Hey codell, the point I'm trying to make is that if you post those type of numbers in that era, your facts you bring up about championships and other personal accomplishments can't be compared to Hakeem. And as far as speculating, you keep stating your facts then say that you can't compare eras then you say statistics in both eras are unfair to compare then you go back to your facts. Grow some *&$#@ and say one thing and stick to it! Don't bounce back and forth however it suits your argument. You are never at your best till you hit the crackpipe!!!(codell)
exactly. this discussion will never end because some people continue to say "well you can't compare hakeem to the other 3, but dream is actually #4 and if you don't agree you're a homer." what the f@#k? how can you read the facts, see the way dream lifted his game to untopped greatness in the playoffs and CARRIED his team, and say there were 3 people clearly better. it doesn't make sense to say "well you can't put dream in a timemachine and see how well he'd play with the celtics." then a sentence later go on to cover up russells offensive shortcomings by claiming he never had to carry his teams and that if you stuck him on the rockets maybe he could. think it over that's a double standard and weak. chances are russell couldn't do a 15-ft turnaround fadeaway if you put my 2 yearold cousin on him. then how is it fair to say, you can't compare eras but kareem,etc. put up better numbers against their competition so they're the best. HUH? that's comparing era's right there my friend. mvp's, final's mvp's, these don't mean a damn thing against each other. why?, there was no jordan or larry bird when russell played. there was no elgin baylor or oscar robertson when dream played. comprende? you can't measure that, we're only comparing centers. as much as you want to say i'm a rocket homer, fine, but the same thing i'm reading is very clear homerism for the mythical nba legends. I"M NOT PUTTING DREAM AHEAD OF ANY OF THEM because it wouldn't be fair, yet there has not been ONE justifiable reason to have him in the back seat.
By the way, who ARE these people that say Shaq "might be the best center ever?" Are these people on drugs? Just ignorant? However the fact that Shaq is so worshipped right now is a strike against Hakeem... why doesn't the average Joe say the same thing about him?
Oh no not again, I knew there will be more coming...I'm tired of saying stuff over and over again...Just to get to the bottom of this and not let it go on and on, I'll repost what I said earlier, please reread it 10 times: <b><font color=red> Hakeem is the greatest center in his era... But how much greater compared to the rest of the players in that era?????????? Wilt and Russell were the greatest of their era.... But how much greater compared to the rest of the players in that era?????????? remember that this is all RELATIVE, RELATIVE, RELATIVE, I need to drill this in everybody's brains, I'm really really sick of people comparing these players directly... </font></b>
Ok then. Going by what you just said, then Michael Jordan accomplishments cant be compared to other players accomplishments from the past, and therefore, he can not be considered the greastest ever at his position. Is that what you are saying? If it is, then no one can ever be considered the greatest at their position in any sport. Yet, thats just not the case. Ive been consistent in what Ive said. What Wilt, Russell and Jabbar have accomplished in their ears is more impressive than what Hakeem did in his era. Period. No speculation here. You guys are the ones comparing eras and being speculative because its the only way you can come up with an argument for ranking Hakeem #1. If I say Russell has won 11 titles and Hakeem 2 (which are facts) and use that to base my arguement, then the non-objective people in this thread say "well if Hakeem played in Russell's era, he would have won 11 titles also" or "Russell didnt have to carry this team like Hakeem did" or "Jabbar played with a bunch of hall of famers". And yall say this, yet its not a given that Hakeem would have won 11 titles and its not a given that Russell wouldnt have STILL won 11 if he DID have to carry his team (Hakeem played with another hall of famer for several seasons and only won one title, Kareem won 5 or 6). You cant penalize or reward someone for what they didnt do or werent asked to do. You can only go by what they did do in their own era with what they were given to work with. Ive said you can compare what a player accomplished in his own era vs. what a player accomplished in another era. If you couldn't, then there is no other way to determine which player had the greater career. And if it were that way, then Michael Jordan couldn't be considered any better than Oscar Robertson, Gail Goodrich, Elgin Baylor or Jerry West. Yet, his is considered to be better. Ive said that you cant speculate that one player would have had better numbers than another if he had played in his era or under different circumstances. Maybe now you are more clear on what I have and have not said. ChenZhen, I think you and I are both saying the same thing but in a different way. Glad Im not the loner in this arguement.
