Danger people... BigM has now changed the subject from most "ability" (DCkid) to "greastest center ever." Just be aware of that. My best center list: 1) Wilt 2) Russell 3) Jabbar 4) Hakeem 5) Shaq (for now) 6th man: M. Malone My best ever list (any position): 1) Jordan 2) Wilt 3) Russell 4) Magic 5) O. Robertson 6th man: Bird
Apples and oranges, and besides I would contend that Marino's superior 'abilities' amount to a stronger arm and quicker release...that's it. If quarterbacking were just about throwing, then you'd have a point, but accuracy, vision, touch, leadership, and the ability to hit the receiver in stride are as important, and Montana was better than Marino in all of them. Additionally he was more mobile and could buy time, allowing the offense to release more players into the offense rather than block, which the Dolphins had to do to account for Marino's pure pocket limitation. But as I said, they don't compare...quarterback and running back in football play a much more significant individual role in a team's winning than any other individual player in any other sport, especially the QB, and as such are held to a different standard. Winning is an important indicator to the quality of a qb...(Starting pitchers only go every 4 or 5 games, otherwise they would have as much or more impact in this regard...Goalies are close.)
I thinI agree with BigM. After all the input from this thread, here's my list: 1. Wilt 2. Russell, Hakeem, Jabbar 5. Shaq 6. Moses Originally, I would group all four together, but I've come to the realization that Wilt's domination on both ends of the floor is just too much for me to even argue that the next three should be in the same class. As for the next three, I look at it from one view and I say this guy is better, I look at it from a different viewpoint and I think the other guy is better. So, to be fair I can only group them together...and I think I've just run out of things to say.
Sratch that part about M. Malone not winning a ring. I meant to put that as 6th man on the all time-list for Karl Malone, not M. Malone (Moses). Then, I realized I put Bird as the 6th man. Typeo.
I think M. Malone will always be underrated. He doesnt necessarily compare unfavorably with someone of the players we talk about.
Hey everybody, Man you guys are commited. Let's all agree that we should respect each others point of view and I know I respect everyone's research and knowledge of their posts. Well, ot all of them but you know what I mean. All the facts, accomplishments, skills, etc. are very important but we'll never change the minds of the sports writers. This has been a long thread and needs to be put to bed. We can just wait till what wilt said for hakeem to become better. " Your never at your best till you're laid to rest" Sad but true. Wilt became ten times better after his unfortunate death.
I think that is untrue in this case. Wilt was THE MAN during his tenure, and was considered the hands-down greatest player ever, with apologies to Kareem and the Big O, until Nike Jordan hit the stage. His rep has actually been damaged by the Jordan hype machine and the comparisons to O'Neal.
When you are using these tennis and football comparisons, you are actually arguing against yourself man... "Its not even close"....of course its not close if they play one on one, its in a whole different era and you CANNOT COMPARE! That's what this thread is NOT about....Its about who's greater to their sport. So let me ask you, in tennis, who's greater, Serina Williams or Martina Navratalova? Hell yeah Serina will kick Martina's butt, but this doesn't mean that she's belongs to the Martina's class yet!? NOOOO WAY!
MacBeth, the long post that you had is awsome, its quite accurate, but you were comparing their skill levels and abilities directly, and ignoring important factors such as their accomplishments and era they played in. And you cannot do that. Every generation comes along, athletes evolve to be bigger, faster, stronger, and smarter. The game itself has gotten bigger, faster, stronger, and smarter. When you compare the way you did, the most recent generation gets a big advantage.
There's no use in explaining this to you, you just won't get it anyways...it will be just a waste of time, so why bother?
There are two different views being debated here: Who are the best centers... 1. Measured by their accomplishments in their generation, guessing how each one dominated and affected the game in that era. 2. Measured by their individual greatness, guessing who would be superior if matched head to head. There are so many criteria: Size Skill Championships Stats Dominance against oposition Athleticism Leadership Winning pct. Awards We can't help but subjectively emphasize what is personally important to each of us when the players we are talking about are so close. I don't see a problem in comparing across generations because Hakeem doesn't have a size advatage over the older guys. (Whereas you could say part of Chamberlain's greatness in his era was due to size alone, same goes for Shaq today) I said just part of it. So everyone has an opinion and I don't see where anyone who picked Hakeem in the top three all time centers could be off. Russell, Chamberlain, Shaq, Hakeem, Jabbar Flip a coin- everyone must have a favorite. I'm going with Hakeem in his prime. I just have a feeling none of those guys could stop him, where Hakeem would have held his own defensively. My opinion only
We see things in the same way. I too agree that Hakeem would be competative against the other three one on one, although its hard to say they couldnt stop Hakeem (Hakeems always had trouble with bigger/stronger players) or that they couldnt stop him. Russell contained Wilt on numerous occasions. He would have a good shot at Hakeem. I think those other 3 wouldnt be able to deal with his quickness and thats where dream has the edge. Im just not so sure Hakeem could deal with Wilts strength, as he was never really able to deal with Shaqs. If you arent comparing them one on one, and instead are asked which player gives you the best shot at winning in their given era, based on the other 3s domination in his own era, Hakeem might come up short in this category.
