Wilt Chamberlin Vs Bill Russell

[Chris Daddy Cool]

This is stemming off from the "Most Dominating Athlete Ever" thread and I counted multiple instances of people mentioning Bill Russel over Wilt, which couldn't be more wrong.

Bill Russell is quoted as to saying that Wilt was better than him and that he was the most dominating opponent he ever played against.

Russell was the premier defender of his era, but Russell tells of stories how he was playing hard nosed defense agaisnt Wilt and felt like he was containing him, but when he looked at the box score later, it turned out that Wilt had scored 50 points and grabbed 20 rebounds. Nobody, not even Bill Russell, could defend Wilt Chamberlin. I don't see how you could even compare the two.

Wilt Chamberlin scored 100 points in a game. He averaged 50 points in one season. He averaged 27 rebounds a game in a season and over 20 a game his whole career. In onced averaged 48.5 minutes a game for an entire season. They had to change rules just for Wilt to make things more fair (I think the offensive 3 second rule and goaltending rules). He pretty much defined domination.

And then in that thread there is also a mentioning about all of Russell's rings and how Wilt *only* had 3. That is by far the lamest argument ever. That's like the arguments before A-Rod went to the Yankees that Derek Jeter is a better shortstop than A-Rod. Give me a break.

The championship argument gets me so vexed because people forget about team sports is that it actually requires a team. You think the Yankees won all those championships because of Derek Jeter's "leadership"? The Celtics were full of stars and if you put Wilt on those teams, I'm pretty sure he would of had a couple more rings.

And Wilt also slept with over 20,000 women. That, my friends, is dominating.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
And Wilt also slept with over 20,000 women. That, my friends, is dominating.

[/ QUOTE ]

But they all spanked him and made him wear their underwear. Not dominating.

[Toro]

quit stealing my material. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Shajen]

Individually? Sure.

Championships? Nope.

Russell defended Wilt well enough to win the game.

Russell is also very understated. Wilt hated playing against Russell. Russell frustrated him like no other opponent.

http://sportsposterwarehouse.com/warehouse/wiltrussellpf-1.jpg

Great question though. This one could be debated for a long time...

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]


Great question though. This one could be debated for a long time...

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. It's been settled for a long time.

It's like Jordan vs. Magic....one can *claim* its debatable, but pretty much everyone knows its not.

[Chris Daddy Cool]

What exactly are your arguments for Russell?

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
What exactly are your arguments for Russell?

[/ QUOTE ]

He had better teammates.

[sublime]

What exactly are your arguments for Russell?

he was the most dominating defensive player in the history of the NBA maybe?

[Toro]

Wilts Career Stats:

G FG% FT% Rebs RPG Asts APG Pts PPG
1,045 .540 .511 23,924 22.9 4,643 4.4 31,419 30.1



Russells Career Stats:

G FG% FT% Rebs RPG Asts APG Pts PPG
963 .440 .561 21,620 22.5 4,100 4.3 14,522 15.1

[Shajen]

[ QUOTE ]
Not really. It's been settled for a long time.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, good to know.

Case closed then.

What were the findings? Based on individual performance, Wilt was better? Based on championships/team performance Russell was better?

You can make a case for either. This isn't simple, Clark.

[andyfox]

Wilt makes maybe ten or twelve key free throws in his career and he has almost as many championships as Russell. Russell was a fine player with limited offensive skills.

Wilt was, until the tail end of his career, only concerned about Wilt. With the exception of Alex Hannum and Bill Sharman, he played for bad coaches.

Did Wilt get 3 rings? I thought just 2.

It was nice to see Russell and Chamberlain become close in the years before Wilt died. Russell has indeed been gracious in his comments about Wilt.

I once saw Wilt get the ball under the basket on a breakaway. Nate Thurmond, a HOFer who was a giant of a man himself, simply wrapped his arms around Wilt. Wilt went up anyway with Thurmond draped on him and dunked (and completed the 3-point play). He was unbelievably strong. Had the league not been such a joke when he joined, and had he had a mentor like Russell had in Auerbach, he'd have won a lot more rings.

I don't think it's a particularly close call: Chamberlain by a lot.

[Phat Mack]

[ QUOTE ]
I once saw Wilt get the ball under the basket on a breakaway. Nate Thurmond, a HOFer who was a giant of a man himself, simply wrapped his arms around Wilt. Wilt went up anyway with Thurmond draped on him and dunked (and completed the 3-point play). He was unbelievably strong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I saw Wilt pull the same stunt with Dolf Shay's a couple of MSG's ago.

I don't know if you're old enough to remember this, but Wilt contemplated fighting for the Heavyweight title in the mid 60's. He never went through with the idea, but I think he had a few years where he was pretty bored with B-ball. Also, I think he started a professional volleyball league at about the same time...

[contentless]

My replies in that thread were not that Russell was more dominating than Wilt; he certainly was not. My argument was that Wilt could NOT possibly be the most dominating athlete of all-time (or be close, etc.) because of the fact that he simply could not win a championship (well, yes he did...but you get my drift). Arguing that Wilt was the most dominant athlete of all-time is akin to arguing that Marino was the most dominant football player of all-time, to which I say: no more valium for you.

[andyfox]

Yes, I remember (I'm 52.) I remember Ali being asked what he thought would happen if he fought Wilt, and I remember his very funny answer: "Timberrrrrr . . ."

Jerry West said that when he and Wilt roomed on the Lakers, in New York, Chamberlain, in those days, would spend $100 on breakfast. He'd start with a gallon of orange juice and proceed from there.

In many ways, Wilt was a throw back to the larger-than-life sports figures of the twenties: Babe Ruth, Bill Tilden, Jack Dempsey. Not all it was good of course, for any of them, but he defined his era almost as much as they did.

[andyfox]

It's obviously much easier to discern dominance in an individual sport than a team sport. We know Tiger Woods and Jack Nicklaus were dominant in their times because of the championships they won. But what exactly was Russell's, or Yogi Berra's contributions, to the many championships their teams won?

Our first clue is their statistics. A second might be what their teammates and opponents thought of them. And a third might be our own subjective judgments, having seen them play.

I'm not sure if not winning a lot of championship (or not winning any, in the case of, say, Karl Malone or A-Rod) disqualifies a player from being the most dominating player.

[M2d]

[ QUOTE ]
It's like Jordan vs. Magic....one can *claim* its debatable, but pretty much everyone knows its not.

[/ QUOTE ]
the only reason I can think that it's not debatable is that they played different positions on different teams. wilt and russell is a much better case because they played the same position and often against each other.
btw, magic rules.

[AKQJ10]

andyfox, this has nothing to do with this thread, but I couldn't PM you so I figured I'd chase you down on the message boards instead. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

A while back you wrote a really great summary of the action going on at the Commerce; would you mind if I quoted it liberally at our new PokerWiki (http://poker.wikicities.com)?

Or feel free to come over and tweak the commerce page yourself....

[andyfox]

Feel free to quote.