Prime Wilt vs Prime Shaq

[JordansBulls]

Shaq is more explosive, bigger and stronger than Wilt.

Oh, how so?

The most unstoppable force in NBA history.

Anytime you average under 26 ppg in a series you were stopped.

[Silver Bullet]

Oh, how so?

The most unstoppable force in NBA history.

Anytime you average under 26 ppg in a series you were stopped.

uh. You have possibly the worst basketball sense out of any regular poster here.

so if a guy scores 26ppg on 100% shooting, he was stopped ?
What if he scores 26 ppg in 20 mins a game, because every game's a blowout ?
What is he has 26-26-5-5 ?
Scoring 26 ppg in a SA-Det series would be an accomplishment.
Scoring 26 ppg in a PHO-WAS series is a joke.

[writerman]

This may come as a surprise to the younger posters here on this board, but I remember some NBA games being broadcast on the 1960's. I was pretty young then, and I don't remember if they were taped, but I remember clearly seeing Elgin Baylor playing a the Knicks that had Walter Dukes as center. some games in which Oscar Robertson played, and another time seeing Zelmo Beaty with the Hawks, so some of those games were on (black and white) TV no later than 1962 in the case of Dukes and mid to late 60's with Beaty. Curiously, I don't recall seeing Wilt in that early era...I never saw Russell in person until later, but I saw Wilt in person against the old Royals several times, as my dad was a big Royals fan.

I'll be blunt. I don't think anyone who never saw Wilt in person has a clue as to just how good he was, and are IMO just not qualified to judge him/compare him to anyone, which makes the comments by guys like Jordans Bulls, Silver Bullet, and his other detractors just so much electronic white noise that usually I filter out these days. I will say this in their defense--he was so outrageously good that if I hadn't personally seen him, I might scoff as well. But OTOH, not having seen him in the flesh, a little humility might suit them better.

In sum, he wasn't just the greatest basketball player I ever saw, he was just plain the greatest athlete--and remember--when I saw him, he was the enemy, the baddest guy in my pantheon of devils, because he routinely toyed with my beloved Royals. I used to fume, angry watching poor Connie Dierking, Wayne Embry, Jerry Lucas, and other Royals bigs fruitlessly try to deal with him. I've seen the old clips as well, and for the most part they don't do him justice (and probably not most of the other old timers as well). And IMO, most of the anecdotes about him--about his strength in particular--as wild as some of them might seem, more often than not have much more than just a grain or two of truth in them.

[Silver Bullet]

This may come as a surprise to the younger posters here on this board, but I remember some NBA games being broadcast on the 1960's. I was pretty young then, and I don't remember if they were taped, but I remember clearly seeing Elgin Baylor playing a the Knicks that had Walter Dukes as center. some games in which Oscar Robertson played, and another time seeing Zelmo Beatty with the Hawks, so those games were on (black and white) no later than 1962 in the case of Dukes and mid to late 60's with Beatty. Curiously, I don't recall seeing Wilt in that early era...I never saw Russell in person until later, but I saw Wilt in person against the old Royals several times, as my dad was a big Royals fan.

I'll be blunt. I don't think anyone who never saw Wilt in person has a clue as to just how good he was, and are IMO just not qualified to judge him/compare him to anyone, which makes the comments by guys like Jordans Bulls, Silver Bullet, and his other detractors just so much electronic white noise that usually I filter out these days. I will say this in their defense--he was so outrageously good that if I hadn't personally seen him, I might scoff as well. But OTOH, not having seen him in the flesh, a little humility might suit them better.

In sum, he wasn't just the greatest basketball player I ever saw, he was just plain the greatest athlete--and remember--when I saw him, he was the enemy, the bad guy in my pantheon of devils, because he routinely toyed with my beloved Royals. I've seen the old clips as well, and for the most part they don't do him justice (and probably not most of the old timers as well). And IMO. most of the anecdotes about him--about his strength in particular--as wild as some of them might seem, more often than not have much more than just a grain or two of truth in them.

Okay, this probably has been covered before, but would you tell me why we are less qualified to judge him when:
1. We have seen numerous games of him on tape, which is no different than how you saw most of his games.
2. What is it about watching it in person a few times that makes you more qualified. I understand some of the arguments that can be presented, but I would like to hear your take on it.
3. Do you deny there is a childhood bias here i.e. everybody (not just you) naturally and without realizing it has a mental image of thier childhood heroes that is an exageration of reality. The best example would be this whole generation of Jordanaire media writers or the slightly older Magic, Bird worshippers.

