Someone isn't understanding that if you drop Dwight Howard into the 60's he isn't Dwight Howard of 2011 anymore. His complete training/conditioning routine is vastly different. He's not building on the past success of russell, chamberlain, dream, and shaq. He's trying to figure it out all for himself. The 2011 Dwight Howard is a combination of the best in training and nutrition and a whole bunch of highlight watching of the greats before him. The 60's Bill Russell is a pioneer who was doing things people never did before and excelling. See the difference? You can't compare Dwight Howard and Bill Russell. Both are great for their own times but Russell in his era was far more successful than Howard has been thus far in this one.
But if you drop him into the 60's he is the Dwight Howard of 2011. Being able to watch all the greats before him and build on them is what makes him better. And I was just using him as a comparison for a defensive type center. I would put about 10 centers above him all time. But you are correct. If you take away his atheletic ability then yes he is the same player as Russell in the 60's. But my argument is that Dwight is just genetically more gifted.
I agree. But that works both ways: you can't say Bill Russell is the greatest of all time when he competed in a different era. He had more success because there was less/lower quality competition. This is the argument people used against Hakeem, and it always irked me. It's somewhat akin to saying the Model T is the greatest car of all time. Yes, it was a huge seller, and yes, it did a lot of things first, and yes, it was important historically. But the Bugatti Veyron is a superior automobile, in every measurable way (including pricetag ). So to sum up: Bill Russell = Hakeem =
hmmm...that Model T revolutionized the auto industry. The Bugatti is one of a handful of super high performance cars today. (i'm hoping you were making a Howard comparison with the Bugatti -- leave Hakeem out of this). ....and what's more -- the Bugatti would be next to useless on Model T era roads, and with mechanics and fuel of that time.
Since the Bugatti is one of the fastest, if not THE fastest, supercars on the road, I was comparing it to Hakeem, but okay, let's stick with Howard. Yes the Model T revolutionized the auto industry, but it's no comparison in performance, stying, safety, and comfort to the Bugatti. This is my point: you can't compare IN EITHER DIRECTION. When people say Russell was the GOAT, I just roll my eyes and think of the Model T. And I'd rather have the Bugatti. And the Model T is next to useless on modern roads, since it can get above 40, has no turn signals, no safety equipment to speak of, etc. It's comparing apples to oranges. Same with calling Russell the GOAT. Apples to oranges.
seems you're agreeing that the Model T had a greater impact. And that, compared to their peers, the Model T wins too. So, if it had a greater overall longstanding impact, and was measurably further ahead of its peers, wouldn't that suggest it's 'better' when comparing across eras? I mean...imagine what he could have done given the advanced knowledge and expertise???? Ok....maybe here's where our car analogy breaks down . Spoiler
No he wouldn't. If Dwight Howard was born in 1940 and started in the NBA around 1962 he would not be the 2011 Dwight Howard. Everything about him would be different, EXCEPT for his natural athleticism. Maybe he develops into a beast ala Russel/Chamberlain or maybe he doesn't have the ability to be a pioneer at the center position. I'm just giving an example of why it's impossible to compare eras so far apart.
Yes if you drop the Bugatti into the early 1900's it's going to blow away the competition. But it took years of trial and error and advances in technology to get to that level. The Bugatti didn't occur in a vacuum with no influence around it. Neither did Dwight Howard.
Wow, Its crazy how the actual point of this thread flew over so many posters' heads. They're actually arguing about Bill Russell... Clutchfans = sarcasm is dead.
Generations 20 to 30 years from now will be saying the same thing about Jordan.. and we'll be the old guys defending players from our era. Great players make their teammates better. Could it be that Bill Russell made HOF'ers out of his teammates? Or could it be that his teammates made him one of the GOAT? 11 rings is a lot!!
wait, so russell is overrated because his teammates are in the hall of fame? the only reason most of those guys are in the hall of fame are because of their ring collection, not their career numbers. they won all of those rings because they had the best team, sure, but russell was the best player on that team. without him do they even win 1? lets not talk about what he would be today. its ridiculous. coaching and training are so much more advanced now that the average player today would've been an all star back then. does that mean we should revere all average players now for how good they are? no. so lets not crap on the players of old because they didn't have the advanced training or coaching that current players prosper from. russell dominated his era. plain and simple. you want to compare him to dwight? seriously? without current weight training methods would he even be an nba player? would dwight even be catching alley oops or blocking shots if it wasn't for russell basically inventing them before dwights dad was born? what russell was doing wasn't just dominating, he was revolutionizing the game.