Why does that make it easier? In which league is talent more concentrated: the 80-player league then, or a 400-player league now? It would be far harder with fewer teams. Imagine taking the best 80 players of today and putting them on 8 teams... hard yet?
Oscar robertson averaged a tripple double for an etire season and no one else did codell, the reason MJ is the greatest is because he is the only player to win a championship without a big man. Hence Jabbar, wilt, Hakeem, russell,and shaq! I'm not sure if you are the one saying those facts or the sports writers you listen to or read about are saying them. I don't care how you rank Hakeem, you are entitled to that. Stop concentrating on your facts and be objective. This seesaw thing is getting old.
You are comparing Jordans accomplishments vs. a players accomplishments in another era (saying no other play won without a big man, which isnt true to begin with (Isiah Thomas)). So why wont you do it when comparing Hakeem and the other 3? So if winning without a big man means you are the all time greatest, then should Iverson or McGrady be considered Jordan's equal if they win a title without a bigman in the future? Jordan is not considered the greatest because that he won without a big man, hes considered the greatest because he dominated his era more so than anyone else in NBA history. For the last time, these are my "facts". FACT: Jabbar vs. his own era - 3 collegiate titles, 6 NBA titles, 6 time MVP, 2 time finals MVP, all time leading scorer, 24.6 points per game, 11.2 rebounds, 3.6 blocked shots and a .559 shooting percentage. FACT: Wilt vs. his own era - 2 NBA titles, 4 time MVP, 1 NBA final MVP, 30 points per game, 23 rebounds per game, and averaged over 7 assists a game several times and even lead the league one year. FACT: Russell vs. his own era - 2 collegiate titles, 11 NBA titles, 5 time MVP, (they didnt award a finals MVP in his era), 15.1 ppg and 22.5 rpg for his career. FACT: Hakeem vs. his own ear - 2 NBA titles, 1 MVP, 2 time finals MVP, 22 PPG, 11 RPG, 3 BPG and a .512 shooting percentage, all time leader in shots blocked. FACT: The first three accomplished more during their NBA tenure than Hakeem did. Did "sportswriters" make all this up?
Okay, I'll admit that I've only waded through 5 pages of this thread now... maybe I'll respond to the rest of it later. But here I go... you guys knew it was coming... I'm going to go on a Wilt rant, then go away. K? As many people have said, you can't really say what players of different eras could or would do if they had played at a different time. But the things that Wilt did strongly support the theory that Chamberlain would kill in any era. The fact is, Wilt led the league in scoring his first seven years, then never did again. Why? He was BORED. Seriously. So he decided to play a different way. Think about it, Wilt just decided at the beginning of a season that he wanted to lead the league in assists, then did it... at CENTER. I mean, that's like Ray Bourque leading the league in goals at D, or Elway leading the league in rushing... that's UNBELIEVEABLE. Later in his career, when he wasn't scoring as much (he only averaged 14 in his final year BTW) he would do the same thing... a reporter would say Wilt couldn't score anymore, and Wilt would go out and score 50 points in 3 consecutive games. Huh?! Wilt's teammates will tell you that he worked really hard in training camp at the start of every year... for about two days. Every year he would realize again that he was head and shoulders better than anyone, and opt for shooting drills by himself instead. What did his own teammates and others do to simulate Wilt's defensive ability during practices? Simple... and I'm not BSing you guys here... the Celtics had someone stand in the lane with a broom, swatting away shots. That's how good Wilt was. I've already told the story about Wilt picking up Bob Lanier with one arm. That tells you about his strength. The scariest thing by far about Wilt is how good he could have been. Instead of saying to himself, "I want to lead the league in assists," or, "I want to score fifty points," what if he had said, as Russell did, "I just want to win." Can you imagine how good Chamberlain would have been if he hadn't been so concerned about his self-image? Not that that was all his fault: "Wilt shattered virtually every scoring record in his first few years in the league. In the process of doing that, he rendered statistics irrelevant. So when Wilt scored 70 points in a game, no one paid attention. That was Wilt being Wilt. He had so many records that they began to lose meaning." -- Leonard Koppett, Veteran NBA sportswriter and author. After he averaged 50, Wilt was expected to do it every night, and got a bad rap when he didn't. Did you ever stand back and think about just how awesome that is?
Say what?! Rodman and Horace Grant are good big men, my friend! If you want to make that argument, Rick Barry is the best player ever. He won without any big men.
