Oscar/Kareem vs West/Wilt

[JordansBulls]

Seeing that both duos actually existed and both won titles, which duo would you rather have?

[shawngoat23]

West > Oscar
Wilt > Kareem

When the Buck duo existed, Kareem was in his prime, but Oscar was tailing off. When the Laker duo existed, both were a bit past their primes, but West was still going strong, and Wilt was still arguably better than Kareem.

[PDXKnight]

West/Wilt.

[Point forward]

I took West and Wilt. Post-prime West was the WAAAAAY better defender than post-prime Oscar (remember, when the Celtics won the ring vs the Bucks, JoJo White ran circles around Big O) and young Kareem was a bit better than old Wilt, but post-prime-one-knee Wilt was quite equal in the 1971 and 1972 Lakers-Bucks series. Also, Wilt was a bad matchup for Kareem, because Wilt was physically stronger than Kareem and could actually block the skyhook (!!).

[ronnymac2]

i take wilt and west. Wilt in those laker years was as dominant on defense as anybody, ever. You could still run an offense through him because of 1. he could still score with great fg% 2. offensive rebounding 3. start the o up with great d,rebounding, and outlet passes 4. facilitate with high-post passing in the half-court. As important as Kareem was to the bucks, Wilt was probably close in importance to the lakers, and if not, they are equal. Obvuously west over big o at that stage of their careers. Oscar was probably more efficient and more of a team player than he previously was, but west was still at his best, played better defense (great defense) and was clutch. Wilt and west.

[Luv those Knicks]

One of the Knocks on Oscar was that he wasn't a great team player. I've never heard that said about West.

I'd go with West/Wilt too.