First off, man, giving you props for actually responding instead of being one of those other fools that couldn't. Rep for that.
But you're still not giving account for how poor that era was. Here, for example, are some video highlights from the Celtics in the FINALS. The defensive effort on both sides is literally shyt - everyone off the ball is just standing around or walking most of the time, there's hardly any help defense and guys are rarely leaving their feet to contest a shot. Not to mention ballhanding/shooting is ugly as hell and it's the FINALS.
33 ppg on 50% shooting and 26 rpg as a rookie. Not a bad first playoff run. You mention the second tallest player on the Celtics being 6'7", yet neglect the fact that today's game hardly features multiple big men on the floor at the same time.
Down below you credited Kareem with an advantage over Wilt due to the fact that Kareem was only 23, but here being only 23 is a disadvantage. You can't have it both ways.
What championship team today has a 6'9" center with no backup big man at all and no forwards over 6'7" on the roster?
We say that most teams don't have multiple big men on the floor because guys like Kevin Durant's 6'11", 240lb skinny ass aren't considered "big men" today, when back then he would have been the 3rd biggest player in the entire NBA, both height and weight. Hell, no one on the Celtics entire roster was over 220lb. Look at that video above - even forwards like Durant, Green, Lebron would have been absolutely WRECKING things on defense in that era, not to mention the actual big men.
37 ppg against a tough Syracuse team.
This is just ridiculous. He lost in a three-game sweep to a team that went 38-41 that year.
Syracuse had two centers - a 7'3" alcoholic named "Swede" who averaged 5ppg on 33.1% shooting that season, and a 6'9" White guy named "Red" who averaged 13ppg on 39.7% shooting that season. Everyone else was under 6'8".
Wilt was guarded by two stiffs who couldn't find the bottom of the hoop even in an era where everyone was 6'5" and unathletic, and he LOST IN A THREE-GAME SWEEP.
Chamberlain played well in Game 7, scoring the last 7 points for the Warriors to tie the game before Sam Jones hit the game-winning shot.
Chamberlain only had 22 points in Game 7, in a season when he was at his offensive peak.
The leading scorer in that game was Tom Meschery, a 6'6" rookie power forward who scored 32.
That 6'6" rookie scored 32 points doing that while Wilt only had 22? In a Game 7?
The Celtics had a better team. Chamberlain played well in the playoffs (averaging nearly 35 ppg) and he played well in the Finals too.
You skipped the year that Wilt missed the playoffs completely.
Yes, in 1964 the Celtics had the better team, but you're still not explaining how the better team was 80% White guys under 6'6" and 220lbs. Or explaining that video up top.
This lets me know that you did not read about the 1965 Celtics-76ers series. Chamberlain played masterfully as the Sixers (who he had been traded to mid-season) went punch-for-punch with the champions. He scored 8 of the 76ers' last 10 points in Game 7, which they lost by two points when "Havlicek stole the ball".
That doesn't change the fact that he only went 6-13 from the line in the game and that their coach straight up said that he couldn't go to Wilt on the final play because he thought they would just foul Wilt because they knew he'd miss the free throws.
You neglect to mention that he played well in the conference finals, but the team's disfunctionality did them in. Chamberlain scored 46 points in the game where the 76ers got eliminated. He did everything he could.
If he scored 46 in the Game 5 loss, then why did he only have 25, 23, and 15 in the three losses before that?
As far as the team's disfunctionality, you sleep in the bed you make. Did Wilt not publicly criticize his teammates? Did he not refuse to even live in the city he played in? Did he not refuse to wake up for morning practices and force the coach to schedule practice around him? Did he not skip practice completely during the entire conference finals run?
And it's not like he was playing with a bunch of scrubs. That team had three HOFers besides Wilt - Hal Greer at his peak, Chet Walker at his peak, and Billy Cunningham as a star rookie, plus Wali Jones too.
You conveniently leave out the fact that Chamberlain's role changed after his first 7 seasons. He was no longer a volume scorer. His role was to get teammates involved on offense, while still carrying a considerable role, and control the game on the boards and on defense.
Let me spell it out for you again so that you don't miss this point: CHAMBERLAIN WAS NO LONGER A BIG TIME SCORER. HE WAS ASKED TO PLAY MORE LIKE BILL RUSSELL AND FOCUS ON DEFENSE, REBOUNDING, AND GETTING TEAMMATES INVOLVED. THAT IS WHAT HE DID.
