger talent pool he was part of would apply.

Ewing grew up in Jamaica, Hakeem grew up in Nigeria, Duncan grew up in the Virgin Islands, Nash grew up in Canada, and Dirk grew up in Germany. Would they have even picked up a basketball if they were born 30-40 years earlier living in the same situation? And that means that there were probably alot more human beings then there were in later years that had the potential to be a great NBA player that were never utilized.

[Nezty]

Who cares about the what ifs, he didn't so just leave it at that. No one can determine whether someone would do good or bad in a certain era, It's stupid and pointless.

[nycelt84]

Yes, people are the same, but everything around those people has changed.

First off, the talent pool in the '60's was much shallower than today.

People didn't aim to make a career out of sports if they had athletic ability. Today the best athletes in the country play sports. That wasn't the case in the '60's. A lot of the best athletes in the '60's never made a career out of sports.

Like who? Going back to the 1910's the best athletes in this country played or attempted to play pro sports.

[Round Mound]

Patrick Would Do Fine In That Era But His Rebounding Would Lower. He Wasn`t a Great Rebounder Despite He Had Alot of Help Rebounding Wise in NY. He Would Be a Great Scorer but Not Rebounder, Passer or Play Maker.

He Would Be Onstoppable 1 on 1 Around 5-8 Ft Away from the Basket. Ewing Had One of the Best Post Back to the Basket Games Ever and His Shooting Touch Even Farther Away from The Rim Was Legendary. He Would Definetly Be A 25pt-9rb-3blk Player. He Would Be in The Top 5 Best Centers in the Game cause the 60s and 70s had Way Better Centers than the 80s, 90s and the 00s. Won`t even bother with the 10s Centers there is 3 Legit Good Centers Only.