Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lachlanwood32
The two situations you proposed are not similar at all. Wilt has played NBA basketball. That's a downright horrible example.
It's not hard to find clips of Wilt, box scores, reviews, newspaper articles. Wilt is hardly an unknown, and if he is then it's solely because of a lack of research.
In response to Minstrel, my friend, we know what Cousy did too. Did we witness what Cousy did, possibly not. But we most certainly know what he accomplished in Boston. Just looking at career stats makes it obvious that he was far superior to Fisher, you don't even need video clips, articles or opinions.
For the young ones out there, using Chan's theory, Austin Croshere>Larry Bird. Eric Snow>Magic Johnson. Ridiculous?
|
No, not at all. Bird and Johnson is not ancient history. Wilt dominated at a time where rules were one way, Shaq dominated at a time where rules were another. We have a frame of reference of Magic and Bird, but not of Wilt Chamberlain. You cannot say one dominant superstar is better than another based on clips, box scores, reviews, and newspaper articles. Unless you have seen him play in a modern time, you have no more credibility than John Hollinger. There is no proof Wilt is better than Shaq, but there is no proof Shaq is better than Wilt. It comes down to you judgement. Do you take the one you've seen dominate from a 1st hand perspective, or do you take the one you've heard dominate from box scores and newspaper articles?