Wilt Today

[Ballscientist]

Originally posted by <b>RocketFan85</b>!
I think Shaq is a better player. I would even put Kareem Abdul-Jabbar in front of Wilt. Basketball has changed alot since when Wilt played. Wilt could put up 25ppg and 10rpg in todays game.

Wilt today

22 points and 11 boards per game in the West.
25 points and 14 boards per game in the east.

[kcchiefs-fan]

Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!


It's told that Paul Bunyon brushed his teeth with redwood trees.

Applying common sense once in a while can't hurt.

All he's doing is relaying what other people have said. Facts are great, but the thing is, everytime people bring up facts about Wilt, they're denounced by others who say there's not enough solid proof.

Yes, people are more athletic on average now then they were 40 years ago, however, if Wilt were born 30 or so years later in life, I don't think it's debatable that he would've been an even greater athlete than he already was. There have been profound advances in nutrition and weight-training technology, on top of other training techniques, that would obviously benefit Chamberlain.

And yes, spriggan, many, many people do believe Wilt > MJ

[Spriggan]

Originally posted by <b>PauloCatarino</b>!


Found the damned site!


Here are some quotes from his peers.

Study up.

Example: "When I coached the San Francisco Warriors, I thought Al Attles was the fastest guy on our team--by far. We used to gamble a lot--which player could jump the highest and run the fastest. So I set up a series of races, baseline to baseline. In the finals, it was Wilt and Al Attles and Wilt just blew past him. I'm convinced that Wilt Chamberlain is one of the greatest all-around athletes the world has ever seen."

--Alex Hannum, Tall Tales (by Terry Pluto) p. 327

here's a small quote from one of the quotes on that page:

Gus was a very strong player. I weighed 220 pounds, and with one hand Gus could push me out of the lane. The man was a physical specimen [6-foot-6, 230 pounds], all muscle.

that's pretty much what i was trying to explain. wilt dominated at a time when a person that was 6'6 230 was considered a "physical specimen".

[kcchiefs-fan]

Originally posted by <b>spriggan9</b>!
that's pretty much what i was trying to explain. wilt dominated at a time when a person that was 6'6 230 was considered a "physical specimen".

6'6'' and 230 lbs. of solid muscle isn't a physical specimen anymore?

And you left out the part that he suffered a dislocated shoulder stemming from a Chamberlain rejection......

[Spriggan]

Originally posted by <b>kcchiefs-fan</b>!


6'6'' and 230 lbs. of solid muscle isn't a physical specimen anymore?

And you left out the part that he suffered a dislocated shoulder stemming from a Chamberlain rejection......

if 6'6 230 lbs is a "physical specimen", do you realize how many "physical specimens" there are in the NBA today?

i'd use the words "physical specimen" to describe someone like KG or lebron. but that's just me.

and dislocated shoulder, indeed. just like the guy who claimed that wilt once dunked the ball so hard it broke someone's toe?

people often embellish the truth. this is something you need to learn.

[kcchiefs-fan]

Originally posted by <b>spriggan9</b>!


if 6'6 230 lbs is a "physical specimen", do you realize how many "physical specimens" there are in the NBA today?

i'd use the words "physical specimen" to describe someone like KG or lebron. but that's just me.

and dislocated shoulder, indeed. just like the guy who claimed that wilt once dunked the ball so hard it broke someone's toe?

people often embellish the truth. this is something you need to learn.

You know who said he dunked the ball so hard it broke someone's toe? Red Kerr, the man who's toe was broken by said dunk.

Sure people embellish the truth, but just because something's amazing doesn't neccesarily mean it's untrue. That's something YOU need to learn.

6'6'' 230 pounds of solid muscle is a physical specimen. KG is a terrific athlete but he's not physically imposing. Would you concede Ron Artest to be a physical specimen? Because his physique is stikingly similar to the description given.

You're going to believe what you want and will continue to shrug off Wilt's accomplishments as untrue or exaggerated, and that's fine. It just goes to show that people have a hard time fathoming how good he really was.

[Spriggan]

Originally posted by <b>kcchiefs-fan</b>!


You know who said he dunked the ball so hard it broke someone's toe? Red Kerr, the man who's toe was broken by said dunk.

Sure people embellish the truth, but just because something's amazing doesn't neccesarily mean it's untrue. That's something YOU need to learn.

6'6'' 230 pounds of solid muscle is a physical specimen. KG is a terrific athlete but he's not physically imposing. Would you concede Ron Artest to be a physical specimen? Because his physique is stikingly similar to the description given.

