Yup and these guards these days got some serious hops n very good at getting rebounds. Don't Count on NBa live to determine the outcome cause... Wilt will be challenged well against players like brand guarding him. These big men these days are some very good shot blockers. Even the damn guards is blockin the ish outta ppl. Kobe Wade Delonte for example
Say what you want about Wilt, just don't diss his rebounding. I don't know where you guys get the idea that rebounding in Wilt's time was easy. It wasn't. Dwight Howard and Ben Wallace couldn't touch Wilt Chamberlain's rebounding prowess.You guys are trying to discredit the players from the past by saying things about how Wilt's competition was so much easier, as if nobody learned how to play basketball until 1980. At the same time, you seem to overhype todays players as if they are super athletes.I don't know how many times I have to say this, Wilt Chamberlain was very very athletic, and not just for his time, he would do just fine in todays league. Rules today wouldn't allow defenses to manhandle him like defenses did in the 1960's. He would be free to do a lot, because the refs call things way too tight today.Boxing out in the 60's was better than it is today, mainly because the game was very physical and players could stick their elbows into the other players(an illegal move today). Most players today lack simple fundamental skills, in the 1960's fundamentals were very important, because players then didn't just rely on their athleticism to play. The only person who could ever challenge Wilt in rebounding is Bill Russell, and he only averaged 14 against Wilt, while Wilt averaged 29 against Russell. Many players today aren't as devoted to rebounding as many of the players in the past.The main reason why players today look so great is because the conditions are so much better, ever play ball in a pair of Chuck Taylors? It sucks big time.Players today are pampered. They bi*ch about back to backs, teams in Wilts era played three games in a row and four in five nights, and played with the same lineups, they didn't rest like they do today. Each team played each other 9 times a year, and didin't travel first class, they traveled in coach. There were no athletic trainers in the 1960's, players took care of themselves. A player today jams a finger, he sits out, in game 5 of the 1972 Finals, Wilt Chamberlain scored 24 points and had 29 rebounds with TWO broken hands. He just taped them up and played. Shaq would never do that.Gyms also sucked in the 60's. Have you guys ever been to the Boston Garden? it was a sh*t hole. Players today play in perfect air conditioned arena's where it's always 72 degrees. Not in Wilt's time, arenas were stuffy and hot in the summer and ice cold in the winter. Players didn't have Gatoraide in the 60's, they had water and salt tablets.Players today are so taken care of that they recover faster, hence they always look so awsome. In the 60's, the game was like hockey, and ALL of the players had some injury or another. Jerry West wore the same pair of sneakers for an entire season, he had to tape them together.Players back then played through a lot of sh*t, you shouldn't disrespect them, a great player is a great player no matter the era. Wilt is no different.
Nitro- This was from the last debate<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Hang Eleven)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Nitro118)</div><div class='quotemain'>Bob Pettit- 6'9'', 215lbs (skinnier than Kobe/T-Mac)Dolph Schayes- 6'8'', 215lbs (think LeBron's height, with T-Mac/Kobe's weight)Walt Bellamy- 6'11'', 245lbs (think Dwight Howard-ish size), but only 20PPG and 16RPG, which was only all star numbers back thenNate Thurmond- 6'11'', 235lbs (15PPG, 15RPG)Willis Reed- 6'10'', 240lbs (19PPG, 13RPG)Kareem- 7'2'', 265lbs (by the time he came to NBA, Wilt was on the decline with only 20PPG)Bill Russell- Wilt Chamberlain- 7-1, 260</div>Now all of them are the best of the era, yet Wilt was 7'2'', 275lbs. Outside of Kareem, there was no one who matched Wilt physically, or even came close. Hell, Bill Russel, the other dominant big man of the era, was only 6'10'', 220lbs (think T-Mac-ish height and weight).Hakeem Olajuwon- 6-10, 255Tim Duncan- 6-10, 248Kevin Garnett- 6-11, 220Yao Ming- 7-6, 300Ewing- 6-9, 240Robinson- 7-1, 235Shaquille O'Neal- 7-1, 300That's the list of guys Shaq played against. I've added Wilt to your list. Now, I've done the math (you can check it if you want), and Wilt outweighed the guys he played against (including Russell) by an average of 25 pounds. Then, I calculated Shaq -- 50 pounds. And that's calculated with Shaq weighing only 300 pounds -- he actually weighs about 320 at least now, and even more in his prime. So, actually, Shaq would have had more of an advantage than Wilt did.</div>Although, to be honest, I don't see why I'm arguing, since I basically agree with you. Well, I think that 10 rebounds is a little conservative (Is Wilt really only on the same level as Yao Ming, as a rebounder?). I think 12-13 rebounds would be better. No more 24 RPG for a season, but still a dominant rebounder.