[RogerMason]

Okay, this probably has been covered before, but would you tell me why we are less qualified to judge him when:
1. We have seen numerous games of him on tape, which is no different than how you saw most of his games.

Not one of his 40+ point games are on video tape(not just small clips but the whole game). That should pretty much end any sort of argument you think you have, because knowing that much shows that MOST OF HIS GAMES ARE NOT ON VIDEO TAPE, and most of the ones you've seen are from him playing in LA, after he had major knee surgery....and of the game 7 vs. boston before he hurt his knee, he was in such a bad relationship with his coach that he hardly tried and did not try to help his team win on the offensive end.

2. What is it about watching it in person a few times that makes you more qualified. I understand some of the arguments that can be presented, but I would like to hear your take on it.

Remember how people thought it was absolutely unbelievable that Kobe scored 81 points? Back then if you asked anyone they would tell you that it would be absolutely impossible for anyone to average 50 points a game and 26 rebounds a game in a season. The difference between now and then isn't simply the players or the game. It was the fact that Wilt could do that night in and night out. What's important when you're scoring a lot of points is your endurance and your shooting %. Wilt's shooting % and endurance were both far higher than Kobe throughout his career. Kobe had skills around the basket but he had to work for it, Wilt on the other hand could jump so high or shoot his fadeaway and hit it 50% of the time.

[Edited by mod]

[jaypo]

This may come as a surprise to the younger posters here on this board, but I remember some NBA games being broadcast on the 1960's. I was pretty young then, and I don't remember if they were taped, but I remember clearly seeing Elgin Baylor playing a the Knicks that had Walter Dukes as center. some games in which Oscar Robertson played, and another time seeing Zelmo Beaty with the Hawks, so some of those games were on (black and white) TV no later than 1962 in the case of Dukes and mid to late 60's with Beaty. Curiously, I don't recall seeing Wilt in that early era...I never saw Russell in person until later, but I saw Wilt in person against the old Royals several times, as my dad was a big Royals fan.

I'll be blunt. I don't think anyone who never saw Wilt in person has a clue as to just how good he was, and are IMO just not qualified to judge him/compare him to anyone, which makes the comments by guys like Jordans Bulls, Silver Bullet, and his other detractors just so much electronic white noise that usually I filter out these days. I will say this in their defense--he was so outrageously good that if I hadn't personally seen him, I might scoff as well. But OTOH, not having seen him in the flesh, a little humility might suit them better.

In sum, he wasn't just the greatest basketball player I ever saw, he was just plain the greatest athlete--and remember--when I saw him, he was the enemy, the baddest guy in my pantheon of devils, because he routinely toyed with my beloved Royals. I used to fume, angry watching poor Connie Dierking, Wayne Embry, Jerry Lucas, and other Royals bigs fruitlessly try to deal with him. I've seen the old clips as well, and for the most part they don't do him justice (and probably not most of the other old timers as well). And IMO, most of the anecdotes about him--about his strength in particular--as wild as some of them might seem, more often than not have much more than just a grain or two of truth in them.

Writerman- just because I never saw Jordan in person, even though I watched as many games as I could during his career, does that make my opinion of him invalid? Does it make me unqualified to speak about his greatness? I've never seen 99% of the people in the NBA, but that doesn't mean that I can't appreciate a Russell block to himself, or an Iceman finger roll, or a Pistol Pete (who I DID see in person when I was very young) no look pass. I don't doubt Wilt's greatness or athleticism. However, don't you think that just MAYBE his huge stats may have had something to do with the fact that he was dominating the likes of Connie Dierking, Wayne Embry, and Jerry Lucas? And if he was superhuman, could jump high enough to have his whole head over the white box on the backboard, could make change on the backboard, then why only 2 rings? Sure, he was in Russell's Celts era, but if he truly was superhuman like you guys make him out to be, that shouldn't matter. He played with some pretty good talent as well.

And to you, Rogermason, AKA Orak, AKA Darkjaws, how many times are you gonna get booted and create another login?? Don't you get the hint? (FYI-the fact that you call him "Silver_Nooblet" under all 3 aliases pretty much gave you away, brainiac!)

[kooldude]

writerman,

Didn't TLAF see Wilt live? either way, he's alot more credible in anything basketball than you, and pretty much refuted all your hyperboles either directly or indirectly at one point.

