Wilt vs Shaq

[Jase]

I'm comfortably going with O'Neal here.

[Dipper 13]

But the truth is, for all his glory & accomplishments, when compared to the rest of the immortal 6, Wilt should be at the bottom and now should be replaced by Shaq.

There is no immortal 6, perhaps an immortal 2.

Now replace Russell with O'Neal, and Shaq just waiting to steam roll over Wilt as he wants to prove who is most dominant. Changing many aspects of Wilt's game as Wilt needs to adjust to someone of equal to larger size. Mentally getting weaker as he is like 'damn' I can't hold position on him etc.

Please, Shaq isn't muscling Wilt, even with his signature offensive fouls.



http://assets.espn.go.com/nba/columns/l ... 36066.html

Ladies and gentlemen, your attention, please: In this corner, from the Los Angeles Lakers, Shaquille O'Neal. His opponent in this fantasy basketball game of one-on-one, the One and Only Wilt Chamberlain.

Here's the opening tip, controlled by the Big Dipper and ...

Wilt vs. Shaq? Many think that the Big Dipper would have his way with O'Neal.

So who'd win this encounter, the one Orlando senior VP Pat Williams calls "the ultimate fantasy matchup?" While we're at it, who would win encounters between Shaq and the other all-time greats? First of all, there are some who don't think Shaq belongs on the same court with the legendary centers of the game, even after sweeping both MVP Awards and winning his first championship last season.

"I like Shaq, but he's not in a league with guys like Wilt and (Bill) Russell," said Tom Heinsohn, the old Celtics forward and ex-head coach. "Shaq is this game's ultimate guy. But he's not a dominating guy at both ends of the floor. He doesn't sweep all the boards. Heck, those guys used to break up an entire defense by themselves. Look at the record book. Wilt averaged 50 points a game. Shaq, he's not playing against anybody his own size. So he's just knocking people over. Not only aren't there any centers anymore, there aren't that many power forwards, either."

Fair enough. It's a perimeter player's league now.

"At one time, there were 10 great centers in the league, seven feet or better," said Miami's Pat Riley, who played with Chamberlain and later coached another Hall of Famer, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. "Shaq is the only guy right now who is absolutely dominant, based on sheer force and talent."

Because of the dearth of big men, we're left with pondering "computer" matchups, a la Muhammad Ali vs. Rocky Marciano. So for argument's sake, how about Shaq vs. Wilt? Well we know one thing, nobody would want them to decide their battle on the foul line. It might take days.

Heinsohn, who went up against Wilt for years, favors Chamberlain because of his athleticism and skill-level. He's not alone. Others rate it a draw.

"Wilt would have to shoot his fadeaway and he wouldn't get a lot of dunks on Shaq," said Williams, the ex-Sixer GM. "But Wilt could defend Shaq. That would be the 300-pound Wilt, rather than the skinny Wilt at 21. Wilt would block a lot of his shots. The two giants would go toe-to-toe. To me, they'd play each other to a standstill and others would have to win the game."

Williams seemed equally intrigued by a Russell-O'Neal matchup. On paper, Russell would seemed to be overwhelmed by Shaq's size. Shaq would enjoy more than a 100-pound advantage on Russell, the 11-time champion with the great Celtics teams of the '60's. But don't discount William Felton Russell's brilliance as tactician.

"Russell couldn't have muscled him or matched up size-wise," Williams said. "But he would get into his head. In this era of trash-talking, he would probably work on him more than he would have back when he was playing. Shaq would be afraid to let the ball go. He wouldn't know where Russell was coming from. He'd deflect his shot. Russell would have had to have been at the top of his mental game. But he would have relished the challenge."

So would other great big men from the Great Era of Centers. For that reason we are going to disqualify George Mikan from this because he was from the first era and he had nobody of his ability or size. At 6-10 he literally towered over everyone in the game when he played in the 1950s -- the dark ages of the league. We can't subject him to a matchup against O'Neal. But as for the Great Era of Centers, as Hall of Famer Bob Lanier pointed out, back in the 1960's and '70's, centers had to go up against equally competent big men on a nightly basis.

"Shaq is not used to getting his shot off against people who have equal size and power," said the former Piston and Buck, who is now a special assistant to NBA commissioner David Stern. "Don't forget, Wilt played against guys who were much better defensively than Shaq, and who had a lot of versatility at the offensive end. Heck, Wilt used to put big numbers up against Russell, and he was the greatest defensive center who ever lived."

The greatest offensive center was one of Lanier's contemporaries, Abdul-Jabbar. The league's all-time leading scorer vs. O'Neal would have been a great matchup, just to see O'Neal try to defend the skyhook.

Some say that Abdul-Jabbar would have had to move his lethal move outside a few more feet, because Shaq would refuse to allow Abdul-Jabbar to station himself so close to the basket. But there's little question that Abdul-Jabbar would have been able to score.

"With all his talent and height, he'd give anybody who ever played a hard time," Lanier said. "It's like when you talk about Magic Johnson. When a guy is that talented and that big, he can play in any era. Kareem wasn't overly powerful defensively. But with his height and athleticism and length, he would affect Shaq's shots."

Wes Unseld would have affected Shaq in another way. With power. These days, Shaq sometimes has his toughest matchups with hulking, power forwards, like Portland's Dale Davis or Miami's Anthony Mason. They tend to do a better job than taller players battling O'Neal as he tries to establish himself in the low post.

"There's never been a center built like Wes," Williams said. "Not with those two redwoods that were his legs. Wes would have battled him. Shaq might have worn him out, physically, but he would have needed an ice bath for an hour after the game."

Lanier puts himself in that black-and-blue category, too. But he had great versatility, scoring 20,000 points over 11 seasons. He and another Hall of Famer, Dave Bing, ran the pick-and-roll, with Lanier's range extending out to 17-18 feet. But wait. Right there, they could have exposed Shaq, who has a glaring weakness when it comes to extending his defense to play the pick-and-roll. He just doesn't bother. So that would work in Lanier's favor.

"You've got to put pressure on Shaq with your offense," Lanier said. "That makes it hard for him to just play offense."

So it makes sense that Hall of Famers like Lanier, Dave Cowens and Willis Reed, all with good range, would have given him fits by staying on the perimeter and launching shots.

"Cowens was a 6-8 center, and there were ways we used him against bigger people," Heinsohn said. "We used speed and quickness to the ultimate degree."

Plus, Shaq often has been less than interested in playing defense. As much as he would probably overpower the good-shooting centers from years past with his enormous size and strength, he would have probably given up more than a few shots at the other end.

"Shaq still needs to get the defensive presence guys like Wilt and Russell had," said Charlotte coach Paul Silas, who played against those two legends, and most of the other great centers. "With those two, the intimidation factor was always there. They always had a presence. Shaq has improved at both ends, but he still doesn't have that kind of presence the great centers did."

Speaking of a great intimidator, Nate Thurmond was probably only second to Russell. Thurmond was a non-scorer -- although he had five straight seasons when he averaged more than 20 ppg. But the fascinating part of the matchup would be when O'Neal went on the offensive.

