<div class="quote_poster">Quoting jiggax23:</div><div class="quote_post">wilt did not dominate bill like he did the other centers, he still put up spectacular numbers against him... but he did not DOMINATE bill. bill was still able to play his usual defense against wilt, although he didnt block it as much as he would against other players, but he didn't allow wilt to dominate him. bill gave wilt fits, and wilt admitted to it that he was the toughest player he ever played against. and bill was never a great offensive player, so its given wilt was able to handle him on that end of the floor.</div> You obviously never watched a tape of Wilt versus Bill. I watched a documentary of their legendary battle on NBA TV, and I noticed how Wilt had his way on both ends of the court against Bill. Bill was only able halt Wilt on the defensive end, but only a few times.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Chungster:</div><div class="quote_post">You obviously never watched a tape of Wilt versus Bill. I watched a documentary of their legendary battle on NBA TV, and I noticed how Wilt had his way on both ends of the court against Bill. Bill was only able halt Wilt on the defensive end, but only a few times.</div> and it was these plays that played a major role in the celtics success. i've seen the same documentaries that you have seen. but listen to the respect wilt gives bill, and all the props he gives bill. wilt is a man w/ a HUGE ego, when he gives someone props, that person had to do something spectacular for wilt to give them recognition. if wilt was able to "dominate" bill, then wilt would have won the rings, not bill.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting jiggax23:</div><div class="quote_post">so bill russell being the only constant on the celtics 11 titles were coincedental? i'm not saying wilt did not keep bill in check on the celtics offensive end, thats a given, bill was never a great offensive player. but on the defensive end, bill didn't let wilt do what he did against the rest of the league. he made wilt work harder than any other player did, he altered a lot of wilt's shots like no other player at that time could do. I know the other celtics played a HUGE part in the teams success, as they had to carry much of the offensive load, and they played great defense as a team. But bill led the way. I'm not saying bill is the better player of the two, because i think wilt is the second best player ever behind MJ. But what i am saying is, he had barely any competition, when he grabbed rebounds, people literally ran away from him. But when he was given competition by bill, he was not able to dominate it the way MJ was. He was able to put up really good and impressive numbers against bill, but was not dominate enough to will or lead his team to a victory like MJ.</div> ok playa,whatever. it's a dead issue if you can't see the point I was trying to make.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Dre:</div><div class="quote_post">ok playa,whatever. it's a dead issue if you can't see the point I was trying to make.</div> i think what we have here is a difference of opinions in the definition of dominate. i get what you're saying, but to me, if you can't beat your nemsis, than you weren't dominating anything. if you dominate something, than you should have something to show for it IMO
Jordan was the greatest scorer of all time. when you look at the word player you need to look at the whole game, scorin', reb, ast, defense. And that title goes to the Big O OSCAR ROBERTSON he did it all for his team. You cant compare guards to centers or pg to pf.
Wow, that article was pretty crappy. I respect the author for trying to tackle the issue, but he basically showed that Michael is the only guy who's near the top of each of those categories. Michael dominated like no one since Wilt, he was one of the most valuable individual players since Wilt and Kareem, and he won more than anyone but Bill and Kareem(as a marquee player that is). Comparing Clyde Frazier and the Big O is funny, I think he was trying to be humerous. I don't think Walt Frazier would have been an allstar, let alone a superstar, in today's game. And as for media attention? He played in New York, so he got some of the most media attention in his day, undue in many cases. There were better guards, like Nate Archibald, who got less press. In terms of real greatness, Wilt and Kareem are the only guys who are really comparable to Jordan. Russell wasn't that great of a player, at least not as great as people make him out to be. He had a tremendous will to win, and was a great defensive player and a fantastic rebounder. Besides that, he never posed a serious threat on offense, and never really shut down Chamberlain, who was better on both ends of the court. Russell got more credit for defense, but that was just because his blocks ended in fast breaks, whereas Chamberlain's did not. Red made it known that he would rather have had Chamberlain than Russell. When Chamberlain was in high school, Red tried to persuade him to go to Harvard so that Boston would have his territorial rights. But Jordan was the only player who could dominate play on both ends of the floor and also make his team a winner so often. Yes, some other players can say that they won six titles, but how many could say that they were the best player on the team? Cousy was the centerpiece on the 57 title team, and still a big piece in 59 and 60, and by 66 John Havlicek was the Celtics' best player. Russell was just the symbolic head of those Celtic squads, and indeed a key ingredient on each title team. And of course Kareem was merely a role player on the back to back titles, in 87 and 88. Jordan, on the other hand, won the Finals MVP every year he made it to the Finals.
