lol, 100 is 100. Last night nobody at any point would think Kobe will reach 100. That's how far away it is.
I think Marty Burns of CNNSI said the best!!! http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/marty_burns/01/23/notebook.0123/index.html But Bryant had one big advantage over Wilt (and more recent players such as Michael Jordan) in that the new rules have made it almost impossible to defend against anyone. It's no coincidence that we've got three players averaging more than 30 points this season (Kobe, Allen Iverson and LeBron James), which would be the first time that's happened since 1981-82. In fact, were it not for Kobe's explosion, we'd probably all be talking this morning about Sunday's 152-149 Sonics-Suns double OT game, the league's highest-scoring game in 11 years. As Blazers coach Nate McMillan once said after the NBA instituted the first set of new rules against hand-checking, back in the late '90s: "Michael Jordan would love this. It was almost impossible to guard him when you could touch him. With these rules, he could get 100 points."
LOL!!! For my sake? Give me a break. I didn't say it was better than Kobe's 81. I just said I would preferrably take it over the other. I'm sorry but I like watching more team-oriented basketball, with a guy who can get his AND make his teammates better, and did it against the best defense in the league. Kobe's performance was UNBELIEVABLE. 80 freaking points is 80 freaking points. But, y'all keep downgrading Wilt's game because of "lack of defense" but let's remember who Kobe was playing against and the rules the league plays by today.
As I recall, Wilt's game had a score of 169-147 WITHOUT overtime, while the sonics-suns game went into double OT. The scoring back then was nuts.
Im not downgrading Wilt's game...I was only referring to your comment regarding taking the 43 points against the best defense over Kobe's 81 or 62 in 3 quarters. Thats just plain silly.
I know you didn't say that about Wilt, but others did. I just think it's silly to talk about the lack of defense for one and not for the other. And, I didn't say that litterally. It was kind of a misworded way of trying to make another point. What Kobe did was a phenomenal pheat and I would probably still be beside myself if TMac did the same.
For two reasons, this is what bothers me the most when I hear people try to discredit what Wilt was able to accomplish. First of all, athletes have gotten bigger and stronger over the past 40 years. If Chamberlain were around today, he would probably be stronger and quicker due to better nutrition and training. Second, is there anyone on this bbs who doesn't think that Kobe is physically superior to just about every other player in the NBA? Who else has his combination of size, quickness, jumping ability, and durability? So should we be saying in 40 years that what Kobe accomplished last night wasn't that impressive because he was physically superior to everyone he was playing against? I'm not trying to say that Kobe's performance wasn't amazing because it obviously was. I wish I had been watching the game. But I also wish that people would stop discrediting the accomplishments of players from other eras because they played against "physically inferior competition."
lmao @ the thought of Kobe be physically superior to every other guard in the league. He's 6-6 for crying out loud, that's not special for a two guard, Jordan has been there done that. He's not bringing anything new to the table physically. He's not a freak like KG and T-Mac.
I cant believe some people arent giving Kobe his due...Im not saying it was better than Wilt's, but it is right up there amongst some of the greatest performances in sports history. Give the guy his credit and save the negative comments. We are all lucky to have been able to witness that. The fact that Jordan's career high was 69 (in an overtime game) says a lot about the feat that Kobe just accomplished. Save any negativity for the next time he does something stupid. For now, enjoy what you just saw...it may never happen again.
I do have problem with this article. Why do people have to bash some great ones in the past to praise something great now? Wilt's 100 is great, and Kobe's 81 is great too. Can't we leave at that? People talk about inferior defense Wilt faced, did those guys see? Was that Wilt's fault? What should he do? If he scored 200, those people would still say, I told you so, defense was bad. The greatness of a player can only be measured in his era. Otherwise, it's just bogus, not fair to that player and not fair to others. When you are one of the greatest player in your era, you are one of the greatest one in the history. Prasiing Kobe's 81 points is fine, but to achieve that by downplaying Wilt's 100 points, is just plain stupid and wrong.
