But how can the "greatest defensive center" give up such an easy shot without a fight? In the 95 finals, Shaq did get some easy shots, but at least Hakeem gave him a hell of a fight for the position (and still won the war). In reference to that shot, it was a shot from the block: a 5ft shot maybe? Hasheem Thabeet can make that shot.
You can question why Bill let Embry have that shot all you want but it wasn't because Bill didn't know any better. I'm tellin you that man was a defensive genius intellectually beyond most any player at his craft in history. He was very aware of the opponents offensive options around him and how too D up in the post. Whether it makes sense to you or not, he likely gave Embry that shot. http://youtu.be/0cxnVdpVm4o http://youtu.be/vKFRS7CBTUc
That is an opinion and almost mythical and exaggerated. kinda like how everybody back in the day could grab a quarter off the top of the backboard? nobody gives up a block shot period. He might have been beyond his time with shot blocking, but it is easy to block a slow-moving/small explosive shot. As you said and I already knew, because of handchecking, players "backed them down" so they would not have a running start to play above the rim like today's game.
Sorry pal but theres a difference between Bill Russell and quarter off the backboard myths. The guy has 11 NBA titles 2 NCAA titles and a gold medal all in only 16 years of playing. Go ahead and believe he's a defensively inept myth based on that one play.
defensively inept? no. overrated? yes. 7 hall of famers? yes. If you put Hakeem in that time, he would easily block as many/if not more shots then Bill Russell. To say that he was giving him a easy shot was part of his defensive strategy and his mastermind play is off-based. I am not saying that he is a scrub, but when looking back at the video evidence, it is easy to clear away myth's about his "legendary" play and locking down the paint.
This is ridiculous. Here's a video of little KJ posterizing Hakeem. Does it make Hakeem overrated, or a bad defender or shot blocker? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifx_gRF-ouU
You posted exactly what that contradicts your argument. When Hakeem played, he played in a much more explosive era, hence although he was arguably the greatest shotblocker in history, he still get dunked on. Would this happen in Bill Russell's era? No. People backed their man down and were not nearly as explosive. And on top of everything on that play, he had little resistance on the perimeter through good ball movement and the defender having a ankle slip, allowing a straight drive to flush it. If anything, this video shows to fact how impressive it is for Hakeem to get his 3830 blocks in such an era of above the rim play that Bill Russell was not a part of.
If you watched the 60s dunking video, you will see at least 6 examples of dunks in half court sets that are done over a defender. The "posterizing" would not happen as often back then for an entirely different reason: the penalty for a foul in the act of shooting was three shots to make two, and two shots to make one for what is now an and one foul. That means there was no percentage advantage in fouling someone who already had a clear dunk or lay-up. All you did was make matters worse. There are other rule differences that add to today's explosiveness. Travelling is almost never called anymore, and getting that extra step definitely helps with explosion. Similarly with palming and carrying the ball. And there are also some strong cultural differences that restrained players back then. There was no ESPN, no slam dunk contest, and showing off flashy moves was much more likely to be considered bad form. Frankly, the flashy stuff was for the Globetrotters. People who could do that sort of thing generally refrained from it anyway, and I think the perception of race had something to do with it. An alternative hypothesis of course, is that Dr. J invented jumping and before him no-one could get more than 2-3 inches off the ground. That's what most people seem to think.
^plus, as in every single other athletic endeavour in history, the pool of players wasn't as good 50 years ago when the game was in its infancy and the talent pool exponentially smaller
The difference is Kareem was old when they blocked it, while Wilt was old and Kareem was a pup when he blocked it.
Somewhat related to this topic: It's kind of weird that people think Wilt Chamberlain wouldn't be a good player or dominate in the modern NBA against a position that has dropped out off tremendously, since the 90s. Do most starting centers even have semblance of a post game? Moreover, watching USA Basketball team play against other team's front line ... the USA has been near unstoppable, but their one achilles's heel is big men. It shows Tyson Chandler would have never been on any NBA Olympic teams from the 90s. Even if there were NBA Olympic teams in the 60s, I doubt he make those either. Chandler is still a pretty decent, though. But to think someone like him would slow down someone like Wilt is foolish. Love or Griffin trying to guard Chamberlain would be laughable.
The reason why Chandler is a weak link is because everybody else is so good on USA. And the centers in olympic basketball are smaller and more versatile, being quicker and stretching the court to the 3pt line.
yes. To be honest, if injuries didn't happen, Tyson Chandler would not even be on this team. With Howard, Bynum, Bosh, etc... I love his effort and defensive skills, but he just is not quick enough for the smaller C's in the Olympics and not offensively skilled enough to offset that weakness.
