The myth of Wilt Chamberlain's unstoppable offense

[Professor Emeritus]

There are no stats on that. All we can go on is what has been written. However, notice that his field goal percentage shot up to 0.68 (From usually being in the low .50s) in 1966-67, once Wilt stopped being a volume shooter, and stopped regularly taking fadeaway jumpers from far out.

That's true, and a good point, though 1967 is a bit of an aberration (as he went down to 54-59% the next four years before finishing his last couple years on high %'s again on very low volume).

But those are regular season stats. And you know full well that regular season basketball in that era was a bit of a joke. When you look at the playoff stats, the change in Wilt's shooting %'s isn't nearly as meaningful: In 1967 he drops down from his regular season shooting of 24ppg on 68% to only 22ppg on 58% in the playoffs, and that was boosted by an easy matchup in the first round. Better shot selection isn't the whole answer - he doesn't lose 10 points off his shooting percentage between the regular season and the playoffs unless the increased defensive intensity of the playoffs was having a real effect on his shot.

And, in fact, 1967 still remains an aberration - the very next year he dropped down to 53% shooting, and from 1968-1973 he would continue only average 53% shooting in the playoffs and 45% from the line. That's remarkable for a player who is 7'1" and 280lbs in that era, especially one who is being careful with his shot selection as you say he was.

For Wilt to only be taking 9-18 shots from the field, be more careful with his shot selection, have the defensive pressure pulled off of him by elite scorers like Hal Greer and Jerry West and Elgin Baylor and Gail Goodrich and Jim McMillan, and for him to STILL only make 53% of his shots despite being taller and bigger and more athletic than virtually everyone else he faced, lends strong credence to my position that he was not an "unstoppable scorer" in the 2nd half of his career.

Of course, when you take into account the fact that those were the years that he had a 16-foot lane, those were the years that he started to have to face guys like Nate Thurmond and Willis Reed and Kareem in the playoffs, and it seems more naturally like something you can expect.

I've wasted far too much time in my life reading every article, every book, every website I could find about 1960s basketball. And your theory regarding Wilt's decline in scoring has never been raised by anyone who was there at the time, including those who were habitually critical of him (and there were plenty).

The idea that the move from the 12-foot lane to the 16-foot lane limited post scorers, and was done specifically in order to limit post scorers, is very well established.

But I agree with what you've been not-so-subtly implying throughout this thread - understanding of basketball strategy was in its infancy in the 1960s, and neither coaches nor commentators had a tenth of the knowledge of the game that they do today.

Which is to be expected - even Einstein didn't know as much quantum physics as a grad student in the subject today, random street rappers drop a greater diversity of rhyming patterns than the legends of the 1980s, and the average high school football coach shows more sophistication in his offensive and defensive schemes than the NFL coaches of the 1960s. It's not their fault - understanding of the game is going to improve over time, and with that commentary on the game as well.

It is very well-documented that Alex Hannum asked Wilt Chamberlain to score less and relinquish the scoring title in 1966-67.

Yes, I've certainly never disagreed with that - it's a strong part of my point. Truly unstoppable scorers don't help their team by reducing their scoring so dramatically that far more inferior scorers are taking twice as many shots. The fact that the only years in which Wilt piled up big scoring stats (as you note - on poor efficiency) happen to be years in which he found little playoff success is a good indication that he was not, in fact, unstoppable.

It is very well-documented that Wilt was bored with scoring and was intrigued by the possibility of leading the league in assists in 1967-68 (which he did).

Yes, and also documented that that was a quick aberration, an experiment for the year, and he almost immediately regressed back to his mean, only averaging 3.6 assists/game over his last 5 years.

As well as further proof of my point - forced to set up further from the basket, he became more of a facilitator and less of a scorer.

It is very well-documented that Wilt sacrificed when he went to the Lakers in 1968-69 because he was joining "Elgin and Jerry's" team, and that to make things work, Chamberlain spent a lot of time stepping out, setting screens, and making sure he didn't clog the lane so that Baylor could drive.

Again, not making him sound like much of an unstoppable scorer. We've seen this all the time - Oscar joining Kareem's team, Magic joining Kareem's team, Clyde joining Hakeem's team,Shaq joining Wade's team, Lebron joining Wade's team, Durant joining Curry's team - and the players either fall into the roles for which they are best suited at that stage in their career or the team collapses. When the new player is legitimately the better scorer, they soon take the role of scoring more, regardless of whose "team" it was before them. Wilt was better when he wasn't a primary scorer.

