<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BALLAHOLLIC? @ Mar 21 2007, 08:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You're not getting my point, it's obvious that a few guys were double/triple teaming Wilt. What I'm saying is that Imhoff was the one guarding him one on one for most of the time he was in the game.</div>yes, but you said<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I'm almost 100% sure Darrall Imhoff was guarding Wilt for most of the game.</div>I think you'd at least admit you were wrong about that, in the face of irrefutable evidence
I know what I said, but that's not what I meant.I said:<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I'm almost 100% sure Darrall Imhoff was guarding Wilt for most of the game.</div>I meant:<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>You're not getting my point, it's obvious that a few guys were double/triple teaming Wilt. What I'm saying is that Imhoff was the one guarding him one on one for most of the time he was in the game.</div>
Wilt scored 100 points....Wilt scored 100 points...Clyde, Rick Barry, and Pistol Pete,Now these players, could never be beat,Isiah, and Iceman too,Just give 'em the ball, and then you talk up too,Dantley and Wilkins are on the scene,And Ralph Sampson is really mean,Bill Russell didn't take no junk,and Darryl Dawkins got a monster dunk,Tell me, were you in the joint?,The night Wilt scored 100 points,Or when Celtics won titles back-to-back,And didn't give nobody, no kind of slack,Or when Dr. J shook the whole damn team,With moves that came right out of a dream,Or when, Willis Reed stood so tall,Playing D with desire, it's BasketballUnfair comparison...pretty much 99.999999% of this site hasn't seen the 100 point game.....While most of us have seen at least highlights of the 81 point game
IMO you can't really compare them properly as all we have from Wilt's 100 point game is radio recording. Yet I'd go against that and for now say that Kobe's performance was better due to him actually needing to carry his team like that to win the game. Wilt had the ball passed to him at every opportunity to try and get as high a score as possible.
Sorry But 100 is more than 81. And knicks players where double him when he made 50 points so Wilt had a harder job.
<span style="font-family:Century Gothic">It's a hard choice:Wilt's 100 Pts.- Scored 19 more pts than Kobe Bryant did.- Made 28 of 32 freethrows.- Was being double-teamed, triple-teamed and even quadruple-teamed (as explained in Slam's 100th Issue).Kobe Bryant's 81 Pts.- KB8 (at the time) brought his Lakers back from a 15+ pt deficit.- KB8 was on fire throughout the entire game.- KB8 was defended by better defenders.Hmm... Indeed, this is a hard choice.I'll go with Wilt's 100 Pt extravaganza simply because it's one of those games everyone wishes they had seen, but only about 4,100 people were able to see it.</span>
Kobe's game by far was more impressive... I know no one's seen Wilt's 100, but think about how much the league has changed in 40+ years! Not only that, but as everyone mentioned before, it's not hard to make a bunch of 3-4 foot shots... Kobe shot 3's and jumpers in addition to layups, etc. If you put a center like Olajuwon or David Robinson in Wilt's place, play them the WHOLE game and give them the ball EVERY time, I don't think they'd have too much of a problem scoring 100 points either. The game is way different, much more competitive, full of bigger/faster/more atheltic players... WAY more teams than they had back then, etc. I mean the list goes on, Kobe's 81 is way more impressive.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Kobe's game by far was more impressive... I know no one's seen Wilt's 100, but think about how much the league has changed in 40+ years! Not only that, but as everyone mentioned before, it's not hard to make a bunch of 3-4 foot shots... Kobe shot 3's and jumpers in addition to layups, etc.</div>Wilt didn't shoot 3-4 foot shots, he shot a bunch of freethrows. That's my point. Kobe's 81 was far more impressive. Wilt was litterally spoonfed the ball by his teammates. Also, the Warriors kept fouling the Knicks so they could get the ball back and give it to Wilt, hence all the possesions and the insane 169-147 final.
another factor to make wilt's game far less impressive is the court size:Wilt played on an 84 foot court that game with a thinner lane. That's an extra 10 possessions easily caused by a shorter court.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BigMo763 @ Mar 19 2007, 11:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I'm probably going to get bashed for this, but I'm going with Wilt's 100. I'm not taking anything away from Kobe's 81-point performance, because that was absolutely amazing and the best individual scoring performance in a game that any of us have ever seen, and probably will ever see. However, the bottom line is that Wilt scored 19 more points than Kobe did, and that is why I'm going with Wilt.Both performances were absolutely brilliant (unfortunately all of us have only been able to see one of them), but I'm going with Wilt.</div>Hate is the new love. There wasnt any competition back then.
