Tired of Jordan's Legacy, the Bulls were the best defensive team of the 90s.

[Celtics17]

Wilt didnt have to play physically as much as Shaq since he was far more athletic. Shaq would probaly have more raw power then Chamberlain, although that is debatable, but make no mistake about it Shaq wasn't as strong! Playing physical basketball was something that Wilt would have excelled at if he weren't so athletic that he could get his points so easily elsewhere.

I think all of this debate really just illustrates the fact that most younger people today don't want to give anyone who didnt play in the last 10 or even 20 years their due. You know, Larry played almost 20 years ago now but I rarely see anyone talking about how he was just a marginal athlete. Same with Jordan. Why is it though when we go just a little farther back, into the 60's, that everyone thinks those players were smaller, not as athletic, and just not as decent of a ball player.

When I graduated high school I weighed 170 pounds give or take. I could bench press 300, and had very close to a 40 inch vertical jump and long jumped close to 22 feet the very first time I ever tried it. If you go todays high schools today and look for people who can do those three things you won't find very many more then you could when I went. The idea that people are much more athletic in todays game isnt' always the case, especially at the extreme ends.

Wilt was known to have a higher vertical then MJ's and also to be not only stronger then Shaq but much stronger.

[BballTim]

Wilt didnt have to play physically as much as Shaq since he was far more athletic. Shaq would probaly have more raw power then Chamberlain, although that is debatable, but make no mistake about it Shaq wasn't as strong! Playing physical basketball was something that Wilt would have excelled at if he weren't so athletic that he could get his points so easily elsewhere.

I think all of this debate really just illustrates the fact that most younger people today don't want to give anyone who didnt play in the last 10 or even 20 years their due. You know, Larry played almost 20 years ago now but I rarely see anyone talking about how he was just a marginal athlete. Same with Jordan. Why is it though when we go just a little farther back, into the 60's, that everyone thinks those players were smaller, not as athletic, and just not as decent of a ball player.

When I graduated high school I weighed 170 pounds give or take. I could bench press 300, and had very close to a 40 inch vertical jump and long jumped close to 22 feet the very first time I ever tried it. If you go todays high schools today and look for people who can do those three things you won't find very many more then you could when I went. The idea that people are much more athletic in todays game isnt' always the case, especially at the extreme ends.

Wilt was known to have a higher vertical then MJ's and also to be not only stronger then Shaq but much stronger.

  How old are the people you are debating? It's ridiculous to assume that everyone that doesn't agree with your opinion must be too young to know about players who were in the league before 1990. And I'm sorry, but you're ignoring the reality of the situation. How many good 7 footers did Wilt play against in his prime? Any at all? And when you talk about the athletes in the 60s vs the athletes in the 80s or 90s you have to consider that the average player now is bigger and faster and quicker than the average player in the 60s.

  Talk all you want to about what a great athlete you were whenever you were in HS, but also consider the fastest people in the world were trying to run a 4 minute mile and a 10 second 100 yard dash. The differences in training regimens and nutrition are significant. The differences are obviously lesser between the 80s and now, hence Bird isn't seen as playing against marginal athletes.

   And, again, people aren't saying that Wilt couldn't play in the 80s or 90s because he's too unathletic. People are comparing him to the top players at his spot in the last 30 years. That's fairly high praise.

[Celtics17]

I didnt say that athletes today arent better overall but rather that at the very top they aren't that much better. Are you saying that Lebron is much more athletic then MJ because training methods have improved so much since? Of course you aren't, or at least I dont think so.

People of every generation have a tendency to think that players in the past weren't as good as they are today. While it may be possible that the average lever of 'athleticism' in todays game is superior, it doesnt mean that those at the very top of their sports are better today. Look at Ali, Jordan, Bird, Russell ... . Do you think that those athletes only succeeded at the level they did because the competition was inferior? 

[BballTim]

I didnt say that athletes today arent better overall but rather that at the very top they aren't that much better. Are you saying that Lebron is much more athletic then MJ because training methods have improved so much since? Of course you aren't, or at least I dont think so.

People of every generation have a tendency to think that players in the past weren't as good as they are today. While it may be possible that the average lever of 'athleticism' in todays game is superior, it doesnt mean that those at the very top of their sports are better today. Look at Ali, Jordan, Bird, Russell ... . Do you think that those athletes only succeeded at the level they did because the competition was inferior? 

  The training methods have been refined, but haven't changed dramatically since the 80s. Since the 60s or 70s though? That's a different story. And they're not just more athletic, they're bigger. Wilt was much larger than the average center. That wouldn't be the case today.

  And "athletes today are better overall but rather that at the very top they aren't that much better" is exactly what I've been saying. Those 6'7 centers that Wilt played against would struggle greatly if they tried to play the same position today. Player like Wilt, Oscar, West, Russell and the like would do fine in today's nba. But I wouldn't expect Wilt to get 40 a game now. And he may have been as strong as Shaq, but he wasn't as strong as Shaq *and* as quick as Hakeem. He was a great player but not superman.