I know what you are trying to say, but sense we are talking about centers, let's stick to that. In what you are expressing you are right. They did accomplish more in their era than Hakeem.How can you say that you can't compare eras but you can compare accomplishments from one era to the next.you are contridicting yourself. In that sense, you are still comparing eras whether it be accomplishments or just plain eras. Do you understand what I'm saying. What was bill laimbeer a small forward?
Role, Im going to clarify this one more time. I said you cant compare eras by saying "Hakeem would have done this if he played with Russell" or "Russell wouldnt have won 11 championships playing in Dream's era". Then, I said, the only way you can compare players from different eras, is to look at what one accomplished with what was given to him in his OWN era vs. what the other accomplished with what was given to him in his OWN era. Im not comparing ERAS, Im comparing ACCOMPLISHMENTS and if you cant compare accomplishments then there is no way to say who are the greater players in NBA history and who arent!!!!!!!!! And if you are saying that Bill Laimbeer was a dominant big man, Im gonna bust out laughing.
I am trying to gauge the player's level of dominance in their era. One of the ways to judge their dominance in their era is through their accomplishments.
Whoa this is still going on? I couldn't help myself. I think I already came to the conclusion that there are two ways you can look at this, and they both have the same amount of problems. Yes, there is a huge problem with comparing players from different eras. Specifically, the problem is that the game changes and evolves over time, and players from the past could never be expected to do the things that the players of today can do. But, on the flip side, there is also a huge problem when you don't take different eras into consideration and just use achievements in two completely different times to decide which player was better. The problem with this view is that it is simplifying things. In short, the first view is subjective, the second view is objective. Usually, objective proof would be the best. However, this is not a "controlled experiment" where each player had the exact same team and played against the exact same competition. Thus, the objective proof really isn't proof at all. And subjective proof is an oxymoron. So, I conclude that THERE IS NO PROOF! Both views have equal amounts of problems! So, the best thing to do is look at it from both perspectives, and when you do that, you'll see that all four of the centers are on equal footing, and should be lumped in one UNRANKED group of the four best centers of all time. ...and codell, saying you lump them all in the same group, but then say you still put Hakeem fourth isn't acceptable. EDIT: Oh, and let me just add this for the fun of it. Achievements 1. Russell 2. Kareem 3. Wilt 4. Hakeem Overall Abilities 1. Hakeem 2. Wilt 3. Kareem 4. Russell Hakeem.. 1+4=5 Russell.... 4+1=5 Wilt........ 2+3=5 Kareem... 3+2=5 You see? There it all is right there? What more proof do you need? ...sorry...I'm reaching for some way that everyone can agree.
Your chances of winning are greater with fewer teams - simple mathematics. Talent would be more concentrated if all else was equal - it's not. There is a MUCH bigger talent pool now than there was then. That logic just doesn't apply here. You're assuming the talent pools are the same - they're not.
There are two points to be made with regards to this discussion... 1) When you consider their talent, teammates, era, and results, there is no reason to not consider Hakeem at least equal to Russell and Kareem, and probably as close to Wilt as anyone. Kareem and Russell never had to face the pressure and physical demand of being the focus of entire defenses the way that Olajuwon did. They never consistently won anything without stellar assistance, and I'm not talking Robert Horry and Vernon Maxwell level supporting players, I'm talking teammates capable of taking over games and/or series by themselves, and as such drawing significant defensive interest from opponents. As such, the skills and abilities break down this way... SKILLS Inside Scoring Chamberlain is the premier player here, with Hakeem second, Kareem third, and Russell fourth. Contrary to many contemporary accounts, Chamberlain was far from an O'Neal-esqu offensive player, relying exclusively on power. He was capable of overpowering opponents, yes, but the most of his scoring came off of a combination of deft bank shots, agile finger rolls, and a sweet short jumper, with dunks being the icing on the cake, not the main attraction. Hakeem's creativity inside, his incredible dexterity and quickness, and his now seemingly forgotten power moves would rank him equal to Wilt in this category except for much of his early career he was prone to painting himself into an inside corner with his footwork, and having to bail himself out with a low percentage shot or oft misguided pass. In his prime, when he learned both how to pass out of and avoid getting into this situatuation, he probably passed Wilt's best, but overall the nod