"Put it this way, Thurmond was quick enough to come out and challenge my shot," Lanier said. "But he was also quick enough to recover and get my layup if I got by him. Shaq has not played against anybody like that, I'll guarantee you."

The question is, will he ever?

[ClutchKBMamba]

^^^ Posting a Charlie Rosen article about Shaq is like posting a Skip Bayless article about LeBron.

[jaypo]

I love all the articles riddled with old timers claiming Wilt's dominance in this matchup. Knowing what we know, that Russell was able to hold him below his averages and get in his head (and Shaq head to head with a comparable player in Akeem was able to elevate his game), and that Shaq had the killer instinct that Wilt obviously lacked, I'd say that the old timers are letting nostalgia replace rational thought!

Rosen is so anti Shaq, but even he makes points that show Shaq's advantage in this matchup. The main thing I want to point out is what he says about defenses. WIlt was able to dominate against single coverage. Shaq never saw single coverage except in the 01 finals, and look what he did to the DPOY in that matchup!

Riley brings up a good point as well- "There's nobody his size". But Riley is doing it in a penalizing fashion making it sound like he only dominates because nobody can match him. Well, there were no other centers in Wilt's day that were 7'2" and 295 lbs either. Should we penalize him for dominating his opponents too?

In the last article, Shaq hasn't played against people that could defend? Akeem? Drob? Ewing? Deke? Wallace? Zo? Dwight??? None of those guys were on the level of Nate Thurmond????

[MacGill]

There is no immortal 6, perhaps an immortal 2.

Looks like you have some work to do spreading the word, see ATL 100 above, first 6 votes.

Please, Shaq isn't muscling Wilt, even with his signature offensive fouls.

Come on Dipper, for once look at things objectively here without the need to copy and paste all extremely biased newspaper clippings or quotes from former players or coaches from that time period. Example: We have seen what Shaq did with Sabonis, taller than Wilt and for argument sake the same weight at Wilt's heaviest and other's of Wilt's size. Obviously, Wilt is by far the better player but physic's is physic's and Shaq was more than talented enough to take advantage of his power and would be able to adjust to Wilt's game, overpower and wear down Wilt over an entire game. Let's not put Wilt on Russell's level defensively now because Wilt wasn't that gifted.

And why we continue to bring up prior generational centers, not even in most individual's consensus top 15's, and think that we can make claims of what they would do to a mostly consensus top 10 player of all-time in beyond me. If Wilt dominated them, then so would Shaq regardless if the numbers turned out to be the same or not.

[

b]"I like Shaq, but he's not in a league with guys like Wilt and (Bill) Russell," said Tom Heinsohn, the old Celtics forward and ex-head coach.[/b] "Shaq is this game's ultimate guy. But he's not a dominating guy at both ends of the floor. He doesn't sweep all the boards. Heck, those guys used to break up an entire defense by themselves. Look at the record book. Wilt averaged 50 points a game. Shaq, he's not playing against anybody his own size. So he's just knocking people over. Not only aren't there any centers anymore, there aren't that many power forwards, either."

Again, so many arguments against this that I should not even have to go into it. Look Wilt was great but offensively I think Shaq would have set the bar higher than Wilt. Shaq wouldn't have needed to add a fade away or anything else outside of what his offensive arsonal was. If he received the same amount of touches Wilt did during that time how can you even question what Shaq would have done? Look what he did all-time with 1600 less FG's attempted. Argument's for Wilt aren't that he was a greater scorer as much as he was a better 2 way player. And who did Wilt go up against his own size again?

"At one time, there were 10 great centers in the league, seven feet or better," said Miami's Pat Riley, who played with Chamberlain and later coached another Hall of Famer, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. "Shaq is the only guy right now who is absolutely dominant, based on sheer force and talent."

Well let's just see where all these great center's get selected in the ATL 100 list compared to who Shaq faced. We already have a C & PF/C in the top 10 that Shaq faced.

Because of the dearth of big men, we're left with pondering "computer" matchups, a la Muhammad Ali vs. Rocky Marciano. So for argument's sake, how about Shaq vs. Wilt? Well we know one thing, nobody would want them to decide their battle on the foul line. It might take days.

And again, this isn't Shaq's fault that he didn't have a Russell to go up against. His battle with Hakeem showed, early in his young career, he would not back down and he would be one of the best.

Heinsohn, who went up against Wilt for years, favors Chamberlain because of his athleticism and skill-level. He's not alone. Others rate it a draw.

There is a surprise, kind of like how Yao said Shaq was his toughest. Wait, Yao should have said Wilt

"Wilt would have to shoot his fadeaway and he wouldn't get a lot of dunks on Shaq," said Williams, the ex-Sixer GM. "But Wilt could defend Shaq. That would be the 300-pound Wilt, rather than the skinny Wilt at 21. Wilt would block a lot of his shots.[/b] The two giants would go toe-to-toe. To me, they'd play each other to a standstill and others would have to win the game."

See the problem is, Shaq out of college was 300 pounds and before you go to modern medicine, he himself stated he really didn't start muscle training until the nba, and well we seen what happened. I am very confident putting a young 300 pound O'Neal against the heaviest point of Wilt's career. Again, unless Wilt was offensively skilled like Hakeem or had an unstoppable shot like Kareem his offence isn't going to confuse or bother Shaq where he would have no answer. In fact, it would just motivate Shaq even more.

Williams seemed equally intrigued by a Russell-O'Neal matchup. On paper, Russell would seemed to be overwhelmed by Shaq's size. Shaq would enjoy more than a 100-pound advantage on Russell, the 11-time champion with the great Celtics teams of the '60's. But don't discount William Felton Russell's brilliance as tactician.

I have a great amount of Respect for Russell.

"Russell couldn't have muscled him or matched up size-wise," Williams said. "But he would get into his head. In this era of trash-talking, he would probably work on him more than he would have back when he was playing. Shaq would be afraid to let the ball go. He wouldn't know where Russell was coming from. He'd deflect his shot. Russell would have had to have been at the top of his mental game. But he would have relished the challenge."

How? Was Shaq as weak mentally as Wilt, clearly we know the answer to that. And what everyone else forgets or doesn't seem to post is the mental advantage Shaq creates by just being so damn overpowering. We seen this happen to his opponents throughout his career so what makes Russell or Wilt any different? We seen Hakeem turn Shaq inside out and Shaq continue to shrug it off and come back for more. Taking absolutely nothing away from Russell but Wilt mentally wasn't that guy so I do not think it is far fetched to think that a guy with a more powerful offensive game combined with a 'I want to crush you' attitude may far off much better.

So would other great big men from the Great Era of Centers. For that reason we are going to disqualify George Mikan from this because he was from the first era and he had nobody of his ability or size. At 6-10 he literally towered over everyone in the game when he played in the 1950s -- the dark ages of the league. We can't subject him to a matchup against O'Neal. But as for the Great Era of Centers, as Hall of Famer Bob Lanier pointed out, back in the 1960's and '70's, centers had to go up against equally competent big men on a nightly basis.

