Professional and College Basketball Forums banner
1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,080 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Why does everyone disrespect Wilt's era of basketball? Almost every fan I know says that Wilt's era of basketball sucked and thats why his statistics were so amazing. They say that he couldn't have accomplished any of that stuff if he was in this era, or if he was a guard.

Surely he had some competition excluding Bill Russell. I know he was much taller than most NBA players back then, but so is Yao, and he hasn't been dominating until just recently.

Does anyone have any points proving that Wilt's Era of the NBA was respectable?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,277 Posts
Well, 25 rpg? That's can't be done today. 50 ppg? Can't be done today. Don't you think if it was just as hard back then, there would be players today averaging at least close to that? Especially with the way kids start playing at such young ages and with all this new technology to tweak their games every little bit.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
21,860 Posts
Hairy Midget said:
Well, 25 rpg? That's can't be done today. 50 ppg? Can't be done today. Don't you think if it was just as hard back then, there would be players today averaging at least close to that? Especially with the way kids start playing at such young ages and with all this new technology to tweak their games every little bit.
Basically the exact answer and then some.
 

·
Top Of The Pops
Joined
·
27,460 Posts
Shadyballa8D13 said:
Why does everyone disrespect Wilt's era of basketball? Almost every fan I know says that Wilt's era of basketball sucked and thats why his statistics were so amazing. They say that he couldn't have accomplished any of that stuff if he was in this era, or if he was a guard.
When you examine the statistics that Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russell put up, the numbers are often so outlandish you either have to decide on one of two things:

1. Chamberlain and Russell, and a few others who put up ridiculous numbers of points or rebounds, were simply supermen, the likes of which simply do not roam the Earth anymore, since even the very best NBA players don't approach those numbers

or

2. The environment was drastically different, allowing the very best players of that era to put up numbers that are simply not possible in this era.

I find (2) to be much more reasonable and likely. Saying the era "sucked" is unnecessarily pejorative, but it's fair to say that factors in that era led to rare dominance by the top players. To me, it looks like extreme variance in the talent level...some extraordinarily talented players, who would be among the greatest in any era, some players who would be in the average spectrum in any era and a fair amount of players who simply couldn't compete in other eras.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gilgamesh

·
Legal Smeagol
Joined
·
30,698 Posts
People need to watch game film of Wilt playing the Celtics, which he did a number of times per season. Russell would be behind him, somebody would be fronting him, and another would be looming, ready to drop down - with no illegal defense. Watch the holding, pushing and so on that go on, though sometimes it's tough. The problem is that much of his early years aren't on film, or the film is lost. Players of his era freely admit that they got away with things that nobody could dream of today, that make hand-checking seem like matador defense. Watching Wilt's early years, he was an insanely gifted athlete, who would've been dominant in any era of the game. He was phenomenally strong, jumped higher than any center has a right to, and was all around an agile athlete. His reflexes were also well above average. But people believe what they see, and the insane hype-machine that tells us that one-dimensional stars of today are the equals of all-time greats all mess around with that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
664 Posts
I think the "basketball was weaker then" theory is a complete misnomer. Basketball is basketball. even if, just for arguments sake, the talent was lesser back then. 50 points per game is still an amazing acomplishment. I bet none of you could put up 50 points a game over 70 games, even if you were playing against a horde of retarded school girls. hell I don't think Shaq could do it if he was playing against retarded school girls of equal height. why? because in order to score that many points you need to take a lot of shots, and make them. something very few players in the modern NBA do.

Now granted the shooting back in those days(except for centers, and the superstars) sucked. so getting massive number of rebounds was a lot easier. but even in todays NBA you have teams like Utah would couldn't throw the ball into the pacific Ocean on most nights, and yet you dont see these outlandish rebounding numbers. thats because Wilt and Bill were the greatest big men to ever play professional basketball.

people can compare them to Shaq, and say Shaq is more dominate, but they are mistaken. its safe to say that during Shaqs best years, the NBA had its weakest days in terms of centers. so why didn't Shaq put up 50 points and 25 boards a night? because Shaq simply isn't that dominate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,488 Posts
Rednecksbasketball said:
people can compare them to Shaq, and say Shaq is more dominate, but they are mistaken. its safe to say that during Shaqs best years, the NBA had its weakest days in terms of centers. so why didn't Shaq put up 50 points and 25 boards a night? because Shaq simply isn't that dominate.
when shaq had his best years interms of athletic dominance he was playing in a league with
-alonzo mourning
-patrick ewing
-hakeem olajuwon
-david robinson
-dikembe mutumbo

all in there primes. and right now he's scoring 20-10 against
yao ming
ben wallace
marcus camby

i think there is just a slight parrity between the top centers in league at those times
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,122 Posts
There's nothing disrespectable about Wilt's era of b-ball. Among the points made above, I think it can be summed up as:

The average player today might be better than the average player in that era.

