I've never understood that picture. All you had to do was see Barkley stand next to Mario Elie and you knew how tall he was. Oh, and Charley Rosen kicks ass.
I think Chuck is wearing Timberlands in that picture. If he takes them off he goes from eye-to-eye down to eye-to-mouth.
Actually, that mugshot shows he's 6'8" on the dot. I am 6'2" and I have stood directly next to Chuck, shook his hand in fact. He is NOT 6'7".....he was barely taller than me. It would be a stretch to say he is 6'6".
Funny, compare the side view of the mug shot with the front view. Barkley all of the sudden is an inch and a half shorter in the front view. Either the camera was low and facing upward at Chuck, or he had a platform brought in. In any case....he ain't even 6'6". Check it: www.rotten.com/.../ bio/sports/charles-barkley/ I also have a poster of Chuck and MJ before tipoff in the 93 Finals. MJ clearly is taller than Chuck. What did MJ measure up to? 6'6"?
It always amazes me how people jump on his columns. First of all, no matter what your opinion is of him, you should appreciate the historical context he sets his column in. Dude will write about Dolph Schayes. I appreciate that because you can't get that with just any sports writer. Its rare for a guy not to just pay lip service to the old school but to actually have a little knowledge of what sports used to be like. And he doesn't just reel off stats from the fifties, he tells you what those players were like, what they specialized in and what they were weak at. Secondly, people get mad at some of the silliest things he writes, like ranking Phil Jackson high on his greatest coaches list. Well Duh, Jackson has nine rings. Period, bottom line, end of story. I don't want to here about how he had the best players, how he wasn't the X's and O's guy, he has nine rings, period. Then somebody complained on one of his lists that he loved players from the Celtics' dynasties. Again, Duh, its all about winning. Rosen believes the Celtics were winners because the put winners on their team. Not because they were the Celtics and you magically became a winner when you put on the uniform. That's his point, those Celtic players got it done, period. Isiah Thomas is the most dominating player under 6'5" because he willed his team to championships.
Nope. Doesn't mean that I always agree with him, or find his biases obvious and blatant. It just means I think he kicks ass. Just as a start, because I've wasted so much time tonight when I'm supposed to be working, I'll give one reason: nobody takes the time to break down fundamental flaws in players like Rosen. Little body-part movement, things like footwork when curling off a screen, or the way someone gathers themselves before taking a pass. Some sportswriters are so cynical that they think they'll come off as know-alls by including things like this alongside "Johnny averaged 20 ppg and ...," and the others simply don't know the game well enough to include the nuts and bolts of the game in their work.
Gotta love the Chuckster.... Robinson.. i would definitely list him on the over rated players. When chuckster was on the suns he was a great freak of nature.... I didn't like him ont he rockets because he really wasn't the right guy that complimented dream. But to say he was an under achiever.... hmmm how many guys at his height could do the things he did. definitely didn't expect a 6'4-6'5 powerforward to lead a team to the finals. geezeee....
CR is (seemingly) always grinding his axe, using his column as a forum to spread a questionable agenda. I don't question his knowledge, just his motives.
