<blockquote><hr>I forgot to mention this earlier. When I asked ealier how many years he's head and shoulders above everyone else, I'm basically saying how many MVP type seasons did Hakeem have? One or two maybe. <hr></blockquote> Chen, Hakeem doesn't have to be head-n-shoulders above everyone; we already established that, only centers. We are talking about CENTERS. Hakeem played with what many people consider the best SF ever (Bird) best PG ever (Magic) best SG ever (Jordan) and best PF ever (Malone), not to mention the slew of centers. There simply was not that kind of competition for awards in the 60s. You call it Russell being head-n-shoulders above everyone; I call it a fledgling professional sport. Besides, Robinson proved that the MVP doesn't go to the best player. Dominating players dominate in the "second season." bottomline to me is: Russell redefined what defense is for a center. Hakeem matched that defense while redefining what offense is for a center in the league's toughest defensive era.
I think that's the reason that Russell is considered in the top tier centers. It's the total achievement of his career, in HIS era. You hold it against him for being in a "fledgling pro sport." I consider him a pioneer in a "fledgling pro sport." That's why I hate to compare eras. It disrespects those that came before us; the ones we learned from. Just like someone is going to do in 2050 to Shaq, Kareem, Hakeem, Robinson, Yao...
I've always found it interesting that 4 years ago people said Shaq was not as good as Dream because... He had no rings Now everyone is saying Russell is overrated because he played on agood team. Guys read the national press most articles have Dream in the upper echelon of centers, right below Wilt, Russell, Kareem and Shaq. Maybe Dream belongs in the same group as those 4 but for whatever reason alot of people put him right below those 3 or 4 (Some don't include Shaq yet). Maybe it's because of his broken English, maybe it's because he stayed around too long, maybe it's because he played in the Jordan era, maybe it's because Houston is not a major media market, whatever. THe point is most articles you read that rates the greatest centers of all-time will have the big 3 (Wilt, Russell, Kareem) with a 4th spot reserved for Shaq. #5 is probably Dream, but the Big 3 are often referred to as in their own elite class.
could you be any more off-base with this post. you not only seem to want to tell us hakeem had weaknesses, but then practically try to prove he was a selfish, non team player who knew nothing about winning and whose only redeeming quality was his athleticism. OMG! good lord and now you're having some mythical conversation with yourself about yao's offensive prowess/team play before he's ever played a game. you keep bringing up making teammates better and stuff as if hakeem didn't. who is kenny smith, who is vernon maxwell, who is robert horry. they freakin stood at the 3 point line and let hakeem draw all the double teams in the world and then they got wide open shots out of it. and then if someone burned them on D hakeem was there to erase the mistake ( i'm not saying the above 3 players sucked or that i don't love them, just mentioning hakeem helped his teammates look better and they came to mind). perhaps you have some other definition of making your teammates better. i'd love to hear it.
and there's another thing i disagree with (i'm probably your new favorite poster aren't i). it is ALWAYS the other way around. it is damn near impossible for players of today to ever be placed above players of yesteryear (excpet in the case of people who played before a sport became popular like football in the 40's and before or bball in the 50's and before). baseball is definitely the worst when it comes to this. people like dimaggio, mantle, williams, ruth, gehrig, mays, and aaron are held of as some sort of demigods who no mere mortal of today's game could ever approach in ability. the only one who deserves that treatment IMO is ruth, and that's because he was just so much ridiculously better than everyone else. now anyone who dares approach (or surpasses) the past players in stats is quickly discredited because of smaller parks, worse pitching, juiced ball, etc etc. the media makes it like there is just no possible way anyone today could be as good as those legends. it seems only bonds has been allowed to be mentioned with those and he's had to hit 600 homers, almost steal 500 bases, win gold gloves, and win more MVPs than anyone ever. now basketball is a little better since more recent players like bird, magic, and jordan have been placed at the top. but in time i think the same will happen to those 3 (if it hasn't already) where no matter how good anyone else is, they will never be allowed to be called as good as those 3. i think that currently is what's happening in the center debate with regards to russell, wilt, jabbar. they played along time ago and were good so obviously they are now untouchable in terms of all time center rankings. i think it's crap that it works like that. hell i hate shaq and i would have no problem putting him over russell.
This is just speculation because I've never seen any of them play much, could Russell be the reason why his teamates play a level or two better? Why not? Great team players such as Russell have that effect on everybody. Without Jordan, do you still think that Pippen is the 50 best of all time? Probably not. Without Jordon he would probably be nothing more than just an all-star player (not really superstar like he was). Actually you can also look at it the other way and say that Bob Cousy could have made Russell played much better so I'm not sure.
I am old enough to admit that I saw Russell and Chamberlain both play. It was a different NBA game in those days. This was before the ABA and the emphasis of the spectacular individual play. Players getting "air" in those days often meant jumping and making an acrobatic pass or jump shot. Not a Dr. J spectacular dunk. In those days you did not see alot of double and triple teams in the post because the execution of the offense the reliance on open jump shots were so much more valuable to winning. Hakeem is a part of the show time era- Dr. J, Magic, Air Jordan, Barkley etc. To stop Russell or Chamberlain required a big body and very good offensive or defensive execution. In todays era you find the other person's spectacular player and try to slow them or stop them- because the basic fundamentals of offensive and defensive execution are not as critical to success. Execution is still important today but it is not the precise basic skills game of passing, executing plays of the pre- 1970 era. I remember watching the old Celtics. They were great atheletes but they worked very hard to play sound fundemental ball. All teams did. So who are the greatest centers? Maybe Shaq and Hakeem for fighting through so many double and triple teams and shear physical ability. Maybe Chamberlain and Russell for working very hard to take their dominant size (in their era) and developing some very good fundementals. Chamberlain was just too much man for the league. Much like Shaq today.