But there were plenty of good players that are just as comparable to players today.

And there were great players (Wilt, Baylor, O) that capitalized on both their extraordinary talents and skill, and a slightly weaker talent level. Would these players have the same stats now? Maybe not as high, but definitely at the top of the league.

*Might want to get this thread moved to history*
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,488 Posts
this logic will probably baffle most of you but - i use the idea of the comparing world record for the 100metres, in 1956 the world record was owned by willie williams who ran 10.1 seconds. now while the official world record has only gone down a little more than a third of a second in those 50years. only one man could do it back then, and now there would possibly be a 1000 across the world. so i think that if u put wilt in todays game, where everyone is so much bigger and faster (the weight has increased on average by 5lbs in past 20yrs alone) his attributes would not dwarf everyone elses and he wouldn't be the 50-27 he was for that one incredible season.

btw, some nba teams averaged well over 65 rebounds per game for a season, so while 27per does double what todays elite rebounders do. they were averaging 50% more rebs as a team.

and wilt took 40 fga/g the season he averaged 50.4, so his accomplishments, while style remarkable, are not completely unfathomable when comparing to the modern game
 
  • Like
Reactions: universal!

·
Registered
Joined
·
327 Posts
Minstrel said:
When you examine the statistics that Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russell put up, the numbers are often so outlandish you either have to decide on one of two things:

1. Chamberlain and Russell, and a few others who put up ridiculous numbers of points or rebounds, were simply supermen, the likes of which simply do not roam the Earth anymore, since even the very best NBA players don't approach those numbers

or

2. The environment was drastically different, allowing the very best players of that era to put up numbers that are simply not possible in this era.

I find (2) to be much more reasonable and likely. Saying the era "sucked" is unnecessarily pejorative, but it's fair to say that factors in that era led to rare dominance by the top players. To me, it looks like extreme variance in the talent level...some extraordinarily talented players, who would be among the greatest in any era, some players who would be in the average spectrum in any era and a fair amount of players who simply couldn't compete in other eras.
This is the correct answer. Everyone can stop posting now. Thanks for playing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,919 Posts
Krstic All Star said:
People need to watch game film of Wilt playing the Celtics, which he did a number of times per season. Russell would be behind him, somebody would be fronting him, and another would be looming, ready to drop down - with no illegal defense. Watch the holding, pushing and so on that go on, though sometimes it's tough. The problem is that much of his early years aren't on film, or the film is lost. Players of his era freely admit that they got away with things that nobody could dream of today, that make hand-checking seem like matador defense. Watching Wilt's early years, he was an insanely gifted athlete, who would've been dominant in any era of the game. He was phenomenally strong, jumped higher than any center has a right to, and was all around an agile athlete. His reflexes were also well above average. But people believe what they see, and the insane hype-machine that tells us that one-dimensional stars of today are the equals of all-time greats all mess around with that.
KAS, I learnt a while ago that people believe what they want, sometimes with total disregard to others logical explanations. It's starting to get useless to voice an opinion without someone telling you that you're wrong. We've had lots of debates about Chamberlain, Russell and the rest on the History board, and I still believe that people undermine what Chamberlain did because nowadays it's deemed as unreleastic to believe someone could average 50ppg over 80 games.

Using the logic of some of you on here, we should be a sturdy digression in scoring over the next 40 years too. So when we look back at the NBA in 40 years will people be averaging 15ppg? It's illogical to even imagine that scoring will drop so far, but this is the argument some are using.

It's basically down to Wilt being a phenomenon. He came around at the right time, in the right environment, and everything clicked, but to believe that it was easy for him and he had his way over smaller players is ignorant. The amount of pushing, pulling and shoving back then kept him from averaging even more per game.

