Oak was a rough player; this guy was a fighter. He defended a lot of the best post players of the 90's and was a very good rebounder. Now Ben has one thing over him- he can take over the game with his shotblocking. Oak was never a huge threat in that area.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Pacers fan forever @ Jul 18 2007, 12:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Wallace:4 Dpoys</div>Everything is about awards with you isnt it?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PrimeTime @ Jul 18 2007, 12:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Everything is about awards with you isnt it?</div>?
I'd take Wallace. These 2 are very similar, but Ben is much more athletic, allowing him to be a much better help defender than Oakley. Thus, being a perfect player to build a defense around.
Has to be Ben.Oakely was a solid and very good post defender and he made his man work hard to earn his points.Ben is more athletic and can block or change shots and more able to defend outside the paint.
Ben can block, steal, and rebound better, and can just flat out stop people better. Oakley has less All-defense teams than Big Ben has DPOYs.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tHe_pEsTiLeNcE @ Jul 18 2007, 01:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Ben can block, steal, and rebound better, and can just flat out stop people better. Oakley has less All-defense teams than Big Ben has DPOYs.</div>All-Defense Teams usually don't mean a whole lot because they're based more on steals and blocks rather than true defensive ability. Oakley would have had more than just 1 All-Defense Team selection if that wasn't the case.
I love how guys make these comparisons even though 90% have never even seen Oakley play. The only thing Wallace has on Oakley is shotblocking and athletic ability. Other than that, Oakley was just as good a rebounder, and probably just as good a man-defender. Oakley was tenacious. Since I have not seen Oakley in his prime, I can't honestly say which one is better. I could care less how many defensive awards each has won.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrewCityBuck @ Jul 19 2007, 10:24 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I love how guys make these comparisons even though 90% have never even seen Oakley play. The only thing Wallace has on Oakley is shotblocking and athletic ability. Other than that, Oakley was just as good a rebounder, and probably just as good a man-defender. Oakley was tenacious. Since I have not seen Oakley in his prime, I can't honestly say which one is better. I could care less how many defensive awards each has won.</div>You never seen the Bulls from the mid '80's or the Knicks of the early-mid '90's? That was where Oakley was at his best.And BTW, he was never the rebounder Wallace is at any point in his career, and about 80% of his career didn't average 10RPG.
I've watched like all the Pacers-Knicks series from the 90s, and Oakley AND Ewing couldn't even stop Rik Smits
I think Oak was better, he played D in a more physical time (not that that takes anything away from Wallace but...). Oakley was also pretty much the last real enforcer in the leagues history. Wallace is the better athlete though.
