Prime Wilt vs Prime Shaq

[writerman]

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.

[tsherkin]

A matchup of titans, to be sure.

I think Shaq would score just fine on Wilt in single coverage. Wilt in his physical prime resembled a slightly larger D-Rob in dimensions, and Shaq was stuffing on Robinson pretty easily, despite Robinson's aggressive shot-blocking skills and strength. Of course, D-Rob was diligently scoring all over Shaq, so it'd be interesting.

Wilt takes this in the end because of his superior D and passing, but I think prime Wilt would be tossing out 22/18/6 lines on Shaq, while Diesel would be tossing 30/11/4 on higher scoring efficiency. For me, it's mainly the defense and rebounding that elevate Wilt, because the passing ultimately evens out Wilt's contributions on offense. Tough, tight match but Wilt was capable of functioning basically from 15 feet and in at an excellent level of production, and his two-way play was better.

[cmw17]

Wilt would make absolute mincemeat of Shaq. Biggest mismatch EVER.

Wilt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Shaq

anyone who thinks different is a Fu ckin idiot

[Silver Bullet]

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.

I have seen the games myself. Why then would I go by "credible" sources ? Do you know what intellectual means ? It certainly doesn't imply reading credible sources.

[shawngoat23]

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.

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

[trk]

Wilt was more dominant than Shaq and should be rated higher as an all-time great, but the level of play in the NBA has risen a lot since the 1960's. Modern players are on average bigger, stronger, and more athletic than the players that were around back then. If they had to play each other, prime Shaq would beat prime Wilt.

[DaRkJaWs42]

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?

[shawngoat23]

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?

I apologize then. I thought you were trying to lump Warspite in with a younger generation of fans that draw conclusions based on how the one or two YouTube videos they've seen without accounting for the stylistic differences of the game.

I still think you're a bit over the top with your mancrush for Wilt though.

[tsherkin]

Er...

[nolunch]

Shaq is more explosive, bigger and stronger than Wilt.

[JordansBulls]

Shaq is more explosive, bigger and stronger than Wilt.

Oh, how so?

[Asianiac_24]

Prime Wilt is better than anyone the league has ever seen in any given year. So Wilt

[Dr Positivity]

It'll be interesting to see where Shaq is placed on ATLs in 15 years. I actually wouldn't be surprised if there's people putting him as an arguable 2nd. Nowadays that sounds like blasphemy, but I expect "prime Shaq" to become even more of a folk legend in time. There's already a large contigent who agrees he was at a GOAT level in the early 00s and as we've seen with Hakeem, you are commonly ranked by your peak. If you factor in big over small, stats reliance, nostalgia, and 17 yr. olds in 2025 trying to pump their cred by favoring older players, and Shaq could get really up there

[jaypo]

Actually, I find that the 17 yr olds pump their cred by loving on the Kobes, Lebrons, Wades of the NBA. Because those guys are fun and dunk a lot. They don't respect someone like Bird that was white, non atheletic, couldn't jump, but still one of the most unstoppable players ever.

Of course Shaq's status will ascend after he retires. One reason is that people that are watching him play now see the old, slow Shaq and try to merge this Shaq with the Shaq in his prime. They say he NEVER could play defense and only relied on offensive fouls to score. They fail to remember the Shaq that would run the break. The Shaq that would come from the weak side and throw the ball into the cheap seats when blocking a shot. They fail to remember the spin move that would leave the likes of Drob, Zo, Deke, Ewing, and even the great Akeem sucking hind tit. So in 15 years, people won't remember the Shaq from 2007 forward. Because up til 2006, he was doing fine. When he got hurt in Miami, his numbers suffered a lot and his production slipped. Sort of like Akeem. When he was playing, I don't remember many people making a huge fuss about him or claiming him to be a very dominant player. Now, all I hear on these boards is that he is above the likes of Shaq and Duncan on the GOAT lists. I predict the same thing with Shaq. In 15 years, the memory of 2007 will be gone. People will focus on his Orlando years and championship years and remember how no one could come close to stopping him. They'll remember his insane finals #'s and point to his place on the all time stats lists. Then his value will be accurate.

[TrueLAfan]

Mmm…maybe yes, maybe no.

The problem with this is that Shaq had a great period with Orlando—and then a great period with L.A. But in between and after, he was lazy and out of condition. And in the Orlando period, he was not clearly the best C in the league and didn’t win any rings. Doesn’t mean he wasn’t great…but it’s hard to elevate him for the Orlando period without lifting Hakeem and Drob to the same level. So I think his calling card will remain the Laker peak…even though I’m not at all convinced Shaq was much, if any, better then. I’ve mentioned this in other threads…Shaq was also very public and vocal about non-basketball activities and his lack of conditioning was obvious at times. He missed games in bunches. I think that will be remembered as well—and nobody ever accused Wilt, Kareem, Hakeem, DRob, Moses, etc. of being distracted and/or being fat. I think Shaq will stay where he is; a top 10 player…the only way he moves higher is to have another borderline awesome year and score another ring. And even that may not do it.

[ronnymac2]

I can't wait until Shaq retires and 10 years pass. He's my favorite player, but even I see him being overrated at times now. Imagine what will happen when time passes and everybody will just remember peak/prime Shaq as literally unstoppable no matter what. I'LL have to tell people to calm down. lol

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]

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.

[ronnymac2]

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.

True, but I don't see the people who give older players a pass as being extremists. I just see them as being inconsistent and/or uninformed. Their POV is also aided by the fact that they get to see more modern players play more (due to the media, espn, and now league pass, too), and thus can more easily see flaws in players. Another thing is that most haven't see enough of the older players to see their flaws.

Wilt Chamberlain, even at his best on defense, still didn't come out to defend shootering centers or slashers off the pick-n-roll. Yet people today claim he was a Russellesque defender simply because some people back then said so. Don't get me wrong, Wilt in his Laker years was likely a top 7 all-time defensive anchor. He was never as good as Russell as his best, and I'd fairly easily take Hakeem and Robinson in their defensive primes as well. Maybe a few others, too. The point is, observers aren't always right. People today make dumb claims about current players. People back then made dumb claims as well. So people today hear those claims about older players, and they aren't critical and think those players had no flaws in their games (or off the court, for that matter).

As to the extremists who think West couldn't play today....I just ignore them. In 20 years, they'll think Dwight was an unathletic stiff. lol

[Orak]

I think it's appropriate to say Wilt was the best shot blocker of all time, but shot blocking by itself doesn't equal defense...because in terms of Wilt's help defense I have also heard that he wasn't that good. One on one defense, however, he was the best of all time.

But I think Wilt during his 76ers years was every bit the defender that Russell was.

[nolunch]

Shaq is more explosive, bigger and stronger than Wilt.

Oh, how so?

The most unstoppable force in NBA history.