Rhester, when it comes to this issue you are talking about here, I respect your opinion the most because you've actually seen both era's in your lifetime. <b>MOST</b> of us here who have not seen Russell and Wilt play much (myself included) cannot definitively say that Hakeem is in the Russell and Wilt class because virtually everything we know about Russel and Wilt are all based on stats and readings, which is not enough IMO.
ChenZhen- what makes it difficult to compare is the style of game back then was definately different in my opinion. To see Cousey play and even up through West, Robertson and Frazier was different than watching a Jordan or Magic. I believe we have much more individual showtime play today and the teams are more geared to shutting down a player than they did back in the 50's- 60's era. However my judgement is tainted in that I was a child in those days and I remember better whe I was older mostly the replays and programs I saw during the 60's and early 70's. Wilt was a very overpowering player in the games I remember. Russell was so active and aggressive especially defensively and he was fearless against Chamberlain. I am personally convinced of this- Chamberlain and Shaq are rare big and strong players who can definately play at the highest skill level. Russell and Olajawon are rare big athletes who can definately play at the extreme highest skill level. I believe defensively Russell and Hakeem are equals. I believe for size and power Chamberlain and Shaq are equals. Chamberlain had some athleticism over Shaq and I believe Hakeem had some athleticism over Russell. I vote that these 4 belong in the same grouping- Best ever.
Intresting....What I wanted to know is this: How much better is the average center now compare to the average center back then? If your answers is 'the same', then I would agree 100 percent that Hakeem and Shaq do belong in that group. But on the other hand, if all centers play like Jason Collier back then, I would not say Shaq and Hakeem should not be grouped with those two legends. A few things I read about Wilt is that he could touch the top of the backboard, have an automatic fadaway, and one time he led the nba in assist to shutup the critics because they are saying he can't pass. Is all of that true?
ChenZhen- I am in no way an expert at that era, I just remember seeing them play. But I know the centers back then were smaller and I believe not as athletic as the 1980-1990's centers I know Bob Pettit was about 6'-9" and 210 lbs Walt Bellamy was 6'-11" and I don't remember John Kerr but he was good @ 6'-9". I think most centers were under 7' except for Chamberlain. During the last 18 years that has all changed and I don't think back in the 1960's there were centers (besides Chamberlain and Russell) who could stay with Ewing, Robinson, Mutombo, Mourning, Shaq, Hakeem. Even Kevin Willis would have had a remarkable career in the 50's-60's era. That may be the best way of saying it- Kevin Willis in that time period probably would be an 8 time all star. I believe Hakeem faced better centers than Russell and Chamberlain.
Wilt was incredible, I don't know or remember about him touching the top of the backboard. He could definately score and pass. But I just remember him being so much larger than everyone else. He really seemed to me like a man playing boys at times. Russell really played smart and hard against Wilt, Just take these 4 in there prime and seeing them go up against each other would be incredible: Chamberlain Olajawon O' Neal Russell I think the next tier is Kareem and Moses Malone. My opinion,
Chen, I never really meant to argue that Hakeem is better than Russell, that's just the homey in me based on Hakeem's team strangely breaking up in his prime, and then the Cartright elbow that was a career-threatening blow to the eye socket. Plus the fact of that its like dissing Oscar Robertson for not being able to ever break through in the 60s. He only had 1 MVP, but no one leaves Oscar out of any top tier talk. Russell is surely a great champion. I just favor expanding top tier lists and dropping some people like Kareem out of them as new players break unchartered ground. It's like maintaining a list of great movies...you add some and delete some as you go, but you will never take Russell off the list.
Relatively speaking Russell and Chaimberlain made the average centers back then look ALOT worst than Hakeem did when he was playing average centers like Mark Eaton and Ricky Dudley? If you say yes, does that mean they are more dominant?
not that you were asking me, but i'll give my answer. russell and wilt definitely dominated more than hakeem dominated but that's not really what's at issue. what's at issue is how good were each of them, not how much better than players X and Y they were. its unfair to ask anyone to dominate today like russell and wilt did simply because the level of competition has been increased so dramatically.
Can you define greatness? Greatness to me is defined by how much better you are compared to the competition.... the "level of competition has been increased so dramatically" is just a an excuse. The game will constantly be changed and evolved no matter how you look at it. This is the reason why you can never directly compare players of different eras, its unfair for the older generation guys, they had no one to emulate, they did everything themselves....
It's far more than that. It is a matter of sustaining that advantage over many years. It is a matter of making those around you much better. It is a matter of winning and bringing that winning attitude to a team and an organization. And more. I'm old enough to have seen Wilt play. Guys like him and Oscar Robertson were great. But really, thinking back, it wasn't much different than how Hakeem or Jordan were great. You could just see how special they were right away. The talent and athleticism of these players would have translated (if the old greats were born in this era).
ChenZhen- I agree with Ricerocket. Try to get some footage of Chamberlain or Oscar Robertson and try to get some of Hakeem. They will amaze you. These guys were some of the all time best, night in and night out. Who in their prime was better? Hakeem of course. I am a true Rocket fan. And I attended U of H So for me I will always remember the glory of it all. Like watching a young Akeem playing for the Rockets steal the ball and dribble 3/4 of the court for a finishing dunk. How Sweet It Was.
good defninition; In my mind, probably not up until the championship years is when he did these things really well...I remembered us getting constantly knocked out of the first round...could it be the sucky teamates? Maybe... Could it be Hakeem's inability to lead sucky teamates to be successfull? Maybe...<b>I think we would have gone really deep in those years that we were getting knocked in the first round if Hakeem plays like he did in the championship seasons</b>...I think when he developed that jump hook to counter his baseline moves in the middle of his career is when he took it to another level.
