RealGM

Silver Bullet wrote:

Warspite wrote:Of all the posters about Wilt IMHO Writerman is the one who we can trust because hes seen him more than anyone. I have 7 full games of Wilt on tape. Ill admit I never realy studied him or his game much before I got involved in RealGM. I wanted to give an opinion based on some knowledge so I watched a few games and then during Wilts 70th birthday celebration I taped and watched several games. What I saw realy reminded me of DRob on defense and what a sub 300lb Shaq should have looked like.

Again in this comparison its not about talent or ability or size but about personal preferance. Anyone who wants to say one of these guys is a vastly superior player is not credible. If you prefer one style over the other thats completely understandable. There are several instances in which I would take Shaq over Wilt. There are also a few that I would take Wilt over Shaq.

I prefer Wilt because of 2 reasons.
1. Defense
2. If they were to face each and they negates each others power Wilt has the ability to adapt his game and Wilt can fit into differant teams and hes coachable.

I see no reason why Wilt wouldnt be as good as Shaq in 99-04 and I see no reason why Shaq couldnt adapt his game to replace Wilt 60-66 but he cant play 67-68 Wilt and I think his time in Phx proved he cant play the role of a 70s Wilt.

Still if you take either one your team is going to be good in any era.

We most certainly dont have to agree but we dont have to attack each other. When you remove the zealots on each side of any debate and look at the others you can find common ground and agree to disagree but attempting to polarize an argument is simply a display of incompetance and ignorance.

Jesus, I didn't attack you.

As far as games are concerned, I've watched about as many as you as far as the 60's are concerned, which was the whole point. I've seen Shaq destroy the greatest defensive center of the last 20 odd years in the NBA Finals. I've only seen about 3 people in my life play Shaq straight up. Every other team has either doubled or tripled him.

So, I don't think Wilt would be able to handle Shaq's strength one on one.[b] And yes, I have read all the jibberish about his strength and athletic ability, but honestly I have never seen any evidence, that he could even come close to matching Shaq's strength advantage.[/b] And that is the only reason, this is not so close for me. I mean, I don't think 94-95 Olajuwon would be able to handle a 99-02 Shaq, no one could. And as we've seen, no one was able to.

writerman wrote:

Silver Bullet wrote:

Warspite wrote:Of all the posters about Wilt IMHO Writerman is the one who we can trust because hes seen him more than anyone. I have 7 full games of Wilt on tape. Ill admit I never realy studied him or his game much before I got involved in RealGM. I wanted to give an opinion based on some knowledge so I watched a few games and then during Wilts 70th birthday celebration I taped and watched several games. What I saw realy reminded me of DRob on defense and what a sub 300lb Shaq should have looked like.

Again in this comparison its not about talent or ability or size but about personal preferance. Anyone who wants to say one of these guys is a vastly superior player is not credible. If you prefer one style over the other thats completely understandable. There are several instances in which I would take Shaq over Wilt. There are also a few that I would take Wilt over Shaq.

I prefer Wilt because of 2 reasons.
1. Defense
2. If they were to face each and they negates each others power Wilt has the ability to adapt his game and Wilt can fit into differant teams and hes coachable.

I see no reason why Wilt wouldnt be as good as Shaq in 99-04 and I see no reason why Shaq couldnt adapt his game to replace Wilt 60-66 but he cant play 67-68 Wilt and I think his time in Phx proved he cant play the role of a 70s Wilt.

Still if you take either one your team is going to be good in any era.

We most certainly dont have to agree but we dont have to attack each other. When you remove the zealots on each side of any debate and look at the others you can find common ground and agree to disagree but attempting to polarize an argument is simply a display of incompetance and ignorance.

Jesus, I didn't attack you.

As far as games are concerned, I've watched about as many as you as far as the 60's are concerned, which was the whole point. I've seen Shaq destroy the greatest defensive center of the last 20 odd years in the NBA Finals. I've only seen about 3 people in my life play Shaq straight up. Every other team has either doubled or tripled him.

So, I don't think Wilt would be able to handle Shaq's strength one on one.[b] And yes, I have read all the jibberish about his strength and athletic ability, but honestly I have never seen any evidence, that he could even come close to matching Shaq's strength advantage.[/b] And that is the only reason, this is not so close for me. I mean, I don't think 94-95 Olajuwon would be able to handle a 99-02 Shaq, no one could. And as we've seen, no one was able to.

First of all, it's "gibberish." Dictionary dot com is easy to access...

And why is it "gibberish?" Simply because your own prejudices won't allow you to believe Wilt could be that strong?