It is clear that Chamberlain had a very serious injury in 1969-70 and was never the same afterward. And finally, it has been documented in countless sources how Wilt reduced his scoring even more in 1971-72 (when Bill Sharman became the Lakers' coach) and started playing the "Bill Russell role" almost exclusively. In his last two seasons, Wilt hardly ever shot the ball! But from everything we know about his team during those two years, Wilt was easily the most important player on a juggernaut Lakers team.

This would be a better argument if his playoff performances in 1970-71 didn't look substantially similar to his playoff performances in 1967-1969, or if his 2nd title and Finals MVP hadn't come in 1972.

But I do agree that he was a different player in 1972-73. And, very clearly, not an unstoppable scorer.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

A whole thread dedicated to downing the great Wilt? I can't respect that.

@dantheman9758

Sounds like bullshyt.

@mitter

Awful threads by them everywhere and yet they call Kobe stans the most delusional.

what

Bro get out of my head *pause* because I was thinking all of this reading the op.

So disrespectful

thread

So, for all the guys who want to critique but can't bring anything to the table, here's a very easy challenge. Answer these three questions:

#1: In which three playoff series do you believe Wilt most clearly proved that he was an offensive force who could not be stopped?

#2: Against which three elite centers do you believe Wilt proved most conclusively that he could dominate the modern big man?

#3: What do you believe was Wilt's greatest postseason run, from an offensive standpoint? With or without a 12-foot lane?


If Wilt is truly the most unstoppable offensive force of all time, if he truly would be scoring 34-40 points/game against today's big men, then there should be LOTS of easy receipts to answer my questions, right?







I'd also like to see ANYONE, just one person, address this issue:


This is Joe Ruklick on how he made the Philly roster:

"I was 23 years old and having fun, but sitting the bench wasn't fun," he said. "He said, 'We need you next year. Fans won't buy tickets if you have too many Negroes.' I went and told my wife. She said, 'You mean you're on this team because you're white?' 'Well, yeah.' So I went to New York to look for a job (outside of basketball)."


When the biggest guy on Wilt's team, the forward who actually gave him the assist on this 100-point basket, was ONLY playing to increase the # of White players on the court, and you could say the same thing about a lot of other guys in the game at the time, how can you possibly treat the stats and accomplishments of that day as legitimate or comparable to the much larger and more authentic talent pool today?


Wilt's 50ppg team:

The Celtic's dominant 1960's team:

Wilt's 1967 championship team:

The Knicks team that the West/Goodrich/Wilt/McMillan/Hairston Lakers beat in the 1972 Finals:

Yo after reading this wilt fukking garbage fukk that bum

Nah man, I ain't saying anything like that.

Wilt is in my all-time top-10. He was extremely versatile as a player. He was big and strong and talented enough to be a star player even in today's era.

My only argument is that he didn't have the playoff dominance to compare to MJ/Lebron/Magic/Kareem, he was not unstoppable on the offensive end in his own era, and certainly would not be in this era for all the same reasons and more:

1. You can't camp in the lane because it's out to 16 feet now
2. There are a lot more talented big men who are taller and bigger and stronger than before
3. The zone defense was purposely implemented to hurt isolation scorers and guys like Shaq
4. The league ain't full of big White bums anymore who are playing just because they're White.

 

[Originalman]

I am not going to get into a deep discussion about the quality of the era or how much the players then weighed. That is a whole different discussion. I am going to talk about what Wilt did in his era. Each player is a product of his era, and is exposed to the style of play and nutrition and training regimens of the time. Guys who were 210-220 lbs back then would be 240-250 if they came up in a different era, for example. Also, a note on players' heights: most players today have listed heights that are exaggerated. For instance, Dwight Howard is listed as 6'11" when he is really 6'9"-ish. So Wilt (a legitimate 7'1") would be a giant in today's game as well.





There is a lot of growth from a rookie year to the second year. Kareem went through his own growing pains as a rookie when the Bucks lost to the Knicks.




Just because teams have some big stiffs on the bench, that doesn't mean small ball isn't being played left and right.



See me previous comments about era differences. But again, I'm not here to argue about that in this thread.



Yes and 30 years from now, people will look back and talk about how Shaq was being guarded by "stiffs" like Greg Ostertag and Bill Wennington. Somehow, big white stiffs have proven to be functional players regardless of era.




