Why do people keep saying Bill Russell is of the GOATs?

[SkyHookFTW]

This loose ball foul on Russell vs Chaberlain at 1 minute 13 seconds just looks so minor
1964 finals. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ti2Ncll2K64" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
On second look maybe that little arm hook by Russel would be called in another era but the fouls are definitely called very tightly.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=m188YsgQCXQ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Same game, longer segment but in spanish
I do feel like the 2014 Spurs given a year to adjust to the 1964 refs would blow out either of these teams.
Russell and Chamberlain don't help themselves look like the GOAT in these films.

Most people don't make an opinion based off of a sample size of 15 minutes of old game film. That arm hook pulled Wilt back, so I think it's more than just minor, and I'm sure it gets called today. When you talk to most people they will tell you that the game was rather physical back then. Should I base LeBron's career on a night his team gets blown out by 29 points, like it did last week?

Of course the 2014 Spurs beat either team, but not because Russell or Wilt or the other starters aren't good (watch the whole second half and check out some of the passing). Teams today from the 7th-12th man down the bench are simply better, as the average NBA player today is better than the average NBA player of the early 60's. Still, there were outlier teams. I don't think the 2014 Spurs beat the '67 Sixers and would have a very hard time against the '72 Lakers. But as I stated, these are outliers. Some still consider the 1967 team as the best ever.

I have watched a lot of 1960s film, but still not enough 1960s film. I see one game from a playoff series and I want to see the other games from the series but they are not online. It seems that after I have seen the few widely circulated films finding more more films is going to be like searching for hidden treasure.

On the 1964 Celtics I am not convinced Sanders and Ramsey were really good players. Havlicek is clearly a quality player but he was a very erratic shooter. Out of Havlicek's long career he only had a few good shooting years in terms of efficiency. 1960s Havlicek would not been given the green light to shoot from the outside during the 1980's to present.

I like Guy Rodgers on the Warriors but like Havlicek his shooting was too erratic.

I watched the 1967 76ers. I think the Spurs beat them as well.
I would like to see more of the 1967 76ers but finding the videos is not so easy. I am not sure that Hal Greer and Chet Walker are all that special.

I appreciated what Lucious Jackson did in the film that I watched a few times. Jackson is a big strong somewhat mobile man, but that does not mean that Jackson was as good as Clifford Rozier. I really thought Rozier would be a quality player.

Most people will say the game was more physical back in the 1960s but look at the film, most people are wrong. most People think Larry Bird was a small forward just because McHale is clearly not a small forward; but most people are wrong. the Celtics played 2 power forwards. Bird rarely defended small forwards.

Most people being wrong is not uncommon. We repeat what we hear.

The 1967 76ers are considered by many to be the best team ever for a reason, and that reason is not because they were unathletic. Hal Greer was one of the best, if not the best midrange shooter of his day, and would have been able to adjust to the 3-point line just fine. Add his speed and strength and you have a HoFer, which is what he is. There is no one on the Spurs, or in the history of the NBA, who is or was the pure athletic physical man that Wilt was. The Spurs have no one to match up against him. No one, period. Luke Jackson is the original power forward, the big 4 who would have been a shoo-in for the HoF if injuries didn't take him down. Wilt and Jackson together are a match-up horror story. He played very well within the context of the team game. For those who don't know his size, think Karl Malone. Jackson was 6'9", 250-260 with good mobility and quickness--and very physical. Hell, HoFer Billy Cunningham was the 6th man on that team, and most people know how good he was. Wali Jones was good, but not great. He got the job done and had nights where he could put the ball in the net from anywhere. Chet Walker (HoFer, 7-time all-star) was a speedy slasher with length who would do well in today's game, as there is always a place for that type of player. Everyone on that team could play defense. Three players from that team went on to coach in the NBA, so you have a team with basketball IQ as well. The Sixer bench went down to the 9th man (Matt Guokas, Larry Costello, and Bill Melchionni all contributed), so it wasn't a team of starters and dreck riding the pine.

In a seven game series, the 76ers take it in five. I've seen both teams play in person. I have no doubt.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

The 1967 76ers are considered by many to be the best team ever for a reason, and that reason is not because they were unathletic. Hal Greer was one of the best, if not the best midrange shooter of his day, and would have been able to adjust to the 3-point line just fine. Add his speed and strength and you have a HoFer, which is what he is. There is no one on the Spurs, or in the history of the NBA, who is or was the pure athletic physical man that Wilt was. The Spurs have no one to match up against him. No one, period. Luke Jackson is the original power forward, the big 4 who would have been a shoo-in for the HoF if injuries didn't take him down. Wilt and Jackson together are a match-up horror story. He played very well within the context of the team game. For those who don't know his size, think Karl Malone. Jackson was 6'9", 250-260 with good mobility and quickness--and very physical. Hell, HoFer Billy Cunningham was the 6th man on that team, and most people know how good he was. Wali Jones was good, but not great. He got the job done and had nights where he could put the ball in the net from anywhere. Chet Walker (HoFer, 7-time all-star) was a speedy slasher with length who would do well in today's game, as there is always a place for that type of player. Everyone on that team could play defense. Three players from that team went on to coach in the NBA, so you have a team with basketball IQ as well. The Sixer bench went down to the 9th man (Matt Guokas, Larry Costello, and Bill Melchionni all contributed), so it wasn't a team of starters and dreck riding the pine.

