Charles Barkley vs Karl Malone athleticism/physical comparis

[RSCD3_]

I am watching a 1988 playoff game 7 between The lakers and the jazz

I saw Karl Malone fly down the court without looking like he was under serious effort

And I am wondering a few things about these two

In their athletic primes

Who was the better ball handler in transition

Who had better top end speed

Who had the better acceleration/burst

How would they compare to recent athletic Forwards in the league today athletically and physically

In 1998 how much athleticism did Karl still have at the age, was his speed still way above average or was he simply average

In 1993 wad Charles Barkley still being called one of the most athletic forwards








Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Quotatious]

And I am wondering a few things about these two

In their athletic primes

Who was the better ball handler in transition

Who had better top end speed

Who had the better acceleration/burst

I think Barkley was better in all of these areas, certainly as a ballhandler and in terms of acceleration/burst, not so sure about top end-to-end speed. Malone was even bigger, stronger and more intimidating because of his mean streak (Barkley had incredible power, as well, but he wasn't intentionally dirty like the Mailman). Barkley was the more naturally gifted/explosive athlete, Malone was more of a self-made physical specimen, spent countless hours in a gym, and looked pretty much like a bodybuilder, was definitely in better shape than Barkley, and had more stamina (better durability, as well). Malone had a higher effort level on both ends of the court, too (offensively they were comparable in this regard, but Malone worked much harder on D).

How would they compare to recent athletic Forwards in the league today athletically and physically

I think LeBron and Griffin are the only forwards in their class, athletically (LeBron is even better because of his quickness, Griffin may be an even more explosive dunker than all of them).

In 1998 how much athleticism did Karl still have at the age, was his speed still way above average or was he simply average

He was still plenty athletic, one of the very best athletes in NBA history at that age, or as a 35+ year old. Wasn't the same on the break as he was in the late 80s/early 90s, but became more skilled and excelled in half-court even more, because of that.

In 1993 wad Charles Barkley still being called one of the most athletic forwards

Yes, absolutely, however he wasn't as aggressive as he was between 1988-91, became more perimeter oriented in Phoenix.

[nate33]

I think Barkley was better in all of these areas, certainly as a ballhandler and in terms of acceleration/burst, not so sure about top end-to-end speed. Malone was even bigger, stronger and more intimidating because of his mean streak (Barkley had incredible power, as well,, but he wasn't intentionally dirty like the Mailman).

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZlZrQdNatk[/youtube]

[trex_8063]

I am watching a 1988 playoff game 7 between The lakers and the jazz

I saw Karl Malone fly down the court without looking like he was under serious effort

And I am wondering a few things about these two

In their athletic primes

Who was the better ball handler in transition

Who had better top end speed

Who had the better acceleration/burst

I think Barkley was certainly the better ball handler in transition (don't think that one is even particularly close). The other two are close (especially top end speed). I might give Barkley the slim edge in acceleration/burst.

How would they compare to recent athletic Forwards in the league today athletically and physically

I think both of them (in their primes) were as fast as Blake Griffin, though neither can match his leaping ability (Barkley the closer of the two; he actually kinda had some explosive ups.....would have loved to see what kind of ups and mobility he'd have had if ~15 lbs lighter).

Obviously neither has the length of someone like Anthony Davis.

BOTH were as strong or stronger than just about any PF in the league today, imo. With Mailman, it's pretty obvious just looking at him; Barkley was really deceptively strong, too, though.
Malone in particular had fantastic stamina, probably better than any PF in the league presently (Barkley's stamina was---surprisingly---fairly decent, too, despite the extra pounds he was generally carrying).

Barkley's biggest physical/athletic short-coming today would be the same as it was then: his height. Although he makes up a little of that disadvantage with his exceptionally long reach (and his low center of gravity helped in boxing out or moving someone off the block), it was still a bit of a disadvantage when guarding a good low-post scorer who was 4-7" taller.

Malone had great hands (Barkley had nice hands, too). Both of them had very good agility/body control for PF's.

So, idk, is that a sufficient answer? Not sure either was as freakish athletically as Blake Griffin, but not terribly far off either (I think maybe Barkley WOULD have been with a better work ethic). Otherwise suffice to say I think they'd at least be "right up there" athletically with the most athletic PF's of today.