[Witch-King]

I, for one am not tired of Jordan's legacy.  

We all know defense wins championships, but still -- it's Michael Jeffrey Jordan, perhaps the greatest individual basketball player of all time.

[Celtics17]

You are correct that Wilt wasnt as strong as Shaq and as quick as Hakeem. He was much stronger and much quicker. If you think that the reason he holds so many NBA records 40 years after he played is because his competition was small and unathletic you should really look at some of the players he played against.

For instance, do you think Bob Lanier was a sissy? How about Nate Thurmond or Kareem or Russ? Sure Willis Reed was small for a center but Barkley was small for a power forward. Do you think that Elvin Hayes couldnt play in todays game because his conditioning was inferior?

I could make a very good argument that todays NBA is actually 'watered down' due to expansion comapared to Wilt's days. For a while he played in an 8 team league. That means he played Russ a lot more times in a season. Who did Hakeem play against that was all that great? Robinson, Ewing are certainly hall of fame players but beyond that? I guess there was Shaq too.

[BballTim]

You are correct that Wilt wasnt as strong as Shaq and as quick as Hakeem. He was much stronger and much quicker. If you think that the reason he holds so many NBA records 40 years after he played is because his competition was small and unathletic you should really look at some of the players he played against.

For instance, do you think Bob Lanier was a sissy? How about Nate Thurmond or Kareem or Russ? Sure Willis Reed was small for a center but Barkley was small for a power forward. Do you think that Elvin Hayes couldnt play in todays game because his conditioning was inferior?

I could make a very good argument that todays NBA is actually 'watered down' due to expansion comapared to Wilt's days. For a while he played in an 8 team league. That means he played Russ a lot more times in a season. Who did Hakeem play against that was all that great? Robinson, Ewing are certainly hall of fame players but beyond that? I guess there was Shaq too.

  Ok, not everybody worships the 60s like you do. If you don't think that defenses were better or more sophisticated in the 80s and 90s than the 60s I don't know what to say. Clearly it's impossible to explain to you why it might be harder for a 7 footer to score and rebound against another 7 footer than an opponent who's 6'8 or so.

  I guess you think that Wilt's about the best athlete the nba's ever seen. Fastest, quickest, strongest and best jumper out of all centers, and it's not even close. Clearly that's what allowed him to completely dominate the nba. For a few years at the beginning of his career, that is.

   His dominance seems to have greatly diminished right about the time when most players enter their primes. Why was this? Did he become slower, weaker and less able to jump? Was it completely unrelated to rule changes that were implemented, like widening the lane or not allowing players to score directly from an inbounds play? Did the rest of the league also become much more athletic than their contemporaries?

[TitleMaster]

For those reading the defense wins championship thread ... read this thread for reference.

[nba is the worst]

I think if Hakeem had played power forward you could probably make a very good case for him being the best ever. When you say he is the best center ever though he has some pretty stiff competition. AS mentioned, you might be surprised with how dominant Shaq was in his prime too. Was he as complete of a player? Well, it's really hard to say. He didnt block as many shots, maybe, or get as many steals but if you take Shaq in his prime and Olajuwon in his and need points and/or rebounds then I go with Shaq. You just couldnt stop him in his prime.

Good Point - but who would you rather have at the free throw line?

A team could certainly ride Shaq, all the way up until the last minutes of the game.

I must say, though - Shaquille O'Neal, to his credit, ALWAYS managed to make those freethrows when it counted....

I'm glad to have the Big Fella onboard now, even if it is at the tail end of his career! He may be older, but he's not done by any stretch.

"I must say, though - Shaquille O'Neal, to his credit, ALWAYS managed to make those freethrows when it counted....
"

Except in the '06 finals.  Good thing there were plently of extra fts to be had in games 5 and 6, with Stern's focus on denying Cuban a title.

[TitleMaster]

If were Pat Riley and I were coaching the 90s Knicks with Olajuwon, I'd have simple one coaching mandate (with the idea that they'd do the other stuff anyways) ...

I'd tell Anthony Mason and Charles Oakley to keep Pippen and Grant off the boards. And that's the gist of it.

That in effect, reduces all the Bull's second chance options and makes Jordan the one person who has to win the game entirely by himself. Sure, it'll work a couple of times, when he's hitting everything, but it won't work for a 7 game series.

[wdleehi]

If were Pat Riley and I were coaching the 90s Knicks with Olajuwon, I'd have simple one coaching mandate (with the idea that they'd do the other stuff anyways) ...

I'd tell Anthony Mason and Charles Oakley to keep Pippen and Grant off the boards. And that's the gist of it.

That in effect, reduces all the Bull's second chance options and makes Jordan the one person who has to win the game entirely by himself. Sure, it'll work a couple of times, when he's hitting everything, but it won't work for a 7 game series.

