Now your just taking this into the evolution direction. You can easily say the big fish was only allowed to evolve to it's size due to the environment it's in.
No, because Newton's accomplishments were much more solitary than Wilt's. Wilt's points and rebounds are a direct function of the efforts of those around him to physically impede him; I don't know how you block a person's though processes.
I don't think anyone is arguing that if we pluck Wilt from the 70s and put him in today's NBA that he won't be posting the same numbers. But you can't deny that he dominated his era against the best opponents on the same playing fields (basketball knowledge, physical conditioning etc..). Is it Wilt's fault that he was born in the 70's and only can develop to be dominant over opponents in his time? In 50 years time, I would expect our knowledge of physical conditioning and on basketball would be greater than it is today, would you diminish the achievements of Lebron or Durant of today?
Actually good point...the salt water shark would die if it's placed in the pond. So the big fish on the pond would win
I know it is not exactly the same. The point of the analogy is that you can't use progress to diminish greatness in the past. In the end, it is all speculative "what if." What if Wilt played in today's NBA with all the training, coaching, medical care, and advancement of sport science available to the current generation? Why were there not more bigger and faster players back then? That's why I have always maintained that there is no objective ways to compare greatness across different eras. There is no such thing as the GOAT.
By opening his mouth. Just because you've never seen it happen doesn't mean it's not probable to be true. I have never seen you fight a Bengal tiger, or really even in the same room with one. But I have no trouble concluding that a Bengal tiger would tear you to shreds if you two fought.
You can't compare players that are from a league's infancy to players that are from developed years. If Wilt came into the league in the late 70's, we probably don't even remember him. However, he dominated a talentless league in its infancy, which is nice, but not all that remarkable IMO. Look at baseball for example, when we talk about the legends of the sport, do we talk about Cap Anson, who dominated the league for almost 30 years during the league's infancy, or do we talk about guys like Babe Ruth and Mickey Mantle who played in a much more developed MLB decades later?
How do you know that? He averaged 18.6 rpg in his last season ('72-73) at the age of 36. Kareem averaged 16.1 rpg in the same season at the age of 25. Kareem averaged 13 rpg in the late 70's when he was 31-32 years old. Moses Malone was the best rebounder in the late 70's and he averaged about 15 rpg at that time. The fact is, the end-of-career Wilt was a better rebounder than the prime Kareem, who was only a slightly lesser rebounder than the best rebounder in the late 70's. And remember, Wilt did not have the benefit of the advancement of sports medicine and training in the later eras.
Rebounding isn't really age related. Wilt's TRB% by year: 60 - 20.3 61 - 20.7 62 - 20.0 63 - 20.8 64 - 19.8 65 - 20.3 66 - 20.4 67 - 21.3 68 - 20.1 69 - 20.4 70 - 20.7 71 - 18.4 72 - 20.1 73 - 19.6 Not much variance, he just averaged more rebounds per game earlier in his career because of minutes and pace, not because he was better rebounder. BTW career TRB% is higher and is all-time leader in playoff TRB%.
That's why I said late 70's and not early 70's. If you notice, Kareem's rebounding numbers dip after the mid 70's, never to recover...that's because the league was getting more and more talented. He wasn't over the hill at 28. It might not be Wilt's fault that his game is garbage compared to the bigs that came later, but that's just how it is.
Its not just the magic of "science". Its the magic of math. More people on earth. More playing basketball. For more money - with more and more training and refinement.
if you guys are going to compare players from diferent eras, you got to give them the same tools. If wilt had the same training and preparattion that guys on the 90s got, he will still crap on them. He was a better athlete, best combination of strenght and speed ever. He would still dominate the league.
You don't have to give them the same tools, there are tons of big guys that don't make it in basketball because they don't have those tools. You can't just assume that he'd be a better player if he played in a different era, he might not even be an NBA player at all if he'd played all that much later than he did. As it stands, he was one of the most dominant big men in the infancy of the league, and he shouldn't be compared to the much more talented big men than came later.
Do we diminish Napoleon, Alexander the Great, Gengis Kahn, Julius Ceasar's brilliance because they were in different era's and the art of warfare was in it's infancy compared to today? Or do historians look at these men as great because of what they achieved in their time? Hey but you guys are right. One tank and a few machine guns would of today would kill Alexander the great's army...pfft he was such a noob
Not a valid comparison, those guys were from VERY advanced time periods compared to the NBA at the time of Wilt. A more fair comparison would be the first human to discover that he can kill people with a big rock or a club. That guy was probably pretty feared in his time, but he wouldn't compare to Napoleon, Alexander the Great, Gengis Kahn, or Julius Ceasar just like Wilt can't compare to the greats that came after him.
I think its more you're comparison is not valid. First human to discover that he can kill people with a big rock or a club would be like the first person to discover or made up the rules of basketball and decided to play with his friend.
Wilt's time was already comprised of organised national league with coaches, GM's and players playing the game for a living so it's already quite advanced. You're comparison is a little unfair don't you think?
