RealGM

NewYiddy37 wrote:Tim Duncan can lift 600, I know you know that..

PimpORL wrote:or maybe Wilt wasn't really all that great

Warspite wrote:bench press has very little to do with arm strength: its a measure of pectoral strength
Curling has nothing to do with wrist strength: Its a measure of bicep strength.

Neither is a indicator of basketball ability.

DaRkJaWs42 wrote:

PimpORL wrote:or maybe Wilt wasn't really all that great

or you're 100% wrong.

Get out.

TAI8 wrote:

Warspite wrote:bench press has very little to do with arm strength: its a measure of pectoral strength
Curling has nothing to do with wrist strength: Its a measure of bicep strength.

Neither is a indicator of basketball ability.

Pretty much, although I'd like to add your anterior delts and tri's play a minor role in it.

DaRkJaWs42 wrote:I spoke to a source by phone that used to work out with him in the same facility in LA back in the 90s. I asked this source whether Wilt could bench 500 lbs, he said no and told me he didn't believe to the best of his recollection that Wilt's bench was anything special(and that it wasn't his type of workout), so then I asked, not even 450? He said, nah nah, with relative certainty, but he could be wrong...I just need to find a source at either Stanford University gymnasium or even Arnold S. himself. Anyhow, so then the question arose to me, why was Wilt seen as such a dominant creature at the time?

The answer lies with his wrist curling ability. According to this same source(who worked out heavily and who could himself bench 525 pounds at one time), he was absolutely in awe with how much Wilt could curl. He said that he could "easily" curl 125 lbs, and that he could probably do more. This explains a lot of things. 1)why anyone who tried to dunk his hand through the basket NEVER COULD, 2)how he could easily maneuver people out of his way with his hand/wrist strength alone, 3)how he could slam the ball so hard and cause it to bounce with such ferociousness, and how he dislocated a player's shoulder in 1967 by blocking his shot and sending him to the floor(still the only time someone has ever had his shoulder dislocated by a block), etc etc. In fact, he would purposedly slam the ball down gently most of the time because he was afraid he would break someone's wrist eventually. I could go on, but I think you all get the picture. I always assumed it was in his arms, which hell, there may have been that too, but his wrist strength really brings me to understand why people feared him so much. And don't get me wrong, he still had a lot of upper body strength.

So my question arises, does Shaq or any other bball player have the wrist strength Wilt had? If Shaq didn't and still doesn't, who would manhandle who? Someone with a lot more weight on his body like Shaq, or someone who would easily be able to block shaq and prevent him from ever getting a shot off?

Shaqsquatch wrote:

TAI8 wrote:

Warspite wrote:bench press has very little to do with arm strength: its a measure of pectoral strength
Curling has nothing to do with wrist strength: Its a measure of bicep strength.

Neither is a indicator of basketball ability.

Pretty much, although I'd like to add your anterior delts and tri's play a minor role in it.

Although I dont agree with the op's post. The triceps play a major role in the bench press. Some bench pressers are triceps strong and some are chest strong.....the top guys are usually both. I was triceps strong...but never really got that far past the 400 lbs. mark.

Warspite wrote:bench press has very little to do with arm strength: its a measure of pectoral strength
Curling has nothing to do with wrist strength: Its a measure of bicep strength.

RoyceDa59 wrote:With the evolution of the modern athlete, Wilt would be a pretty solid back-up to someone like Shaq or Duncan in today's league. He just wouldn't be able to sustain a high level of play for an extended period of time against these modern day athletes. A guy like Shaq or Duncan is just so much more athletic, skilled and fit than Wilt. I still think he'd be a good player today, just not on the same level as Howard or Duncan.

The problem with Wilt is that he was so far beyond normal that it's easy to dismiss what is said. Some people are trying to do that. But things like Wilt picking pennies off backboards...Wilt did that with the Globies. Literally hundreds of thousands of people saw it. Johnny Kerr's broken toe--that was a well-documented play too. So was Wilt dislocating Gus Johnson shoulder by blocking his shot. Wilt playing in a pickup game in 1980 and getting mad about the cheap fouls and, literally, rejecting every shot after that...Magic was in that game, and he was blown away. Larry Brown was there. Wilt was in his mid-40s at the time. And, of course, my favorite...the free throws. Jordan and Dr. J are famous for their dunks where they took off behind the free throw line. When Wilt went to Kansas, his coach said he make every free throw because he shot them all that way. Think about that. If it was one or two stories, you'd dismiss them. But there are too many, and too many are well documented.