If he was an unstoppable scorer, then why did his role change?
Why did his role just "happen" to change at the same time the lane widened from 12 feet to 16 feet?
You say Thurmond "held" Chamberlain to 18 ppg, but ignore the fact that the 76ers' scheme was not for Chamberlain to shoot the ball 30-40 times a game. Chamberlain controlled the other aspects of the game. His defense late in Game 6 clinched the championship.
Why shouldn't Wilt shoot 30-40 times a game if he was unstoppable?
He only scored 16, 10, 10, and 24 points on 56% shooting in the four wins against a team that only had one guy who played over 6'8". Why????
Chamberlain played with very substantial injuries. He was not very mobile during the last several games. Chamberlain did not shoot the ball in the second half of Game 7, but he barely got the ball in the post. He got it just a few times. It's not like they kept throwing the ball in to him and he "gave up". You conveniently leave out the fact that Martin Luther King was assassinated right before the series started, and this affected the 76ers far more than the Celtics. With Billy Cunningham sidelined with an injury (another major setback), all of the 76ers' main contributors were black, while the Celtics had Havlicek, Howell, Siegfried, etc.
Do NOT try to play the civil rights card on that one. The assassination happened before the series started, and the Sixers still jumped out to 3-1 series lead before losing the last three games. All three of their wins, BEFORE they blew the 3-1 lead, came AFTER King's funeral. On top of that, Wilt Chamberlain was a card-carrying Republican who showed up to MLK's funeral with Richard Nixon.
And it's true that the Boston Celtics had a very White team, but their top players were still Bill Russell and Sam Jones, and you're begging the question of how a short skinny White team dominated the entire 1960s. MLK only died one year, Wilt's teams lost to them every year.
Wilt was 4-9 from the field and 6-15 from the line in a Game 7. He got the ball 9 times in the post in the 2nd half of Game 7 and took zero shots. There are no excuses for that.
Chamberlain was again not being asked to score much. Still, in Game 7, he had 18 points while Russell had 6. Chamberlain got hurt in Game 7 and, after gathering himself, asked to go back in. But his coach, who he had feuded with all year, refused. This is well documented. He did not fake anything and was not scared of the moment. He had already been in several comparable moments.
You're completely ignoring that Chamberlain, supposedly unstoppable on offense, only averaged 11ppg for the series and had THREE games where he scored in single digits.
And I'm not saying he faked anything, but Bill Russell said he did, and Russell was friends with Wilt until then. Where did Russell's comment come from?
Chamberlain had missed most of the season with a very serious injury. His career was believed to possibly be over, but he miraculously made it back in time for the playoffs. He was not the same player he had been before. His mobility was diminished, and he was aging anyway.
Chamberlain somehow got the Lakers past a very good Bulls team without Baylor and West. Of course he got outplayed by Kareem. Kareem is possibly the GOAT and was 24 years old.
You say that Wilt "somehow" got the Lakers past the Bulls when HOFer Gail Goodrich averaged 30ppg for the Lakers in the series, Jim McMillan added another 18ppg, and Erickson and Hairston were solid players too. The Lakers still had a strong starting five even without West/Baylor.
The Bulls, meanwhile, started a lineup of Bob Love, Chet Walker, Jerry Sloan, Bob Weiss, and Tom Boerwinkle.
You neglect to mention that Chamberlain scored 24 points in the clinching Game 5 while playing with a broken hand. He also had 10 blocks in that game.
Wilt was the most important player on that Lakers team, by far. His defense, rebounding, outlet passing, screens, and leadership were central to everything that that team did. He played very well against Kareem in the conference finals, forcing Kareem to shoot low percentages. They didn't play the Bucks in the first round, btw. It was the conference finals. Wilt's inspired play in the second half of Game 6 won them that game.
Kareem averaged 34ppg in the Conference Finals, to Wilt's 11ppg. What the hell "low percentages" was Wilt shooting?
And it was Oscar Robertson leaving the game with a stomach injury in the 2nd half that won them the game. The Bucks had actually outscored the Lakers by 20 in the series to that point.
And I am NOT saying that Wilt wasn't a good player. An athletic 7'1" baller like Wilt was a crazy menace, especially against teams that didn't have a live body over 6'8". But the question was whether he was an unstoppable scorer....and in the postseason, against real competition, he was stopped over and over and over again.