I must admit, I don't think any of those guys have the durability and stamina of Kobe...that's what amazes me about him the most. He can score more than anyone else in the game because he can stay the longest on the court and play the most minutes at a high-energy level than any other player in the league. McGrady himself said he gets fatigued by the 30th shot, so he marvels at how Kobe shot 46 times and 20FT and didn't die from dehydration or something. BTW, another thing people aren't factoring in the fact that Kobe had use of the three-point line, which Wilt never had the use of. Also, Pippen was on ESPN the other day and he was asked if Jordan could've done the same, and Pippen said of course he could, but Michael couldn't score that much back in his era because rules allowed players to hand check and defend much more aggressively than today's rules. I think that's also a very important point to keep in mind; today's rules were designed specifically to facilitate the guard-oriented game, in order to make the transition from a league dominated by big men to a league dominated by guards and swingmen. Go watch an early 1990s game and then come back and tell me what you think about today's perimeter defense compared to back then. By those standards, today's basketball is 'sissy'. BTW, those who're downplaying what Wilt did in his career, consider this: the man averaged through an entire season 50ppg and 25rbpg...don't even bring up the nonsense about how "physically dominant he was", because no matter how you want to spin it, that was the single most amazing accomplishment in league history, and no one will ever come close to it. Wilt is still the most dominant ever, no question about it.
No, actually he would've fouled out in first 5 minutes. People always discredit Wilt's amazing athletic ability, claiming "inferior" competition. I'm absolutely sick of the "He was playing with midgets" argument. If the competition were really THAT inferior, why didn't he have more than two rings? Some of the all-time greats played in the same era he did: Bill Russell, Bob Petit, Walt Bellamy, Bob Cousy, Jerry West, Oscar Robertson. Why didn't any of them score 100? Why didn't any of them ever average 50 points a game? Bottom line is, Wilt Chamberlain was the best pure scorer in the history of the game. The kicker is...he didn't do it by bowling people over and dunking on them the way Shaq does. Believe it or not, he was primarily a finesse player and had a ton of skills. Did you know he actually had a reputation for being too "nice"? In his entire career, the man never got into arguments, never fouled out, and never developed the intimidating "enforcer" or "banger" reputation. On top of all that, because of his relative size, he took a beating from the other team every night...the way Shaq and Yao do today. He was 7'1" and 250 lbs. Even by today's standards he's a big man. He was insanely athletic and an absolute freak of nature. The guy was a track-and-field star and a high-jump champion, capable of touching the top of the backboard. He averaged 46 minutes a game for 14 straight years. I don't care how "inferior" his competition was. Anyone who can drag that big a frame up and down the court for 2 minutes shy of a full game for 14 consecutive years is an amazing athlete. If you put him in today's NBA, he may never average 50 points a game, but there's no doubt in my mind he'd be just as dominant as Shaq or Duncan in their primes.
That was brought up in the article by Hollinger. Kobe gained 7 points from the 3 point line...and its not like Wilt would be draining jumpers from out there.
From ESPN's Daily Dime: Was this the greatest individual performance in NBA history? Ric Bucher, ESPN The Magazine: Yes. In this day and age, with defenses far more advanced thanks to technology and coaching, scoring 81 points while shooting better than 60 percent is the most extraordinary accomplishment in league history. Will Perdue, ESPN Insider: If my math is correct 100 is greater than 81. Wilt's performance still stands out as the benchmark and the number to beat.
Honestly, the luster of Kobe's achievement will wear off in a few years. EVERYONE...even non-basketball fans know that Wilt scored 100. How many people knew who was second to Wilt Chamberlain before this happened? Journalists just have a way of blowing things out of the water...the same way they anointed Harold Miner the next "Great One." In 10-15 years, Kobe's performance will be a distant second to Wilt's 100 in the minds of basketball fans.
also in one of his insider chats recently.... wong (china): WHEN IS MING BACK? Marc Stein: Not until February, most likely, but at least it now appears that we'll indeed see him before the All-Star Game. Which is the least Houstonites deserve after a half-season of injury torment.