The things...the stories don;'t make Wilt a better ball player. They make him more cartoonish, and easier to (foolishly) put down...as Lakers05 and Silver Bullet have attempted to do. Lying about statistics and claiming that guy who was universally known as the strongest guy and fastest guy in the league only had "long legs" is somewhere between silly and pathetic. They're the equivalent of people who think Wilt would score 80 or 90 a game now because of the less violent interior play and the lack of quality big men. They're the extremists.

In general, I'm a moderate on these types of questions...and since I never actually answered this one, I'll do it now.

1. Wilt would play a lot. He'd lead the league in minutes played every year. I don't think he'd play 48 minutes a game. 45 isn't out of the realm of possibility. I think he'd be around 43-45 minutes a game.
2. The slower pace and less violent nature of the game would benefit Wilt from a physical/defensive standpoint. Wilt came into the league at around 260. He was between 280 and 290 in his Philadelphia years, and over 300 with the Lakers. I think he'd be most effective at around 300 today.
3. Wilt's assists would go up significantly. More assist are given out per basket made now. The three has spread the court. Wilt would take advantage of that.
4. The caliber of opposition would benefit Wilt. The average C in the mid 60s was someone like Zelmo Beaty. The average C now is someone like Erick Dampier.
5. The zone and slow pace would hurt Wilt considerably on offense. A huge benefit of playing in the 60s and on the 70s Lakers teams was that Wilt--with his speed and on fast break teams--often got the ball before defenses had time to set up. That would be the case much less frequently now, and it would cut down on touches, and...
6. Frighteningly, Wilt would go to the line even more now. I figure teams would be willing to accept free throws from The Big Dipper rather than letting him get the ball five feet form the basket.
7. Wilt would shoot slightly better. Less violent interior play and fouls called on shots that, previously, would have been let go would mean more high percentage shots.
8. Wilt would be an ungodly shot blocker. He and Russell, by reputation, were the best shot blockers of their era. Wilt remains the only person I've seen block the skyhook twice in a row...and that was when Wilt was old. 4 blocks per game is probably low.
9. Wilt would be a better defender. Follow the logic. Slower pace + Wilt's speed and quickness + Wilt's size and shot blocking ability + more interior space resulting from spread offenses.
10. Wilt's rebound rate would be the same. It's a great stat. Wilt would be around 20.3 or 20.4.

In numbers. I figure that Wilt would get about 19-20 FGA per game...more or less what Shaq got. That takes care of pace adjustment right there. Between 1966 and 1971, Wilt took 17 shots a game and shot 58%. Make it 18.5 shots and 60%. Over an 82 game seasons--and I think it goes without saying that Wilt would play every game--that makes him 910-1517. From 1966 to 1971, Wilt averaged 10.7 FTA per game. But, like I said, he'd go to the line more. I'll put him at 12 FTA per game. And, sadly, at 51.1%. So, for the season...503-984. And I guarantee that Wilt Chamberlain would make a three pointer every year. Just to show he could. He loved to have long distance shooting contests in practice. For the year, make him 5-22 from three...not a good percentage, but enough to show that he could do it. Sounds like Wilt. In his last 10 years, he averaged 5.3 assists. If he was on a team without a good PG, I could see him getting over 7 assists without a problem. But, on average, I'd put him between 5.5 and 6. So...471 assists.

I'll be conservative, and have Wilt play 43.8 minutes per game. That's a smidge more than he played in his final two seasons, when he had some serious wear on him. 3592 minutes in the season. And, well, I'm going to be conservative again and say 325 blocks. Rebound rate of 20.35 gives him 1249 rebounds.

So there you have it. He'd have a line of


Code: Select all
G MIN FG/FGA FT/FTA 3PM/3PA PTS REB AST BLK
82 3592 910-1517 503-984 5-22 2328 1249 471 325

MPG FG% FT% 3p% PPG RPG APG BPG
43.8 .600 .511 .227 28.4 15.2 5.7 4.0

I imagine that, if he wanted to or was called to, Wilt could score more. Or less, and increase his passing numbers. That's a kind of "mid-style" estimate. Taking that many shots a game, I figure Wilt would also be the best defensive player in the league.

It looks a lot like a better passing, better defending, and slightly better rebounding Shaq that can stay on the court longer. And that sounds more or less correct.