William Russell vs Wilton Chamberlain

What vested interest was that?

 

His image. But as others have pointed out, that wasn't always a big concern for him, so I was wrong on that.

But there's any number of reasons why he might have believed it. As a competitor, it was probably important to have someone who pushed him, something to strive toward.

Regardless of the reason, the fact that he believed it isn't particularly relevant to me. Wilt Chamberlain was great at playing basketball, not evaluating basketball players.

 

Also could've been a boxer. As an athlete, Wilton Norman Chamberlain was far superior than Bill Russell. As a champion, Russell wins.
As for playing hoops, Michael Jordan, for all his greatness, ain't got nuthin on Wilt.

 

And if he doesn't get those two breaks, he only has 9 titles, instead of 11. Still staggering. Still unmatched by any other player in history.

 

and you are?

 

Nobody important.

So instead of appealing to false authorities, let's just let the facts speak for themselves and decide how much weight to put on them.

 

This isn't baseball Rick where numbers speak for themselves.

So what are the facts and what variables have you used to come up with these facts?

How do you know that Chamberlin wasn't great at evaluating Basketball players?

 

The statistical record of what happened in games that says that Russell was a better defender (though Chamberlain was good), Chamberlain was a slightly better rebounder and a far better passer.

I guess I technically don't know that he wasn't an expert at evaluating basketball players, but there's no proof that he was, anymore than there is proof that I am.

It's true that basketball isn't as simple statistically as baseball, and I could understand the argument that Russell didn't need to put up the gaudy statistics because of his surrounding talent.

 

Enough, please. My head hurts. Wilt Chamberlain was the single most dominating player in professional basketball. The rules of the game were altered because of his play.
You can go with the statistic crap all that you want. If you EVER saw him play, and Rick, no offense but you weren't even thought of, you probably would agree.
The stat stuff is nice but at some point, common sense has to kick in, ya know?

 

And some of it was actually saved.

Good luck trying to find any visual evidence that the second half of Game 5 of the 1972 NBA Finals was ever played, however.

 

What is your malfunction? You don't know me so to call me condescending or arrogant is a gross mischaracterization and very silly on your part. You are free to disagree but who gave you the right to label me or anyone else?
Yes, video tape is available and I think anyone who studies those tapes can easily see just how great of a player Chamberlain was.

 

Drip, has anybody said Chamberlin wasn't a great player?