So you think Oakley and Mason were not trying to keep Pippen and Grant off the boards? 

[dtrader]

You are correct that Wilt wasnt as strong as Shaq and as quick as Hakeem. He was much stronger and much quicker. If you think that the reason he holds so many NBA records 40 years after he played is because his competition was small and unathletic you should really look at some of the players he played against.

For instance, do you think Bob Lanier was a sissy? How about Nate Thurmond or Kareem or Russ? Sure Willis Reed was small for a center but Barkley was small for a power forward. Do you think that Elvin Hayes couldnt play in todays game because his conditioning was inferior?

I could make a very good argument that todays NBA is actually 'watered down' due to expansion comapared to Wilt's days. For a while he played in an 8 team league. That means he played Russ a lot more times in a season. Who did Hakeem play against that was all that great? Robinson, Ewing are certainly hall of fame players but beyond that? I guess there was Shaq too.

It's easy to make statements about the abilities of the games "legends" because thats all there is to go by...legends.  There are no statistics to look at from combines, where they measured athletes vertical leap, bench press, and hand size.  There are few (if any) quality videos that would provide evidence to analyze.  All you have is hearsay and the stories told by their peers and fans.  Stories tend to be amplified and exaggerated with each subsequent telling.  One verified fact, is that in 1960, there were only 4 players in the league 6'8" or taller. Thats not to say that before jordan came in 1985 there weren't strong players....just that having size (and similarly athletic ability) comparable to todays players was almost unheard of, and not something that any of those "legends" typically had to compete with.


It also doesnt make sense to say that expansion necessarily "watered down" the competition. It's not as if the league has grown irregardless of talent.  It has grown specifically DUE to the increased prevalence of talented ball players.  In 1960, they could only find enough sufficiently talented players to field 8 teams.  As the population grew and the sport gained mainstream popularity, the talent pool grew, and the number of teams grew to accommodate it.


Hakeem played against Ewing, Robinson and shaq as you said (all guaranteed HOFers), but he also faced Rik smits, Zo, Daugherty, and Mutombo in their prime.

[TitleMaster]

So you think Oakley and Mason were not trying to keep Pippen and Grant off the boards? 

Of course Mason/Oakley were working on Pippen/Grant, however, it's more a focus thing.

Remember, in Riley's world, Mason/Oakley were key help defenders to Ewing. Replace Ewing with Hakeem and you get a brave new world. This is a world where one of the league's greatest offense/defensive rebounder & shot blocker are in one person.

All and all, Hakeem won't need to help his other frontmen and in return, he won't really be needing any, himself, as Cartwright and him are almost a mismatch, in terms of speed and agility.

This is where Hakeem will frustrate the Bulls, as he'll be getting putbacks, minimizing 2nd chance points, and clogging the middle from easy layouts. On his sides, Pippen and Grant will be toe-to-toe with Mason & Oakley all night long.

At the same time, he can move off Cartwright and periodically block a shot via Paxton, Armstrong, & yes, even Jordan, in and around the 10-12 ft area, and get back to Bill, without give him a wide open look.

[BballTim]

It also doesnt make sense to say that expansion necessarily "watered down" the competition. It's not as if the league has grown irregardless of talent.  It has grown specifically DUE to the increased prevalence of talented ball players.  In 1960, they could only find enough sufficiently talented players to field 8 teams.  As the population grew and the sport gained mainstream popularity, the talent pool grew, and the number of teams grew to accommodate it.

  This isn't true at all. They don't evaluate the overall talent level of basketball players and adjust the size of the league accordingly. The league grows or contracts based on how many teams the fan base will support.

[dtrader]

It also doesnt make sense to say that expansion necessarily "watered down" the competition. It's not as if the league has grown irregardless of talent.  It has grown specifically DUE to the increased prevalence of talented ball players.  In 1960, they could only find enough sufficiently talented players to field 8 teams.  As the population grew and the sport gained mainstream popularity, the talent pool grew, and the number of teams grew to accommodate it.

  This isn't true at all. They don't evaluate the overall talent level of basketball players and adjust the size of the league accordingly. The league grows or contracts based on how many teams the fan base will support.

You quoted part of my statement where I specifically cited the sport gaining mainstream popularity as a catalyst for expansion....and then said that my statement doesn't make any sense, because the league grows based on the size of the fan base.  Mainstream popularity is essentially the same thing as fanbase lol. 

Either you didn't recognize what i said, or maybe you were taking issue with the additional link I made between the sport gaining popularity, and the talent pool of players growing.  If you just didn't recognize that I had already stated the sports popularity as a factor, thats understandable, but to accept the sports growing popularity (and subsequent fanbase growth) without recognizing that a larger number of skilled players would emerge as a result of that, is a bit difficult to explain.

Anytime a sport gets more popular, you will find more people playing it at a high level, than you would have before it gained popularity.