48 inches is 4 feet. Wilt is 7 feet, 1 inch tall. So if he is jumping 4 feet off the ground, that would be 7'1" + 4'0".. which = 11'1" So his head would be 11'1" in the air. The rim is 10'0" I just looked up the average height of a human skull from the top of the head to the chin, and it is 10 inches. I'll give Wilt a few extra inches since he's so big and say 12". (I'm just assuming his head is taller than the average. It might not be). So that would mean his chin is above the rim. Have you ever seen him jump where he can look down into the basket? Didn't think so. And yeah, he was a high-jumper... so what? He was really tall... It isn't a vertical jump that measures how high your feet are off the ground.
There is no way that a 7-1 beast, that could jump a minimum of 40 inches, with an 11 second 100 yard dash, with soft hands, a hook and jumper, would dominate today's NBA. Impossible... The same guy that would up his averages whenever he played the great Bill Russell.
I wish there was more footage of Wilt playing in his prime. If anyone can find anything on Youtube and post it (in NBA Dish preferably, rather than this thread), that would be great. Honestly, I've seen a few of his games from the 70s and some grainy footage of a few quarter here and there from games in the mid 60s. I have to say, I didn't come away that impressed by anyone in that era. The game has evolved so much since then.
Take a look at the footage, and yes, he could get his head well above the rim. Take a look at the tail end of that block in the old footage, his head is well above the rim. And vertical jump the way they did the old jump DOES measure how far you can vertically leap, as the old high jump technique was a brute force jump that was limited by how high you could directly elevate your PELVIS from it's normal elevation. It's not like the Fosbury flop where you're basically chaining your body above a higher than normal point of elevation.
His best high jump recorded was 6'6.75. You have to have a 40.35 inch vertical AT THE VERY LEAST to make that jump.
I mean, this is the whole point of our arguments. You can't hold great past performances in such an early age of basketball to the later ages. Of course a player of Kareem's caliber was going to be MVP in 1970-1971. Who was going to challenge him? An experienced but old Kareem went up against inexperienced young bucks in Dream and Sampson. It's the same deal with Wilt vs. Kareem. Sure, Wilt might've been a great player. He did okay against a young Kareem. Sure, Kareem did okay against young Hakeem and Sampson. But did those 2 ever had to go against someone their own size and reputation (at the time)? Did they have a prime Ewing as Hakeem did? A prime Robinson?
You can't be serious. The average center in the NBA in the 90's was a thousands times better than they were in the 50's and 60's. I don't care about one other great center played at that time, his stats are still going to be skewed if he's playing terrible opposition everytime he's not playing the other 2 centers capable of playing defense int he league.
****ing Wilt haters, so if Wilt would've held back and not made his #'s so cartoony he'd get more credit.
Were you impressed by Kareem and Dream in the 80's? Kids watch 80's and 90's basketball and say the exact same thing. The game has certainly evolved, but effectiveness largely stays the same. Kareem is a great example. 20 years of domination, and it helps to be 7-1 and athletic as hell. That is something that trancends skill.
Shaq, Mutombo, Hakeem, Derrick Coleman, Alonzo Mourning, David Robinson, Vlade Divac, and Patrick Ewing. And yes, based on pure ability, size, etc, they are all better than Bill Russell. Bill Russell may have been better relative to the competition he was playing... but if you would transplant Bill Russell in his prime and put him in a time machine and dropped him off in the NBA in the early 2000's, all of those guys would have dominated him.
I don't think his vertical was even 40 inches. I just read an article back from when Wilt was a college basketball player describing him as having a 24 inch vertical. I'm not saying I believe that, either... but why should I believe you saying 40 inches?
Walter Dukes (7'0", 220 lbs.) Swede Halbrook (7'3, 235 lbs.) Tom Boerwinkle (7'0", 265 lbs.) Bob Lanier (6'11", 265 lbs.) Darrall Imhoff (6'10", 220 lbs.) Otto Moore (6'11", 210 lbs.) Sam Lacey (6'10", 235 lbs.) George Johnson (6'11", 245 lbs.) Paul Ruffner (6'10", 230 lbs.) Dick Cunningham (6'10", 245 lbs.) Walt Bellamy (6'11", 225 lbs.) Leroy Ellis (6'10", 210 lbs.) Nate Thurmond (6'11", 235 lbs.) Mel Counts (7'0", 235 lbs.) Nate Bowman (6'10", 230 lbs.) Clyde Lee (6'10", 210 lbs.) Walt Wesley (6'11", 230 lbs.) Henry Akin (6'10", 225 lbs.) Hank Finkel (7'0", 240 lbs.) Lew Alcindor aka Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (7'2", 225 lbs.) Neal Walk (6'10", 220 lbs.) Elmore Smith (7'0", 250 lbs.) Jim McDaniels (6'11", 230 lbs.) LaRue Martin (6'11", 215 lbs.) Tom Riker (6'10", 225 lbs.) Conrad Dierking (6'9", 225 lbs.) Johnny “Red” Kerr (6'9", 230 lbs.) Bob Pettit (6'9", 220 lbs.) Spencer Haywood (6'9", 230 lbs.) Rick Roberson (6'9", 230 lbs.) Luke Jackson (6'9", 240 lbs.) Duke Hogue (6'9," 240 lbs.) Zelmo Beaty (6'9", 230 lbs.) Len Chappell (6'9", 240 lbs.) Elvin Hayes (6'9", 235 lbs.) Hub Reed (6'9", 220 lbs.) The NBA was fantastically talented down low in those days. Keep in mind, Dwight Howard, the best C in today's NBA, is 6-9.
Derrick Coleman??? HA! :grin: How good were those guys in 2001. Looking forward to your response... :grin: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...t-chamberlain-is-the-greatest-nba-player-ever Educate yourself...
It is science, artard. It is literally impossible, physically impossible to do the high jump at that height, without being able to jump 40 inches. JEEZ... 40 inches, MINIMUM. According to you, Derrick Coleman is better than Bill Russell. Oh boy...
His standing reach was 9'6" (measured). The backboard is 13 feet. That leaves 3 feet and 6 inches (42 inches) unaccounted for when you see him blocking and his hand is above the top of the back board in THIS video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...v=0EpVZS26BUs#! IE, at least 40 inches.
Chamberlain was upwards of 275lbs and you're listing me a bunch of scrubs who mostly weighed 40-50 lbs less than that? And stop downgrading Howard's height. NBA players' height are measured with their shoes on, not off (unless you're Garnett). He's 6'10-6'10.5.
Umm... no you don't. 40.35 inches is 3 feet, 4 inches. Wilt's legs would only have to be 3 feet, 2 inches long in order for his pelvis to reach 6'6". I'm pretty sure his legs are longer than that, and the technique of the jump also adds a lot to that number. If you are 7'1" tall, you don't need to jump anywhere close to 40.35" to clear 6'6".
That isn't it at all. Wilt was fantastic relative to the competition he was playing. The idiots are the ones saying that you could transplant 1960's Wilt into the NBA today and he'd still be the "best player ever". You can compare Wilt on a relative basis with his competition at the time and compare it to a Shaq on a relative basis. But to say Wilt would dominate Shaq if you put 1960's Wilt in the late 1990's NBA is silly.