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Michael Bryant @ Sep 4 2006, 06:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Oh right, you know my age.That's an assumption. I can't believe the arrogance in thinking that this era in the NBA is so great, and then the ignorance to assume that any other time before wasn't good enough. There were many great players in the 1960's, the only difference between them and players today is that players today have ESPN to overhype everthing they do.Instead of acting like you know everything, take the time to look at the game in those days, read books and stats, and if you can find it, watch some film. You'll be very supprised. Players today aren't stronger, they are more toned, they have better training and diet techniques. That still doesn't take away from the players of the 1960's, many of them were very strong, and all of them were very athletic. If Wilt Chamberlain had ESPN, ABC and Amhad Rashad following him around all the time like MJ had, he'd be called the greatest player of alltime, not MJ. Most of the players today are more popular, hence, it seems as if they are better, when actually they are no different from the players of the 1960's.And beleive it or not, defenses were very good in those days. They may not have been more complex, but they were just as good, and a lot tougher.</div> Well, you and Oscar Robertson apparently don't agree.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BCB @ Sep 7 2006, 08:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Well, you and Oscar Robertson apparently don't agree.</div>I don't get it.
I guess this was posted before I chimed in, but I feel the need to respond to it:<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>That's an assumption. I can't believe the arrogance in thinking that this era in the NBA is so great, and then the ignorance to assume that any other time before wasn't good enough. There were many great players in the 1960's, the only difference between them and players today is that players today have ESPN to overhype everthing they do.Instead of acting like you know everything, take the time to look at the game in those days, read books and stats, and if you can find it, watch some film. You'll be very supprised. Players today aren't stronger, they are more toned, they have better training and diet techniques. That still doesn't take away from the players of the 1960's, many of them were very strong, and all of them were very athletic. If Wilt Chamberlain had ESPN, ABC and Amhad Rashad following him around all the time like MJ had, he'd be called the greatest player of alltime, not MJ. Most of the players today are more popular, hence, it seems as if they are better, when actually they are no different from the players of the 1960's.And beleive it or not, defenses were very good in those days. They may not have been more complex, but they were just as good, and a lot tougher.</div>Yes, it is fact NBA players today get more coverage. The NBA of the past wasn't nearly as rich, they didn't live the lap of luxory these superstars do. They didn't get the coverage.BUT you can't say that is why people think this era's NBA is so much better. It is natural evolution, buddy. The game has evolved and has changed into a much slower paced, defensive game. It has become F-A-R more athletic, and that isn't even questionable. Hell, it is considerably more athletic than the '90's! Players 5'7'' doing amazing dunks isn't out of the ordinary anymore, whereas that in the '80's was extremely difficult to find. The vertical leaps have increased amazingly. The strength levels of the players is F-A-R greater in this era. Back in the '60's many players didn't even lift, let alone bench over 300-350lbs, or squat over 2x their bodyweight. The NBA player of today is also a lot more toned and have 5-7% body fat (normally). This strength increase is very apparent, just look at the bodies of players now and then. The players of today are far different than the '60's. Totally different brand of basketball, a lot more athletic, slow paced, players are a lot stronger and FAR more knowledgable about the game, and the talent pool is WAY larger (hell, it is even much larger than the '90's with the foreign invasion). The game has really became a lot more scientific, with amazing defensive setups and techniques to stop just about every kind of player that you can think of. It is natural evolution, and the players of the '60's and '70's simply wouldn't get those very over-inflated numbers due to lack of athleticism, strength, knowledge of the defenses of today, rule changes (defensive 3 second being a big one), much slower paced games, and just a totally different game than back in the '60's.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Nitro1118 @ Sep 7 2006, 02:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I guess this was posted before I chimed in, but I feel the need to respond to it:Yes, it is fact NBA players today get more coverage. The NBA of the past wasn't nearly as rich, they didn't live the lap of luxory these superstars do. They didn't get the coverage.BUT you can't say that is why people think this era's NBA is so much better. It is natural evolution, buddy. The game has evolved and has changed into a much slower paced, defensive game. It has become F-A-R more athletic, and that isn't even questionable. Hell, it is considerably more athletic than the '90's! Players 5'7'' doing amazing dunks isn't out of the ordinary anymore, whereas that in the '80's was extremely difficult to find. The vertical leaps have increased amazingly. The strength levels of the players is F-A-R greater in this era. Back in the '60's many players didn't even lift, let alone bench over 300-350lbs, or squat over 2x their bodyweight. The NBA player of today is also a lot more toned and have 5-7% body fat (normally). This strength increase is very apparent, just look at the bodies of players now and then. The players of today are far different than the '60's. Totally different brand of basketball, a lot more athletic, slow paced, players are a lot stronger and FAR more knowledgable about the game, and the talent pool is WAY larger (hell, it is even much larger than the '90's with the foreign invasion). The game has really became a lot more scientific, with amazing defensive setups and techniques to stop just about every kind of player that you can think of. It is natural evolution, and the players of the '60's and '70's simply wouldn't get those very over-inflated numbers due to lack of athleticism, strength, knowledge of the defenses of today, rule changes (defensive 3 second being a big one), much slower paced games, and just a totally different game than back in the '60's.