The numbers aren't everything. Go back and read the accounts of that game. Tom Heinsohn in particular noted that Wilt played a tremendous all-around game and did a lot to get his teammates going and control the defensive end. And he scored the clutch points near the end of the game.




His team moved to a new city, lost their coach, lost several key players. shyt happens.




Yes, everyone knows Wilt is a horrible free throw shooter. Anyway, regardless of that, he wasn't the guy to go to in a catch and shoot situation. A center who operates in the post like Wilt did is not going to be the best option in that specific situation. that doesn't take away from him. It would be like faulting MJ for not being the best option on his team if what they needed was a catch and shoot three-pointer.




The knock against Wilt when playing Russell was that he would dominate the scoring and his team would lose due to a lack of balance. The 76ers took both approaches with Wilt in this series (1. share the ball, 2. carry the offensive load) and neither worked.




All superstars are difficult to deal with. Dolph Schayes was an incompetent coach. That is well documented.



The 76ers as a team failed to rise to the occasion. Wilt played well though.




Because, for decades, the consensus among basketball experts was that you win by sharing the ball and having a balanced attack, not by one guy carrying the load. Wilt's early career struggles vs. the Celtics was seen as proof of this. In fact, this consensus prevailed until MJ finally won championships in the 90s. Go back and look at how the experts were sure MJ would never win a title by taking such a high percentage of his team's shots. Virtually all teams that won championships prior to the Bulls had balanced attacks. When Julius Erving joined the 76ers from the ABA, the management explicitly asked him to reduce his scoring and become part of a balanced attack that they felt would maximize their chances of winning.




No. It coincided with Alex Hannum becoming the 76ers' new coach and convincing Wilt to give up the scoring title.



Because his coach felt that was not the best way for him to play if the team wanted to win.



He didn't shoot the ball much. He set lots of screens and racked up a lot of assists.



Go back and read Chet Walker's autobiography and see how he feels about it. Walker was 9-20 from the free throw line (or something like that) in Game 1, which the 76ers lost.

Chamberlain was a card-carrying Republican in an era where more Republicans were in favor of civil rights than Democrats. Nixon was in favor of civil rights.



Are you sure it was 9 times? I think it was less, but I have to check.

Anyway, his main role on offense was to be a facilitator. He led the league in assists that year. And he hadn't been very effective offensively in the series anyway (he was hurt pretty bad).




His role at that point in his career was not to be an unstoppable offensive force. Chamberlain sacrificed to get Jerry West and Elgin Baylor their shots. Note that West's field goal attempts went up drastically in the finals.

Russell's pride/arrogance led him to make those comments. He and Chamberlain didn't speak for decades afterwards due to his unfair criticism. Russell apologized later. Basically everyone else involved in the game has vouched for the fact that Wilt was not faking anything.



Love, Walker and Sloan were very good players.



I don't have the stats handy, but Wilt was hardly shooting (again, not his role at this stage of his career), while Kareem was taking A LOT of shots. We have seen plenty of players put up lots of points on low field goal percentages. I know for a fact Wilt held Kareem well below his usual percentage.

Damn dude you bringing straight heat. My dad is a historian and his favorite players were Wilt and Ali. As a kid he had me read countless books and watch clips / interviews on Wilt and Ali.

Everything you mentioned in this post about Wilt has been mentioned by Wilt, Russell, ex players or some basketball historian.

Hell even Wilt on his many interviews with say Roy Firestone or the late dikk Schap show mentioned how his roles changed over the years. He even mentioned how the 80s and 90s defense cleaned up the physicality in the paint and decreased zone defense. Which Wilt had to play againts.

But most of the time when Wilt discussed his playing days and compared them to the modern era the media would play it off as Wilt being a hater or that Wilt was a choke artist.

 

[dantheman9758]

The Wilt played midgets thing is a straight up myth. Ever see the old stars standing next to the new ones? It's straight bunk. Wilt made EVERYONE look small, no matter what era they played he even dwarfed Shaq the few times they met. We're talking about Shaq. The closest thing to Wilt (physically) that there ever was since Wilt played.

Listed info became increasingly exaggerated as player contracts grew. In the Wilt era, and prior, to exaggerate your height or to underbill yourself was done interchangeably depending on what the coach wanted to do. Today, it's almost unanimously an exaggeration or and "in shoes" listing. On paper, actual measurements that can be researched look about the same as what actual measurements get recorded to this day in the NBA draft where they also have an opportunity to ignore bogus list information.

The competition argument even on a skill based level is way off base. A guy like Walter Bellamy could kill it in today's NBA. Bill Russell and Kareem are GOAT candidates. This is an example of "Wilt's competition".

