People who rank Bill Russell ahead of Olajuwon....

Russell was 6'9
Wilt was 7'1
Elvin Hayes was 6'9
Willis Reid was 6'9
Nate Thurmond was 6'11

There were fewer 7-footers back in the day, but it wasn't a bunch of Chuck Hayes running out there at center either. Russell didn't really have a huge size advantage.

 

I recommend reading the following post as a beginning article for provable Wilt information. Then there is a whole other layer of the specific lowdown on Wilt's career. But this article will surprise you.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...t-chamberlain-is-the-greatest-nba-player-ever

 

Bleacher Report.

 

Bill Russell was listed at 6'9, but that listing is believed to be a huge exaggeration. His weight was 215 pounds. 215 pounds! To put that into perspective, Carlos Delfino ways 250. Russell was tiny, but playing with midgets. Sure there were some other 6'9+ centers in his time but most were much smaller.

 

Just read the article. No reason turn your nose up before you sample the damn thing. An excellent article.

 

Hakeem is my favorite player of all time. That said...

Bill Russell is the reason Michael Jordan (his championships and titles notwithstanding) is considered the greatest player in basketball history and not Wilt Chamberlain.

 

#1 - Bleacher Report. lol
#2 - I called Wilt the most dominant player of all-time in my first post in this thread.
#3 - The article doesn't verify anything.
#4 - In discussing Wilt's domination of Russell, it gets the stats wrong. Russell averaged 14.5 ppg and 23.7rpg against Wilt, not the other way around. Not to mention it doesn't discuss that Wilt's scoring average was 6 points lower against Russell than his career averages during the seasons he played against Russell.
#5 - Russell was 85-57 against Wilt in their careers.

 

Delfino doesn't weigh 250. There were plenty of centers that were 6'9+ in his era. The smaller centers tended to be around 6'6 - 6'7 like Wes Unseld.

We just traded for a 6'8 188lbs guy. Not like you can't be 6'9 and not weigh a ton.

 

This is probably gonna piss some old timers off, but I think Bill Russell is one of the most overrated players in league history!

He would be no better than Tyson Chandler if he played today. Same for anybody else that played before Magic and Bird! With some exsceptions...

 

Double below

 

Ha ha... It doesn't piss me off... it's just stupid. You can't compare. The training... the diets, the knowledge has evolved and Russel would have evolved as well. Nothing is the same now as it was then. Russell was cat like quick and mostly went on instincts to be the player he was. Tyson has every possible way to improve at his fingertips and it took him years to be above average with all his gifts. No comparison and it's just a stupid thing to say.

I love Hakeem as much as anyone. He is my favorite basketball player of all time. He almost singlehandedly brought more Rockets joy to me than all the other Rockets combined. But to say he is better than Bil Russell is just crazy. First you can't compare one era to another you just can't. You only can compare them against there peers. Would Olajuwon in his prime have dominated Duncan in his prime or Alcindor in his prime. You can't say.

And even he dominated Shaq when Shaq was a baby the fact is later on Olajuwon had fits with Shaq. Bill Russell went up against some great centers in his era starting with Wilt and Russell Dominated.

And as much as I love Hakeem there is no denying he didn't perform his whole career they way we remember in those early 90's. He wasn't consistent his whole career like Russell and championships do matter and anyone who says they don't should just say Dominique Wilkins was one the best ever because he was so amazing dunking.

Winning matters... it's the ost important measurement of success in this league. Yes Olajuwon was an amzing specimen and I would put him ahead of a lot of people including Shaq and Wilt Maybe even Kareem, maybe but not Russell. What he did all those years winning will never be repeated. He is the measuring stick and everyone else falls behind him.

 

It was such a different era. No one is going to will 11 championships again or dominate the way Russell or Wilt dominated. It's not possible anymore.

You just can not compare.

 

He was the type of dude that would shake your hand and take your girl away from you just cause he could...

Bill Russell might not be better than Hakeem but he pioneered the game for the big men and therefore might be remembered more.

Anyways, I saw Hakeem yesterday at prayer, I hope to see him again today so i can ask him "do you know about the website Clutchfans?"