</div> Nitro strikes again... :worthy:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (redneck @ Sep 6 2006, 06:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>there were no guard who could rebound in the 60s and 70s? what about Oscar Robertson? he averaged double figure rebounding his first four years in the league and he was only 6'5". Bob Cousey averaged around 7 a game for quite a while.</div>dude, do you hear yourself right now? If a 6 foot 5 guy could get that many rebounds back then, how could the height, physicallity, and downlow presence been anywhere CLOSE to todays game? Honestly...think about it.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ballerman2112 @ Sep 7 2006, 05:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>dude, do you hear yourself right now? If a 6 foot 5 guy could get that many rebounds back then, how could the height, physicallity, and downlow presence been anywhere CLOSE to todays game? Honestly...think about it.</div> I agree with the end of your post but Shawn Marion who's 6'6'" 3/4 averaged 12rpg this season. Oscar Robertson was lucky he played when he did to get that many rebounds but he was also a freak of nature.
I don't get why people are saying players today are more knowlegable, if anything, they know less. Some of these guys don't know the NBA existed before 1984. Some great minds in NBA history played in the 60's, Bill Russell is a great example, Jerry Lucas another and of course, Jerry West, just to name a few.Most rules in the 60's didn't allow defenses to grow past a simple man to man. That's just the way it was. They played with what the rules gave them.And I don't know what you mean by "Evolution". Evolution takes thousands of years, not 40. The physical make up of players hasn't changed much since the 60's. The culture of the game is what changed. Players in the 60's didn't showboat and dunk all over the place because it was frowned upon back then. Players like Hot Rod Hundley, Bob Cousey, Pete Maravich and Connie Hawkins were really the only ones who showed off. There were good athletes back then. Granted, they didn't do some of the things seen today but, at the same time, I'd like to see Vince Carter dunk in a pair of Chuck Taylors.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Michael Bryant @ Sep 8 2006, 02:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I don't get why people are saying players today are more knowlegable, if anything, they know less. Some of these guys don't know the NBA existed before 1984. Some great minds in NBA history played in the 60's, Bill Russell is a great example, Jerry Lucas another and of course, Jerry West, just to name a few.Most rules in the 60's didn't allow defenses to grow past a simple man to man. That's just the way it was. They played with what the rules gave them.And I don't know what you mean by "Evolution". Evolution takes thousands of years, not 40. The physical make up of players hasn't changed much since the 60's. The culture of the game is what changed. Players in the 60's didn't showboat and dunk all over the place because it was frowned upon back then. Players like Hot Rod Hundley, Bob Cousey, Pete Maravich and Connie Hawkins were really the only ones who showed off. There were good athletes back then. Granted, they didn't do some of the things seen today but, at the same time, I'd like to see Vince Carter dunk in a pair of Chuck Taylors.</div>They know a lot more nowadays. That is natural. Players are being coached from day 1 by the best in the world, and because the game has evolved so much, more is being pounded into their head of how to play the game and beat extremely complex defenses/how to do other things. If you put a great player from the '60's on a current NBA team without teaching him all the training techniques, all the new changes to the game, how to beat _____ type of offense or defense, they wouldn't know what to do, and because mostly all of those players were far less athletic and less strong/tall/muscular, most wouldn't even be average. Wilt is an exception, as are a few others.And that is fine, and ultimately it doesn't make them any less great. But if you ar eputting them into the NBA today they wouldn't know how to beat complex zones with such athletic, strong and smart players.The game has evolved in the past 10 years, let alone 40. Look at USA basketball, they went from beating every team by 40PPG to not getting better than bronze in 6 years. That is evolution. The game has changed so much due to these reasons: 3 point line, new and tougher defenses, WAY more of an emphasis on athleticism and conditioning/strength, M-U-C-H larger talent pool, top notch training and coaching from beginnign of grade school to pros, and the natural evolution of the game made by coaches and players to keep learning how to defend great offenses, which forces offenses to make changes to beat those defenses. That is what has happenned since the '60's, it has happenned many times over, and has made the game much different and better.And while showboating, the media etc has made basketball more of a flashy game, the game has still better'd itself and changed in so many ways since the '60's that it is natural that only a very small fraction of them could be even average in this generation's NBA.