 

[dantheman9758]

If Wilt's unstoppable offense is a myth than so it is in the hands of the smaller, less athletic Tim Duncan and Dirk Nowitzki (and when posting up, Kobe and MJ). Wilt's go to shot was theirs.

 

[dantheman9758]

I'm confused, are these the dwarfs of his era or are these "exceptions" to the rule? If they're the exceptions how come these guys don't these guys own the record books like the big dipper? Are these not the CENTERS he actually played against? I spy the guy Wilt literally scored 100 points against (the same guy who KAREEM also played against, and managed to score 46 in his best effort against him. That's the same point total he duplicated against Olajuwon years later in the 1980's):

 

[GPBear]

@The Dankster to answer your question as to why people think Wilt would dominate centers today, you're leaving out qualitative crucial facts.

It has been said repeatedly by Hall of Famers such as Bill Russell, or even those who had nothing to do with basketball like Arnold Schwaz-whatever, that Wilt Chamberlain was incomparably strong. This and his own hyperbolic statements regarding his sexual exploits, combined with the untoppable 100 point game will forever cement Wilt as a basketball legend.

I have more of a problem with people trying to play down 's abilities. Lebron was recently ranked 2nd behind Jordan with Russell somewhere around 7 or 8 I believe? This is a joke and a mockery of the sports journalists who wrote it.

First of all, you've already pointed out how Russell was basically the only tall guy on his team (which consisted of a bunch of scrawny white guys, as you claim) and yet dominated basketball for a decade, not just as a player - but as a player-coach. Whilst suffering from the pressure of racism in 1960s Boston
He was able to coach an entire team while playing. This means not just his abilities as a player were far superior than most, but his ability to handle interpersonal relationships was also incredible, not to mention the fact that he's a strategic genius.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

I just got to LOL at this. Did you see what you posted?



WTF is that? A bunch of guys fumbling around with the ball, and then a tall skinny guy (who had just dropped a rebound in his hands and then awkwardly ran into another player) makes a routine, unguarded, jump straight up dunk. And they label it "posterized" even though no one was there.

THAT proves something in your mind?

Dropping a rebound, running into a guy, then making an open dunk is Walt Wesley's career highlight?



Or almost as good:

I'm confused, are these the dwarfs of his era or are these "exceptions" to the rule? If they're the exceptions how come these guys don't these guys own the record books like the big dipper? Are these not the CENTERS he actually played against?

Man, let him pull out for a second and look at what you're posting.

Post CAREER HIGHLIGHTS of a hall of fame player, and the whole film is six dunks that nearly any forward/center in the league today can do. AND ONE OF THEM IS BLOCKED BY THE RIM.

Am I on crack? Did he not just get dominated by the rim at 55 seconds? It's not from defensive pressure or anything, he just don't get close to high enough.

How the hell did that make it onto a highlight film, WITH slow-mo replay, and then you decided to post it?

And on top of that, Wilt NEVER dominated Reed. Wilt was D'd up by Reed in 11 games and lost 8 of them. He lost both series he started across from him in the playoffs, only averaged 18ppg against him while getting dominated on the other end, and lost a Game 7 where Reed was injured and couldn't even run or jump, yet still held Wilt to 21 points and got the W.

What the heck did you think those weak-ass Reed highlights were going to prove?



Or the next one:



Walt goes up hard and it looks nice, until you look up the guys he's dunking on and realize that almost every one is a 6'7", 200lbs White guy.

These were the ENTIRE career highlights in that video:

0:04 - nice dunk, best highlight, but the defender comes too late anyway

0:13 - not only is he dunking on some skinny short White guy, but it's his teammate who knocks the White guy out of the way, not him

0:22 - dunks on another skinny-ass White guy who is a couple inches shorter than him

0:30 - dunks on another skinny white guy who swipes meaninglessly at the ball.

0:38 - dunks on a crouching Wilt, WTF is Wilt doing on that play?

0:42 - dunks on another White guy, this one stuck under the basket

0:44 - nice drive and dunk, but again, nothing almost any 6'9" guy can't do today

0:50 - open unguarded straight-up dunk. How does THAT make it onto career highlights?

0:58 - another open unguarded dunk

1:10 - dunks on another White guy stuck under the hoop


That's the ENTIRE highlight film. Ten dunks, 2 unguarded and 6 on White guys smaller than himself.