It's one thing to deny hearsay. It's quite another to mulishly deny credible sources that have been repeatedly validated by observers. That, sir, is simple intellectual dishonesty.

DaRkJaWs42 wrote:

Warspite wrote:

DaRkJaWs42 wrote:Shaq could always replace Wilt, but the question is could he do the things Wilt did. Shaq does not and never had have the stamina Wilt had. Wilt probably had more stamina than any 7 footer in the history of all sports.

As was said even back then, "usually 7 footers get tired and need some rest after a while, but Chamberlain played every minute and it seemed like he never got tired."

Ok so Shaq sat out for 10 more mins while Wilt was in the game but coasting. Theres always a stretch in every game that Wilt instead of getting a breather simply becomes a decoy and doesnt challenge shots. In game 5 of teh 67ECF Wilt has a quadruple double but he goes almost 10mins w/o touching the ball. In that time Russell pushes him out of the paint and Wilt doesnt contest shooters. Wilt also avoids fouling once he gets a couple and will give up a basket and not contest. I can say that in some cases its wise but in others its just Wilt being Wilt.

You see Wilt would rather lose a game than foul out. Its more important to be the answer of a trivia question that it is to win. I agree that fouling out is a negative but loseing is a negative too and as far as Wilt was concearned players dont lose games the teams do. For the most part Wilt was a track and Field guy playing a team sport.

"I helped my teammates win Championships."
"Wilts Teammates helped Wilt win Championships"

Theres no doubt that both guys are immature aholes and that eventualy both of them will become cancers but to paint Wilt like a saint is IMHO a much greater dishonor to him than what his detractors say. If I was on a team with either of them I would be calling them out eventualy and they would either want me gone or want to go themselves.

There have been many playoffs games where Wilt had 5 fouls but then came up with 2 or 3 crucial blocks AFTER he had those 5 fouls. That is simply a load of nonsense from someone who has no proof whatsoever. Telling us about the only game that Wilt lost in the 67 conf. finals vs. boston as evidence of something is laughable. Wilt was the best one on one defender in history(simply for the fact that he ALWAYS tried to block every shot that his man took, even KAJ's skyhook, which he couldn't block most of the time), but it might be true that his help defense was lacking, however. But to suggest that it was because he didn't want to foul someone is nonsense.

What's funny about all those old videos is that it's the games that he lost, not won, that have been kept. We don't have record of not one of his 280 50+ point games, not one of his great playoff performances that we read about(1960, 1962, 1965, 1966(where he was the only player to show up for his team), 1967(not ONE OF HIS WINS!), 1968(perhaps the one playoff series where one of his losses wasn't recorded), 1970 where he single handedly won game 6 for the Lakers vs the Knicks(but conveniently game 7 was recorded and is replayed over and over and over), and not one game vs. their toughest rivals in 1972, the Bucks, where his performance against KAJ was described as legendary. (oh, and the loss that broke their 33 game win streak, but not one of the games FROM the 33 win streak were recorded). )

The selection of video tapes we have from Wilt Chamberlain are quite oddly very strange. It's as if someone purposely went out to show the worst of Wilt Chamberlain.

shawngoat23 wrote:
My God, I've never heard anyone accuse Warspite of being biased against older players--or even insinuate something to that effect--until now.

DaRkJaWs42 wrote:

shawngoat23 wrote:
My God, I've never heard anyone accuse Warspite of being biased against older players--or even insinuate something to that effect--until now.

I suggested no such thing. I was arguing against his assertion that Wilt hurt the team simply by not wanting to foul out. I pointed out that during multiple crucial stretches where he had 5 fouls he made crucial blocks, as was noted in THE biography about Wilt. Warspite said nothing derogatory about the old generation at all, so how could I accuse of him of being biased against the older generation?

nolunch wrote:Shaq is more explosive, bigger and stronger than Wilt.

ronnymac2 wrote:People shouldn't complain about it though. The so-called "Immortal 6" get a free pass a lot of times. It'll be nice when Shaq gets to be seen through those same, "time enhances all" glasses.

CellarDoor wrote:

ronnymac2 wrote:People shouldn't complain about it though. The so-called "Immortal 6" get a free pass a lot of times. It'll be nice when Shaq gets to be seen through those same, "time enhances all" glasses.

That's a two way street Ronny. You also have people who think a guy like Jerry West wouldn't be a starter in todays league.

It just depends on which extremist you're talking to.

JordansBulls wrote:

nolunch wrote:Shaq is more explosive, bigger and stronger than Wilt.

Oh, how so?