Magic was bigger than everyone guarded him, it gave him a lot of unique advantages, I don't see any need to degrade his achievement. Jordan was also bigger than most players guarding him. When he shoots a jumper there is no way a guy like John Starks can do anything about it. So Iverson can score 33 pts by being 5'10 at most, does that makes him the best scorer of all time. There is no point showing a guy is bigger or smaller. And Wilt did not play 6'8'' players everyday. Walt Bellamy is not under-sized. Nate the Great was just great. Jerry Lucas, Elvin Hayes, Willis Reed, and of course Bill Russell. Yeah they are only the 50 greatest all time big man. If you match them up with Dream or Ewing or whoever, they will not be under-sized ! Why do you hold it against Chamberlain ? And there were a lot fewer teams back then, so Wilt plays them ALL THE TIME. Plus in the 60's they measure players without shoes where today the height number is all over the place. People just don't root for the goliath, huh ?!
The actual physicality of players might not have changed much in the past 2 decades, but the things that bigger men can do now has change, and I believe is a trend rather than blips. As I pointed out, PG as big as Magic was unique in his days. But today we have lot of players taller than 6-6 who can be great PG (Pippen, Hill, T-Mac, LeBron, Livingston) just on top of my head. Same thing about Ralph. We have a lot of 7-footers who can do what only Ralph could in his time. I see a trend there. Pele is widely considered the greatest soccer player ever. Was he better than today's soccer superstars in the absolute sense? Probably not. I remember once he mentioned that today's players are much better conditioned than they were in his time. That means he couldn't have been able to keep up with today's players. However, Pele was so much better than his contemporary. Relatively speaking, he is better than today's stars. Moreover, if he became young again and received today's training, he would probably still be one of the best, if not THE best. The point is, you can't degrade a player's accomplishment just because his peers in that era were weaker.
9 fools to date have voted not in the Top 10. To those guys, alot of respect has been lost. Although i'm willing to gamble there's a few jokers in that pack trying to stir the pot.
I don't know how much Magic Johnson you were around to watch, but even though he played point guard - opposing teams did not put their point guard on him on defense. When he played the Rockets, for example - they did not guard him with 6 foot tall John Lucas; rather they had swingman Robert Reid (6-8) handle the primary duties on Magic. Similarly - like I said, Wilt was pretty much always by far the biggest, strongest, and best athlete on the court by a wide margin in the early 60's. That was rarely, if ever, true for Magic, or any player today. Bill Russell was 6-9 215. I doubt he would be a C in today's game - and he didn't exactly stuff Chamberlain cold either. The rest of the players you mentioned, Hayes & Reed, entered the league in the late 60's, after the transition I mentioned had begun. WHen Wilt was averaging 50 ppg - Elvin Hayes was a high school junior. But yes, you're correct in noting that more often than not in the early 60's, he was playing against guys 6-8, or below, who physically could not compete with Wilt, or with most modern NBA centers. This is a simple fact, and I don't know how many times i need to say it. Yes, he faced Bill Russell 8 times a year. So what? Bill Russell 8x a year is not significiantly more challenging than facing Alonzo Mourning, Dikembe Mutumbo, and Patrick Ewing 12 times a year in my opinion - and the other 70 nights a modern C does not get the luxury of going against Bob Petit and no double teams. Honestly - discounting intangibles and all that, I doubt that many early 60's players would have a chance at getting a shot off around Dikembe Mutumbo. Who was going to do it? Jack Twyman? Doubtful, they never had to deal with 7-2 players period....much less 7-2 players who were as atheletic as Mutumbo. I have not seen a trend in 6-9 PG's, in fact I think Magic is the exception that proves the rule (and please, Shaun Livingston? Come on, one of these things is not tliek the other) The guys you mentioned - some were billed as PGs but then moved on to forward - however I don't see a quantum leap between Scottie Pippen and John Havlicek or even Michael Cooper, ratehr I see very little difference between these players and Andre Kirilenko, who is their closes forebear today. Magic was one of a kind, can you think of hte great PGs that have succeeded him? Isiah Thomas, John Stockton, Kevin Johnson, Gary Payton, Steve Nash - rather than continue the trend of large PG's, the trend has been reversed. The fact that Magic was effectively playing out of position (he didn't guard opposing PG's, and they didn't guard him) doesn't really make a difference. Really? I disagree. I have yet to see a 7-4 PF come along in the two decades since. There were, however, big inside-outisde players prior to Ralph (Bob McAdoo, Connie Hawkins come to mind - how much furher are they along from Kevin Garnett or Rasheed Wallace? An inch or two?) and there are some now. But a guy like Ralph? Haven't seen it before or since. To americnas he is, but many Brazilians will tell you that Garrincha, Zico or Socrates was as good or better than Pele (and many people worldwide will admit that Maradona was the best ever). But anyway, you're not turning the clock back far enough. By the time Pele came around, pro football had been around for over 50 years - and the game was largely the same as it was today in terms of rules and popularity. (that is one of the great things about soccer - no rule changes, no nothing, just a ball and a field and two nets for 100 years plus). Chamberlain, meanwhile, came from a game that was not only much smaller time, but physically and much different than it was 20 years before, and even more different 20 years after he left, as well as explosive. However, this is all beside the point. Nobody is arguing that Chamberlain wouldn't have been a great player today, he would be great in any era. However he came along at a moment in time that allowed him to exploit his advantages in a way that would not be possible today. THere is nothing wrong with it, it's not his "fault", but it is technically ture true, and I don't see the benefit in sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting "i'm not listening i'm not listening" when anybody points it out as many seem to be doing. Why not? I can't even point it out? It is true, so I don't know why I can't bring it up - Wilt played mostly against players who would not be considered sufficient NBA centers today. Plus his most important "record" is still...around.