Here's some discussions we had on Wilt in the past:
http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?t=199519
http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?t=200141
http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?t=199605
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,162 Posts
Shadyballa8D13 said:
Why does everyone disrespect Wilt's era of basketball? Almost every fan I know says that Wilt's era of basketball sucked and thats why his statistics were so amazing. They say that he couldn't have accomplished any of that stuff if he was in this era, or if he was a guard.

Surely he had some competition excluding Bill Russell. I know he was much taller than most NBA players back then, but so is Yao, and he hasn't been dominating until just recently.

Does anyone have any points proving that Wilt's Era of the NBA was respectable?
Wilt's era of basketball is disrespected because of Wilt.

You don't hear people saying Cousy's assist numbers are bloated due to pace.
You don't hear poeple saying Oscar's triple doubles were products of his era.
It's just Wilt.

I guess it's the way people deal with Wilts achievments: they are so mind-boggling that the only way some people can deal with them is by blaming the era in wich he played. And it's a double standard, really: you will never hear people criticise Jordan's 35+ppg seasons with the fact that he didn't have to face zone defenses, that perimeter players scored regularly in the .500FG%s, etc., ect.. Strange, in fact.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,497 Posts
there are 2 undeniable truths in this discussion - wilt's numbers were inflated due to his era (btw, assists weren't easier to come by back then as they were stingier with crediting an assist), and wilt was a freak who would have dominated any era.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,471 Posts
The last several years has arguably been the weakest center era for quite some time.

Many people would argue that Shaq wasn't in his prime yet when he faced off against a prime Ewing, Hakeem, Admiral, and etc. That is if you consider his prime after his MVP year.

The center pool early in Wilt's career is arguably worst than the centers that Shaq faces today and for the last couple years. But during the latter portion of his career Wilt faced off against the likes of Russell, Kareem, Thurmond, Unseld, Reed, Bellamy, Hayes, Lanier, Boerwinkle and etc. A lot of HOFers. But by then Wilt's offensive numbers diminished partly because he accepted his "new" Russell'esque role with the Lakers and partly because he wasn't in his prime anymore but the guy still managed to shoot 65% and 73% from the field in his last two seasons. We will never really know how a prime Wilt would have fared against many of those centers especially the Wilt who scored over 50 ppg. But what we do know is Wilt averaged 28.7 ppg and 28.7 rpg vs Russell (who many consider to be the father of NBA post defense) including a 62 point game and 55 rebound game.

I think Minstrel got it right and this is what I tried to get at in the greatest rebounder discussion. When people talk about Wilt, they have the tendency to use his era as the de facto argument for his dominance meanwhile consequently neglecting his actual ability and talent. When the truth is YES his era certainly gave Wilt a physical advantage but the man had skill and talent. Think about it. In the greatest rebounder discussion someone brought up height. Wilt was taller than everyone. Well if height was the primary factor for a rebounder's success how come Yao Ming isn't by far the best rebounder in the league? Instead, KG who is measured 7 inches shorter than Yao according to NBA.com is. If size is the biggest reason for Wilt's success (an argument people also use for Shaq) how come Diop, Podkolzine, Curry, and a number of 300 pound centers who graced this league are not even close to the Wilt or Shaq's dominance level? Fact is that Wilt and Shaq have the skill and talent to go along with their size, height, and strength to create a lethal combination.

Also, Wilt was defended rigourously probably even more so than Shaq today. Wilt wanted to retire after his first season because of how teams were "defending" him. Kristic All Star is right.

Paulo is also correct. No player's accomplishments is more scrutinized than Wilt. It's almost like there is a biased.

naibsel said:
when shaq had his best years interms of athletic dominance he was playing in a league with
-alonzo mourning
-patrick ewing
-hakeem olajuwon
-david robinson
-dikembe mutumbo

all in there primes. and right now he's scoring 20-10 against
yao ming
ben wallace
marcus camby

i think there is just a slight parrity between the top centers in league at those times
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
21,860 Posts
I don't think anybody here is trying to say that Wilt wasn't a phenom player/athlete. The arguement is, that he wouldn't be able to put up the numbers he put up back then in this day an age. Or even a few other eras. When you're physically gifted, and twice the size of everyone it's hard NOT to dominate.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top