ha ha ha ha oh I get it! the "20,000 women" exaggeration which are Wilt's own words from his personal autobiography makes every single completely unrelated testimonial, statistic, or piece of video footage of Wilt all equally untrue! Your so smart! Video footage is probably CGI and the testimonial from Arnold about Wilt's strength is just LAUGHABLE hahahahaha what does Arnold know about strength http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwvdsi6gLl8 4.6 40 yard dash timed by a professional HOF football coach? LOL that guy is a liar! NO WAY - because Wilt said 20,000 women!
Neither. Its Kareem. No way can you say Wilt. Thats laughable considering how he loss to Russell over and over again even when he had the better roster when he was on the Sixers. He is in contention for greatest statpadder though.
I wish I could have seen a prime Hakeem go up against a prime Wilt and a prime Russell. Would have been a treat. As for Wilt vs. Hakeem, without going into too much details I will give you a couple of quick reasons why I would pick Hakeem over Wilt and i will give you some quotes from players who had been around wilt and watched him play: 1) Wilt was known for shying away in big games/playoffs. He has had some bad performances in big games. Hakeem was at his best in playoffs and big games (one of the few players whose playoffs stats improved over the regular seasons stats). Hakeem was easily the more clutch player between the two. "I’ll say what most players feel, which is that Wilt is a loser…. He is terrible in big games. He knows he is going to lose and be blamed for the loss, so he dreads it, and you can see it in his eyes; and anyone who has ever played with him will agree with me, regardless of whether they would admit it publicly. When it comes down to the closing minutes of a tough game, an important game, he doesn’t want the ball, he doesn’t want any part of the pressure. It is at these times that greatness is determined, and Wilt doesn’t have it. - Rick Barry on Wilt. “In a way, I like it better when we lose. It’s over and I can look forward to the next game. If we win, it builds up the tension and I start worrying about the next game.” -Wilt Chamberlain, himself 2) Wilt's FT shooting was bad. 3) Wilt has been criticized for being a stat padder and caring more about his personal achievements than team's success. He was a tough guy to coach. Do you know one of the reasons why he never fouled out in his career? He did not want to foul out because then he wouldn't be able to pad his stats. “Wilt’s greatest idiosyncrasy was not fouling out. He had never fouled out of a high school, college or professional game and that was the one record he was determined to protect. When he got that fourth foul, his game would change. I don’t know how many potential victories he may have cheated his team out of by not really playing after he got into foul trouble.” -John Havelicek on Wilt "Wilt played the game as if he had to prove his worth to someone who had never seen basketball. He pointed to his statistical achievements as specific measurements of his ability, and they were; but to someone who knows basketball they are, if not irrelevant, certainly nonessential. The point of the game is not how well the individual does but whether the team wins. That is the beautiful heart of the game, the blending of personalities, the mutual sacrifices for group success…. I have the impression that Wilt might have been more secure with losing. In defeat, after carefully covering himself with allusions to his accomplishments, he could be magnanimous…. Wilt’s emphasis on individual accomplishments failed to gain him public affection and made him the favorite to win the game. And, simultaneously, it assured him of losing." -Bill Bradley on Wilt 4) Lastly, I will pick Hakeem simply because at his prime he had no weakness to his game at either end of the court. He was the complete package. BTW, if anyone cares..... .....Wilt Chamberlain met Hakeem Olajuwon personally in 1995 and told him how much he likes his game. A gesture which humbled Hakeem.
Kareem is the best center of all time. Wilt isn't even top 10 player ever, depends how you feel on Wilt vs. Oscar.
I have seen both men during their playing time. i heard Wilt's 100 point game under the covers as a kid. I'll take Hakeem straight up. i have my reasons....................... At one on one full court Hakeem would smash Wilt. But these comparisons all live in a galaxy far, far away.
Wow, not top 10 of all time - what are you talking about? Please tell me another player who averaged 50.4 points (at .506) and 25.7 rebounds in a season.