[TrueLAfan]

I did see Wilt live, but it was in his final years. I saw the Lakers live many times in the early 1970s. And, contrary to what a couple of people have posted at other times, Laker games were carried with some regularity on local TV...KTLA, Channel 5. It was awesome. Cheesy warm up music (bongo drums and a ball park organ), and an announcer (not Chick) saying "Laker Warmup!....With Chick Hearn!...and Keith Erickson!" Good stuff for a 9-10 year old. I met Wilt several times at various events after he retired, usually beach volleyball tournaments.

With regard to competition...first, leaving out the top Cs that made up a large percentage of Wilt's opponents isn't fair. And Connie Dierking and (especially) Wayne Embry were actually pretty good players. I mean, Connie Dierking was around 6'10" in shoes and weighed about 240. He was always an okay rebounder, but a terrible offensive player at first. Good position guy; heavy feet. The speed of the game hurt him...even though he wasn't super huge, he was kind of a lumbering guy. Later in his career, he discovered a jumper (a gift from Oscar) and, for a few years, was about an average C. Keep in mind that this means a pretty good C in 1968-70 was in a 11-14 team league that had Wilt, Russell, Kareem, Reed, and Unseld, among others. Wayne Embry? A wide C; the type of guy that gives physical players problems because of his low center of gravity. (He was not called "Wayne the Wall" because of his skill in the construction business.) Embry was a good scoring, physically tough player that made any player fight for position and points. Jerry Lucas? Jerry Lucas is most C's worst nightmare. first, he was completely annoying. Second, he was a great positional rebounder and a better help side defender than he gets credit for. Third, and most important, he had tremendous range, which meant you had to come out to 20 feet to guard him. The overall quality of Cs in the league from about 1962 until the beginning of the 80s was higher than it is now--often much higher.

Too much of this topic, as is becoming more and more typical, stems from an weird ideas about athleticism. Athleticism is way overrated on these boards. Not that Wilt was anything other than awesome in that regard--I personally think Wilt Chamberlain was the greatest athlete to play professional sports in the 20th Century--but athleticism at any level without a certain amount of skill is wasted. Wilt's skill level is a lot more important than how high he could jump. Look at it like this. How many players have such a complete skill set that they can be asked to completely overhaul their game for the good of the team--and have it work?

--In 1962, Wilt was asked to score more than anyone in history. He did, the team set a franchise record for wins, and lost a game 7 to the eventual champion Celtics on a terrible goaltending call by Boston Homer Mendy Rudolph.
--In 1967, Wilt was asked to reduce his scoring, up his D, and pass like no other C had done before (or has done since). He did, the team set an NBA record for wins, and won a title.
--In 1972, Wilt was asked to be a low but hyper-efficient scorer, be the best defensive player in the league, and key the fast break with his rebounding and outlet passes. He did, the team set an NBA record for wins, and won a title.

I don't know of any player who has been asked to change that to that extent, and was able to adjust so effectively. The fact that the teams were so successful speaks for itself. That's a matter of skills, not athleticism. I don't have any problem--as I noted earlier--saying Shaq is as stronger or stronger than Wilt, especially in lower body strength. But, as tsherkin and others have noted, Wilt's better skillset makes me give him the nod--with tremendous respect still going to Shaq.

[CatNation]

Probably Wilt, I've heard he has a 48 inch vertical.

[Silver Bullet]

I did see Wilt live, but it was in his final years. I saw the Lakers live many times in the early 1970s. And, contrary to what a couple of people have posted at other times, Laker games were carried with some regularity on local TV...KTLA, Channel 5. It was awesome. Cheesy warm up music (bongo drums and a ball park organ), and an announcer (not Chick) saying "Laker Warmup!....With Chick Hearn!...and Keith Erickson!" Good stuff for a 9-10 year old. I met Wilt several times at various events after he retired, usually beach volleyball tournaments.