I mean, what the hell do you think you were proving with those highlight videos that you couldn't show in a Darko highlight real.

If Wilt's unstoppable offense is a myth than so it is in the hands of the smaller, less athletic Tim Duncan and Dirk Nowitzki (and when posting up, Kobe and MJ). Wilt's go to shot was theirs.

No one has EVER said that Tim Duncan was an unstoppable offensive force, and he still was a much better shot-maker than Wilt was. Why do you think Wilt was there averaging 50% lifetime on free throws while Duncan was shooting 70%?

And please, you're showing ridiculous stannishness if you're even dreaming of comparing Wilt's offensive skills to Dirk.
Wilt often shot 30-40% from the free throw line in critical series, and you're putting his name and Dirk's in the same sentence on shot-making skills.




As far as the video goes, Wilt took over 23,000 shots in his life. Anyone can make a video of him making some of those shots, and make it look good. But of course they're skipping the 10,000 shots he missed.

Even look at the video you posted. He's far taller than everyone else, they're hardly touching him on defense (there goes the myth that it was a more physical era and he was constantly getting hacked), and he's shooting easily over their heads. You're calling that unstoppable....and yet he was only shooting 50% in the playoffs those years and losing. When a HUGE percentage of his shots are dunks and easy lay-ups, when he's 7'1" with only a couple other players in the league over 6'9", how the hell is he only making half his shots and losing in the playoffs if he has unstoppable skill?

I have never denied that Wilt had skill. But he didn't have unstoppable skill. He could be controlled, even in his own era with 95% of the league under 6'9", 90% of the league under 220lbs and 80% of the league White. He would be controllable today too.

The Wilt played midgets thing is a straight up myth. Ever see the old stars standing next to the new ones? It's straight bunk. Wilt made EVERYONE look small, no matter what era they played he even dwarfed Shaq the few times they met. We're talking about Shaq. The closest thing to Wilt (physically) that there ever was since Wilt played.

Please, Wilt did not "dwarf" Shaq. Wilt bulked up in his older years after his playing days were over, and he still was about the same size as the younger skinny Shaq. Wilt was a legit 7'1" without shoes and Shaq was a legit 7'0" without shoes. When Shaq got bigger in his later LA days and was a huge 325lbs, he was a completely different beast than Wilt ever was.

Listed info became increasingly exaggerated as player contracts grew. In the Wilt era, and prior, to exaggerate your height or to underbill yourself was done interchangeably depending on what the coach wanted to do. Today, it's almost unanimously an exaggeration or and "in shoes" listing. On paper, actual measurements that can be researched look about the same as what actual measurements get recorded to this day in the NBA draft where they also have an opportunity to ignore bogus list information.

Did they seriously try to grab the tallest 10 guys they can find in Wilt's era, guys like Russell and Kareem who were spread out 15 years apart from each other, throw in Holbrook to up the average even though he only played two years in the early 1960s, and then compared that average to a random draft class of 19-year-olds from one year?

 

[dantheman9758]

I just got to LOL at this. Did you see what you posted?



WTF is that? A bunch of guys fumbling around with the ball, and then a tall skinny guy (who had just dropped a rebound in his hands and then awkwardly ran into another player) makes a routine, unguarded, jump straight up dunk. And they label it "posterized" even though no one was there.

THAT proves something in your mind?

Dropping a rebound, running into a guy, then making an open dunk is Walt Wesley's career highlight?



Or almost as good:


Man, let him pull out for a second and look at what you're posting.

Post CAREER HIGHLIGHTS of a hall of fame player, and the whole film is six dunks that nearly any forward/center in the league today can do. AND ONE OF THEM IS BLOCKED BY THE RIM.

Am I on crack? Did he not just get dominated by the rim at 55 seconds? It's not from defensive pressure or anything, he just don't get close to high enough.

How the hell did that make it onto a highlight film, WITH slow-mo replay, and then you decided to post it?

And on top of that, Wilt NEVER dominated Reed. Wilt was D'd up by Reed in 11 games and lost 8 of them. He lost both series he started across from him in the playoffs, only averaged 18ppg against him while getting dominated on the other end, and lost a Game 7 where Reed was injured and couldn't even run or jump, yet still held Wilt to 21 points and got the W.

What the heck did you think those weak-ass Reed highlights were going to prove?



Or the next one:



Walt goes up hard and it looks nice, until you look up the guys he's dunking on and realize that almost every one is a 6'7", 200lbs White guy.