Maybe that keeps Shaq even more hungry though, maybe without Russell Wilt's desire isn't as strong.

"Shaq is not used to getting his shot off against people who have equal size and power," said the former Piston and Buck, who is now a special assistant to NBA commissioner David Stern. "Don't forget, Wilt played against guys who were much better defensively than Shaq, and who had a lot of versatility at the offensive end. Heck, Wilt used to put big numbers up against Russell, and he was the greatest defensive center who ever lived."

And Wilt was?????? It's funny how it all comes back to Wilt vs Russell. I haven't heard mention of these great centers yet in the ATL 100 but I have already read Hakeem, Duncan (even though more PF, could play C), even Ewing. I'll keep waiting as this is nothing more than to overinflate in star and deflate another. 25 years from now, the legend of Shaq as a center will trump all

The greatest offensive center was one of Lanier's contemporaries, Abdul-Jabbar. The league's all-time leading scorer vs. O'Neal would have been a great matchup, just to see O'Neal try to defend the skyhook.

Played only a few years with much older Wilt and never met Russell. Let's not talk about the 70's

Some say that Abdul-Jabbar would have had to move his lethal move outside a few more feet, because Shaq would refuse to allow Abdul-Jabbar to station himself so close to the basket. But there's little question that Abdul-Jabbar would have been able to score.

Agreed, of course he would be able too. Only a fool would think otherwise.

"With all his talent and height, he'd give anybody who ever played a hard time," Lanier said. "It's like when you talk about Magic Johnson. When a guy is that talented and that big, he can play in any era. Kareem wasn't overly powerful defensively. But with his height and athleticism and length, he would affect Shaq's shots."

Yes but Shaq would still get his, see Yao Ming, taller and much heavier than Kareem, who affected his shot as well. Should we go down the list of all the taller, quote decent defenders Shaq has went through? Or does it just bring us back to the earlier point of how because of the lack of centers we just cannot believe Shaq could do the same against improved competition, even though we have on video countless examples of him doing this against Top 10 talent. He would probably come off the bench or ask to play PF to create a match-up problem.

"There's never been a center built like Wes," Williams said. "Not with those two redwoods that were his legs. Wes would have battled him. Shaq might have worn him out, physically, but he would have needed an ice bath for an hour after the game."

Wilt must have needed a blood transfusion after each game then Such nonsense.

Lanier puts himself in that black-and-blue category, too. But he had great versatility, scoring 20,000 points over 11 seasons. He and another Hall of Famer, Dave Bing, ran the pick-and-roll, with Lanier's range extending out to 17-18 feet. But wait. Right there, they could have exposed Shaq, who has a glaring weakness when it comes to extending his defense to play the pick-and-roll. He just doesn't bother. So that would work in Lanier's favor.

That is true statement but being 7'1 340 do you really expect him to be? Earlier Shaq was definitley better.

"You've got to put pressure on Shaq with your offense," Lanier said. "That makes it hard for him to just play offense."

So it makes sense that Hall of Famers like Lanier, Dave Cowens and Willis Reed, all with good range, would have given him fits by staying on the perimeter and launching shots.

It's like this was never incorporated by other teams before? It had such a huge impact success wise against him.

"Cowens was a 6-8 center, and there were ways we used him against bigger people," Heinsohn said. "We used speed and quickness to the ultimate degree."

ALA Rodman

Plus, Shaq often has been less than interested in playing defense. As much as he would probably overpower the good-shooting centers from years past with his enormous size and strength, he would have probably given up more than a few shots at the other end.

Wait, didn't I just read how they would have stopped him?

"Shaq still needs to get the defensive presence guys like Wilt and Russell had," said Charlotte coach Paul Silas, who played against those two legends, and most of the other great centers. "With those two, the intimidation factor was always there. They always had a presence. Shaq has improved at both ends, but he still doesn't have that kind of presence the great centers did."

Now I agree here, Shaq defensively was < Russell and to some degree Wilt but Shaq's era wasn't about that, fewer shots, slower pace etc but other have shown adjusted stats show Shaq wasn't far off from say what Wilt would have averaged if he played during the same time. Look, Wilt stayed leaner longer for more of his career, played in a time where many more shots were taken and individual possessions at him were taken. I have no problem stating that Russell defensively was better than Shaq but I draw the line at others thinking Wilt was so much more a superior athlete that Shaq couldn't come close to replicating what Wilt did defensively.

What evidence is there to suggest Orlando Shaq couldn't do this? Just because he didn't lead the league like Wilt? Rubbish, his numbers are still amazing and he never had to adjust his game to create team success or take so much away from his game to become more successful. There is also nothing to suggest that Shaq wasn't as good of a passer, again getting the ball much more, and really shutting down his entire offensive game, becoming more of a specialized player that maybe he could have led the league (during that time) in assists. And do we think his rebounding numbers would simply decrease, why because of pace, that would benefit him so much and again probably incline him even more to keep himself around 300-320 which we seen Shaq having no problems running up and down the floor.

Speaking of a great intimidator, Nate Thurmond was probably only second to Russell. Thurmond was a non-scorer -- although he had five straight seasons when he averaged more than 20 ppg. But the fascinating part of the matchup would be when O'Neal went on the offensive.

"Put it this way, Thurmond was quick enough to come out and challenge my shot," Lanier said. "But he was also quick enough to recover and get my layup if I got by him. Shaq has not played against anybody like that, I'll guarantee you."

Really, it should be they never played against anyone like O'Neal. Go through history and remove Wilt and tell me who else you can compare physically to Shaq? Without having to use, well their quickness, or they could shoot or they could score, because we have seen come and go many 6'9-6'11 centers who could do that. D12 currently physically compares, Zo compares physically, Davis compares physically.

Who compares to Shaq physically? Now add a top tier offensive game combined with a good enough defensive game blessed with unmatched size and strength & a killer instinct and tell me again how over the course of a game or series how all the players are going to prevent Shaq from repeating the dominance that he already created?

This is what erks me, why is it so hard for people to see that over years of basketball progression we will see players raise the bar? Shaq was one of those guys and deserves to be recognized for that without needing to be compared to how a former legend dominated and concluding that just because it wasn't done a carbon copy way he wasn't the superior player.

It is not like there is huge seperation between the two, and I will only speak for me here, but in any basketball era played I will take Shaq over Wilt and sleep very well at night. I could only imagine how Shaq would clown Wilt and all those so-called 'superfeats', mentally Wilt wouldn't stand a chance.

The question is, will he ever?[/i]

He already did

[jaypo]

MacGill- you brought a tear to my eye. I love your last sentence as a way to end that post! Awesome!

I agree wholeheartedly. People say Russ would get into Shaq's head and even though Shaq outweighed him by 100lbs, he'd still do well. Welll, Akeem was close defensively, and we see how that turned out. People say that you beat Shaq by making him have to cover an offensive force. Well, Dream wasn't too bad on offense. Ewing either. Drob either. Sabas, although past his prime, was able to hit the 3. Yao. Etc. And none of these guys could shut Shaq down.