With regard to competition...first, leaving out the top Cs that made up a large percentage of Wilt's opponents isn't fair. And Connie Dierking and (especially) Wayne Embry were actually pretty good players. I mean, Connie Dierking was around 6'10" in shoes and weighed about 240. He was always an okay rebounder, but a terrible offensive player at first. Good position guy; heavy feet. The speed of the game hurt him...even though he wasn't super huge, he was kind of a lumbering guy. Later in his career, he discovered a jumper (a gift from Oscar) and, for a few years, was about an average C. Keep in mind that this means a pretty good C in 1968-70 was in a 11-14 team league that had Wilt, Russell, Kareem, Reed, and Unseld, among others. Wayne Embry? A wide C; the type of guy that gives physical players problems because of his low center of gravity. (He was not called "Wayne the Wall" because of his skill in the construction business.) Embry was a good scoring, physically tough player that made any player fight for position and points. Jerry Lucas? Jerry Lucas is most C's worst nightmare. first, he was completely annoying. Second, he was a great positional rebounder and a better help side defender than he gets credit for. Third, and most important, he had tremendous range, which meant you had to come out to 20 feet to guard him. The overall quality of Cs in the league from about 1962 until the beginning of the 80s was higher than it is now--often much higher.

Too much of this topic, as is becoming more and more typical, stems from an weird ideas about athleticism. Athleticism is way overrated on these boards. Not that Wilt was anything other than awesome in that regard--I personally think Wilt Chamberlain was the greatest athlete to play professional sports in the 20th Century--but athleticism at any level without a certain amount of skill is wasted. Wilt's skill level is a lot more important than how high he could jump. Look at it like this. How many players have such a complete skill set that they can be asked to completely overhaul their game for the good of the team--and have it work?

--In 1962, Wilt was asked to score more than anyone in history. He did, the team set a franchise record for wins, and lost a game 7 to the eventual champion Celtics on a terrible goaltending call by Boston Homer Mendy Rudolph.
--In 1967, Wilt was asked to reduce his scoring, up his D, and pass like no other C had done before (or has done since). He did, the team set an NBA record for wins, and won a title.
--In 1972, Wilt was asked to be a low but hyper-efficient scorer, be the best defensive player in the league, and key the fast break with his rebounding and outlet passes. He did, the team set an NBA record for wins, and won a title.

I don't know of any player who has been asked to that to that extent, and was able to adjust so effectively. The fact that the teams were so successful speaks for itself. That's a matter of skills, not athleticism.

If the topic was Wilt on his own, then sure, athleticism and more importantly size wouldn't be as important as skill.
when the topic is Wilt vs Shaq, then strength, size and to a lesser extent standing reach, are far more important than skill, as in, would Wilt have the size and strength to keep Shaq from dunking at will. From what I have seen, there is nothing that would suggest that he had that kind of strength. The only support is anecdotal. Posters like you come in and tell us that we are naive to think that wilt wouldn't manhandle Shaq easily. Yet, the only evidence you can consistently produce is your own word. Some people insist that Wilt was a track star - well eventhough that is a stretch, even if we take it on face value, the mid-50's high school high jump records were pathetic. I mean a 6 ft 1 high jump is nothing extraordinary nowadays (and we know that Wilt didn't jump that high). My middle schools record in the early 90's was more than that.
Even if athelticism were irrelevant, the whole problem is one of credibility. Not one Wilt anecdote is backable by any sort of reasonable evidence.

[shawngoat23]

I mean a 6 ft 1 high jump is nothing extraordinary nowadays (and we know that Wilt didn't jump that high).

Yes, we know his high jump was 6 feet 8. This is officially documented, unless you want to call into question whether rulers and tape measures were really accurate 50 years ago.

And we know that it was done without a Fosbury flop.

[Dr Positivity]

There's (1/2) a full game of Wilt's on youtube. Game 4 67 vs Boston.

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=Wil ... &start=100

WiltatKansas is the best nba contributer on youtube... good stuff

[kooldude]

There's (1/2) a full game of Wilt's on youtube. Game 4 67 vs Boston.

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=Wil ... &start=100

WiltatKansas is the best nba contributer on youtube... good stuff

except it's all in spanish. haha

[writerman]

I did see Wilt live, but it was in his final years. I saw the Lakers live many times in the early 1970s. And, contrary to what a couple of people have posted at other times, Laker games were carried with some regularity on local TV...KTLA, Channel 5. It was awesome. Cheesy warm up music (bongo drums and a ball park organ), and an announcer (not Chick) saying "Laker Warmup!....With Chick Hearn!...and Keith Erickson!" Good stuff for a 9-10 year old. I met Wilt several times at various events after he retired, usually beach volleyball tournaments.