These were the ENTIRE career highlights in that video:

0:04 - nice dunk, best highlight, but the defender comes too late anyway

0:13 - not only is he dunking on some skinny short White guy, but it's his teammate who knocks the White guy out of the way, not him

0:22 - dunks on another skinny-ass White guy who is a couple inches shorter than him

0:30 - dunks on another skinny white guy who swipes meaninglessly at the ball.

0:38 - dunks on a crouching Wilt, WTF is Wilt doing on that play?

0:42 - dunks on another White guy, this one stuck under the basket

0:44 - nice drive and dunk, but again, nothing almost any 6'9" guy can't do today

0:50 - open unguarded straight-up dunk. How does THAT make it onto career highlights?

0:58 - another open unguarded dunk

1:10 - dunks on another White guy stuck under the hoop


That's the ENTIRE highlight film. Ten dunks, 2 unguarded and 6 on White guys smaller than himself.


I mean, what the hell do you think you were proving with those highlight videos that you couldn't show in a Darko highlight real.









No one has EVER said that Tim Duncan was an unstoppable offensive force, and he still was a much better shot-maker than Wilt was. Why do you think Wilt was there averaging 50% lifetime on free throws while Duncan was shooting 70%?

And please, you're showing ridiculous stannishness if you're even dreaming of comparing Wilt's offensive skills to Dirk.
Wilt often shot 30-40% from the free throw line in critical series, and you're putting his name and Dirk's in the same sentence on shot-making skills.




As far as the video goes, Wilt took over 23,000 shots in his life. Anyone can make a video of him making some of those shots, and make it look good. But of course they're skipping the 10,000 shots he missed.

Even look at the video you posted. He's far taller than everyone else, they're hardly touching him on defense (there goes the myth that it was a more physical era and he was constantly getting hacked), and he's shooting easily over their heads. You're calling that unstoppable....and yet he was only shooting 50% in the playoffs those years and losing. When a HUGE percentage of his shots are dunks and easy lay-ups, when he's 7'1" with only a couple other players in the league over 6'9", how the hell is he only making half his shots and losing in the playoffs if he has unstoppable skill?

I have never denied that Wilt had skill. But he didn't have unstoppable skill. He could be controlled, even in his own era with 95% of the league under 6'9", 90% of the league under 220lbs and 80% of the league White. He would be controllable today too.




Please, Wilt did not "dwarf" Shaq. Wilt bulked up in his older years after his playing days were over, and he still was about the same size as the younger skinny Shaq. Wilt was a legit 7'1" without shoes and Shaq was a legit 7'0" without shoes. When Shaq got bigger in his later LA days and was a huge 325lbs, he was a completely different beast than Wilt ever was.

Did they seriously try to grab the tallest 10 guys they can find in Wilt's era, guys like Russell and Kareem who were spread out 15 years apart from each other, throw in Holbrook to up the average even though he only played two years in the early 1960s, and then compared that average to a random draft class of 19-year-olds from one year?

Career highlights? I'm a comprehensive collector of basketball history film.

Let me tell you a secret about the Wilt Chamberlain era.

There is no such thing as "career highlights" of any player of the Wilt Chamberlain era. Not Wilt, not his competition, not anyone. More than 98 percent of anything that happened from that era does not exist on film. As such, you should understand career highlights of Walt Bellamy for example, does not exist. Only a few plays fortunate to exist from All-Star, playoff, and 1 or 2 games exists on film. Random ones too, nothing superlative. In such a small sample size, I picked the dunks lucky to exist on film, and put them into a short mix. Just to show you he COULD posterize people, and did. The best posters that he ever gave to anyone, never survived on film. A "top 10 plays of player X's career" is not comparable here. A "top 10 plays of what player X did (out of a random 4 game stretch)" is more accurate a comparison. Tell me, how many outstanding plays does LeBron James even do in only about 4 or 5 games? Would showing a jilted fan like yourself the "best" clips from only a sample size of about 4 games do LeBron justice or be equivalent to "career" highlights of another player? Think about it for a moment.

The list (that I put together) of player heights is an average based on newspaper archive data. It's not "selective". It's everything I could possibly find that revealed actual height or weigh in data. If the key words "stocking feet" or "without shoes" or "in bare feet" was put into a newspaper archive search engine, those players are players who played center position against Wilt that showed up and gave a result.

Interestingly, the shortest player that Wilt played at center against is on that list, and weighs heavily against Chamberlain. Wes Unseld. Having him on the list, is no worse than having Halbrook on the list, the tallest player I'm aware of that played against Chamberlain.

