Me and my dad was having this convo the other day and we both said we will take Kareem because he played agaisnt better comp, wilt played agaisnt scrubs
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Milgod @ Apr 21 2007, 07:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Kareem was in Airplane, for that reason alone he should win.</div>AND an episode of Full House. Kareem ftw.
And he got killed by Bruce Lee, went from fro to goggles, oscar to magic, and was the definition of both the 70s and 80s.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Me and my dad was having this convo the other day and we both said we will take Kareem because he played agaisnt better comp, wilt played agaisnt scrubs </div>And you guys wonder why I complain so much.It depends on what Kareem. Young Kareem with the Lambchops and the fro was a COMPLETE BADASS, young Wilt was pretty much the most dominant force the game was ever known. I take Wilt, he could do everything. And, he was stronger. And he was my favorite player, hence a little bias.
kareem for the fact that he was unstoppable from the day he entered the league, til the day he retired, bill russell was able to contain and even shut down wilt at times
<span style="font-family:Arial">I'll take Wilt Chamberlain in this one. Kareem has the rings, but he also had the much better supporting cast.</span><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bohemian @ Apr 30 2007, 11:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>kareem for the fact that he was unstoppable from the day he entered the league, til the day he retired, bill russell was able to contain and even shut down wilt at times</div><span style="font-family:Arial">How do you figure? Wilt Chamberlain averaged 29 points and 29 rebounds per game when being guarded by Bill Russell. He actually scored 50+ points SEVEN times against Russell...</span>
I'll take Kareem in a landslide. It's not even close. He was better in terms of stats, success, and longevity despite playing in a tougher era.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I'll take Kareem in a landslide. It's not even close. He was better in terms of stats, success, and longevity despite playing in a tougher era.</div><span style="font-family:Arial">Wilt Chamberlain: 30.1 ppg, 22.9 rpg.Kareem Abdul-Jabbar: 24.6 ppg, 11.2 rpg.Who has the better stats?</span>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BALLAHOLLIC? @ Apr 30 2007, 09:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><span style="font-family:Arial">Wilt Chamberlain: 30.1 ppg, 22.9 rpg.Kareem Abdul-Jabbar: 24.6 ppg, 11.2 rpg.Who has the better stats?</span></div>the one who didn't play on the fastest paced team of all time, therefore inflating his stats? I'll give you a more detailed explanation later but I have to leave now.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>the one who didn't play on the fastest paced team of all time, therefore inflating his stats?</div><span style="font-family:Arial">Did you forget Kareem was apart of the 'Showtime' Lakers?</span>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BALLAHOLLIC? @ Apr 30 2007, 10:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><span style="font-family:Arial">Did you forget Kareem was apart of the 'Showtime' Lakers?</span></div>There's a big difference between 90 shots per game and 110 shots per game as a team.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tHe_pEsTiLeNcE @ May 1 2007, 02:55 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>There's a big difference between 90 shots per game and 110 shots per game as a team.</div><span style="font-family:Arial">A more accurate stat is shots per game for each player, Wilt took 4 more shots per game. Not a huge difference.</span>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BALLAHOLLIC? @ Apr 30 2007, 11:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><span style="font-family:Arial">I'll take Wilt Chamberlain in this one. Kareem has the rings, but he also had the much better supporting cast.</span><span style="font-family:Arial">How do you figure? Wilt Chamberlain averaged 29 points and 29 rebounds per game when being guarded by Bill Russell. He actually scored 50+ points SEVEN times against Russell...</span></div>well maybe not shutdown, but he could contain him, also you have consider the numbers russell put up on him as well
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bohemian @ May 1 2007, 08:00 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>well maybe not shutdown, but he could contain him, also you have consider the numbers russell put up on him as well</div><span style="font-family:Arial">14.5 points per game? Lame...</span>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>the one who didn't play on the fastest paced team of all time, therefore inflating his stats?</div>You act like Wilt was sprinting up and down getting easy ass layups. He played in the post with his back to the basket just like Kareem did.
You really cant compare the two, based on longevity though you have to got with Kareem, although Wilt in his prime is the only player you can rank with MJ.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PN13 @ May 11 2007, 11:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I'd take Wilt. by 100 points.(please dont counterargue with Kareems total points.) :biggrin:</div>Kareem has more championships and post moves for his time then wilt did. In a modern game it'd be very close.