A player from the 60's would know what to do today. I understand about him not being able to master certain sets and systems that have been created in just recent years. But when it comes down to it, basketball is about putting the ball in the hole. They'll figure it out.I don't really think the game evolved too much. The shot clock is like the only real difference making device in NBA's history. I think the game goes in trends. For example, the quality, pace, talent etc. have fluctuated from the 1940's to now. Like, the 1940's weren't very good, but quality of play slowly rose until it peaked around like 1968, then it went down through the 1970's and then it skyrocketed during the 1980's, since like 1991 the game has been declining. It's on the rise again, but you see my point, the game goes up and down from decade to decade.There is a ton of talent today, but in the 1960's, the talent was much more concentrated. The Draft in those days when several rounds deep. And all of the players were spread out over only 9 teams. So, even though individual talent has been getting better and better, the overall talent level of teams has not been as high, except for the 1980's.As for team USA, well, they need to actually start playing basketball instead of going out their and running layup drills.
I'm done with this, starting to go 'round and 'round. Good debate, I stick by my opinion, you stick by yours, it's over.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Nitro1118 @ Sep 9 2006, 12:30 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I'm done with this, starting to go 'round and 'round. Good debate, I stick by my opinion, you stick by yours, it's over.</div>Same here. It's a tie.
^Yes, I have been in hundreds of these, and I do not feel this debate is bringing anything new to the table, therefor it is meaningless to keep debating this. Especially considering you can't use stats as effectively here as you can in most current debates due to 2 totally different eras.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BCB @ Sep 8 2006, 12:43 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I agree with the end of your post but Shawn Marion who's 6'6'" 3/4 averaged 12rpg this season. Oscar Robertson was lucky he played when he did to get that many rebounds but he was also a freak of nature.</div>But Shawn has played Power Forward for the Suns, whereas Robertson got 10+ rpg playing pg/sg.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Melo061 @ Sep 5 2006, 03:43 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You know what dogma? You're absolutely pathetic and i really do not care about how "respected you really are". or whatever crap is being said. As a moderator you should not be throwing the word "idiot" around when you're not even sure on the topic. An example of this year was you calling me a tard for spelling some word wrong and when you tried to correct me, you got it wrong also.What kind of a moderator calls others idiots simply because their giving their own opinions? It's something i haven't seen on any forum and i have yet to see it from any other moderator on this board. Unless the opinion being stated is touching on an issue where some comments are insensetive.Cry, moan, call me an idiot or whatever you want to say. Call this my own "payback" for you calling me a tard. I don't care. But the truth is you're not doing anyone good when you throw around insults. All you're doing it turning away users. And you know what i also find funny? You talking about "being respected" and you bringing "more to the site" like it's something worth mentioning. Who cares. Just because you bring more to this site doesn't mean CB can't call you out.edit: I guarentee by the time i wake up tomorrow this post will be gone.</div>i'm not gonna take it off. it's your opinion and you have the right to it. i guess alot of people see it as a much bigger deal than me. i call my friends idiots all the time, it's not a big deal to us. and if someone can't take one simple insult, then why are they on a message board?did i ever say that cb4 couldn't call me out? i was encouraging him to.
