Ok man, it's very unrealistic to think that, but whatever. We will never know, so it doesn't matter. Everyone here puts him in top 5 all time, many top 2-3, so no he is not underrated. To be mentioned in the same breath as MJ, Magic, Oscar, and all the greats is an honor enough, it doesn't really matter how he'd play in this era because he totally dominated his era.
Unrealistic? I don't think so. I mean, he might have to remember to not stay in the paint longer than 3 seconds on D, but that's about it. With all this athleticism you're talking about, he'd fit right in.
He would be average at best athletically. The biggest advantages he had in the '60's was a MAJOR advantage in athleticism and strength/size....he would still be taller than most, but he wouldn't have much of an advantage athletically or strength-wise. Mix in the fact that guards/forwards/centers are much stronger and athletic, new rules, slower game, MUCH better and advanced coaching, much smarter players...it would be extremely hard for Wilt to adjust.
Average? come on! Dude was sick. The only difference between players today and in the 60's is players today have more tatoos and make more money.
No man thats not right. I saw an interview with alot of the old greatsd the otherday- thay all said the game today is played ABOVE the rim and that the apart from a few players most weren't nearly as athletic as todays players.-Jerry West actually said most of that. I think he'd be a better judge than you.
Hey, I'm just picking up the slack left by some of the people here when they call the old timers White, slow talentless chumps.
Please, find a quote where anyone says anything remotely similar to that. There is absolutely no denying players have gotten taller, FAR more muscular, FAR more athletic (I'm not even just talking about individuals, I'm talking everyone on the team), and MUCH smarter...and these things are to be expected! Instead of rejecting these thoughts, really look at it. 40 years has gone by, basketball is FAR more popular than it was in the '60's thus more of a talent pool to select from, coaches and players have gotten far smarter and have had 40 years to develop far more advanced training techniques, players are much more competitive from an earlier age, things like vertical jump/40 yard dash/bench press and all of these things are relied on heavily when colleges and NBA draft and select players, there have been a number of rule changes and referees ref games differently than in the '60's, everyone has seen 4 decades of trial and error and how to stop the best players and teams in the world, players have gotten taller, etc etc....
Smarter? Are you kidding me? Oh wait, you must be, because that's about the stupidest sh*t I've heard.Players today aren't "MUCH smarter" seriously, where ever you get your info, ask for your money back. As smart? Sure, maybe they picked up a few more tricks over the years, but by no means are they "MUCH smarter".Come on, the 1960's was the"Golden Age" of basketball, competition was nearly as high as it was in the 1980's, there were fewer teams henc, the talent was more concentrated. It's not my fault you don't know anything about the players back then, but don't just assume how they were. Beleive me, in the 60's, players didn't ditch half the season to record their rap albums, they didn't ditch practice, they didn't get accused of sexual assault, they didn't mouth off to their coaches, they didn't focus on just looking good, they weren't concerned with just making the highlight reel, they didn't get caught with drugs. They were very smart, you shouldn't label them something when all signs appear to say that you don't know about them.
how old are you Michael Bryant? You sound like "the older you get the better you were" kinda guy or in this case "the older you get the better it was"
Michael Bryant saw Wilt played so I kinda think he knows more about Wilt than most of us. All we got is stats to determine how good he is, Michael was a witness........... so I don't get why anyone would even argue with Michael regarding how good Wilt is.
Well, I saw Wilt play towards the end of his career. But, he was on tv every week. I started watching him play Bill Russell and the Celts when I was 10, that was in 1968. That was after he started slowing down his game. He was with the Lakers at that point (that's why I like the Lakers).Anyway, this debate is killing me...I don't know what I have to do to convince you guys that he was great. Maybe I'll post some of his records...
For example:In the 1967 Eastern Conference Finals against the Boston Celtics, Wilt Chamberlain averaged 22 points, 32 rebounds and 10 assists per game. He did that against Bill Russell, come on, that's ridiculous.
OMFG do you not get it? EVERYONE rates him top 5 all time, most people at #2-3, some even at #1! I rate him in my top 5 (outside of MJ I don't really rank the players). NO one is questioning how good he was, he was the MDE and of his time.But if you put him in today's NBA, 40 years later, with far tougher competition in every single aspect, from coaching to athleticism to players becoming considerably bigger, to new rule changes, to a much more slowed down game, and every other change that has come forth in the past 40 years, he would NOT be nearly as dominant as he once was.That is the ONLY thing anyone is saying against Wilt, and for ME it doesn't make me think any less of the player he once was.