Thanks for pointing out all the contradictions in those articles as well. It seems that people will go to every end of the universe to knock on Shaq. "His pick and roll defense suckced". But rarely do they mention the point guards that are supposed to help that routinely got torched. And rarely do they remember the physics behind a 340lb man chasing Tony Parker. And rarely to they reverse the argument and say "Kobe's post defense sucks because he couldn't cover Duncan on a switch and slow him down".

[semi-sentient]

A couple of points on that Rosen article...

So, too, was Chamberlain a much superior rebounder — averaging 22.9 for his career, to Shaq's 11.3.

This is a poor way to compare the two players. Not only was the pace much faster in Wilt's era, but teams were so inefficient that there were many more rebounds to be had. I don't doubt that Wilt was the better rebounder as a result of being more athletic, but the gap is not as huge as those numbers would suggest.

Wilt was determined to become the best passer in the NBA and accordingly led the league in assists with 702 (8.8 per game) in 1967-68, frequently passing up easy shots to kick the ball out to a teammate and possibly record an assist instead of a sure basket. Still, Wilt was a much better all-around passer (4.4 career assists) than Shaq (2.6).

Another poor argument in favor of Wilt. I'm sure that if Shaq regularly passed up dunks so he could kick it out to Kobe he'd have been among the assist leaders as well. Wilt didn't lead the league in assists because he was an excellent passer -- he lead the league because he wanted to. Heck, the quote even says as much. Anyway, I don't know if Wilt is a better passer in terms of actual passing skill. Shaq was a actually a pretty good passer as well. If there is a difference I have a hard time believing it's a huge one.


Of course, the article mentions nothing of Wilt's short-comings in the playoffs, and for all the talk about going up against Russell, Thurmond, Jabbar, etc., there is absolutely zero mention of Shaq facing strong defensive frontcourts (Duncan/Robinson and Sheed/Sabonis, in particular) year after year or his battles with prime Hakeem/Robinson.

As ridiculously biased as that article is, it's very telling that Rosen still considers them on level playing fields, which says a lot considering the effort he went to just to make Wilt shine by comparison.

[semi-sentient]

People say Russ would get into Shaq's head and even though Shaq outweighed him by 100lbs, he'd still do well.

Anyone who says that did not watch a prime Shaq. Russell would not be able to get into Shaq's head like he did with Wilt. He can try all the wants, but I'm sure that'll make Shaq work even harder to embarrass him on the floor.

Shaq was a straight up dick head, and he absolutely LOVED humiliating his opponents. I loved it as well -- when he was on the Lakers at least.

[jaypo]

People say Russ would get into Shaq's head and even though Shaq outweighed him by 100lbs, he'd still do well.

Anyone who says that did not watch a prime Shaq. Russell would not be able to get into Shaq's head like he did with Wilt. He can try all the wants, but I'm sure that'll make Shaq work even harder to embarrass him on the floor.

Shaq was a straight up dick head, and he absolutely LOVED humiliating his opponents. I loved it as well -- when he was on the Lakers at least.

You're absolutely right. It seemed like he had a particular lust for embarrasing the Admiral. I remember how he would take pride in destroying players like DRob, Sabas, Vlade, and Deke. He did elevate his game against Akeem, but he didn't seem to want to hurt him- just play great against him. And I think it was because he had the ultimate respect for Dream.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

Thanks for pointing out all the contradictions in those articles as well. It seems that people will go to every end of the universe to knock on Shaq. "His pick and roll defense suckced". But rarely do they mention the point guards that are supposed to help that routinely got torched. And rarely do they remember the physics behind a 340lb man chasing Tony Parker. And rarely to they reverse the argument and say "Kobe's post defense sucks because he couldn't cover Duncan on a switch and slow him down".

BS, that limitation Shaq had was huge and it was something other teams were taking advantage of, see especially Bibby in those WCF. That was a very important serie, the Lakers went very close to being kicked out, and he was very tentative and his pnr defence was atrocious.
Guys like Hakeem or Robinson had the quickness to avoid being exposed, Shaq did not and that's something to consider because it's a very important weapon to use against him.

I guess Kobe way less often was matched up against Duncan.

[MacGill]

People say Russ would get into Shaq's head and even though Shaq outweighed him by 100lbs, he'd still do well.

Anyone who says that did not watch a prime Shaq. Russell would not be able to get into Shaq's head like he did with Wilt. He can try all the wants, but I'm sure that'll make Shaq work even harder to embarrass him on the floor.

Shaq was a straight up dick head, and he absolutely LOVED humiliating his opponents. I loved it as well -- when he was on the Lakers at least.

You're absolutely right. It seemed like he had a particular lust for embarrasing the Admiral. I remember how he would take pride in destroying players like DRob, Sabas, Vlade, and Deke. He did elevate his game against Akeem, but he didn't seem to want to hurt him- just play great against him. And I think it was because he had the ultimate respect for Dream.

A few more points regarding edge and to further a good point brought up by Semi

We know Russell & media mixed like oil & water, and Wilt was just to full of himself for my liking. Picture Shaq, instantly becomes the media darling, the fan favorite, the People's Champ if you will.

Remember the whole 'Sacramento Queens' statement + countless others. Shaq just didn't say those things and come to the fight with an unloaded gun. He intentionally put those things out there with full intention of backing up everything he said. There aren't many times he didn't back up what he said!

Shaq wouldn't just wait till the game to 'brain ninja' you, he would tell you what he was going to do and go out on the court and do it. So talk about being mentally tough, putting expectations on you & your team and being confident enough to know you could back them up. Come on, you think Russell mentally would affect Shaq?

Jaypo brings up another good point about Shaq in that he does respect the legends or great players of his time and past. He gives respect when it's due and showed he wasn't afraid to show if he felt he was outplayed (See young Shaq versus Hakeem). So if a guy already respects you as a player for what you can do but is confident enough in his own abilites to keep coming back time after time, what else can you do to shake his confidence? Another reason why Russell may defensively outplay him but it would hardly be due to getting into shaq's head.

I think Shaq would have clowned Wilt like Eric Dampier because Shaq would know his mental advantage would get the better of him and cause negative effects in his performance. This is a large part of Russell's advantage over Wilt and I see no reason why to believe that an even more intimidating force with a greater gift to gab and back it up would not have the same effect.

Lastly, as mentioned, Shaq raised his game against the best which leds me to believe that he would only continue to do this if put in an era where the overall talent was greater (although I do not buy the talent story of other era's myself).

So what is Wilt left with?

Are we to believe that a so dominant but more mentally fragile giant would continously get the better of Shaq over the course of there H2H match-up's? That he was so far ahead of Shaq athletically Shaq somehow cheated to even get as close in the comparisons as he did?

Are we to believe that Russell was the only person in the history of the game who was able to rattle or intimidate Wilt to the point where you would statistically notice a drop? That to infrait Wilt's psyche you would need the assistance of the Amazing Kreskin?