It was to anyone in the thread who was dismissing statistical measure. Wasnt targeted at you, you just happened to have the post before mine. And I just wanted to say "quantifiable" anyways Its about Wilt, the greatest stats player ever so numbers have to get involved.... That said (almost contradicting myself) YES physically watching the players must still factor in. There's a big difference in the way Mitch Richmond compiled his stats than how Tracy McGrady or Kobe get theirs. Really, who got it done like Jordan did night after night in his heyday? Dominique and Drexler and other players could have comparable all-around numbers but Jordan's ballhandling, speed, quickness and driving ability, athleticism, fluidity and defensive awareness was greater than almost all. His physicality and numbers and basketball talents altogether made him maybe the greatest ever.... .. So cant hold that against Wilt, either. He had all the traits to make himself the best and he used them so that's to his credit. He could have been a puss and not played up to his talents like a Stromile but he managed to succeed. Bill Russell, he was much closer to league average in size and he put up phenomenal rebound totals and had many great accomplishments. Why isn't size compared to players he went up against used to explain his feats? He was simply good using whatever skills and traits he had, same with Wilt. On how Wilt would play today, from what little I've 'seen', he brought a certain confidence to his game. He knew he was the stuff, used intimidation and had a dominant personality when he needed to. Those qualities would translate over well to todays game and he certainly had the size and athletism to compete. I'm pretty sure he woulda been close to duplicating what Moses did or an Artis Gilmore.. He certainly wouldnt have the ungodly numbers today but I don't think that means he becomes nothing more than a solid-reliable Robert Parrish...Wilt never had to face so much a Tyson Chandler but I'd think he'd do okay enough against him today. (I'm tired, hop any of that made sense )
I thought you were arguing wilt's "godly numbers" in the "60s". So 24 pts, 24 rbs, 8 assists on 70% FG is not godly numbers. And wilt did that playing on the high post with a loaded team ! Is it so inconceivable he could score 30+ pts if he did not play that style. And That's exatcly what he did, except one maybe two exceptional seasons. Just because he had a couple great seasons, and suddenly he's against scrubs doesn't seem reasonable to me. And apparently his rebound numbers don't change from playing 6'8'' white guys to play against the 50 greastest. This is almost comical. Players had to deal with a 7-2 player (as you claim) 10 times more atheletic than Mutumbo.
Huh? Who was the 7-2 counterpart to Mutumbo in 1962? Crack...or heroin? I find your failure to make a coherent post in this thread telling. Regards.
Do you not find it funny in a dicssion about Wilt Chamberlain, you somehow says players from the 60's couldn't get shots off a 7'2'' player as athletic as Mutumbo.
They couldn't, and they also had a hard time getting them off vs. Wilt. I don't find it funny, but then I'm not the one who mistakenly thinks that I'm out to get or discredit Wilt, which I guess is your angle. I'm just pointing out that the athletes at the time were not comparable to those in the modern era, which is a fact.
Russell with modern conditioning, nuitrition and weightlifting, a Ben Wallace (6'9" with shoes, 240lbs) with a signficiantly better offensive game and court sense perhaps? Wallace does pretty well against everyone but Shaq and Yao. Hakeem was only 1 to 1.5 inches taller as well, and he handled 7'1 guys. Yes I think Kareem's was like 37-18-5 (and probably 4 blocks), something like that. And this was the early 70s, a lot more 6'10"+ players around. Arguably this was the 3rd most impressive statistical season ever (after Wilt's 50 & 44PPG seasons), and certainly the most impressive line by anyone not named Wilt. And I do think Kareem gets lost in the Jordan versus Wilt debate, Kareem may have the most complete (college and pro championships, MVPs, cumulative stats) resume as the world's greatest basketball player. Kareem certainly has a reasonable case (though I lean toward's Wilt), I think Pat Riley has him ahead of Jordan, Wilt, and even his main guy Magic. I think PER is important and should be weighed, but I don't think it is fair to discount minutes played. I assume he played more minutes because a tired Wilt was still more effective than any alternatives. That Jordan and Robertson and Baylor got more rest and presumedly would get a chance to recouperate on the bench rather than on the floor should not work against Wilt.
