Pantsman wrote:70sFan wrote:Pantsman wrote:Wilt. It’s not even close. But if you put them in the same era I’m sure it would be shaq.
What's the logic behind it?
Logic behind what?
Wilt was a lot more dominate than shaq because the league never seen anything like wilt before. Shaq never averaged 50ppg or over 20 rebounds that just insanity. Easily the most dominate of all time. But you put wilt and shaq in the same era I don’t think wilt wouldn’t have been better. Wilt was basically the Westbrook of the 60s he cared a lot more about stats than winning. Shaq was the most physically dominating presence ever. And if he played in the 60s I have little doubt he wouldn’t have averaged 50 and 20 also.
That isn't true.