 

If you wanna say he's overrated, you'll hear no argument from me.


If you say he's no better than Tyson Chandler in today's game, that's just egregiously wrong...

 

Yep! 26 and 10 on 60 percent shooting is pretty darn good.

 

Since you were probably not alive when this went on, let me educate you by pasting a post I made a few years back:

So, I didn't know whether to post this in the GARM forum, but it drives me crazy when I hear people say that our two championships deserve asterisks due to Michael Jordan not playing. Yes, he was "retired" during the 1993-1994 season, but he PLAYED during the 1994-1995 season. Yesterday on 610 for example, Rich Lord mentioned that Jordan didn't play the two seasons that we won our championships.

Total horse manure. MJ did play in the 1994-95 season, though it wasn't for the whole year...only 17 regular season games. When I mention that, people then try to counter with, "Well, he wasn't the same MJ because he only played a portion of the year", which couldn't be further from the truth (about him being not being vintage MJ). Proof? No problem. Let's look at MJ's stats in the 1995 playoffs in comparison to the 3 following championship seasons.

It should also be noted that the Bulls were eliminated by the Orlando Magic, a team that we SWEPT.

MJ's 1995 playoff stats (you know, when he wasn't "vintage MJ")

FG %: .484
3P %: .367
PPG: 31.5
RPG: 6.5
APG: 4.5

Now, his playoff averages during the 3 following championship seasons:

FG %: .459
3P %: .300
PPG: 31.4
RPG: 6.0
APG: 4.1

As you can see, MJ was superior in the 95 playoffs than he was, on average, in the 3 following champioship years, which should put the debate to rest. MJ was, in fact, MJ but the Magic were the better TEAM and we SWEPT the Magic. Therefore, the BS and ill-informed "MJ didn't play/MJ wasn't the same player" couldn't be further from the truth.

Critics and MJ homers might say, "But Blake, you used AVERAGES from the 3 other titles, you didn't compare year to year". No problem.

Using the 4 playoff seasons (1995-1998), Jordan averaged:

PPG:
1995-31.5
1996- 30.7
1997- 31.1
1998- 32.4

Second highest scoring average in 1995 playoffs

RPG:
1995- 6.5
1996- 4.9
1997- 7.9
1998- 5.1

Second highest rebounding average in 1995 playoffs

APG:
1995-4.5
1996- 4.1
1997- 4.8
1998- 3.5

Second highest assist average in 1995 playoffs

FG%:
1995- .484
1996- .459
1997- .456
1998- .462

Highest FG% in 1995 playoffs

3 point %:
1995- .367
1996- .403
1997- .194
1998- .302

Second highest 3pt % in 1995 playoffs

In conclusion, when anyone says to you that the 1995 NBA championship should have an * next to it due to MJ not playing or not being "vintage MJ", tell them about those stats and tell them to have a coke and a smile.

The point of this? Well, I'm tired of hearing people say that crap, even local Houston sports radio hosts. The fact of the matter is that basketball is a team sport and the Bulls did not have Rodman yet and were not the powerhouse that they became again when they signed him. Jordan WAS Jordan in the 1995 playoffs, but the Bulls just were not a good enough team.

The Rockets were...and we won it all.

 

Its 11 rings genius. At least have the your numbers correct for your incorrect debate lol

Disqualified.

 

Why not? Bill Russell rarely took a shot outside of 12 feet and clocks in with a pathetic 44% shooting mark/47% TS number (and sadly, that was good enough to be one of the leaders back in the goofy era of up & down non-stop chucking over short slow guys).

I'm pretty sure Tyson Chandler could have handled that, considering that he's at 58% and 61% for his career, and 66/68 this year. And also bigger and stronger.

 

With basketball, along with football, its really tough to compare players from different eras. When I compare basketball players I try and think of that and thus I wouldn't compare Hakeem to Russell because of that. I believe players from the late 70's/early 80's to today can be compared but trying to compare players from that time to players before that time is tough. It was a different game with different rules that was too far apart to measure. Also the lack of top athletes really hurts as there was a divide from the top athletes and most everyone else in that older era. As a result their competition waasn't as fierce as that of players from the past 30 years.