Look. Wilt's era may or may not have been tougher. But the indisputable fact was that his era was faster paced. Lets look at what wilt's numbers would have been in a slower pace. Wilts stats if he played in shaqs minutes and pace at 25 years old: 24.9 ppg, 12.6 rpg, 1.2 apg,That already looks a lot less intimidating.Now you take into account that players were less athletic and muscular and tall back then (Walter Dukes and Mel Counts were the only players wilt's height for a while) and you got yourself a stew goin'...
I'd like to jump in. I definately feel people vastly underrate Chamberlain and VASTLY OVERRATE MJ. but anyways, I do feel that its nonsense to say players today are far more muscular or better athletes. Maybe in general when you are talking about the end of bench players, like the 9th and 10th guys, but you look at the starting 5's of any of the teams Wilt or Russell were on and those are championship contenders in just about any year. Really the only 2 stats anyone really should need to realize Wilt is the greatest. 1)Anyone ever heard the term, Double Triple Double?? its a 20-20-20 game. Wilt Chamberlian is the only person in NBA History to record one. 22 pts, 25 rebounds, 21 Assists (I dont care who the most athletic and talented big man in the league today is, find me any other year in history, in which they could go back and get 21 assists in a game. Jason Kidd doesn't even get 21 assists in a game in today's present time) That statline by the way is from Feb 4, 1968 (also little sidenote, Wilt holds the record for consecutive games with a triple double, at 9) Unofficially I believe the next most is 3, but I have no accurate stats for that right now. (ALSO NOTE, These triple doubles, and the 20-20-20 game, no mention of blocked shots, cause they werent kept until I believe it was 71 (someone correct me on that if you can)2) Most games with 50+ points, 118; Most consecutive games with 40+ points, 14; Most consecutive games with 30+ points: 65; Most consecutive games with 20+ points: 126; Highest rookie scoring average: 37.6 ppg; Highest field goal percentage in a season: .727.In 1988 (wilt was 52) The Cavs offered him reportedly 3 Million dollars to come out of retirement and play Center position for them for 15-20 mins a night. He declined it, but if a pro basketball team is feeling that Wilt could still play at 52, and were willing to give him 3 million dollars (a pretty large sum for the time) Yeah that says something to his greatness. I wonder if anyone would want Jordan right now at at 43? I SERIOUSLY doubt it based on his last comeback attempt.
I didnt read all the posts but everybody is saying one era was better than the other but the average height of the NBA player is only like .2 '' s taller than what it was in Wilt's era
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (playaofthegame @ Dec 28 2006, 11:28 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I didnt read all the posts but everybody is saying one era was better than the other but the average height of the NBA player is only like .2 '' s taller than what it was in Wilt's era</div>This is true, but look at the weights. The 1965 Boston Celtics who won the title didn't have one player that logged 15 minutes or more that weighed over 220 pounds. The Suns who are counted as a small team, have four players that weight more than that. Add to that I know for sure, that players of today are much faster than players of the fast, you have players that weigh more, run faster, and think quicker running around the court.That's the kind of competition that Wilt Chamberlain had to go against. He was in an era where a 6'9-220 pound center could destroy people and make make championship run after championship run.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (playaofthegame @ Dec 28 2006, 08:28 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I didnt read all the posts but everybody is saying one era was better than the other but the average height of the NBA player is only like .2 '' s taller than what it was in Wilt's era</div>yes, but that's only when it's weighted by minutes. you take wilt out of the equation and the average goes down by 2 inchesAnd for a long time, Wilt, Walter Dukes, and Bill Russell were the only players in the league 6'10 or taller
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>In 1988 (wilt was 52) The Cavs offered him reportedly 3 Million dollars to come out of retirement and play Center position for them for 15-20 mins a night. He declined it, but if a pro basketball team is feeling that Wilt could still play at 52, and were willing to give him 3 million dollars (a pretty large sum for the time) Yeah that says something to his greatness. I wonder if anyone would want Jordan right now at at 43? I SERIOUSLY doubt it based on his last comeback attempt.</div>I doubt the veracity of this because 3,000,000 was a higher salary than ANY PLAYER IN THE LEAGUE was making in 1988. I'd believe it if they said they wanted him to play 30-35 minutes a night but nobody in their right mind would pay a guy 3 million for a publicity stunt when some entire teams had nobody paid more than a millionAnd there is nothing about it on google