Here is a comparision by Hollinge on espnI<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>t seems at first glance that Wilt Chamberlain's 100-point night in 1962 is far superior to Kobe Bryant's 81-point game Sunday. After all, Bryant still needed 19 more points -- roughly Pau Gasol's average -- just to catch the Dipper. But if you stack the two games side by side, you'll come to the startling realization that Bryant's performance was actually far superior. Breaking the two games down by the numbers, it quickly becomes apparent what a dominant night Kobe had. Consider the facts: Wilt scored 100 of his team's 169 points in the 1962 game.Bryant was more efficient. Bryant needed 46 shot attempts and 20 free throws to get 81 points. Chamberlain needed 63 field-goal attempts and 32 free-throw tries to get his 100. Bryant's true shooting percentage for the night was 73.9 percent; Chamberlain's was only 63.9 percent. Bryant's performance was more real. In Chamberlain's game, the Warriors intentionally fouled the Knicks in the final minute of play to get the ball back for another Chamberlain try at the century mark. Only on his third try did he get to 100. At the time, his team was comfortably ahead, as it was for the entire second half, and it won 169-147. Bryant, on the other hand, got almost all his points when they were desperately needed, as his team trailed by 18 early in the third quarter.Bryant needed fewer minutes. If you want to really be amazed, consider the fact that Kobe sat out for six minutes in the second quarter. So Bryant scored his 81 points in only 42 minutes, while Wilt played the full 48 in his 100-point effort. Had he played for an additional six minutes and scored at the same rate (hardly an unreasonable assumption, given how much gas he appeared to have at the end), Kobe would have finished with 93 points. Yes, 93.The game was different. Of all the differences between Bryant's game and Chamberlain's, this one is perhaps the biggest. Chamberlain's game ended up 169-147, Bryant's 122-104. Obviously, there was a huge difference in the speed of play, and that meant Chamberlain had far more opportunities to score than Bryant did. Chamberlain's game featured 233 field-goal attempts versus 164 for Bryant's, and 93 free-throw attempts to 60 for Bryant's. We have no data on turnovers and offensive rebounds for Chamberlain's game, but based on the numbers I just mentioned, we can estimate there were 46 percent more possessions in the Chamberlain game than in the Kobe game.If that's the case, we need to inflate Kobe's numbers by 46 percent to get an accurate idea of what it equates to in Chamberlain's era. The answer? An unbelievable 118 points. And if we add in six extra minutes for Bryant, we end up with the mind-boggling total of 135. By one player. In one game. Another way to look at it is by deflating Chamberlain's numbers by a similar amount. If we change his currency into "2006 points," so to speak, the Stilt ends up with 68 points -- still an awesome performance, but clearly not on a level with Kobe's 81-point outburst. And once you adjust for the 48 minutes Chamberlain played vs. Kobe's 42, you end up with 60 points for Wilt -- or just a bit more than Kobe rang up in the second half.So when our Marc Stein says this is the most amazing performance ever, believe it. Once you adjust for the differences in pace between the two eras and the fact that Bryant sat out for six minutes, even Chamberlain's monumental 100-point game pales by comparison. For basketball historians, Bryant's effort is now the scoring effort against which all others should be measured.</div>
both are amazing but how come no one ever talks about this accomplishment?Karl Malone scored 61 points in just 33 mins of play!he was pissed because the fans voted AC Green the Western All-Star starter so the next night he went out and punished the Bucks for 3 Quarters and sat the 4thhttp://basketball-reference.com/boxscores/UTA19900127.htmlI think this deserves recognition for sure.imagine if he had continued to play...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticFan @ Jul 21 2007, 12:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>both are amazing but how come no one ever talks about this accomplishment?Karl Malone scored 61 points in just 33 mins of play!he was pissed because the fans voted AC Green the Western All-Star starter so the next night he went out and punished the Bucks for 3 Quarters and sat the 4thhttp://basketball-reference.com/boxscores/UTA19900127.htmlI think this deserves recognition for sure.imagine if he had continued to play...</div>Yeh but kobe scored 62 in 33 minutes of play