Or is it possible that over the course of a 40 year basketball progression an equal giant was born with a version of a Russell like mental edge and a Wilt like Dominance who played a style of basketball that truly had no consistent answer in fully limiting him outside of the limitations that he mostly put on himself, that were, for the most part, created by himself.

And yet, even with that we can still find flaw and I am fine with that because after all Shaq is only human. But in the game of basketball Shaq is > Wilt in my humble opinion.

[Dipper 13]

See the problem is, Shaq out of college was 300 pounds and before you go to modern medicine, he himself stated he really didn't start muscle training until the nba, and well we seen what happened. I am very confident putting a young 300 pound O'Neal against the heaviest point of Wilt's career. Again, unless Wilt was offensively skilled like Hakeem or had an unstoppable shot like Kareem his offence isn't going to confuse or bother Shaq where he would have no answer. In fact, it would just motivate Shaq even more.

How about the obese 382 lb Shaq circa '02?

It appears that '00 Shaq (340 lbs) had a 20-25 lb advantage over '64 Wilt (315-320 lbs). That was Wilt's 5th NBA season.



Los Angeles Times - Oct 7, 1999

Whatever Coach Phil Jackson's requested weight for Shaquille O'Neal was, the center did not meet it--probably didn't even come close--when the Lakers were weighed after the morning practice Wednesday at UC Santa Barbara.

"The more I lift weights, the higher the number's going to be," O'Neal said. "I'm not really concerned about numbers. . . . I'll bust any big man's butt no matter what I weigh."

"I'm not unhappy about it," Jackson said. "He's shown he's in condition out there on the floor. That's the major goal, the guy's in condition so he can get up and down the court."

O'Neal, who has added muscle on his shoulders, said he came in at 340 pounds.



Orlando Sentinel - Oct 31, 1999

He is bigger than ever now, a solid 340 pounds (at least 10 pounds heavier than last season) and has a Hungry Man appetite that demands immediate satisfaction.









Meriden Journal - Sep 6, 1963

How? Was Shaq as weak mentally as Wilt, clearly we know the answer to that. And what everyone else forgets or doesn't seem to post is the mental advantage Shaq creates by just being so damn overpowering.

Jerry West: The Life and Legend of a Basketball Icon - Roland Lazenby




Let me tell you a story: a lifetime in the game - Red Auerbach, John Feinstein






Lexington Herald-Leader (KY) - October 15, 1999

WILT WAS AT ANOTHER LEVEL, SAYS EX-RIVAL

LOUISVILLE - At 6-foot -8 and around 230 pounds in his prime, Bud Olsen was hefty enough to compete against most of the NBA centers of the 1960s. But Wilt Chamberlain was a different proposition. "Until Wilt," Olsen said, "I'd never been around a guy who made me feel inferior." Now a semi-retired businessman, Olsen was at the theater Tuesday night when he heard that Chamberlain, 63, had died in Los Angeles. The news shook him up because, he said, "you just don't expect certain people to die, especially a legend like him." After graduating from Louisville in 1962, Olsen spent seven years knocking around the NBA. He played on the Cincinnati Royals with Oscar Robertson and,, for a short time, on the Boston Celtics with Bill Russell. But nobody impressed him as much as Chamberlain, the 7-1, 275-pound center who averaged more than 30 points and 22 rebounds during his 14-year career.

As Olsen tells it, Chamberlain was more than just big and strong. "Baseline to baseline," Olsen said, "nobody in the NBA was faster than him. He was just an incredible athlete. He had big thighs and his body was just chiseled, except for his shins and calves. They were so skinny he wore kneepads. I figured if he ever came after me, my only defense would be kicking him in the shins."

Olsen feared that such an altercation might happen in 1966-67, the season Chamberlain led the Philadelphia 76ers to a 68-13 regular-season record and the NBA title. At the time, Olsen was a backup center for the San Francisco Warriors. "I was sent into the game to foul Wilt," Olsen said. "He had his right hand bandaged up, but he still could windmill the ball with one hand so that it was just impossible to reach it. I'm chopping him the best I can and Earl Strom, who was refereeing, won't call a foul."

After the game I know Wilt's upset with me because I just butchered him. I saw him outside the locker room and he said, `Bud, if you do that tomorrow night, I'll kill you.' So I did the smart thing. I went outside. I scored 24, the most I ever got on him."

Olsen thinks that 76ers team was the best he ever played against, and that includes several of the 11 NBA championship teams the Celtics produced during Russell's 13-year career. Besides Chamberlain, who averaged 24.1 points and 24.2 rebounds that season, the 76ers had Hal Greer, Chet Walker, Billy Cunningham, Wally Jones, Lucious Jackson and Matt Goukas. They trounced the Celtics, four games to one, in the Eastern Division finals and then whipped Olsen's Warriors, whose stars were Rick Barry & Nate Thurmond.

Of course, the article mentions nothing of Wilt's short-comings in the playoffs

I will say, the biggest mistake Wilt ever made (by far) was leaving the Sixers to join the "glamour boys" in Los Angeles. I believe he regretted that move later in his life, as the Sixers may have won a few more championships had he stayed. Instead Ramsay guts the team and they end up 9-73 a few years later.



Does a "mentally weak" player come out strong with a 46/34 effort to try and avoid elimination, after a heartbreaking loss the previous game (Game 4)? No.


Beyond the statistics, Chamberlain by all accounts did increase his level of play defensively & on the boards. Considering how few touches he received in the games due to the sagging defense, we must assume a number of his missed FG's were tip-in attempts in the congested paint. He averaged 30 boards for the series and a good chunk of them must have come on the offensive end.


Here is an example below (Chamberlain off. rebound + dunk) showing just how poor the Sixers shooting was. Wali barely hits the backboard on a 15 foot jumper.


18:33 mark

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEdiptkyYsY


Also note another Chamberlain rebound & dunk at the 18:51 mark in the same video above from the '66 series. We can also note how the Celtics pressed full court to keep the ball out of his hands as much as possible and at the 17:20 mark off the opening jump ball how the defense was shifted to Wilt's (left) side of the floor, leaving Wali unguarded for a shot. We can also see a Bill Russell "intangible" quality off the inbounds.

"When I feel he is relaxed, I burst down on the break, and we murder him. But this works just once and two points do not win a ball game."


Some have stated that Wilt was the main reason for the loss in '66, that the Sixers would have won had he statistically performed up to par. In the 1st half of G5, Coach Schayes noted that Chamberlain was the only player to shoot 25% or better from the field on his way to a 46 point night.


Apr 13, 1966





Game 1:

Sixers hit with the flu + 2 week layoff = 19 turnovers in a 19 point loss.

Wilt Chamberlain did his work under the boards, taking 32 rebounds for the 76ers. But his mates couldn't get the ball into him often and he made only nine field goals in scoring 25 points.




Game 2:




Game 3:

Their defense was the barbed wire. Every time they needed a key basket, Wilt Chamberlain poured through the lane and got it for them. That was how the Philadelphia 76ers got back into contention in the Eastern Division playoffs with a 111-105 victory over the Boston Celtics Thursday night at Convention Hall.




