actually, having better teammates is the most important thing. funny how it always works out that way. then stop debating it if you think he is. it's not debatable anymore than wilt was as good as russell. the simple point is you don't respect hakeem's dominance and reduce his career to 3 years of dominance when in reality it was 12-13 years of dominance and make everything russell did out to be god-like. 27/12/3.5 and a trip to game 6 of the finals against an all-time team isn't done by being all brawn without knowing a little about what you're doing. you mentioned russell coming to the current era and having half his rings and mvp's and still being better than hakeem. do you really think he's winning 3 mvp's and 6 titles with the rockets? really? while magic and bird are on 60 win teams that the country and media loves, you think russell's stealing a few mvp's away from them? while jordan is becoming an even bigger figure and winning titles and russell has dave jamerson and buck johnson for teammates, is that when the mvp streak starts? this isn't even to mention that ben wallce plus isn't winning an mvp in the league from the 80's and on. as for titles, when does he start getting those 6? what are the chances his game would allow him to even win the 2 hakeem did? 1%, maybe 5%? on a team that needed everything from their center, including tons of scoring and the ability to draw doubles to start basically every possession, how would russell fare? my guess is not nearly as well as hakeem. he couldn't do what hakeem could do. hakeem could do what russell could do. lets forget the 60s celtics and 80/90s rockets for a second. you could put hakeem on a much larger variety of teams and have a chance to win a title because of his amazing all-around game, you could only put russell on a team needing ben wallace plus to win a title. almost any type of team, no matter what skillset the requisite championship talent had, could take david robinson plus and compete. if you needed a league leader in rebounds and blocked shots, you could have hakeem. if you need a guy to be top 3 or 5 in those categories and also top 3 or 5 in scoring, you could get it from hakeem. you make it sound as if the celtics chemistry and everything was so fragile that adding more scoring would just throw it all to hell as if it's a given. those other hall of famers might be able to put more into defense without having to score as much and make the team even better. the spurs have pretty good chemistry and have won a few titles recently. if they added tracy mcgrady in place of manu ginobili, would he throw the chemistry so out of wack they couldn't compete or would they become a juggernaut that actually repeats once in a while? i would bet more on the latter than the former, even though i would be messing with a championship formula. just because a team wins doesn't mean they couldn't become even more dominant. and you never answer the hypothetical. say there's some perfect way to determine who is better and say some 3rd party, not you or me, knows who is better out of hakeem or russell, and it's russell. but say hakeem played for those celtics and won 6 titles and russell played for our rockets and won the same 2. now we have no knowledge of the fact that russell won 11 with the celtics and thus hakeem fell short (though the 3rd party does). all we have is 6 to 2 and several more mvp's for hakeem b/c he played on the face of the league team and they won. my guess is you would be sitting here telling me that you just couldn't mess with how perfect those hakeem celtics were verus someone like russell who clearly doesn't match up in the winning and mvp's categories and that's why i think you're argument is flawed. you are not appreciating the massive differences better teammates can cause. we saw the rockets go from a 5-11 team to a 45-20 team 2 seasons ago because we stole a few solid role players from other teams. now imagine a few of them are HoFers and think what the difference is (even if all 8 that russell played with didn't deserve it, some certainly did). that russell to hakeem right there.
he didn't stop shaq, just outscored and slightly outplayed him (which is why shaq is so great), that's true. i think robinson got about 25 ppg against him hakeem which was below his average, but still not stopping him. however, he did stop ewing. i think ewing averaged something like 19 ppg in the series and shot about 36 or 37%. with the slowed down pace of the series, hakeem didn't score like against drob or shaq but still got his 25 or so and he definitely stopped ewing. but i agree overall, no center is really going to "stop" another all-time great center over and over.
I don't go by that... I've seen too many talented teams lose to lesser talented teams because of the play of one, sometimes two, players. Just ask him if he was as good in 86 as he was in 93... The Rockets would be built completely differently around Russell than Hakeem so to compare teams is pointless, and you would build the Celtics differently around Hakeem too. It obviously wasn't as easy to build a championship team around Hakeem as it was Russell. If it was so easy then why did it take so long for the Rockets to build a championship caliber team around him? Why was it so hard to build a team around the most dominant player of his generation? Sometimes not even good enough to make the playoffs? You could put Russell on any team and it would be successful, not one as specifically built and dependant on one guy like the Rockets, but it's rare to find a championship team like that anyway. You can argue that he can do what Russell did, I say no, I think he would demand touches, I don't think he would rebound as well, I think he get into a one on one battle against Wilt and lose all the time against him because of it. So? You make it sound as if it's a given that the Celtics would be a better team because of it, well, how much better can you get than 11 out of 13? Again, some of those players could not play defense or rebound, all they had was offense, you take away that and you take away their purpose in the game. The team would be worse off for it... Less is more when it's about the team not an individual player. I guess, but who cares how much you win by? And how is 11 out of 13 not dominant already? You're absolutely right, no matter what that third guy says I would go with the player who was three times the winner of the other guy since I think winning is the ultimate goal of basketball, and what the greatest players are seperated by. You are also not appreciating the difference Russell made to his teammates... It's as if you're saying that both Russell and Hakeem's careers were struck by lightning, both with touches of luck never before seen in the NBA, Russell with the good luck of two great sets of completely different teammates, and Hakeem with the bad luck of bad teammates throughout most of his career. You can argue this all day long, but in the end you are left with what they accomplished and Russell accomplished a lot more with his talent than Hakeem did with his. Another thing, could Hakeem win two championships as a player/coach?