In 1998 how much athleticism did Karl still have at the age, was his speed still way above average or was he simply average

His speed was still above average for the PF position (when he was younger I think his top-end speed was faster than many guards and SF's). I think Dennis Rodman is perhaps the only one at that time would could keep pace (or out-pace) him at his own position.

In 1993 wad Charles Barkley still being called one of the most athletic forwards

Yeah, still would be. I think Griffin and Davis are the only two PF's potentially more athletic than '93 Barkley.

[Quotatious]

I think Barkley was better in all of these areas, certainly as a ballhandler and in terms of acceleration/burst, not so sure about top end-to-end speed. Malone was even bigger, stronger and more intimidating because of his mean streak (Barkley had incredible power, as well,, but he wasn't intentionally dirty like the Mailman).

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZlZrQdNatk[/youtube]

To be fair, I wouldn't blame him for hitting Rodman. Worm was such an irritating, dirty (Use More Appropriate Word) that you just had to punch him...Still, none of the things that Barkley did really compare to Malone's 40 stitch lesson to Isiah (to give just one example).

[trex_8063]

I think Barkley was better in all of these areas, certainly as a ballhandler and in terms of acceleration/burst, not so sure about top end-to-end speed. Malone was even bigger, stronger and more intimidating because of his mean streak (Barkley had incredible power, as well,, but he wasn't intentionally dirty like the Mailman).

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZlZrQdNatk[/youtube]

That was more of a frustration nudge. Barkley was a gregarious and emotional guy, he was somewhat prone to those types of outbursts.

I agree with Quotatious on this point: Malone was downright dirty. He was infamous for those high elbows while "protecting the ball" (I wonder how many stitches resulted from Malone's elbows over the years......I bet it outdoes anyone else). I remember a lot of holding, flopping, and dirty/hard fouls, too.

EDIT: tbh, the only guys who may have been more dirty are Bill Laimbeer, Alvin Robertson (that pick by reputation; tbh I don't really remember much of him from the time), and maybe Dennis Rodman.

[Dipper 13]

I think both of them (in their primes) were as fast as Blake Griffin, though neither can match his leaping ability

Vertical Jump

http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Blake-Griffin-1268/

Griffin - 35.5 inches


http://www.people.com/people/archive/ar ... 48,00.html

Barkley - 37.5 inches

[trex_8063]

I think both of them (in their primes) were as fast as Blake Griffin, though neither can match his leaping ability

Vertical Jump

http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Blake-Griffin-1268/

Griffin - 35.5 inches


http://www.people.com/people/archive/ar ... 48,00.html

Barkley - 37.5 inches

I'm impressed; not sure I'd have given Barkley that much credit for leap.

However, that 35.5" cannot be entirely accurate of Griffin's max capability.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4t3Xz6Qq3mc

The top of his head is clearly at the height of the rim (at most perhaps 0.5" below). The site you posted lists him at 6'10" in shoes; so he must have been 37.5-38" in the air on that play.

[nate33]

I think Barkley was undoubtedly the most athletic PF ever to play the game and was arguably one of the most athletic players ever at any position. His quickness, explosiveness and leaping ability were absolutely astonishing for a man of his size and strength. He was a true physical freak - the Russell Westbrook of power forwards. Malone may have been a bit stronger and may have had comparable straight line speed, but he couldn't hold a candle to Barkley when it comes to quickness, agility and leaping ability.

[trex_8063]

I think Barkley was undoubtedly the most athletic PF ever to play the game and was arguably one of the most athletic players ever at any position. His quickness, explosiveness and leaping ability were absolutely astonishing for a man of his size and strength. He was a true physical freak - the Russell Westbrook of power forwards. Malone may have been a bit stronger and may have had comparable straight line speed, but he couldn't hold a candle to Barkley when it comes to quickness, agility and leaping ability.

Yeah, you could be right. Historically, Barkley has been on my short list of the most athletic players ever (at any position); it was only in sort of comparing attributes that began to question whether or not he was more athletic than Griffin.
He apparently had the leaping that I didn't give him credit for, he had Griffin's open-court speed matched, he was agile, had the great hands. He was ~3" shorter, although I think his reach makes up for a lot of that. And then there's strength.....Griffin is strong, but he's not Charles Barkley strong. So yeah, maybe Barkley does have him by a hair in athleticism.