Game 4: Chamberlain with the block at the end of regulation to force OT.







Game 5:

Christian Science Monitor - Apr 14, 1966

Wilt took 34 shots, hitting on 19. But he was only eight for 25 with his free throws. Chamberlain scored 46 points, no small since Russell played him tight and with a maximum amount of contact. But Wilt could have gone to 63 with Bill Sharman's touch at the foul line. Boston's cornermen excelled, not only, but also on offense. John Havlicek played the full 48 minutes and scored 32 points. Tom Sanders probably had his best game of the series with 11 points and 16 rebounds. And Don Nelson, with 12 points in 18 minutes, caught the 76ers completely..


Apr 18, 1966




Schenectady Gazette - Aug 24, 1966




The Morning Record - Nov 3, 1966







In 1968, Wayne Embry's ability to keep Wilt off the offensive boards, clearing Russell (the GOAT defensive rebounder) to get the rebound and outlet to start the break was basically the reason the Sixers didn't close Boston out in Gm. 5 of the EDF, despite an injured Wilt (partial tear of calf muscle in his right leg, a strain in his right thigh, partial tear of right knee tendon, and an injured right toe) coming out strong with a 31/30/7 effort. To quote Russell during the series, "A lesser man wouldn't be out there." Hell, the reason they won G4 was big Luke making Russell pay for sagging back on Wilt by hitting 4 big outside shots (3 consecutive) in the 4th quarter to open up a 10 pt. lead. Final score = 110-105. Chamberlain's G5 effort (31/30/7) exceeded his regular season statistical averages in both points & rebounds.

While it is noted that Russell switched himself onto Chet to cool him off, it appears he killed two birds with one stone. Of course the Sixers exceptionally poor outside shooting (below 25% FG in the 4th) when it counted along with Billy C's glaring absence didn't hurt either.


Article prior to Gm. 1 vs. Boston:

Christian Science Monitor - Apr 5, 1968

For example, Philadelphia lost Billy Cunningham for the season in the New York series with a broken right wrist. This is like Boston having to play without John Havlicek or St. Louis minus Joe Caldwell. Cunningham is a shooter' in all that the term implies. He played almost as many minutes during the season as the 76ers' two starting forwards, Luke Jackson and Chet Walker. Bill is an expert at driving the middle, drawing fouls, and then cashing them in at the free throw line. There is no one on the Celtics who really plays him well. Havlicek probably comes closest. But John's quickness is generally wasted against Cunningham, mostly because Bill gives no indication of when he is going to shoot.

The 76ers run what they call a C-pattern for Cunningham. It allows Billy to come across the top of the key from either side, pull up for a quick jumper whenever he feels like it, and then clears out the middle so that he can follow his own shot to the basket.



Article prior to Gm. 7:




Gettysburg Times - May 9, 1968

According to Vince Miller after the game Chamberlain got five touches in the 4th quarter of G7. Whether it two touches or five in the final period, all accounts agree that he got 7 touches in the 2nd half. This after 23 touches in the 1st half.


"What would I have looked like if I had said, 'Hey, we lost because my teammates didn't get the ball into me? If Alex Hannum didn't have guts enough to lay it on the line and accept a certain amount of responsibility for the loss and name the reasons why, then I've lost a lot of respect for him, which I have and I will tell him that when I see him. You can't shoot the ball if you don't have the ball. But you know something, after the game, not one writer came up to me and said 'Hey, how come the ball didn't come into you?' Not one. But all of them did ask me, 'How come you didn't shoot more?'


Bill Russell interview from 2008:

http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/prin ... /rus0int-1

Before we leave 1968 altogether, can we talk about game seven for a minute? In 1968 you limited your friend Wilt Chamberlain to two shot attempts in the entire second half of game seven.

That's not true at all. That was a coach's decision. There was a forward on their team named Chet Walker, and he was hurting us badly, okay? So I had my backup center, it was a guy named Wayne Embry. Now Embry had been in the league seven or eight years, and he played against Wilt all those years. So at half time I said to him, "Wayne, I'm going to try something. It's not new. I want you to guard Wilt. Okay? I have to take care of Chet Walker." And see, when I made that substitution everybody thought it was trying to stay out of foul trouble, something like that, which was to me the best part of that because I made adjustments that they didn't know what I was doing. So they couldn't make a counter adjustment. You see if you make an adjustment, and they know what you're doing, well they can just counter it. But I made an adjustment, they thought it was to get off of Wilt. They didn't know it was to get on Chet. Now Wilt had a game plan, but his game plan was counting on me trying to guard him. When we put Wayne on him, he guarded him a completely different way.


He was used to you guarding him.

Yes. To me, the pretty part of it was -- I hate to use the word beauty -- is that Wayne had enormous experience guarding him. So it wasn't like you took some guy out of the stands and put him on Wilt. Here's a guy who's been guarding him for years. That adjustment was for Chet Walker, it wasn't for Wilt.


Can you talk us through the last minute of the 1968 Eastern Finals?

It was a close game, but we were in charge. So they got to the place where they've got to foul us. So they fouled, and we make free throws and they go down, and they score and make three fouls. So they get down to 12 seconds to go. That's when the thing with Sam came up. It was going to that series. After we got down three to one...

I'm the coach, okay, and so I'm talking to my guys before the fifth game. And I says, "We're going to beat these guys, and this is how we're going to do it." And we had a rookie on the team who's now a judge in Boston, because he had an ailment, he had to retire, but he told me a few years ago, he said, "You know, I was in the locker room when you said that. That's the most disciplined situation I've ever been in my life, because I had to discipline myself from falling out on the floor laughing, when you said we're going to beat these guys." He says, "They're going to kill us!" And he says, "We haven't got a chance!" And he sat there and watched the whole thing happen. And he says that's one of the wonders of his life, because I said it with complete confidence. And then I said, like I said earlier, "We don't have to win three games in a row. We've just got to win one." You see, after we won two of them, the pressure completely shifts. The pressure is on them. You're up three to one, and how do you lose three straight?

So it was basically routine.

I think that that move that I made at half time was the most important move I made as a coach in that series, because it worked, and we got accomplished what we wanted to get accomplished without them knowing what we were trying to accomplish. See everybody still talks about the fact that Wilt only took two shots. They still almost won the game, right? And the key was that Chet Walker had been killing us. And I knew that I could guard him. And the reason I knew I could guard him is his moves were very deliberate. As part of my teaching myself, I learned -- we had six plays and nowadays they number those positions. One is point guard, two is shooting guard, three is a small forward, four is a power forward, five is a center. Well, I made a point to learn how to play all those positions on all six plays. Now not that I ever wanted to or hoped to play in those other positions, but in knowing those positions I know the problems that go with that position. So that if my teammate needed help I can help. And on defense I watched these guys, how they play defense, and I know how to guard almost any position. And I physically took over Chet.