"If it was so easy then why did it take so long for the Rockets to build a championship caliber team around him? Why was it so hard to build a team around the most dominant player of his generation? Sometimes not even good enough to make the playoffs?" Again, did you even watch the Rockets during Hakeem's years with the team? During the '85/'86 season there was a championship caliber team surrounding Dream. Guess what... even with their point guard booted out of the NBA for cocaine, they went to the Finals. The next season (I'm repeating myself) Sampson was not the same player, and never was again. The core of our depth was gone, and the '85/'86 team had been one of the deepest in Rockets history. IMO, it was the deepest. That depth was history. Then what? Bad management. If you don't think good management helped the Celtics win all those championships with Russell, then please buy this bridge I have to sell you. Russell, besides being surrounded with superb talent, also played on a team with good, arguably great management. Hakeem didn't, until years after '85/'86.
Okay, you said: Now substitute Shaq with Wilt, and substitute Hakeem, Duncan and Mutmubo with Russell. And your conclusion: should be the same. Yet, you said Wilt's achievement should be degraded against today's centers and Shaq's shouldn't. And then you said: Now substitute Shaq with Wilt. Okay, Wilt didn't win that many championships. But he didn't have Kobe either.
one thing people should remember about that eighty six team. it wasn't built around hakeem. he was a part of a western conference championship team. and that's literal and theoretical. that was not hakeem's team, it was much more of running and gunning team than the teams that really built around hakeem for championships.
There is no way in hell you can put Shaq > Dream because Dream was a better rebounder, a better defender (by far), and he wasn't a liability at the end of a game. Yes, Shaq is great offensively....but at the end of the game you had to give someone else the rock. All the Shaq lovers are relying on his offense (actually ppg, as Dream was overall better offensively), yet when the game was on the line that advantage becomes a liability?
First off, let me say where your reasoning train slides off the tracks. Comparing Hakeem to Shaq (who played with each other in the same era, more or less) is not the same exercise as comparing modern Centers to Wilt or Russell for various reasons outlined previously. Why would I substitute Wilt with Shaq? Aside from playing in a completely different era than Chamberlain, Shaq did not have a guy like Russell always winning championships above him and knocking his team out of the playoffs in his dominant years (unless you count SA, but then LA eventually got over that hurdle), and Shaq did not have Wilt's "posts great stats but ultimately not good enough to get his team over the top" reputaion to the degree that Wilt does - in a much more difficult era. So again -- remind me why I am substituing the two? The knocks on them are not the same. Shaq was better at being a winner, Wilt posted greater raw stats 40 years prior (which I argue are misleading) -- why are they the same? Probably because Shaq didn't play against 6-8 guys in Chuck Taylors, and did not have near the physical/athletic differential that Wilt did vis a vis his peers, and played in a slower paced era against much tougher defense and a deeper talent pool. I've repeated this point ad nauseum and I'm not really sure what more there is to say about it. This was in my last post, not sure what else there is to say. And then you said: Wilt won three, when he had other hall of famers next to him. I'm not really sure who we're comparing here anymore, btw. I think the problem is that your operating off the mistaken premise that I'm arguing that Wilt Chamerlain is worth a bucket of cold snot and Shaq is the greatest of all time. I'm not, Wilt very well might be the best center of all time. And you're taking the Shaq-Hakeem comparison totally out of context and trying to graft Wilt in. That doesn't fly.
wtf ??? u must be kiddin me .. what kind of question is that ?? is he a top 5 center ?? well, no.. he is THE BEST CENTER TO EVER PLAY THE GAME... Wilt, Russell, Walton are NOT AS GOOD AS DREAM... the only one who comes close to him is Moses Malone. period.