goes to the Stilt. Kareem was underrated inside, but usually pretty dominant, and Russel could outmove and/or muscle your average center inside, but against these guys he comes a distant fourth. Mid-Range Scoring Kareem is first here, followed very closely by Hakeem, and then Wilt, and Russell is really lagging behind here. As great as the Dream-Shake, et al were, the single most dominant offensive move over a significant period by any big man was and still is Kareem's Sky Hook. Agreed that it can be argued that the competition was weak, etc...but he did it at every level, and for a very long time. Again, in his prime, Hakeem's mid-range game might rank as the best ever, but he deffers to longevity in an objective historical analysis. Wilt was still excellent at this distance, and people often overlook that aspect of his game because of his free-throw woes, but he was clearly behind the two leaders. This is not Russel's game. Outside Scoring Almost irrelevant, but the edge clearly goes to Hakeem. Everyone else is far behind, but their respective eras account for this in part. Rebounding Wilt and Russell are the clear leaders here, followed by Hakeem and Jabbar. While on offense he wasn't the Shaq clone some make him out to be, when it comes to rebounding, Wilt was an absolute beast. Many other big-time big men of his era later confessed to being actually afraid of going up against Chamberlain on the boards, as he was generally much quicker and much much stronger than almost any opponent. Think of Moses Malone, but stronger, bigger, and a lot quicker. Russell on the boards was a combination of Ben Wallace and Alonzo Mourning in his prime...dedicated, strong, agile, and intimidating. It's hard to choose between these two, but I'll give the nod to Wilt because he did it while also exerting a lot of energy on offense, whereas Russell was more of a specialist. Hakeem and Jabbar are a drop pff here, and pretty close to each other. Jabbar was more of a technician with great height and athleticism, whereas Hakeem evolved from an early-on athletic monster to the later version who was less relentless, but picked his spots better. Hakeem gets the edge over Jabbar due mainly to the level of competition, and lack of teammates. It could be argued either way, however. Passing Wilt Chamberlain lead the league in passing one year when his role was primarily reduced to the ultimate outlet man...That would have to rank him atop the list, followed by Russell, Hakeem, and Kareem. Russell was also a great passer in his own right, and had a lot of experience at it...This was Hakeem's greatest weakness ealry on, and while he eventually developed into a very effective low post passer, he still ranks below thee top two even in his prime. Jabbar was always a laborious but decent passer, with pretty good vision. Defense I would have to say that Russell ranks as the best interior man defender, Chamberlain the best help defender, and Hakeem as the best combination defender, with Jabbar trailing these three by a wide margin. The top three are virtually interchangeable, and the statisitcs don't and can't tell the story, as previously discussed. ABILITIES Strength Chamberlain was conceded to be far and away the strongest player of his generation, and indeed the strongest of any generation until O'Neal. Olajuwon would be second here, but it's easy to overlook his strength as he seemed to rely so little on it later in his career. It should be noted that the strongest men to play at either end of his career, Moses Malone early, and O,Neal later both stated that Olajuwon was the strongest player they ever faced. Early on he was most noted for his power. Russell and Jabbar relied on different kinds of strength than the pure power that Chamberlain or Olajuwon could exert...Kareem was more like a tree than an elephant..you could bend him, but you couldn't move or break him. Russell was more about relentlessness...he would never wear down, physically or mentally, and he would give it everything he had before he would let you beat him. Neither of these guys would blow other people out of the way like the first two, but they would be very hard to move if they were where they wanted to be. I'd give Russell the edge over Jabbar, but that may be just because his strength was more apparent, whereas Jabbar's was just part of the whole deal. Quickness Hakeem wins this hands down. His foot work, hands, overall body quickness are all at the top of the list, all-time. His quickness was as dominant as Shaq's strength. Russell would be next. If you've never seen him play, even on film, you don't know how this guy moved...he wasn't Olajuwon, but this was an athlete out there....Wilt's quickness for his size and power were incredible, but only worthy of 3rd place on this exalted list. Jabbar was quick, especially early on, but not up to the other's standards. Agility Again Hakeem ranks first, followed by Wilt, then Russell, then Kareem. Hakeem was like a big active cat out there. He trained using tapes for guards and small forwards...enough said...Wilt could do moves with such touch and agility that you wouldn't believe them. Russell was also very agile. Jabbar