The inside game: race, power, and politics in the NBA - Wayne Embry

















In 1970, Wilt was hobbled himself. Coming off a career threatening knee injury, he is unable to jump as quick or perform the same moves as in his younger years, even in Game 6, which may have been the title clincher had they played smarter in Game 5 (18 2nd half turnovers & 1/3 less shot attempts).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtQzp8hahFw#t=22m27s







http://airjudden2.tripod.com/books/thep ... eason.html

Rosen decided research was not needed, since he found his own brand of fiction is more entertaining, at least to himself.

Here is Rosen's account of the legendary "Willis Reed" game 7 in 1970: "Chamberlain, clearly intimidated by Reed's dramatic display of courage, was rendered passive and impotent." (p.15) Reed had 4 points and 2 rebounds. Chamberlain had 21 points and 24 rebounds. The Knicks' Walt Frazier, a guard mind you, had 39 points and 19 assists. Either West got burned or his coach lacked the faith in him to defend the hot hand. Do you see this mentioned? No. What Rosen also neglected to mention was that when Reed went down in game 5, the Lakers collapsed on Chamberlain and Rosen's idol Jerry West took only 2 shots the 2nd half, missing both, while the Lakers committed 30 turnovers, trying to force the ball into Wilt, rather than taking the open shot.


The Deseret News - May 7, 1970





After Game 7:

The Village Voice - May 14, 1970







The Telegraph-Herald - Nov 26, 1970





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEPoIqIrprg








Prior to the 1962 series against Boston Coach Frank McGuire had moved Wilt up the top of the key (high post) to expand their offensive options as opposed to being too predictable against Russell, forcing him to play more conservative defense. Not only was Wilt scoring more frequently than he did in the regular season and still out scoring Russell, the Warriors starters were out scoring the Celtics starters. But the C's 3 key bench players (K.C, Ramsey, Loscy) brutalized the Warriors bench by an even bigger margin. Who is to say Wilt gave up on any hope of winning the game with his late game scoring. Or perhaps "heroic attempts" as I'm sure it would be declared for any other player not named Wilt. At least Chamberlain led his team to a comeback attempt in that 3rd game of the '62 series, which likely carried the Warriors momentum over to the 4th game, where he had 41 points & 34 rebounds in a 4 point victory. Of course all this while neglecting that the game was faster then resulting in less half court sets for Chamberlain to go down low. Plus the fact that Boston was a running team at the time and on offense Chamberlain was set up at the high post (FT line) by design. Anyone not named Wilt is hailed as an "unselfish team player." This foolish numbers padding accusation can be used against any great in NBA history. There is no way to determine the momentum shifts and runs during any given point in the game without having seen it yourself. What might the Warriors strategy have been offensively? What impact did early foul trouble have for either team? Would they foolishly attempt to have Wilt taking 40 shots a game like he did in the regular season hoping that one man could beat the greatest dynasty in sports history?




The Rivalry: Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, and the Golden Age of Basketball - John Taylor

One reason for Russell's success against Chamberlain was his uncanny ability to anticipate Chamberlain's moves. "All season long Russell has known just which way Wilt was going to turn," Frank McGuire complained to an acquaintance as the playoffs began. But under McGuire's direction, Chamberlain was now playing out of the pivot at the top of the key. As a result, reporters were writing about a "new" Wilt Chamberlain - "Warriors' Wilt to Display New Style Against Celtics" was a headline in The Philadelphia Inquirer before the series began - and McGuire was hoping that, since Chamberlain had more option in the pivot, Russell might be forced to play him more conservatively, which in turn could free up Chamberlain to shoot.

Once the series began, Chamberlain was able to score more frequently. In fact, the Warriors' five starters - Chamberlain, Paul Arizin, Guy Rodgers, Tom Meschery, and Tom Gola, who was playing with a sprained back - outscored the Celtics' five starters - Russell, Bob Cousy, Tom Heinsohn, Sam Jones, and Satch Sanders. But this advantage was offset by the fact that Boston's top three relievers - Frank Ramsey, K.C. Jones, and Jim Loscutoff - outscored their Philadlephia counterparts - Al Attles, Ed Conlin, York Larese - by an even greater margin.


After the Sam Jones game winner:

When the ball fell in, three seconds remained on the clock. The Warriors immediately called time-out, but once the clock actually stopped, only one second remained. On the sidelines, Frank McGuire was enraged. He was convinced the timekeeper, a Celtics employee, had let two crucial seconds run down, and he demanded that referee Richie Powers restore them to the clock. Powers refused.

[jaypo]

Thanks for pointing out all the contradictions in those articles as well. It seems that people will go to every end of the universe to knock on Shaq. "His pick and roll defense suckced". But rarely do they mention the point guards that are supposed to help that routinely got torched. And rarely do they remember the physics behind a 340lb man chasing Tony Parker. And rarely to they reverse the argument and say "Kobe's post defense sucks because he couldn't cover Duncan on a switch and slow him down".

BS, that limitation Shaq had was huge and it was something other teams were taking advantage of, see especially Bibby in those WCF. That was a very important serie, the Lakers went very close to being kicked out, and he was very tentative and his pnr defence was atrocious.
Guys like Hakeem or Robinson had the quickness to avoid being exposed, Shaq did not and that's something to consider because it's a very important weapon to use against him.

I guess Kobe way less often was matched up against Duncan.

And a swing and a miss from Ryoga Hibiki!!!

You missed my entire point. Players like Akeem and Robinson had the quickness to cover the PNR, but they didn't have the mass that Shaq had either. That's the reason Shaq could back them down and cram it in their face, whereas they couldn't do the same to Shaq. Shaq's size was a blessing and a curse- it allowed him to overpower everyone that guarded him, but it dissallowed him to stay on the perimeter and cover quick guards. But my point was that even with his size issue, if he had decent defensive help at the PG spot, the play wouldn't have been as effective, and it wouldn't be a "glaring weakness" on his part as so many incorrectly point out. I'm glad you brought up Bibby. Because he torched Fisher on a nightly basis! And that wasn't because Shaq couldn't cover the PNR. It was because Fisher got exposed. And so were the Lakers' PF's. That Kings team had good PF and PF play. It wasn't Vlade lighting them up! And who were the 2 players running the PNR? CWebb and Bibby. Is Shaq assigned to either of them? No. He was covering Vlade in the paint. When they did get a switch, of course Bibby was going to be a mismatch for Shaq. The guy is 6'3 and a buck 80. That's like asking Bibby to stop Shaq in the post on a switch! Same with Portland- it was Sheed and Stoudamire lighting them up, not Sabas. The PNR is designed to create mismatches, and Shaq covering a PG is a mismatch. Akeem and DRob could keep up, but they were both about 250lbs. Add 100 lbs to their frames and ask them to cover Tony Parker or Mike Bibby! I doubt they have any success.

And the Lakers sure were close to being eliminated. But what happened? Shaq stepped up in game 7 and lit them up! His defense (with an "S") was not atrocious. The LAKERS" defense was overall atrocious, and Webber and Bibby, the PG and PF, were the ones that lit the Lakers up. Again, expecting a 7'1, 340lb center to excel at covering players on the perimeter is about as logical as expecting a 6'0, 170lb PG to stop Shaq in the post!

