The myth that Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain never played against players over 6'5

[Reggie]

Wilt was an all-time great, but he needs to be left in his era Would he be a great player today? Sure since 7'2 280lbs + athletic doesn't grow on trees , but he wouldn't be putting up 50ppg, his playoffs numbers are a better window into the type of player he really was, nobody really points out how big of a gap there was between his regular season performances, and his playoffs.

So true bruh. Wilt is an all time great but his postseason numbers fell off literally every year while most all time greats numbers go up a bit in the playoffs.

 

[blackzeus]

Willis Reed was 6'9" and wasn't especially athletic or skilled on defense compared to big men today.

Wilt played 17 career playoff games against Reed. He went 7-10 in those games, averaging 19ppg and shooting 34% from the line.

Nate Thurmond was 6'11" and wasn't a great leaper.

Wilt played 17 career playoff games against Nate. He went 12-5, but only averaged 12.5ppg and shot 37% from the line.

Jerry Lucas was a 6'8" White dude with no real athleticism who once said, "I had no special desire to be an NBA player" .

Wilt played 18 career playoff games against Lucas. He went 11-7, averaging 21ppg and shooting 46% from the line.

There are PLENTY of things any decent modern NBA team could do to contain Wilt.

Jordan was guarded by Mark Price and Travis Best at times, are we going to argue that MJ couldn't play in the modern NBA? Barkley is 6'4" and was a Hall of Famer. Please tell me you think Barkley couldn't dominate in the low post in today's NBA

 

[NYC Rebel]

Of course not.

Is this football? They played more than that one game in that series and that wasn't the only time he got swept.

I don't get your point. He got swept twice I believe. Out of the two, he wasn't at fault for one of them where Nick clearly choked.

 

[LeMAO]

Let's just ignore that outside Kareem, those guys are 6'9", 6'9", 6'11", and 6'8" and Wilt sacked against all of them. No one says, "Wilt is Top-5 ever because he repeatedly got washed in the playoffs by Russell and Reed, couldn't score at all against Thurmond, and didn't even impress against Lucas."

ur talking about height ? not about how great the players are, now tell me who Jordan or Lebron or Kobe's faced...

 

[Absolut]

The size, athleticism, skill, larger talent pool(via a larger, more diverse global population) and the evolution of the biomechanics in the sport is so different now compared to back then that the disparity is extraordinarily massive. Like the colossal gap is similar to how if you took the fastest track male sprinters in Wilt's era(and earlier) and had them race against the fastest female sprinters on earth right now, you'd see how embarrassed the fastest men sprinters of that era would be just to stand next to women capable of running side by side with them and likely out-lifting them in the weight room

what is this complete nonsense

fastest male sprinters in like theearly 1900s were running at levels the women do now

Men's 100 metres world record progression - Wikipedia
Women's 100 metres world record progression - Wikipedia

flo jo's CURRENT record was bested before the fukking great depression by a male. wilts era sprinters flo jo gets dusted by over a half a second. what an awful analogy

 

[DarrynCobretti]

what is this complete nonsense

fastest male sprinters in like theearly 1900s were running at levels the women do now

Men's 100 metres world record progression - Wikipedia
Women's 100 metres world record progression - Wikipedia

flo jo's CURRENT record was bested before the fukking great depression by a male. wilts era sprinters flo jo gets dusted by over a half a second. what an awful analogy

Bruh where's your reading comprehension?

I didn't say the current women would win, I explicitly stated "running side by side with them". Which is indeed incontrovertibly true, because the past track athletes just began breaking the 10 second barrier during Wilt's era in the 60s, while the women today are creeping toward that barrier. Again, read everything in one's post before being laughably wrong about the random section you decided to quote because you're unable to muster up a response to everything else in the post.

I used that analogy to illustrate how in virtually every sport and physical feat - the athletic achievement and the competition level are progressing due to the advancement of nutritional science, the evolution of the biomechanics in sports and all of the technological advancements in the medical field in general. Sports being a viable livelihood now and not just a past-time, hobby or escapism like it was in past eras plays a factor in it as well.