[RSCD3_]

I am watching a 1988 playoff game 7 between The lakers and the jazz

I saw Karl Malone fly down the court without looking like he was under serious effort

And I am wondering a few things about these two

In their athletic primes

Who was the better ball handler in transition

Who had better top end speed

Who had the better acceleration/burst

I think Barkley was certainly the better ball handler in transition (don't think that one is even particularly close). The other two are close (especially top end speed). I might give Barkley the slim edge in acceleration/burst.

How would they compare to recent athletic Forwards in the league today athletically and physically

I think both of them (in their primes) were as fast as Blake Griffin, though neither can match his leaping ability (Barkley the closer of the two; he actually kinda had some explosive ups.....would have loved to see what kind of ups and mobility he'd have had if ~15 lbs lighter).

Obviously neither has the length of someone like Anthony Davis.

BOTH were as strong or stronger than just about any PF in the league today, imo. With Mailman, it's pretty obvious just looking at him; Barkley was really deceptively strong, too, though.
Malone in particular had fantastic stamina, probably better than any PF in the league presently (Barkley's stamina was---surprisingly---fairly decent, too, despite the extra pounds he was generally carrying).

Barkley's biggest physical/athletic short-coming today would be the same as it was then: his height. Although he makes up a little of that disadvantage with his exceptionally long reach (and his low center of gravity helped in boxing out or moving someone off the block), it was still a bit of a disadvantage when guarding a good low-post scorer who was 4-7" taller.

Malone had great hands (Barkley had nice hands, too). Both of them had very good agility/body control for PF's.

So, idk, is that a sufficient answer? Not sure either was as freakish athletically as Blake Griffin, but not terribly far off either (I think maybe Barkley WOULD have been with a better work ethic). Otherwise suffice to say I think they'd at least be "right up there" athletically with the most athletic PF's of today.

In 1998 how much athleticism did Karl still have at the age, was his speed still way above average or was he simply average

His speed was still above average for the PF position (when he was younger I think his top-end speed was faster than many guards and SF's). I think Dennis Rodman is perhaps the only one at that time would could keep pace (or out-pace) him at his own position.

In 1993 wad Charles Barkley still being called one of the most athletic forwards

Yeah, still would be. I think Griffin and Davis are the only two PF's potentially more athletic than '93
Barkley.

Above and beyond sufficient




Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Arsilva]

I think Barkley was undoubtedly the most athletic PF ever to play the game and was arguably one of the most athletic players ever at any position. His quickness, explosiveness and leaping ability were absolutely astonishing for a man of his size and strength. He was a true physical freak - the Russell Westbrook of power forwards. Malone may have been a bit stronger and may have had comparable straight line speed, but he couldn't hold a candle to Barkley when it comes to quickness, agility and leaping ability.

Wow...the RW of PFs! I only followed him from his Suns's days. My perception is that he was a mismatch in terms of having point-guard skills while playing power forward. Not that he simply could impose his game due to strenght.

Horace Grant (with great wingspam and good foot speed for a PF) seemed to have bothered him in 1993 finals.

[Joao Saraiva]

I think Barkley was better in all of these areas, certainly as a ballhandler and in terms of acceleration/burst, not so sure about top end-to-end speed. Malone was even bigger, stronger and more intimidating because of his mean streak (Barkley had incredible power, as well,, but he wasn't intentionally dirty like the Mailman).

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZlZrQdNatk[/youtube]

Come on. One shot and it's against Dennis Rodman. Probably Rodman deserved to be punched in the face and kicked in the nuts right after that. I really hate him, despite respecting his game a lot.

[nate33]

I think Barkley was undoubtedly the most athletic PF ever to play the game and was arguably one of the most athletic players ever at any position. His quickness, explosiveness and leaping ability were absolutely astonishing for a man of his size and strength. He was a true physical freak - the Russell Westbrook of power forwards. Malone may have been a bit stronger and may have had comparable straight line speed, but he couldn't hold a candle to Barkley when it comes to quickness, agility and leaping ability.

Wow...the RW of PFs! I only followed him from his Suns's days. My perception is that he was a mismatch in terms of having point-guard skills while playing power forward. Not that he simply could impose his game due to strenght.

Horace Grant (with great wingspam and good foot speed for a PF) seemed to have bothered him in 1993 finals.

He was a bit past his physical prime at that point. Barkley's inhumanly athletic days were in 86-90 while with Philly. The man was an absolute wrecking ball in the paint.