[Dipper 13]

I think Shaq would have clowned Wilt like Eric Dampier because Shaq would know his mental advantage would get the better of him and cause negative effects in his performance.

Oh my. I never should have responded to begin with.

[MacGill]

I think Shaq would have clowned Wilt like Eric Dampier because Shaq would know his mental advantage would get the better of him and cause negative effects in his performance.

Oh my. I never should have responded to begin with.

Dipper how is that wrong? If Wilt and Shaq played like Russell and Wilt did do you believe they would be best friends or something? Shaq would do whatever to get top dog!

Look at even Shaq & Dwight, Chris Bosh and countless others and that should tell you what Shaq would do.

Wilt would only be Wilt to everyone else not named Shaq because Shaq largely would be looking at someone of similar stature and we all now Shaq wanted to play back seat to anyone. So would he do everything to take advantage 'Yes'.

Edit** To clarify, clowing means to make a mockery or fool out of' not that Shaq could handle Wilt like he did Dampier if that is how you took it.

More specific when he said 'Dampier would be a dominate center in the WNBA'.

It would be nice to actually get your opinion, minus all the newspaper clippings, as I feel you have some good perspective. But let's stop acting like Wilt couldn't be rivaled by one Shaquille O'Neal.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

You missed my entire point. Players like Akeem and Robinson had the quickness to cover the PNR, but they didn't have the mass that Shaq had either. That's the reason Shaq could back them down and cram it in their face, whereas they couldn't do the same to Shaq. Shaq's size was a blessing and a curse- it allowed him to overpower everyone that guarded him, but it dissallowed him to stay on the perimeter and cover quick guards. But my point was that even with his size issue, if he had decent defensive help at the PG spot, the play wouldn't have been as effective, and it wouldn't be a "glaring weakness" on his part as so many incorrectly point out.

No, not really. Shaq didn't have the feet and, more importantly, didn't even want to leave the paint and actually move them.
Yao did a better job than him becaus he was at least trying.
And I mentioned Bibby (the play was run also with Divac, anyway), but it was not the only situation I saw that (from Stooudamire with Sabonis to Nash with LaFrentz).
Obviously it doesn't mean Shaq's impact was negative, just that you must be ready for the other side of the coin and that there are plays that can be run againt him and that will be very effective.
Stupid who downplays his achievement because he was big, but using it as an excuse makes as little sense.

FWIW, I feel Wilt had the feet to defend the pnr

[Ryoga Hibiki]

Please don' forget that there like 35 years between the two, in that time there have been huge improvements as far as nutrition and training methods (and chemical help...).
Wilt had the bodytype to carry as uch weight as Shaq, but it's very hard to mantain it during the season and, anyway, he couldn' afford so many pounds in league running so much up and down.



anyway, I think Wilt's size as a Laker was very similar to Shaq's when in shape.

[jaypo]

Reason does not equal excuse. I gave you reasons as to why Shaq's teams got torched on the PNR. Obviously, Shaq's gonna get the blame for it because he's the marquis player (and the most hated on), but there were more reasons than just "Shaq sucked". I said before (and someone on a previous thread did a great write up about Shaq's mass prohibiting his mobility and "stop and go" speed) that his size was a blessing and a curse- it allowed him the physical advantage against defenders, but it prohibited him from being as mobile as, say, a KG. And he didn't want to leave the paint because it left the middle basically wide open. Remember, those teams had C's that could hit from 15-17 ft as well as perimeter oriented PF's like Sheed, KG, and CWebb that had range out to 20. So if Shaq is left to cover the PNR on the perimeter on the strong side and the PF is on the high post on the weak side, your front line is out guarding the perimeter. And that leaves the middle wide open. Shaq was a traditional CENTER. He guarded the paint, and he operated with his back to the basket. Why? Because that's what his physical abilities dictated for him. He never developed a 17 ft jumpshot because he didn't need to. He was not physically suited to cover 3's, 4's, and PG's on the perimeter, so he mainly stayed in the paint or close to it. As I said before, expecting him to excell at covering guards was about as rational as expecting Tony Parker to excel at defending Dwight Howard.

And yes, I now that Vlade ran a lot of screens with Bibby, but it wasn't Vlade that torched the Lakers!

[MacGill]

Please don' forget that there like 35 years between the two, in that time there have been huge improvements as far as nutrition and training methods (and chemical help...).
Wilt had the bodytype to carry as uch weight as Shaq, but it's very hard to mantain it during the season and, anyway, he couldn' afford so many pounds in league running so much up and down.



anyway, I think Wilt's size as a Laker was very similar to Shaq's when in shape.

What is posting a picture of Wilt, of what he looked like, near the end of his great career going to show especially against a man who was that size from the start of his career and grew even larger? There isn't a case here that Wilt was larger than Shaq, it is more around what some think his size did in limiting what some call unreached potential or how Wilt would have used this to Shaq's disadvantage.

And as for modern medicine? Sure, it's game & natural progression of course but these are all professional athletes we are talking about here. This thread already has clippings and testimonies of the suppossed superior centers played prior combined with their strength and size. Are we really going to think that Shaq wouldn't be able to obtain his Orlando size (at the very least when he truly didn't start mass building until LA) in Wilt's era because their weight lifting regime was inferior? It certainly worked for Wilt, or go back a few years earlier than his Lakers days and take a peek. Or maybe steriods and other PED didn't exist back then?

Don't let Arnold see this, he thinks he was all natural

[ahonui06]

Please don' forget that there like 35 years between the two, in that time there have been huge improvements as far as nutrition and training methods (and chemical help...).
Wilt had the bodytype to carry as uch weight as Shaq, but it's very hard to mantain it during the season and, anyway, he couldn' afford so many pounds in league running so much up and down.



anyway, I think Wilt's size as a Laker was very similar to Shaq's when in shape.

What is posting a picture of Wilt, of what he looked like, near the end of his great career going to show especially against a man who was that size from the start of his career and grew even larger? There isn't a case here that Wilt was larger than Shaq, it is more around what some think his size did in limiting what some call unreached potential or how Wilt would have used this to Shaq's disadvantage.

And as for modern medicine? Sure, it's game & natural progression of course but these are all professional athletes we are talking about here. This thread already has clippings and testimonies of the suppossed superior centers played prior combined with their strength and size. Are we really going to think that Shaq wouldn't be able to obtain his Orlando size (at the very least when he truly didn't start mass building until LA) in Wilt's era because their weight lifting regime was inferior? It certainly worked for Wilt, or go back a few years earlier than his Lakers days and take a peek. Or maybe steriods and other PED didn't exist back then?

Don't let Arnold see this, he thinks he was all natural

Shaq & Wilt are quite similar in body structure, however, Shaq had more of a winner's mentality. Wilt cared too much about individual achievements and stat padding than winning basketball games. This is why Bill Russell dominated Wilt and the rest of the league during their era.

Shaq used his size to his advantage and managed to win more titles than Wilt and also became the most dominant player in his era.

This is Shaq > Wilt.