 

[ghostwriterx]

Who's gonna stop him in the paint, Draymond Green?

He's not putting up those numbers at the pace the game is played today.

Not including the way the game is played. Some aspects would be harder going back in time. Such as rebounding for guards. Less outside shots means less rebounds for guards. Also the game was played inside first then out.

Willis Reed even mentioned the lane being made wider hurt post players and stopped them from getting more rebounds. The lane being 16 foot wide instead of 12 foot wide makes it harder for big men to score and rebound.

Finally ain't no 2 steps plus garther move....that is a travel back in the day and means less explosive plays.

Edit - lets also not forget during wilts day guys only got 1 step. That was loosened to 2 steps with Dr. J and 70s basketball then finally now guys get 3 steps with one of the steps being a gather.

Having 3 steps really helps these kats.

Teams averaged 30 more rebounds per game in Wilt's era.

 

[Absolut]

Bruh where's your reading comprehension?

I didn't say the current women would win, I explicitly stated "running side by side with them". Which is indeed incontrovertibly true, because the past track athletes just began breaking the 10 second barrier during Wilt's era in the 60s, while the women today are creeping toward that barrier. Again, read everything in one's post before being laughably wrong about the random section you decided to quote because you're unable to muster up a response to everything else in the post.

I used that analogy to illustrate how in virtually every sport and physical feat - the athletic achievement and the competition level are progressing due to the advancement of nutritional science, the evolution of the biomechanics in sports and all of the technological advancements in the medical field in general. Sports being a viable livelihood now and not just a past-time, hobby or escapism like it was in past eras plays a factor in it as well.

Women aren't creeping toward any ten second barrier. They can't even beat a 10.49 that is almost a 30 year old record. The same number that was getting blown past when the Chicago black sox was a fresh scandal. 10.8 won a fukking silver medal last summer in the women's 100. Who is trending towards breaking the ten second barrier? You do realize cats in wilts era are beating 2016 top female sprinters by damn near a full second? What in the fukk are you talking about running side by side? That's getting worked

 

[blackzeus]

what is this complete nonsense

fastest male sprinters in like theearly 1900s were running at levels the women do now

Men's 100 metres world record progression - Wikipedia
Women's 100 metres world record progression - Wikipedia

flo jo's CURRENT record was bested before the fukking great depression by a male. wilts era sprinters flo jo gets dusted by over a half a second. what an awful analogy

Didn't Flo Jo die an early death possibly brought on by steroids?

 

[blackzeus]

He's not putting up those numbers at the pace the game is played today.

Kobe scored 81, Lebron averages 30 ppg, there were seasons MJ and Shaq average above 37 ppg, yet the best scoring center of all time is not putting up numbers?

 

[Cladyclad]

Kobe scored 81, Lebron averages 30 ppg, there were seasons MJ and Shaq average above 37 ppg, yet the best scoring center of all time is not putting up numbers?

Shaq never did that. I don't think he avg 30 b4

 

[Jordan>>LeFrozen]

Kobe scored 81, Lebron averages 30 ppg, there were seasons MJ and Shaq average above 37 ppg, yet the best scoring center of all time is not putting up numbers?

Shaq highest was 30 but I agree Wilt and Bill put up 35 in this league. Nikkas act like kobe didn't average 35. Jordan averaged 40 in the finals. Lebron averaged 35 in the playoffs. AI put up big numbers and millions of other players since Wilt.

 

[FTBS]

I don't get your point. He got swept twice I believe. Out of the two, he wasn't at fault for one of them where Nick clearly choked.

What's not clear? Shaq dominated a league where the best centers outside of him were Brad Miller, Vlade Divac, Dikembe, and a flabby D. Rob and no one holds his level of comp against him like they do with guys from previous generations.