Chamberlain himself, at 7 foot 1 without shoes, would be about the tallest player in the NBA today, save for Boban. He'd tower over everyone today, as he did then. Think I'm wrong?

 

[Professor Emeritus]

As such, you should understand career highlights of Walt Bellamy for example, does not exist. Only a few plays fortunate to exist from All-Star, playoff, and 1 or 2 games exists on film. Random ones too, nothing superlative. In such a small sample size, I picked the dunks lucky to exist on film, and put them into a short mix. Just to show you he COULD posterize people, and did. The best posters that he ever gave to anyone, never survived on film.

You took one of the tallest, most athletic centers Wilt faced, someone who Wilt never dominated once the key was moved out from 12 feet to 16 feet, and showed him making dunks that virtually everyone above 6'9" in the NBA today can make.

In both playoff series they played, Walt played Wilt almost straight-up. Wilt was more talented than Walt, but he couldn't abuse him, couldn't pile up numbers. If Walt could control Wilt, why not other centers today?

The list (that I put together) of player heights is an average based on newspaper archive data. It's not "selective". It's everything I could possibly find that revealed actual height or weigh in data. If the key words "stocking feet" or "without shoes" or "in bare feet" was put into a newspaper archive search engine, those players are players who played center position against Wilt that showed up and gave a result.

Interestingly, the shortest player that Wilt played at center against is on that list, and weighs heavily against Chamberlain. Wes Unseld. Having him on the list, is no worse than having Halbrook on the list, the tallest player I'm aware of that played against Chamberlain.

Chamberlain himself, at 7 foot 1 without shoes, would be about the tallest player in the NBA today, save for Boban. He'd tower over everyone today, as he did then. Think I'm wrong?

Yes, and we've been over this already. Walt would be one of the tallest players, but he would NOT be 6+ inches over everyone on the court other than the one 6'9" guy on the other side.

These pictures are not happening in 2017:

We already went through rosters on the other thread talking how everyone now has 4-6 guys taller than the tallest non-Wilt/Russell man in those photos.


And another thing that I'm reminded of by those photos.

"I was 23 years old and having fun, but sitting the bench wasn't fun," he said. "He said, 'We need you next year. Fans won't buy tickets if you have too many Negroes.' I went and told my wife. She said, 'You mean you're on this team because you're white?' 'Well, yeah.' So I went to New York to look for a job (outside of basketball)."



Note that NO ONE in this four-page thread, not one of the detractors, has addressed that quote or the obvious phenomenon it represents at all.


Basketball was not as popular in the 1960s as it is in the 2000s, even among White people. On TOP of that, they didn't have 1/3 of the league filled with international talent, especially every tall big man that can be dug up from any country on Earth. On TOP of that, a lot of Black guys who could have upped the talent level were kept out of the league one way or another. On TOP of that, the US population was like half as big in 1960 as it is now. Half the population equals half the talent pool, even if all else was equal...but without foreign players and with basketball a young sport with less popularity and with Black guys getting frozen out, there was a LOT less than half the talent pool, maybe 1/10th the talent pool.

How the hell would the 1960s get equivalent size and talent to the 2010s when the population was half as big, Black dudes were frozen out, no international players were around, and even among White people basketball wasn't as popular as other sports?





I get that you admit you're a huge 1960s stan. Of course you're going to build it up. But you're still stanning an era where worthless White guys were added to the team just so there wouldn't be "too many Negros" and the fans would buy tickets.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

So, for all the guys who want to critique but can't bring anything to the table, here's a very easy challenge. Answer these three questions:

#1: In which three playoff series do you believe Wilt most clearly proved that he was an offensive force who could not be stopped?

#2: Against which three elite centers do you believe Wilt proved most conclusively that he could dominate the modern big man?

#3: What do you believe was Wilt's greatest postseason run, from an offensive standpoint? With or without a 12-foot lane?


If Wilt is truly the most unstoppable offensive force of all time, if he truly would be scoring 34-40 points/game against today's big men, then there should be LOTS of easy receipts to answer my questions, right?







I'd also like to see ANYONE, just one person, address this issue:


This is Joe Ruklick on how he made the Philly roster:

"I was 23 years old and having fun, but sitting the bench wasn't fun," he said. "He said, 'We need you next year. Fans won't buy tickets if you have too many Negroes.' I went and told my wife. She said, 'You mean you're on this team because you're white?' 'Well, yeah.' So I went to New York to look for a job (outside of basketball)."


