Still an impressive feat, Especially considering that 9 of them were during Wilt's 10 best years in the league.
How many teams were in the league? Good for him though. I just don't think it compares to the 80s/90s/today.
So does that make Wilt look even worse? Not being able to win more than 1 championship during the 60s in an era with 8-14 teams during that time.
Yea, I'm just curious how terrible you think Wilt is, if Bill Russell's 11 rings is not impressive because it was in the "lame 60s". I personally agree, that the level of talent back then clearly isn't what it is today. I doubt a 220 pound guy like Bill Russell could handle a guy like Dwight Howard. However it was a very impressive feat to win 11 rings during that era.
When did I say Wilt was "terrible"? I said what you have stated to a degree, the era means little to me.
You didn't, but by implication you did. By stating that winning rings in the 60s is a relatively easy feat compared to today by having 2-4 times the number of teams. It makes Wilt look rather mediocre only being able to win 1 ring during that period of time.
I feel you bringing up Wilt means very little, he wouldn't dominate the league now like back then either. I think you should stop trying to dissect every word I say. Maybe the Celtics won because they had various hall of famers on those teams? What does that have to do with me saying "He pwns the lame 60's. :[" Which were indeed lame compared to now. No I did not imply "terrible", you're using my usage of "lame" to draw all these conclusions. I could have said "lame" meant his 11 rings equal 3 rings now (I am not stating this just showing how vague I was), which would still be very impressive wouldn't it? I implied exactly what I said, it is "lame". You did not give me any time to elaborate on this so what you infer from that statement is your own insecurity about that era I guess, I'm not sure why you jumped to conclusions. The era had 8-10 teams mostly? That is certainly something valid to point out if you're trying to hype up 11 rings. At some point you have to give an entire team credit for at least some portion of those rings, I think Wilt was the better player individually and certainly comparable and IIRC, was not "shut down" by Bill in those matchups. If someone cared enough to prove irrevocably that Bill was better, I still wouldn't care I'm not a fan of the fast paced small league back then.
LOL, that is funniest shit I've read all day. Anyway, I'm getting bored of this discussion. As well if your arguement is going to be douchy and claim to know my secret personal insecurities about the 60s era of basketball, a subject I rarely discuss on sportstwo. Then OK lol!