With regard to competition...first, leaving out the top Cs that made up a large percentage of Wilt's opponents isn't fair. And Connie Dierking and (especially) Wayne Embry were actually pretty good players. I mean, Connie Dierking was around 6'10" in shoes and weighed about 240. He was always an okay rebounder, but a terrible offensive player at first. Good position guy; heavy feet. The speed of the game hurt him...even though he wasn't super huge, he was kind of a lumbering guy. Later in his career, he discovered a jumper (a gift from Oscar) and, for a few years, was about an average C. Keep in mind that this means a pretty good C in 1968-70 was in a 11-14 team league that had Wilt, Russell, Kareem, Reed, and Unseld, among others. Wayne Embry? A wide C; the type of guy that gives physical players problems because of his low center of gravity. (He was not called "Wayne the Wall" because of his skill in the construction business.) Embry was a good scoring, physically tough player that made any player fight for position and points. Jerry Lucas? Jerry Lucas is most C's worst nightmare. first, he was completely annoying. Second, he was a great positional rebounder and a better help side defender than he gets credit for. Third, and most important, he had tremendous range, which meant you had to come out to 20 feet to guard him. The overall quality of Cs in the league from about 1962 until the beginning of the 80s was higher than it is now--often much higher.

Too much of this topic, as is becoming more and more typical, stems from an weird ideas about athleticism. Athleticism is way overrated on these boards. Not that Wilt was anything other than awesome in that regard--I personally think Wilt Chamberlain was the greatest athlete to play professional sports in the 20th Century--but athleticism at any level without a certain amount of skill is wasted. Wilt's skill level is a lot more important than how high he could jump. Look at it like this. How many players have such a complete skill set that they can be asked to completely overhaul their game for the good of the team--and have it work?

--In 1962, Wilt was asked to score more than anyone in history. He did, the team set a franchise record for wins, and lost a game 7 to the eventual champion Celtics on a terrible goaltending call by Boston Homer Mendy Rudolph.
--In 1967, Wilt was asked to reduce his scoring, up his D, and pass like no other C had done before (or has done since). He did, the team set an NBA record for wins, and won a title.
--In 1972, Wilt was asked to be a low but hyper-efficient scorer, be the best defensive player in the league, and key the fast break with his rebounding and outlet passes. He did, the team set an NBA record for wins, and won a title.

I don't know of any player who has been asked to that to that extent, and was able to adjust so effectively. The fact that the teams were so successful speaks for itself. That's a matter of skills, not athleticism.

If the topic was Wilt on his own, then sure, athleticism and more importantly size wouldn't be as important as skill.
when the topic is Wilt vs Shaq, then strength, size and to a lesser extent standing reach, are far more important than skill, as in, would Wilt have the size and strength to keep Shaq from dunking at will. From what I have seen, there is nothing that would suggest that he had that kind of strength. The only support is anecdotal. Posters like you come in and tell us that we are naive to think that wilt wouldn't manhandle Shaq easily. Yet, the only evidence you can consistently produce is your own word. Some people insist that Wilt was a track star - well eventhough that is a stretch, even if we take it on face value, the mid-50's high school high jump records were pathetic. I mean a 6 ft 1 high jump is nothing extraordinary nowadays (and we know that Wilt didn't jump that high). My middle schools record in the early 90's was more than that.
Even if athelticism were irrelevant, the whole problem is one of credibility. Not one Wilt anecdote is backable by any sort of reasonable evidence.

As I told another poster recently, it's just intellectually dishonest to discount across the board all the anecdotal data about Wilt's strength. There's so much of it it takes so much denial that the credibility of your denial is what becomes highly suspect. I mean, we're not talking about hieroglyphics painted on the walls of tombs in the Valley of the Kings, or inscribed on tablets in cuneiform dug up near ancient Babylon--we're talking first-person testimony by people still living who saw these things happen, and not just any schmos off the street, but people who spent their lifetimes involved with the game and who played it, coached it, and refereed it. People like the logo himself, Jerry West, to name just one of many.

So essentially it comes down to this: you are calling these people who, as I said above, spent all or significant portions of their lives in the game in some capacity, who knew Wilt, who played against or with him coached him, or were regularly in contact with him as a player, LIARS.

It takes a lot of hypocrisy and hell of a lot of brass to do that, especially since you never saw the man play other than in a few old clips. You are pushing your own biases against first-hand, expert commentary because what they say doesn't conform to what you want to believe, whatever your reasons may be.

[TrueLAfan]

Again--make your points, but do it without personal attacks on or gross misrepresentation of others. We're cracking down on overly aggressive and intolerant posters.