I don't get how a guy choking in one game puts the full culpability for a four game sweep on his shoulders. Also Shaq got swept like 6 times breh.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

ur talking about height ? not about how great the players are, now tell me who Jordan or Lebron or Kobe's faced...

How are you going to talk about how "great" they are without reference to their size, skills, and who they faced?

Anyone tall, strong, and coordinated looks amazing in an era full of 6'5" White guys. Russell and the Boston Celtics were dominating the league for over a decade in Wilt's era even though the team was 3/4 White guys, Russell was often the only guy who played for them who was over 6'7", and some seasons they didn't have a single guy listed over 220lbs. Knicks made the Finals as late as 1972 despite their tallest dude (who not only had to guard Wilt, but outscored him 21ppg to 19ppg) was 6'8" Jerry Lucas.

It was a new league that wasn't very popular yet (baseball, football, boxing were all bigger), they didn't bring in any international talent and they kept a cap on the number of Black guys on the team. Of course the talent level is going to be low.

Shaq highest was 30 but I agree Wilt and Bill put up 35 in this league. Nikkas act like kobe didn't average 35. Jordan averaged 40 in the finals. Lebron averaged 35 in the playoffs. AI put up big numbers and millions of other players since Wilt.

How Bill Russell's skinny 220lb ass putting up 35ppg now when he was only putting up 15ppg in an era where hardly anyone was over 6'6".


Bill Russell never averaged more than 22.4ppg in a postseason EVER, was almost always under 20, and only averaged 16ppg in the playoffs for his career.

Wilt never averaged more than 23.7ppg in a postseason after 1966 and was only 22.5ppg for his career, with even that inflated by the weak competition of the early 1960s. And there was way MORE scoring in their era, not less, and far EASIER defenders to go against.

Ya'all delusional.

Jordan was guarded by Mark Price and Travis Best at times, are we going to argue that MJ couldn't play in the modern NBA?

What kind of logic are you trying to use here? Yes, the fact that Jordan was regularly guarded by shorter and less athletic guards should be taken into consideration (not only those two, most of the guys he faced in that era were only 6'2" to 6'4" at most), but we have plenty of other data to look at too where he faced bigger, athletic guys. There would have been more players to match up against Jordan now, but he still showed what he could do to them.

Wilt literally never faced a talented 7-footer in the playoffs his entire career until Kareem came into the league, and Kareem destroyed him scoring-wise. Nearly all his playoff experience was against guys 6'10" and shorter, many of them stiffs, and he often faced teams that only had one or two guys over 6'8". I have never, ever said that Wilt "couldn't play in the modern NBA", of COURSE he could, but he wouldn't be the dominant scorer that he was against short White guys.

Hell, even look at his playoff numbers in his own era. He only averaged 22.5ppg for his playoff career, only about 16ppg in the 2nd half of his career (post-1966). But he'd magically double that 50 years later when the league on average is 4" taller, 50lbs heavier, far more athletic and far more skilled?

Barkley is 6'4" and was a Hall of Famer. Please tell me you think Barkley couldn't dominate in the low post in today's NBA

Since Barkley's major post move (spending 15 seconds dribbling backwards into the key slowly using his fat ass to clear space) was made illegal by the NBA twenty years ago, yet zones are now legal, hell no that fat pizza-eating midget wouldn't be dominating no low post game today. How would he get his shot off down there without any quick or polished post moves when every team has multiple fast and athletic help defenders several inches taller than him and can play a zone that collapses on him the second he gets close? Barkley couldn't live in the low post, he'd be mostly relying on his poor-man's version of Lebron's bowling-ball drive, and even that would be less effective today. He'd still be a good player, but...

 

[Homeboy Runny-Ray]

people just love to downplay previous eras, because theyre allergic to history.

people keep dwelling on bill Russell's height but don't say anything about Dwight howard & ben Wallace.
people dwell on the league having 6'5 white guards but don't say anything about all the 6'5 white guys that guarded Michael Jordan.

BTW
Oscar's skillset >>> westbrook
wilt's skillset >>> shaq