Wilt Chamberlain and Jordan had an argument about who was the goat at the 50 greatest(no kobe stans)

[dh86]

You're acting like Thompson was the driving force behind the Cavs Tristan is 6'10 too, the Lakers with Wilt lost to the Knicks who had 6'9 Willis Reed and 6'10" Nate Bowman playing C.

Wilt was 35, I'm saying at 25 there'd be zero barrier to 40 ppg in today's league. If Shaq dominated to the level he did with zero outside the paint, someone taller, more athletic stronger with a jumper couldn't?

 

[Professor Emeritus]

What difference would race or being over 6'8 make if Wilt is 7'2 and among the strongest athletes in the world? How many 7 footers are there in the NBA today with actual ability?

Why didn't they just guard Wilt with 6'4" guys then, if being 6'8" is as good as being 6'11"?

When 6'8" and 6'9" ballers were able to keep Wilt under control in the postseason and keep him from dominating offensively in the 1960s and 1970s, why not even taller, bigger, more skilled guys in the 2010s?

And there are FAR more tall guys with actual ability now than there were then. We were going over the lists in a previous thread - the Oklahoma City Thunder alone had twice as many tall guys with ability on their roster last year than the ENTIRE NBA had during Wilt's 50ppg season. Think about that.

In a league where the NBA champion center is Tristan Thompson, who'd be stopping Wilt from dominance today?

Tristan Thompson is bigger, and a much better defender, than nearly all the centers that Wilt was failing to dominate the playoffs of the 1960s and 1970s. TT is 6'9" and 240lb and plays defense well. Give me the entire list of guys who were 6'9", 240lb and played defense well that Wilt "dominated".

And TT doesn't even have a dream of sniffing an all-star game as a center. Whereas when Wilt came into the league, there were all-star centers who were 6'7" and 6'8" who didn't have half of TT's athleticism.

If you were over 6'9" and Black and in the NBA in the early 1960s, there was a 50-50 chance you were going to the Hall of Fame. And if you weren't HOF you were probably still getting an All-star nod at some point unless you got into drugs/gangs. There were THAT few Black athletes allowed into the NBA back then. And Wilt still in the end only picked up two titles and wasn't even his team's leading scorer, or even close, in either one.

 

[Malta]

Wilt was 35, I'm saying at 25 there'd be zero barrier to 40 ppg in today's league. If Shaq dominated to the level he did with zero outside the paint, someone taller, more athletic stronger with a jumper couldn't?

Bruh, you think Wilt would score 40ppg in todays NBA?


First and foremost, no coach is letting him play 47mpg like he did his first 9 years in the league, secondly no coach is giving him the 30 shots (minimum) that he'd need to score 40ppg. There aren't enough possessions for a center to average 40ppg today and he wasn't a good enough freethrow shooter either.

And I don't get the jab at Shaq, he had more advanced moves than Wilt and could get deeper post position. Shaq is an evolution of Wilt, not some person you point to and say "If Shaq could, Wilt could" nah.

 

[Dame Dash's Motor Oil]

Wilt and Russell played against cac janitors
Prime 1999-2001 Shaq would eat they a$$hole alive
Only player who can argue for the GOAT status other than Jordan is Kareem

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Bruh, you think Wilt would score 40ppg in todays NBA?


First and foremost, no coach is letting him play 47mpg like he did his first 9 years in the league, secondly no coach is giving him the 30 shots (minimum) that he'd need to score 40ppg. There aren't enough possessions for a center to average 40ppg today and he wasn't a good enough freethrow shooter either.

And I don't get the jab at Shaq, he had more advanced moves than Wilt and could get deeper post position. Shaq is an evolution of Wilt, not some person you point to and say "If Shaq could, Wilt could" nah.

People forget how horrendous Wilt was at free throws. He was only somewhat worse than Shaq during the regular season (career 51% compared to Shaq's career 53%), but when the pressure came on he just cratered. He was a career 46.5% shooter from the line in the playoffs, and there were a lot of series where he shot 30-40%. From 1967 to 1969, including his title run, he didn't break 40% from the stripe for the postseason even once. Shot fukking 30.6% from the line in the 1967 Finals when they won the chip. If he was playing today, teams would take "hack a Shaq" to a whole new level.

 

[A1aaa]

1. jordan
2. kareem
3. bron bron
4. magic
5. shaq

 

[Roland Coltrane]

The point is....would Jordan have grown another 7-8 inches over the next 4 years without the advances in sports medicine,technology and training equipment ? That's why I listed him at 6'2 instead of his real height of 6'5-6'6.

think sports medicine, technology, and training equipment override genetics when it comes to how tall people can grow brehs







dumbest shyt I seen all day

 

[hayesc0]

think sports medicine, technology, and training equipment override genetics when it comes to how tall people can grow brehs







dumbest shyt I seen all day

I was like am i stupid lol i wasn't getting how he drew that conclusion at all

 

[Lucky_Lefty]

Like I've said on here before regarding Wilt & Mike when Wilt told MJ straight, "yea you're great but they changed rules to help you. They made rules to stop me".