My god, your posts... Ugh. This is just to let you know I acknowledge that you replied to my post, but this is where my conversation with you ends.
you dont crown the greatest of all time in your respective sport with players who played in the infancy developmental stage of your sport. You just dont. If you look at sports across the board, the greatest players have always come in modern time lets say 1970 and up to be generous. Just look at all sports across the board, the greatest always comes later, not during the beginning. THIS IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE. YOur sport hasnt had a chance to develop talent. It hasnt had a chance to develop the rules (offensive goaltending legal the time wilt averaged 50, russell averaged over 20 boards, oscar averaged a triple double). Future generations could learn from wilt, russell, dr. j, moses, magic, bird but those guys who played in the 60s? they only have knowledge on players who came before them. Who do you think has the upper hand? Athletes of the 60s and pro sports during that time is a far cry from athletes of modern times and how professional sports is conducted nowadays. Just look at sports across the board, the greatest always comes during later times when the sport has had a chance to evolve and refine itself along with future generations always learning more because they had more players to learn from. Tennis: From Rod Laver to Bjorn Borg to Connors/Mcenroe to Sampras/Agassi to now the greatest era of male tennis with Federer, NOvak, Rafa, and Murray. Football: who do you think is better and more advanced? Otto Graham and Bart STarr or Tom Brady and Peyton Manning? In the middle you have joe montana and john elway to bridge the gap. Soccer: From Pele to Maradona to Brazilian Ronaldo/Zidane to Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo. Track and Field: From Jesse Owens to Carl Lewis to now the greatest sprinter of all time Usain Bolt. Just look at the 100m times. It keeps getting faster. Not slower as athletes evolve. That is a huge indicator of modern athletic supremacy if there was ever one. Add the advancements in modern medicine, nutrition, and training, its no contest athletes of modern times are far superior than athletes of the 60s. Its common knowledge that the 60s was devoid of athletic big men. All you have to do is check the film. Look at who is guarding wilt most of the time. People who continue to spew old school athlete supremacy are utterly dishonest and they do so in order to preserve their history and mythologize the babe ruths (wouldnt crack triple a today), harry grebs (boxer with no film footage) of the world and put them in ridiculous and dishonest pedestals. CHECK THE FILM. Hakeem was superior to Wilt in every way. Its like comparing a world war 1 soldier to a modern special forces soldier.
lmfaaoo at picking a player who played in an era of one handed dribblers. GTFO with that stupid *****.
Right, you picked Wilt easily because he had averaged 50 points a season playing against a bunch of 6'6" centers (exaggeration here, but you get the point). By the way, if I remember correctly, his FG% is just above 50% in that season, not impressive at all for someone who played so close to the basketball. And I really like how you started your post with "I love Hakeem" but then went on to insult him with the rest of your post.
LOL. There you go with a ton of your opinion and your opinion and your opinion. Wilt was one of the fastest players ever to play in the NBA. In college at the University of Kansas, Chamberlain ran the 100 in 10.9. This is only 1.4 seconds behind the fastest human ever. And Wilt stated many times that college track and field was just a hobby. Basketball is where Wilt put in effort. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_was_Wilt_Chambelain's_100_yard_dash_time Wilt Chamberlain is most probably the strongest player ever to play basketball. Here is a video of an interview with the terminator, who trained extensively with Wilt. Pressing 500 pounds, that is a feat of strength! <iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/STXbuXGPdoY?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> Wilt probably had one of the highest vertical leaps ever in the NBA. There are no videos that I could find but there are numerous eye witness accounts of Wilt "making change" from the top of the backboard (13 feet high). "So here is how I figured out that Wilt can jump at least 45-46 inches. He made change on top of the backboard at least 3 different times in front of people(actually much more often, as he did it with the Globetrotters quite often). When Wilt was standing, his reach was 9'6. The bottom of the backboard is 6 inches below the rim(10 foot), and the backboard itself is 3.5 feet tall, or 42 inches. That means Wilt had to jump at least 42 inches to REACH the top of the backboard(but not touch). For Wilt to gracefully(as was described) and easily put change on top of the backboard and then bring it down, he HAD to jump at least 45 or 46 inches. If he only jumped 43 or 44 he'd have trouble putting the coin up there, and according to the sources there was never any mention of this." For reference Micheal Jordon's highest vertical leap was 48". So for you to blatantly state that Wilt would not dominate today's NBA because today's players are physically better than Wilt is to ignore all of the evidence available. Wilt is the greatest athlete to ever play the game. And he wasn't bad at basketball either.
This argument should stop, those who look back with rose colored glasses will think that the players from the 60's and 70's were on the same level as those in more modern times no matter what. There are people who think that Babe Ruth, Cy Young, and Mickey Mantle are just as good as players today too. It's a belief to them, logic and reason be damned, never challenge someone's beliefs. Just note that they are one of those kinds of people, and move on. Once they have destroyed their credibility like that, why keep talking to them?