[NeilsCeltics]

Analytically speaking, the greater individual talent is Wilt Chamberlain. He can become a dominant defensive anchor in the mold of Bill Russell who shot a very high FG% and TS%, and he can become a dominant, gunner, in the mold of Shaquille O'Neal, dominating people on the glass, dunking on them, or shooting over the poor Centers with his fadeaways. He is the man who broke many records, he is the prototype Center who embodied what a true Center should be. Dominant on both sides of the floor, at all times. He could pass, he could rebound, he could defend, he could anchor, he could score, he could shoot, he could do it all. He is the perfect, Prototypical Center.

However, Wilt Chamberlain has weaknesses. He does not have killer instinct. He cannot read a situation, take over, and score at will, as in the examples of previous playoff games in which he lost, due to his assertiveness in the offensive end of the game. He does not demand the ball at crunch time. He does not defend jump shooting big men very well, he cannot defend the PnR as well as Russell could, and overall, he was a thinking player that relied more on his brains, than his instincts. He did not bully Russell enough in the paint, and he didn't want to win as much as Russell did. He was mentally soft too, failing at big games, and being defeated with HCA and having a superior team on his side to boot.

Shaquille O'Neal, individual talent wise, is slightly worse to Wilt Chamberlain, since he's not as quick, he's not as fast, and he's not as athletic, but that's no slight to Shaquille O'Neal, since he's very quick and fast for his size. He could not defend the PnR well. He cannot defend jump shooting Big Men well. He was not an instinctual defender. He cannot play in a fast paced team. He is weak at the open-court. He has to have a half-court team, filled with dominant roleplayers who can shoot, and a Swingman. He does not have a jump shot, and all he can do is dunk, his post-game, and tip-ins. He is not a skilled player. I admit it.

But he is the better player, due to killer instinct, superior mental toughness, and the ability to demand the ball on the crunch. He relished on dunking on his opponents, and dominating them. He never felt bad for the people he dominated. He could never be stopped, and the only person who stopped him was himself. You can only force his teammates to beat you.

Do you have more confidence in Wilt Chamberlain destroying your opposition, or do you have more confidence in Shaq? If you feel more confident that Wilt Chamberlain would not buckle down and give up, then I feel that you're wrong, since he's mentally soft. If Shaq was playing in my team, I would be totally confident in him, and his ability to win the game, as long as we role players played well. You don't have that feeling of assurance in Wilt Chamberlain.

For all you people who doubt Wilt Chamberlain's unholy athleticism, I tell you this.

We can safely say that Wilt Chamberlain weighed 250-300 pounds throughout his career. We can say that he had high endurance, as he often played 40-48 MPG. He's a 7'3 Center who had a 7'8 Wingspan and a 36' inch vertical. We can say that he's not foul-prone, and he's very careful on offense and defense, having a high amount of body control as to avoid fouling out. We can safely say that Wilt Chamberlain is perhaps, the greatest individual talent in the game, who broke many, many records, scoring 50+ points in a single season, and having the highest rebound rate of All-Time.

How can you call this guy an unathletic stiff who cannot perform his feats of "legend"? What does having a high number of scoring numbers and rebounding numbers tell you? What does his dominance tell you? Should we safely discount Wilt because he took advantage of his size, and ACTUALLY dominated his opposition at whim? What does playing a lot of MPG tell you? What does breaking many NBA and Basketball records tell you? What does all these compliments about Wilt tell you? If there was no record of his 50 point games, it's illegitimate, his scoring prowess? He lifted his scrub team onto the ECF and the Finals all by himself. He is the "God" of Basketball. He turns immediate teams to contenders.

Although, we can safely discount the feats of legend he "performed", we can still call him the greatest individual talent, athlete, and the greatest individual basketball player of All-Time.

Ignore the 48' inch vertical claims, ignore all these outrageous claims that people make about Wilt, and see him for what he is. A slightly superior athlete version of Shaquille O'Neal, who had no killer instinct. The greatest individual basketball player of All-Time who could not "perform" his feats of legend, like the 48 inch vertical, the 500 pound dead lift/weight lifting, etc, etc. Ignore those stuff.

Wilt Chamberlain is the better individual talent.

Shaquille O'Neal, is the better player, due to his killer instinct and his superior mental toughness. He demanded the ball in the clutch. He was unstoppable. He was mentally tough. He had the heart and killer instinct to win. He wanted to win. And winning is what matters in Basketball, and Shaquille O'Neal does it better than Wilt Chamberlain.