So if Wilt wasn't the greatest Defensive Center of his era, and Russell wasn't the best offensive center of his era, wouldn't that make Hakeem the greatest based on the fact that he was the man on both ends of the floor? Even Shaq wasn't the best defensive center of his era (Zo, Mutombo). Maybe that was too simple based on all of the numbers and stats and hypothetical situations, in this thread so far, but i think any player who is at the top of the league in both offense and defense, merits GOAT consideration, and the only two who fit this description are Jabbar and Dream. In the end in think Hakeems offensive versatality gives him the edge.
let's see, Dream outplayed Kareem, Shaq, Malone, DRob, Ewing and Parish while they were all still very good or becoming great as in Shaq's case. Walton was on his last legs. so that's actually 7 of the 50 greatest. he also played against Gilmore and Sikma when they were still All-Stars and McAdoo and Issel in their twighlight years. he also outplayed Daugherty, Eaton, Lambier, Cartwright, Ruland, Smits, Willis, Divac, Mutombo and Mourning in their primes as well as Sabonis when he entered the league at 30. Dream just missed out on Yao, Lanier and Cowens. he even played against Sampson when he was traded to Golden State but was clearly slowed by injuries. Duncan is the only center (or PF) that he couldn't outplay as Duncan didn't arrive until Dream was already 34 and developing a heart condition. Dream has played against just about all of the great ones. the only truly notable centers he hasn't played against are Wilt, Russell, Thurmond, Mikan, Reed and Unseld. i tell you the 80's and early 90's was the golden age of centers. you could make a case for Hakeem as the best center ever!
I think it was George Mikan's skill at blocking shots that led to the goaltending rule, so claiming that Russell invented it seems a little ridiculous. The other thing more or less lost in these discussions is that the shooting percentage of the NBA didn't get to an average of 40% until the late 1950s, so Bill Russell's numbers are inflated by the awfulness of the offenses of the times, as are Wilt's. It's really hard to know how either of these guys would have projected into the very fast, whole floor, 3 point shooting game of today. And for that reason I see no point in claiming Bill Russell was a better rebounder. What would happen if you put a guy with Hakeem's speed on a team in 1958, when by all rights he could have run circles around their fastest guard? What would he have scored? How many rebounds would he have made? How many steals would he have had? Just my 0.02, but Hakeem would have averaged close to 20-20-6.. David.
I recall Shaq destroying Hakeem in their last playoff match-up. So if you want to call out Hakeem outplaying what, a 40 year old, Kareem, go ahead.
Hold on now, neither Kareem or Hakeem were near their peak, both were at opposite ends of their career. What Kareem lacked in physical ability, Hakeem lacked in playoff experience and knowledge of the game. Shaq was in his prime from 99-2003, whereas Hakeem was at the end of his career. The comparison is a bit different But i agree that using the Kareem and Shaq playoff comparisons aren't fair for the reasons stated above. We can only speculate what would have happened in their respective primes, Ewing and Robinson remain the only real playoff comparisons we can use.
alriht i didnt read all of the arguments but let me say this IF you ask me how to rank Hakeem as a center in HIS ERA compared to all the other great centres in thier own respective eras, then my list would be 1.Wilt 2.Kareem 3.Russel 4.Hakeem 5.SHaq If you asked me how I would rank HAkeem to all the other centers if they played in the current era my list would be 1.wilt 2.kareem 3.hakeem 4.shaq 5.russell my reasoning - 1.wilt, lets not touch him, He was an absolute beast, 2.Kareem, his longetivity was on thing that seperated him from hakeem, and ofcourse his sky hook, which is the single most unstoppable move in the history of the game (and yes I do know that Hakeem, wilt and bol has blocked his shot) 3. Hakeem - I think the reason i put him over Russell and shaq for that matter, in my second list is because he dominated on both ends, He never had the luxury of having a whole team full of HOFers as in russell's case, or a superstar wingman as in Shaq's case, yet he still put up the numbers and got the rings. He was a true beast.
he caused goaltending to be outlawed in the ncaa where he would stand in the middle of the zone and block shots. totally different animal.