In a seven game series, the 76ers take it in five. I've seen both teams play in person. I have no doubt.

You have seen the teams in person. But I think you may be romanticising the 1967 76ers. Chet Walker looked like a modern player but not like a modern all star. I don't see the team speed. I don't see the great shooters. Greer may have been a great shooter for his era but not a great shooter. Goukas was accurate if he could get open which was easier when playing next to Nate Archibald later in his career. This is pre prime for Goukas and Cunningham.

Why was Jackson only a 42% shooter for his career.

I know we have the shoe height lies now but there was some height lying in the 1960s as well. On paper the team has no size other than Chamberlain and Jackson.

[SkyHookFTW]

The 1967 76ers are considered by many to be the best team ever for a reason, and that reason is not because they were unathletic. Hal Greer was one of the best, if not the best midrange shooter of his day, and would have been able to adjust to the 3-point line just fine. Add his speed and strength and you have a HoFer, which is what he is. There is no one on the Spurs, or in the history of the NBA, who is or was the pure athletic physical man that Wilt was. The Spurs have no one to match up against him. No one, period. Luke Jackson is the original power forward, the big 4 who would have been a shoo-in for the HoF if injuries didn't take him down. Wilt and Jackson together are a match-up horror story. He played very well within the context of the team game. For those who don't know his size, think Karl Malone. Jackson was 6'9", 250-260 with good mobility and quickness--and very physical. Hell, HoFer Billy Cunningham was the 6th man on that team, and most people know how good he was. Wali Jones was good, but not great. He got the job done and had nights where he could put the ball in the net from anywhere. Chet Walker (HoFer, 7-time all-star) was a speedy slasher with length who would do well in today's game, as there is always a place for that type of player. Everyone on that team could play defense. Three players from that team went on to coach in the NBA, so you have a team with basketball IQ as well. The Sixer bench went down to the 9th man (Matt Guokas, Larry Costello, and Bill Melchionni all contributed), so it wasn't a team of starters and dreck riding the pine.

In a seven game series, the 76ers take it in five. I've seen both teams play in person. I have no doubt.

You have seen the teams in person. But I think you may be romanticising the 1967 76ers. Chet Walker looked like a modern player but not like a modern all star. I don't see the team speed. I don't see the great shooters. Greer may have been a great shooter for his era but not a great shooter. Goukas was accurate if he could get open which was easier when playing next to Nate Archibald later in his career. This is pre prime for Goukas and Cunningham.

Why was Jackson only a 42% shooter for his career.

I know we have the shoe height lies now but there was some height lying in the 1960s as well. On paper the team has no size other than Chamberlain and Jackson.

While the guards were small, they were good to excellent defenders. Walker was 6'6" or 6'7" and Cunningham 6'7" or 6'8", which is about right by today's standards for small forwards. Both were quick and good jumpers and good to excellent defenders as well. That team averaged over 72 rebounds a game. Due to the slower pace of today's game that number would surely go down. But with the slower pace, Wilt probably never comes off the court, as he was still prime Wilt. That is still the biggest problem the Spurs would have against that team--too much beef under the boards to contend with. Even if somehow Wilt was pulled away from the basket, you would still have Jackson to deal with. That 76er team is just a bad match up for the 2014 Spurs. Don't get me wrong here--I think the 2014 Spurs are a fine team, and Tim Duncan is the best power forward to ever play IMO--but I can't see the Spurs having much success in the paint against this 76er team. The 76ers would get the lion's share of the boards, and that would dictate the course of the game. For the Spurs to win, they would have to shoot lights out from the perimeter. That would probably be their only chance over the course of a series. There are other great teams I could see the 2014 Spurs doing better against, but the 1967 76ers are not one of them. No rebounds=no win.

Another thing about watching old game film (and this bothers me). Some of those games look slow as hell and some don't. Those old 16mm projectors weren't always calibrated as much as they should have been. I've seen films where the teams look like they were in slow motion, and some films where it looks like they were on 5 hour energy drinks, lol! Think of it this way: Wilt was a track star not only in field events but also as a runner. He was clocked at a very respectable 4.6 in the 40 and 49 sec in the 1/4 mile. Do you really think he (or any other athlete on the floor) is as slow as the film shows? Believe me, they are not slow.