was agile, but not as mouch as he was smooth. Speed Chamberlain was the fastest down the court, Hakeem was second, Russell third, Jabbar fourth. Chamberlain, for all his size, was as natural runner as you'll ever see. Hakkem would have spurts of speed, and in some of his sruts he probably ran faster than Wilt ever did, but Chamberlain ran the floor hard and fast every night, until later in his career when his role changed. Russell was more of a workhorse than a thouroughbred, keeps coming and coming, never slower than he was before. And he could run. Jabbar was fast too, but he wasn't as fast as these guys. Endurance/Longevity Jabbar ranks the highest here, as his career attests. Chamberlain was a mule, and Russell was a mule's mule. They never stopped coming at you, and rarely stopped altogether. Hakeem ranks last on this list, although he went through stretches of carrying teams on his back that would have worn anyone else out. Grace/Smoothness of Action Jabbar ranks first here because he and Olajuwon seemed at times like dancers out there, Hakeem's would come in flurries of unimagineably athletic explosions of balance, movement, and grace, whereas Kareem always seemed to move with poise and precision, never slipping into the missteps that Hakeem was wont to do early on... Athletic Adjustment Olajuwon's athletic ability to adjust and evolve his skills and abilities is ulmost incomparable in sports history..from an athletic but primitave monster on the court to a dazzling artist who bewilders and embarrases other opponents is quite the adjustment. Chamberlain's ability to come to a team that needed him to rebound and pass, whereupon he promptly leads the league in rebounding and assits is amazing. Russell and Jabbar were both largley the same player leaving the league as they were leaving, aside from the obvious changes that time had on their bodies and abilities. Basketball Intelligence and Awareness... Russel was the best. Jabbar was second. WIlt was third, and Hakeem was 4th. Russel was his own coach he knew this stuff so well...Jabbar's knowledge of the game may have come from the greatest big-man mind ever ; Wooden, and he kept the stndard. Wilt had great court awareness, and was a student of the game. Hakeem sometimes had troubles with this area, reverting to a few axioms or his unparalled ahleticism. In the final summary two things become apparent..as individuals, Wilt is probably 1st, but Hakeem might be next, with the other two being a toss up...
The bottom line is that after watching grainy footage of old Celtic and Wilt footage, those guys were dominant in their era. But let's get real. Both were stiff, lumbering guys playing with a bunch of 5'10' guys. The other centers from that era are considered Top 50s of all time also because they played versus those same 5'10" guys 80% of the time. If Cousy was at any point in time EVER considered a premier point guard, then the talent level in the league was considerably low. And I know that that era layed the foundation for today. They WERE PIONEERS. But as all sports progress, the skill level increases. That's how it grows. Codell, your type of logic would have Chris Evert and Martina Navratalova (sp) being better than the Williams sisters. And it's not even close. That's why I asked who's better between Unitas and Farve (I got no response by the way). You go and put on some low top Chuck Taylor's and play a pick up game at the local gym and come back and tell us if it's humanly possible for those guys to physically do the things that the players of today do.
So you can say that you can lump Jerry West, Michael Jordan and John Havlicek into one group but cant say that MJ is the better of the 3? The only problem I have with your ranking system is this: Accomplishments are not disputable and they are based on fact (i.e. objective). However, abilities are very disputable and I feel you are manipulating the rankings so they will come out even in the end. You are throwing a subjective category in trying to devalue an objective category. I dont disagree that abilities do matter. But ability means nothing if you dont win (see Malone, Wilkins, Barkley etc.) So in the end, in my opinion, accomplishments matter much much more than ability. Also, as far the ability issue, I think its automatic that Hakeem is #1. If you need a pure scorer (someone that can drop 40 on you a night on a consitant basis without having to even think about it), I take Wilt (i think Kareem and Hakeem are even here). If you want someone that will get you 20 rbs a night, I take Russell and Wilt. If you want someone that shoots a high percentage, I take Kareem. If you want someone who can pass the ball, I take Wilt, Russell and Kareem first. If you want someone that can block shots, thats closer to call. As you can see, this category is again, subjective. Its not a given that Hakeem is #1 ability wise. Its highy debatable.
So Rice winning a title on the Lakers squad proved his ability? That improved his legendary scoring/shooting ability? 20 years from now that's how folks should look back? Oh player x shot and scored as well as Rice on paper but hey, Glen had that title in LA.