Not going to read this entire thread, as I am sure it is just going to annoy me. Here's the thing with Olajuwon: he GREW into what he eventually became. I would hesitate to just flatly state that Hakeem was the greatest center of all time, because he did not dominate for the entirety of his career, like some others did, such as Wilt, Kareem, and, to a lesser extent, Shaq. However, I don't think there is any question that among the, say, top 20 centers of all time, Hakeem arrived as the best pure athlete among them, by far. It's possible that we will never again see a man with his size combined with his speed, grace and agility, ever again. Considering the fact that he had hardly played basketball at all before arriving at UofH, and considering that fact that he was never the largest player at his position, it would have been no real surprise to anyone if he had never become much more than a 'shawn kemp' kind of raw monster athlete, a relative flash in the pan, decent but definitely not G.o.A.T. So, unlike guys like Wilt and Kareem, who entered the professional ranks as already-well-polished and dominant players, Olajuwon was still in the very early learning stages for the better part of the first decade of his career. The fact that he became such PURE SWEET NESS in the early 90's is a testament to the greatness that was within him. Had he been able to begin refinining his basketball skills a few years earlier, I don't think we are even having this conversation today, as there would be no question that he would be going down in the books as the greatest ever. Fact is, when he was in his prime best, in the mid 90's, not only was there no center in the league better than him, there was no PLAYER in the league better than him (and yes I am including You, Mr. Airness); in fact, I firmly believe that, for those few short years, he was a better basketball player than anyone ever, not just at the center position, but of them ALL. But it was for such a short (but glorious) time, and then it was over. It had taken him almost ten years to distill and refine himself into that state, that it just could not last very long. If you could graph such a thing as his basketball skill level as a change from year to year, you would see a steady increase over the years, to a magnificent peak in the 90's, and then it fell off rather rapidly. So, can it be fair to label Hakeem as the greatest center of all time? I believe he may have been the best player to ever play the game, but just for a brief few years. But I don't think it is enough to topple Wilt, and perhaps even Kareem, from spots ahead of him, simply because they were able to be so much better than their peers for so much longer than Hakeem was. As for Russel and Shaq, bah. Neither of those guys deserve a sniff of Hakeem's jock, much less a sniff of a spot ahead of him as G.o.A.T. 1. Wilt - I don't think there could ever be an era in which he would NOT dominate, even today's. 2. Kareem - I don't make as much out of his 'sky hook' as a lot of people do. He had a bread-and-butter move that worked well, so he used it. But what really set him apart was his fundamentals, his passing ability, and his fearlessness. And superb ability, for a very long time. 3. Hakeem - Olajuwon probably should not have even been playing center. He was just a pure athlete, a pure basketball player, one who used his natural gifts to their fullest advantage, but did not rest on those abilities alone. He developed further (due to being so far behind) than any player in the history of the league. Changed forever the way the center position would be played. Russel and Shaq: I will probably never have any real respect for Shaq; a guy who cannot be bothered to learn how to hit free throws even after all this time is just not worthy. (But wait! Wilt couldn't hit them either! This is true, but Wilt was so far ahead of everyone else, so dominant, that it just didn't matter. Unlike with Shaq, who has personally handed uncounted victories to his opponents simply because fouling him became their best defense.) And Russell was a good player, no doubt. But he was a blue-collar role player on a team filled with the greatest players of his era at the other positions. Yes he had a lot of rings, and yes he was the only one who could play mano-a-mano against Wilt and come out on top more often than not. But this does not entitle him to consideration of Greatest Ever. I think those three - Wilt, Kareem, and Hakeem, should all three have their names hung in the heavens as equals, all three occupying a place in the eternal pantheon of the Basketball Gods - The Three Greatest of All Time.
....that's not what people said at the time when WIlt was viewed as the perennial bridesmaid who couldn't (and usually didn't) win the big one, as Russell played Lucy holding the football to his Charlie Brown. Go back and read sportswriters accounts from the 60's and 70's. Wilt was regarded with a skeptical air of a stathog while Russell was thought of as the true champion.
DREAM DISSERS PLEASE ADRESS THESE 2 FOLLOWING POINTS!!!! I have seen one mentioned in this thread a few times and no one has addressed it. The second one I haven't seen mentioned as much. For Shaq lovers, why will no one address how he was a LIABILITY at the end of the game? For all of his offensive dominance (his main advantage), you had to give the rock to someone else at the end of the game. That doesn't bode well when you don't have superstar teammates, like most centers from the mid 80's and on (Dream, Ewing, Robinson). I could undsertand an argument of "with Shaq we were blowing teams out left and right and the games weren't close", but that was not the case. For Russell lovers, if he was the greatest defender ever why did Wilt always murder him? I don't recall Wilt's numbers from their match-ups, but I watched the "Top 5 reasons you can't blame Wilt for not beating the Celtics" and he was putting up insane numbers against Russell. I don't even see how someone could argue that he contained him.
IMO, bottom line is who would you pick to start your team around? If you had the 1st pick in the draft, who would you select. Your selection would then reveal what type of team you are looking to build and your time frame for your franchise to win. My selection would be Dream. I would be able to build around dream easier than any other center. I can still put HOFs or all stars around dream and still win, ie 96 olympics. I can put role players around dream and still win, 94 season. Dream is the most complete player in his position and that is why i would have dream as the best center, of course imo