Codell, Agreed. This is such an interesting topic because I am sure if I grew up in Boston, Russell would be my choice hands down. I definately have a home town bias. Although I don't think I am just being a homer because I think Hakeem had insane athleticism and skills. But if I was a player and you asked me who would I most like to play with? Russell- 11 championships. If I was a player and you asked me who would help my team the most? I'd pick Shaq- 375 lbs. of muscle If I was a player and you asked me who I would least like to guard- Chamberlain- he went off on people for insane numbers Why Hakeem?- Go back and look at footage- just such an awesome athelete and player in his prime. Speed, leaping ability, timing, quickness... The guy was 6'-10" in tennis shoes. There he is blocking Jabbar, Robinson, Shaq, Ewing- How did he do it?
Shaq got his on Dream no matter what anyone says. He never shut down Shaq in the same way he has shut down players like Robinson or Ewing (which is debatable). Shaq didnt go nuts on dream but he has never really scored far below his average against Hakeem. And Im not saying, Dream didnt get his offensively, cause he did dominate Shaq when he had the ball. The reason we beat Orlando in the finals, was because Hakeem was a far superior passer to O'Neal at that point in their careers not because Hakeem stopped Shaq defensively. Remember, Hakeem was a great one on one defensive player but he played SUPERP team defense. His match ups with his own man was sometimes considered a wash, but Hakeem made damn sure that this teamates men wouldnt beat them at the basket. Thats what gave him the edge.
This is EXACTLY what we are debating about. Lets go in detail, which way of thinking is better and more logical? Problems with your way (and many others here) of looking at this: <i>"Measured by their <b>individual</b> greatness, guessing who would be superior if matched head to head."</i> 1. Remember this is and will always be a team game, no one individual will ever win championships by himself. EVER. Period. It takes a whole team playing together to win. This should be the ultimate goal in basketball, is to play together, unselfishly doing whatever it takes to win. Hence, basketball greatness should be judged alot of it on team accomplishments. That's why Russell is a legend people. That's why Hakeem wasn't really considered great until he won the championship. You can say Hakeem is the only HOFer to win the championship all by himself, with no other hall of famer. On paper, sure that sounds great. BUT HE DIDN'T DO IT HIMSELF PEOPLE. I would say to that: Ewing almost beat Olajuwon to win the championship that year, he's the only hall of famer on the Knicks. In the playoffs that year, Besides Stockton and Malone, were there any squads with two hall of famers? That's why before Jordon won all of those championships, many people were saying Russell was the best ever. 2. Anther issue I have against this argument is because you cannot rate players directly against each other across generations. There are so many problems with this. I said many times before that you cannot do that, but people have the tendency to keep on comparing across eras. You can only compare players who have played in the same era. Remember that greatness should be judge RELATIVELY. Earlier, I used the example, who's more powerful, the Roman Empire or the United States (now). If the Roman Empire ever happen to be alive at their primes till this day, are they more powerful then us? Your response would be: "No they are not, we'll run over them because they have no firepower". They are not advanced as us all they have are bows and arrows. That was a more extreme example but I think that brings my point across. Athletes in general nowadays are stronger, faster, smarter, and just more advanced, they have a huge advantage if you compare players directly with older generation guys. Therefore all of the "what would happen if this player plays one on one with this player" talk if you want to compare greatness is WRONG (The Martina and Serina comparison is a prime example even that is a purely individualistic sport). Now, people who have problem with my viewpoint (#1), here is your turn...shoot. But this time, no excuses, no if then or buts. my heart is telling me hakeem does belong in the inner circle, but my mind does not (Now, I complely undestand why most people would agree that he doesnt belong to the inner circle)
Rester, I was waiting for you to say that. When you throw out stats, figures and speculations about Hakeem playing against players in other eras...then, you say, "I definitely have a home town bias." How can we take your seriously? You pick Hakeem on purely a home town bias, then justifying his stats and ability against another era (you can't prove it, we can't disprove it). It's like a father saying, "My son is the greatest kid that ever lived. Here's why..." Well, of course the father will pick his son! Guess what? I'm from Houston. Yet, I pick Russell. Why? If you say I'm "not loyal," then we know that you can never participate in a logical discussion. From now on, just say you're biased and leave it at that. Rester: "The world is flat! The King and Church says so! Long live the King!" Columbus: "The world is round!" Rester: "Traitor!"