You're going to believe what you want and will continue to shrug off Wilt's accomplishments as untrue or exaggerated, and that's fine. It just goes to show that people have a hard time fathoming how good he really was.

you actually believe that wilt chamberlain once dunked a ball so hard it broke someone's TOE?

and you don't believe KG to be a physical specimen?

wow.

oh and, ron artest is nearly 250, so no, it's not "strikingly similar".

glenn robinson is 6'7 240. i guess he's a physical specimen. don't be fooled, it's all muscle.

[Minstrel]

Originally posted by <b>kcchiefs-fan</b>!


You're going to believe what you want and will continue to shrug off Wilt's accomplishments as untrue or exaggerated, and that's fine. It just goes to show that people have a hard time fathoming how good he really was.

And you're going to believe anything said about Wilt Chamberlain, no matter how outlandish. It just goes to show that some people will believe anything just because they want it to be true.

That statement above is as reasonable as what you said.

The truth lies somewhere in the middle. Chamberlain was undoubtedly a brilliant athlete, who would be great today, but he wasn't a superhuman. Some of those stories are purely ridiculous and some of the stories probably are true.

[kcchiefs-fan]

Originally posted by <b>spriggan9</b>!
you actually believe that wilt chamberlain once dunked a ball so hard it broke someone's TOE?

Why would a man lie that his toe was broken by someone else's dunk? It's ludicrus. I guess there's just a big conspiracy that nearly everyone who saw him wanted to build up his legend.

As for KG, no, he's not a physical specimen in the sense that he's physically imposing (as was suggest per the quote you gave). However, he is an athletic freak.

And Ron Artest is listed at 6'7'' 245. 6'6'' 230 of solid muscle is a HUGE drop-off from 6'7'' 245, I know.......

[kcchiefs-fan]

Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!


And you're going to believe anything said about Wilt Chamberlain, no matter how outlandish. It just goes to show that some people will believe anything just because they want it to be true.

That statement above is as reasonable as what you said.

The truth lies somewhere in the middle. Chamberlain was undoubtedly a brilliant athlete, who would be great today, but he wasn't a superhuman. Some of those stories are purely ridiculous and some of the stories probably are true.

You're making a rather rash assessment of my stance on the subject based purely on the fact that I'm defending several people's eye-witness testimonies. When numerous legitimate witnesses attest to some of the things spriggan and others continue to denounce, I tend to believe the former.

Nobody's suggesting Wilt was superhuman, but people are suggesting he's the best athlete to ever pick up a basketball. Are you saying this isn't a possibility, if not probability?

[Spriggan]

Originally posted by <b>kcchiefs-fan</b>!


Why would a man lie that his toe was broken by someone else's dunk? It's ludicrus. I guess there's just a big conspiracy that nearly everyone who saw him wanted to build up his legend.

As for KG, no, he's not a physical specimen in the sense that he's physically imposing (as was suggest per the quote you gave). However, he is an athletic freak.

And Ron Artest is listed at 6'7'' 245. 6'6'' 230 of solid muscle is a HUGE drop-off from 6'7'' 245, I know.......

why makes it so hard to believe that "physical specimen" back then isn't the same as "physical specimen" nowadays.

i hear those words used a lot to describe lebron. imagine if lebron was around in the 60's. 18 years old, 6'8 240 lbs. what words could they have possibly used to describe lebron? certainly not "physical specimen". that's reserved for smaller guys, apprently.

face it. athletes today are bigger, stronger and quicker. a physical specimen in the 60's would probably not be considered so today, if i had to guess.. wilt was certainly a physical specimen, and would still be in this day, but not the guy he blocked so hard he dislocated his shoulder. if that's even true, of course. however, that's much easier to believe than wilt breaking someone's toe with a basketball.

[Minstrel]

Originally posted by <b>kcchiefs-fan</b>!

You're making a rather rash assessment of my stance on the subject based purely on the fact that I'm defending several people's eye-witness testimonies.

No I'm not. I'm pointing out how easily such rhetoric can be used to try and dismiss the other person. I don't actually believe that little blurb I said about you, I was just reversing your rhetoric.

As I said, I think the truth lies in between the people who think much of this is bunk and the people who think it's all true.

Nobody's suggesting Wilt was superhuman, but people are suggesting he's the best athlete to ever pick up a basketball. Are you saying this isn't a possibility, if not probability?

I think it's a possibility. I don't think some of the stories put forth about Chamberlain are possible.

And people exaggerate all the time, even about things that happened to them. The bigger the story, the more interested people are.