If he swapped places with Wilt, he would have probably broke the records Wilt made, and set up new ones of his own. He would have won more Championships, providing he had the elite Swing in Cunningham and Chet Walker.

I have done my piece.

P.S: If you value a Shaquille O'Neal with superior athleticism without killer instinct against the actual Shaquille O'Neal himself who had real killer instinct and mental toughness, and who will guarantee a double-double on ridiculously high FG% and TS%, then I feel that you should reassess your criteria, since it is obvious in many metrics that Shaq is the superior player, due to his mental and leadership edge.

[Silver Bullet]

I mean a 6 ft 1 high jump is nothing extraordinary nowadays (and we know that Wilt didn't jump that high).

Yes, we know his high jump was 6 feet 8. This is officially documented, unless you want to call into question whether rulers and tape measures were really accurate 50 years ago.

And we know that it was done without a Fosbury flop.

Source ?

[shawngoat23]

I mean a 6 ft 1 high jump is nothing extraordinary nowadays (and we know that Wilt didn't jump that high).

Yes, we know his high jump was 6 feet 8. This is officially documented, unless you want to call into question whether rulers and tape measures were really accurate 50 years ago.

And we know that it was done without a Fosbury flop.

Source ?

My bad, NBA.com says he jumped 6-6 to win the Big Eight high jump championship: http://www.nba.com/history/players/chamberlain_bio.html

He also jumped 6-6 in high school: http://www.sportingnews.com/archives/wilt/article3.html

I swear I've seen 6-8 somewhere. Maybe I got confused with Bill Russell, who qualified for the Olympic team in the high jump.

[writerman]

Analytically speaking, the greater individual talent is Wilt Chamberlain. He can become a dominant defensive anchor in the mold of Bill Russell who shot a very high FG% and TS%, and he can become a dominant, gunner, in the mold of Shaquille O'Neal, dominating people on the glass, dunking on them, or shooting over the poor Centers with his fadeaways. He is the man who broke many records, he is the prototype Center who embodied what a true Center should be. Dominant on both sides of the floor, at all times. He could pass, he could rebound, he could defend, he could anchor, he could score, he could shoot, he could do it all. He is the perfect, Prototypical Center.

However, Wilt Chamberlain has weaknesses. He does not have killer instinct. He cannot read a situation, take over, and score at will, as in the examples of previous playoff games in which he lost, due to his assertiveness in the offensive end of the game. He does not demand the ball at crunch time. He does not defend jump shooting big men very well, he cannot defend the PnR as well as Russell could, and overall, he was a thinking player that relied more on his brains, than his instincts. He did not bully Russell enough in the paint, and he didn't want to win as much as Russell did. He was mentally soft too, failing at big games, and being defeated with HCA and having a superior team on his side to boot.

Shaquille O'Neal, individual talent wise, is slightly worse to Wilt Chamberlain, since he's not as quick, he's not as fast, and he's not as athletic, but that's no slight to Shaquille O'Neal, since he's very quick and fast for his size. He could not defend the PnR well. He cannot defend jump shooting Big Men well. He was not an instinctual defender. He cannot play in a fast paced team. He is weak at the open-court. He has to have a half-court team, filled with dominant roleplayers who can shoot, and a Swingman. He does not have a jump shot, and all he can do is dunk, his post-game, and tip-ins. He is not a skilled player. I admit it.

But he is the better player, due to killer instinct, superior mental toughness, and the ability to demand the ball on the crunch. He relished on dunking on his opponents, and dominating them. He never felt bad for the people he dominated. He could never be stopped, and the only person who stopped him was himself. You can only force his teammates to beat you.

Do you have more confidence in Wilt Chamberlain destroying your opposition, or do you have more confidence in Shaq? If you feel more confident that Wilt Chamberlain would not buckle down and give up, then I feel that you're wrong, since he's mentally soft. If Shaq was playing in my team, I would be totally confident in him, and his ability to win the game, as long as we role players played well. You don't have that feeling of assurance in Wilt Chamberlain.

For all you people who doubt Wilt Chamberlain's unholy athleticism, I tell you this.

