Where does Barkley rank all-time?

[CAstill]

He's in the 14-20 range
He was better than malone for sure
and he's still better than Lebron.

[SuperPippen]

Actually no. Erving was considered a very good defender and those other two have intangibles Barkley didnt. IE playing five positions(Magic), better at creating their own shot(Bird), Passing and making guys better(both). Hell, Magic led the league in steals and Bird made some all-defensive teams.

Also, they couldnt be exploited like Barkley. Barkley was undersized at his position and because of that he was a weakness. Magic was switched off to two guards and 3's, while Bird at least had size to be a nuisance even if he didnt have the quicks.

I agree with some of what you stated above, and I do think Erving was a decent defender, from what I've seen (I only stated that many don't believe that he was). But I still wouldn't say that Magic or Bird impacted the game defensively to a greater extent than Barkley did.

The bolded are irrelevant when discussing defense.

[Legends66NBA7]

He's in Top the 10-20 range.

[Doranku]

Top 15 of all-time.

In my eyes, he's easily the best/most productive and efficient player to never win a ring at this point.

[magnax1]

Also, they couldnt be exploited like Barkley. Barkley was undersized at his position and because of that he was a weakness. Magic was switched off to two guards and 3's, while Bird at least had size to be a nuisance even if he didnt have the quicks.

Magic definitely was exploited like Barkley. His poor defense was a large part of why the Lakers were never a great defensive team.

[eliteballer]

The bolded are irrelevant when discussing defense.

I'm talking about as total players.

Magic definitely was exploited like Barkley. His poor defense was a large part of why the Lakers were never a great defensive team.

The Lakers had great defensive teams, you dont win a title, let alone MULTIPLE without it. Part of it is due to their style of play though. Grind it out lock down defense isnt as much of a possibility when you want to run and gun. But when they had to, sure.

Magic had no problems guarding guys at or near his size, and he was such a huge mismatch offensivly(even more than Barkley) that it more than offsets the fact that at 6-9 he couldnt guard speedy PG's.

[magnax1]

The Lakers had great defensive teams, you dont win a title, let alone MULTIPLE without it. Part of it is due to their style of play though. Grind it out lock down defense isnt as much of a possibility when you want to run and gun. But when they had to, sure.

Magic had no problems guarding guys at or near his size, and he was such a huge mismatch offensivly(even more than Barkley) that it more than offsets the fact that at 6-9 he couldnt guard speedy PG's.

He couldn't guard guys his own size though, especially the last 4 or 5 years of his career, and on top of that what you say about the Lakers defense is untrue. They were above top 1/3rd only a few times during Magic's whole career.

[bizil]

I think GOAT wise, Chuck is anywhere from 14-20. But I think his peak value has him as the best PF of all time. KG, Duncan, Hayes, and Malone can be argued too. But Chuck redefined the PF spot more than any player until KG came along. The only edge KG and Timmy have in my book is their height and defense. I've ALWAYS considered Chuck better than Karl. Mailman was a great player and in GOAT terms, might have the edge on Chuck. But peak value wise, Chuck is the CREAM of PF's. It can be argued that a ring is the only thing stopping Chuck from getting in the GOAT top ten list. I also think Chuck is closer to Magic and Bird than people think in terms of flat out who is the better player. Chuck was a SF and PF all rolled into one and was a freakish athlete to boot. He had point forward type skills in terms of playmaking that tend to get underrated as well.

[Big#50]

Top 10. He was that great. Young kids need to watch some games pre 2006.

[OldSchoolBBall]

Top 14-18 somewhere. I have him in the 14-16 range personally. I have guys like Karl Malone and Moses above him, but that's due to accolades - I don't think either was better than Barkley at their peak.

[OldSchoolBBall]

Who in the top 10 can you legitimately say he was better than?

He has a definite case for being better than Kobe prime vs. prime. Maybe Duncan, too.

[Dragonyeuw]

There were Bulls-76ers games back in the late 80's-90's where Barkley actually looked like the best player on the floor, WITH Jordan in his prime. That tells you how good he was. In terms of his impact on the game, definitely top 20 all-time.

[Jacks3]

He has a definite case for being better than Kobe prime vs. prime.

No. Not really.

[Asukal]

Top 11-20 for me.

[KevinNYC]

Barkley is one of the best offensive forces but he wasn't a factor defensively. He's probably around 20.

Actually no. Erving was considered a very good defender ....Hell, Magic led the league in steals and Bird made some all-defensive teams.

Also, they couldnt be exploited like Barkley. Barkley was undersized at his position and because of that he was a weakness. Magic was switched off to two guards and 3's, while Bird at least had size to be a nuisance even if he didnt have the quicks.

Is this the standard were using now, if you're not a DPOY candidate you were not a factor on defense? How could a guy who averaged

7.7 defensive rebounds
1.5 steals
0.8 blocks

per game for over 16 years, not be considered having an impact on defense.
This is getting silly.

I would love to see some examples of who exploited Barkley defensively.

(Also describing Bird as a mere nuisance on defense is also revisionist history. His feet weren't quick, but his hands were very quick on D. In this thread, I posted some clips of early Bird in the playoffs on D. He had a very positive impact on D. He had a problem on quick players in the open floor, but everything else he did pretty well and he didn't make mistakes.)