[kcchiefs-fan]

Originally posted by <b>spriggan9</b>!


why makes it so hard to believe that "physical specimen" back then isn't the same as "physical specimen" nowadays.

i hear those words used a lot to describe lebron. imagine if lebron was around in the 60's. 18 years old, 6'8 240 lbs. what words could they have possibly used to describe lebron? certainly not "physical specimen". that's reserved for smaller guys, apprently.

face it. athletes today are bigger, stronger and quicker. a physical specimen in the 60's would probably not be considered so today, if i had to guess.. wilt was certainly a physical specimen, and would still be in this day, but not the guy he blocked so hard he dislocated his shoulder. if that's even true, of course. however, that's much easier to believe than wilt breaking someone's toe with a basketball.

I'm not saying there isn't a discrepency between physical specimens today and physical specimens from 40 years ago. However, you isolated a VERY small part of the page and used it to feed your side of the argument, when in actuality it really isn't a profound discovery. Do you really think somebody 6'6'' and 230 lbs. of solid muscle couldn't be considered a physical specimen in today's NBA?

Once again you assume that something's untrue just become you personally don't find it feasible. You know what I don't find feasible? Somebody lying about his toe being broken by somebody else's dunk. I could see an exaggeration but at the very least I'm sure his toe was awfully damn sore.

Let's face it, some of the stories about Wilt are untrue. For instance, there's no way in hell he had a 50 in. vertical. But eye witness accounts by rival NBA legends, coaches, GM's, etc. usually have a bit of validity.

This is being dragged out too far. You're looking for statistical facts to prove Wilt was the athlete that he was, which we simply aren't going to find (and if we did, you'd probably find some flaw in that as well, making it moot). Your opinion differs from mine, which is perfectly okay. However, the sarcastic remark "I bet some people still think Wilt > MJ too" is, quite simply, disrespectful to many people (for a few examples......Larry Bird, Jerry West, and Oscar Robertson) who feel Wilt is the greatest player who ever lived. Is he better than MJ? Not neccesarily. Is MJ better than Wilt? Not neccesarily. There's an argument to be made for both of them as the greatest ever (as well as Oscar), but your snide remark is a bit uncalled for, IMO.

[kcchiefs-fan]

Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
As I said, I think the truth lies in between the people who think much of this is bunk and the people who think it's all true.

More than likely. However, I don't think many think it's all true. I'm not under the assumption that every story I hear about Chamberlain is 100% correct. However, most of them have some truth to them. People don't just fabricate the kind of things they say about this guy. Obviously the lack of media attention and televised games helps his legend, but it also hurts him in the regard that many haven't seen him and just assume that since he didn't play in the same era as MJ and Shaq, that he couldn't possibly be as good.

I think it's a possibility. I don't think some of the stories put forth about Chamberlain are possible.

And people exaggerate all the time, even about things that happened to them. The bigger the story, the more interested people are.

Some of the stories put forth aren't possible, however, the majority of them are conceivable.

Once again, I understand that many people naturally exaggerate stories, but I find it somewhat far fetched that, with the enormous amount of testimonies to his extreme athletic ability, his freakish skills are simply a figment of everyone's imagination. I realize that's not what you're implying, but I personally feel there's more backing the claim that he was probably the greatest athlete in basketball history as opposed to him being on Jermaine O'neil's level if he were to play today, which is what many any here would have you believe.

[kflo]

Originally posted by <b>spriggan9</b>!


why makes it so hard to believe that "physical specimen" back then isn't the same as "physical specimen" nowadays.

i hear those words used a lot to describe lebron. imagine if lebron was around in the 60's. 18 years old, 6'8 240 lbs. what words could they have possibly used to describe lebron? certainly not "physical specimen". that's reserved for smaller guys, apprently.

face it. athletes today are bigger, stronger and quicker. a physical specimen in the 60's would probably not be considered so today, if i had to guess.. wilt was certainly a physical specimen, and would still be in this day, but not the guy he blocked so hard he dislocated his shoulder. if that's even true, of course. however, that's much easier to believe than wilt breaking someone's toe with a basketball.

if lebron was around in the 60s he would likely not be 6'8 240. he's a product of his times, as were athletes back in the 60s. lebron in '60 would be much skinnier, but relative to his peers he'd stand out, like he does today. wilt today wouldn't be 7'1 280, he'd be much larger, given that he had the work ethic to live in the gym and take supplements like todays freaks do. we just don't make people bigger & stronger today, they work at it - just like many of the athletes of yesterday would today. again, a superfreak of yesterday would likely be a superfreak today.