We can safely say that Wilt Chamberlain weighed 250-300 pounds throughout his career. We can say that he had high endurance, as he often played 40-48 MPG. He's a 7'3 Center who had a 7'8 Wingspan and a 36' inch vertical. We can say that he's not foul-prone, and he's very careful on offense and defense, having a high amount of body control as to avoid fouling out. We can safely say that Wilt Chamberlain is perhaps, the greatest individual talent in the game, who broke many, many records, scoring 50+ points in a single season, and having the highest rebound rate of All-Time.

How can you call this guy an unathletic stiff who cannot perform his feats of "legend"? What does having a high number of scoring numbers and rebounding numbers tell you? What does his dominance tell you? Should we safely discount Wilt because he took advantage of his size, and ACTUALLY dominated his opposition at whim? What does playing a lot of MPG tell you? What does breaking many NBA and Basketball records tell you? What does all these compliments about Wilt tell you? If there was no record of his 50 point games, it's illegitimate, his scoring prowess? He lifted his scrub team onto the ECF and the Finals all by himself. He is the "God" of Basketball. He turns immediate teams to contenders.

Although, we can safely discount the feats of legend he "performed", we can still call him the greatest individual talent, athlete, and the greatest individual basketball player of All-Time.

Ignore the 48' inch vertical claims, ignore all these outrageous claims that people make about Wilt, and see him for what he is. A slightly superior athlete version of Shaquille O'Neal, who had no killer instinct. The greatest individual basketball player of All-Time who could not "perform" his feats of legend, like the 48 inch vertical, the 500 pound dead lift/weight lifting, etc, etc. Ignore those stuff.

Wilt Chamberlain is the better individual talent.

Shaquille O'Neal, is the better player, due to his killer instinct and his superior mental toughness. He demanded the ball in the clutch. He was unstoppable. He was mentally tough. He had the heart and killer instinct to win. He wanted to win. And winning is what matters in Basketball, and Shaquille O'Neal does it better than Wilt Chamberlain.

If he swapped places with Wilt, he would have probably broke the records Wilt made, and set up new ones of his own. He would have won more Championships, providing he had the elite Swing in Cunningham and Chet Walker.

I have done my piece.

P.S: If you value a Shaquille O'Neal with superior athleticism without killer instinct against the actual Shaquille O'Neal himself who had real killer instinct and mental toughness, and who will guarantee a double-double on ridiculously high FG% and TS%, then I feel that you should reassess your criteria, since it is obvious in many metrics that Shaq is the superior player, due to his mental and leadership edge.

I'll agree that Wilt maybe didn't have the go-for-the-jugular spirit of a Larry Bird, but he was highly competitive, but that competitiveness was situational, not constant. Wilt generally played his best against the best.

To me, the biggest rap on O'Neal is that he never consistently played anywhere near the level of competition that Wilt did at the five. He saw a 'Zo or Hakeem or anyone remotely near his level not nearly as often or regularly as Wilt faced a Russell, a Thurmond, A Bellamy, a Reed, a Kareem, an Unseld, etc., etc., let alone a dynasty like the Russell Celtics. Shaq was also--let's be honest--a lazy SOB who gave his best only when (rarely) motivated to do so. He coasted, malingered, and sandbagged more consistently than any top big man in the history of the game. He's a big, strong guy, but despite tsherkin's rhapsodizing about the athleticism of young Shaq, I've never been overly impressed. He's never carried a team like Wilt carried the '67 Philly team, and I don't think he is or ever was capable of it. So much for his supposed leadership advantage.

Shaq's got what--three rings? One more than Wilt, in an overall more diluted league with proportionately many fewer quality bigs to oppose him than Wilt faced. Not that impressive, considering he has played with another superstar at every stop--Penny, Kobe, Wade, Nash, and now James.

Shaq may be more aggressive, but IMO it's the aggressiveness of the oaf. I dispute any suggestion that Wilt's B-ball IQ wasn't several cuts above Shaq's

[ronnymac2]

^^^^Writerman, I agree that Wilt's actual basketball iq was amazing when it came to technical basketball things like reading the defense, reading when cutters would be open, etc. I've watched some full Wilt games, and I've seen him catch the ball inside, scan the defense, and make the correct plays. No doubt he was good at the technical aspect of the game.

He had a poor feel for the game though. He didn't know WHEN to shift gears during a game. He didn't say "hey guys, get me the ball, I'll take you to victory". That's important.

Wilt does have more natural ability and athleticism. Shaq is a better big-game performer and is better at reading when to play within the flow of the game and when to dominate.