 

[hayesc0]

Like I've said on here before regarding Wilt & Mike when Wilt told MJ straight, "yea you're great but they changed rules to help you. They made rules to stop me".

So is Shaq better then Jordan because they stayed changing rules to stop him also.

 

[sfgiants]

You trying way too hard to make it a Shaq v Kobe
Cringeworthy

it can never be shaq vs kobe
shaq led the lakers to a 3peat and had a great supporting cast which kobe was a part of
that's where the discussion ends

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Your bullshyt about the talent pool being smaller is offset by the fact that the league itself was smaller.

I see you've grown some shyts to finally quote me instead of constantly sneak-dappin opinions that oppose mine.

Fact - the talent pool was A LOT smaller in the 60s/70s than it is today, it is NOT bullshyt. Not only is it a fact, but it's common sense - the more a game is popularized, the greater the talent pool becomes.

How is it offset by the [not a] fact that the league was smaller during Wilt's day? Like @The Dankster said, "There wasn't just 8 teams because of some conspiracy to make basketball hard. There were only eight teams because basketball wasn't all that popular and the available talent sucked.". Never mind the fact that the players who did play weren't even near comparable athletes to the ones today, nor did they have 1/8th of the basketball skills, cognitive skills, perceptual skills, motor skills and perceptual motor skills that players of today have either.

You had a small amount of great athetes in a sea of average ones in the 60s, today in comparison the athletes are not only greater, but there's a thin line between the best and the rest; somebody like Jae Crowder would be in the top 1% in the 60s, but he's only middle of the pack in today's league.

This is all without mentioning the lack of parity, where the best teams more or less stayed a constant throughout his era and you had teams like the Knicks and Pistons who were mere tomato cans, for a long period of time.

 

[VegasCAC]

I see you've grown some shyts to finally quote me instead of constantly sneak-dappin opinions that oppose mine.

Fact - the talent pool was A LOT smaller in the 60s/70s than it is today, it is NOT bullshyt. Not only is it a fact, but it's common sense - the more a game is popularized, the greater the talent pool becomes.

How is it offset by the [not a] fact that the league was smaller during Wilt's day? Like @The Dankster said, "There wasn't just 8 teams because of some conspiracy to make basketball hard. There were only eight teams because basketball wasn't all that popular and the available talent sucked.". Never mind the fact that the players who did play weren't even near comparable athletes to the ones today, nor did they have 1/8th of the basketball skills, cognitive skills, perceptual skills, motor skills and perceptual motor skills that players of today have either.

You had a small amount of great athetes in a sea of average ones in the 60s, today in comparison the athletes are not only greater, but there's a thin line between the best and the rest; somebody like Jae Crowder would be in the top 1% in the 60s, but he's only middle of the pack in today's league.

This is all without mentioning the lack of parity, where the best teams more or less stayed a constant throughout his era and you had teams like the Knicks and Pistons who were mere tomato cans, for a long period of time.

The issue with this entire debate is that you're acting like you can control for all of these factors. Since we don't have a time travel machine, there can be no verifiable objective sense of which players are better than others in vastly different eras. Essentially, the only real way to talk about this debate is to judge players by their performance in the context in which they played. No player ever has dominated the talent pool he had to play with before or since Wilt. Given his circumstances, he performed the best over his career, greater than any other player in their respective context. Therefore, there is a definite argument for Wilt being #1.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

The issue with this entire debate is that you're acting like you can control for all of these factors. Since we don't have a time travel machine, there can be no verifiable objective sense of which players are better than others in vastly different eras. Essentially, the only real way to talk about this debate is to judge players by their performance in the context in which they played.

Of course there isn't, however one can use reason and logic to make sense of the distorted picture by weighing up all the conditions. Those conditions being the state of competition, TP, pace/style of play and development of schemes.

No player ever has dominated the talent pool he had to play with before or since Wilt. Given his circumstances, he performed the best over his career, greater than any other player in their respective context. Therefore, there is a definite argument for Wilt being #1.

Except this is not true at all. He has a less than impressive postseason resume (both individually and from a team perspective), when you compare him to the likes of Jordan, Cap, LeBron and Shaq.

 

[GoFlipAPack]

shaq brought three titles to LA
which is more than wilt ever won
also more than the # of titles kobe ever led the lakers to

But Kobe healed bring 5 titles to LA