Who was the better player in his career. Charles Barkley or Karl Malone?<you>Karl Malone</you>25.0 ppg10.1 rpg3.6 apg1.4 spg.80 bpg<you>Charles Barkley</you>22.1 ppg11.7 rpg3.9 apg1.54 spg.88 bpg*Career StatisticsWho was the better player in his career? I'll share my thoughts a little later in the discussion but I would like to hear who would you rather have on your team.
The problem with these things is always the same: we ARE supposed to look at this thing objectively, so therefore I think when you add it all up, Malone might be better.But you gotta love Chuck. Well, some people hate him, but I don't. Dude got personality. Not that Malone hasn't, but still.... tough one, tough one.If I really had to choose, I'd go with Chuck.
Isn't this already a topic today? I'm sure I posted in one like this before that Wolverine30 created. Any way I'd take Malone -Bigger stronger and he sure was around forever and never really lost "it"
malone had the better longevity and chuck had a better prime IMO.. charles was more dominant offensively and I like him alot more so I am biased there an I say Sir Charles
I can't really decide. Karl Malone remained "top 5 forwards in the league" material from rookie-till retirement year. Charles Barkley was insanely great in his prime. Charles helped the US team win Gold Medals. Charles never won a championship... Well, neither did Malone. Hmm...I'll go with Charles Barkley, though. He was solo for most of his career. He didn't have the best PG ever backing him up to bring out his true potentials. I don't want to take anything away from Karl Malone neither. However, you have to admit that John Stockton helped Karl Malone step into the spotlight. There's no denying that fact.My vote: Sir Charles Barkley.