When the biggest guy on Wilt's team, the forward who actually gave him the assist on this 100-point basket, was ONLY playing to increase the # of White players on the court, and you could say the same thing about a lot of other guys in the game at the time, how can you possibly treat the stats and accomplishments of that day as legitimate or comparable to the much larger and more authentic talent pool today?


Wilt's 50ppg team:

The Celtic's dominant 1960's team:

Wilt's 1967 championship team:

The Knicks team that the West/Goodrich/Wilt/McMillan/Hairston Lakers beat in the 1972 Finals:

Posted this 30 hours ago, tagged everyone in the thread, and nothing.

Why am I not surprised?

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Posted this 30 hours ago, tagged everyone in the thread, and nothing.

Why am I not surprised?

I've been fighting this fight for years now. Folk would rather believe and regurgitate their ruse of the past, than take it for what it was, warts and all.

 

[Malta]

Chamberlain himself, at 7 foot 1 without shoes, would be about the tallest player in the NBA today, save for Boban. He'd tower over everyone today, as he did then. Think I'm wrong?

No, he wouldn't tower over everyone, Kristaps, Embiid, Gobert, Gasol etc are all between 7'0" - 7'1" without shoes. Also, you're only looking at center position, there are guys at positions today that simply did not exist in the 60s that have to be accounted for as help defenders. There were no 6'11" small forwards coming over and altering shots in the 60s like Giannis and KD can do, the length at the 3 is where the huge difference in the game comes from, those guys would have been centers in the 60s.


@The Dankster in here doing work

 

[Professor Emeritus]

The list (that I put together) of player heights is an average based on newspaper archive data. It's not "selective". It's everything I could possibly find that revealed actual height or weigh in data. If the key words "stocking feet" or "without shoes" or "in bare feet" was put into a newspaper archive search engine, those players are players who played center position against Wilt that showed up and gave a result.

Interestingly, the shortest player that Wilt played at center against is on that list, and weighs heavily against Chamberlain. Wes Unseld. Having him on the list, is no worse than having Halbrook on the list, the tallest player I'm aware of that played against Chamberlain.

Chamberlain himself, at 7 foot 1 without shoes, would be about the tallest player in the NBA today, save for Boban. He'd tower over everyone today, as he did then. Think I'm wrong?

Another point is that your list is obviously selective, because random 6'7" 6'8" and 6'9" scrubs don't get newspaper articles written up about how tall they are in bare feet. Wes Unseld is randomly in there because he's an especially short Hall of Famer and so his height is notable, especially since at 6'5" stocking he held Wilt Chamberlain to 18ppg in 19 career matchups, only once letting him break 30, and won 7. That's why everyone on your list is either very tall or a star player. Your average is skewed way up because primarily the tall guys show up in newspaper articles bragging about their stocking feet height.

No, he wouldn't tower over everyone, Kristaps, Embiid, Gobert, Gasol etc are all between 7'0" - 7'1" without shoes. Also, you're only looking at center position, there are guys at positions today that simply did not exist in the 60s that have to be accounted for as help defenders. There were no 6'11" small forwards coming over and altering shots in the 60s like Giannis and KD can do, the length at the 3 is where the huge difference in the game comes from, those guys would have been centers in the 60s.


@The Dankster in here doing work

Nailed that.

Hibbert, Mosgov, Ajinca, Mejri all in that range too. And it's not just the guys that are 7'0" or higher - those guys in the 6'10" to 6'11" often defended Wilt well too, as long as they were athletic and talented, and there are MANY players like that in the league (note we haven't named Chandler, Bogut, Adams, Whiteside, Turner, Towns, Drummond, Jordan, Cousins or the 2nd Gasol yet not to mention quite a few defensive sieves and D-league scrubs with height).

Notice we just named far more players of that height who are in the NBA right now than Wilt faced across his entire 13-year career. Easily.

 

[Kane]

This thread got nikkas emotional, but @The Dankster brought straight FAX

"I was 23 years old and having fun, but sitting the bench wasn't fun," he said. "He said, 'We need you next year. Fans won't buy tickets if you have too many Negroes.' I went and told my wife. She said, 'You mean you're on this team because you're white?' 'Well, yeah.' So I went to New York to look for a job (outside of basketball)."



Note that NO ONE in this four-page thread, not one of the detractors, has addressed that quote or the obvious phenomenon it represents at all.

It's because they can't breh

That quote pretty much deads any argument they could possibly make.