I know nothing about basketball but some folks say wilt chamberlain is the best, even chamberlain's arch enemy, kareem, said that Michael Jordan, "Jordan hasn't come close to what wilt did" . I don't know that sport but just researching wilt is mind blowing, a guy who did amazing things in track and field, was actually so strong that he had to tone it down, he dunked a ball and broke a guys foot with it, Arnold Schwarzenegger was quoted saying he could lift him with one arm, and you just say "bullshit". I used to read wilt's interviews and think "just hot air and ego" but the stories don't only come from him, Arnold said wilt did tricep extensions with 170 pounds and wilt said that when he worked out with Arnold on the conan set, he intimidated Arnold so much that he never came near the weights with wilt around again. Arnold doesn't dispute the stories. It's possible for an athlete to surpass athletes after them, it's been said that wilt could have held shaq in his arms like a baby.
I used to hate the fact that wilt thought he could beat ali in the ring, I still don't think he could do it but who knows. He definitely was a superior athlete to Ali, Ali couldn't even outrun Wilma rudoph, wilt chamberlain outran Jim Brown fairly easily, just amazing. the newest ain't always the best.
i can't say I know much about basketball but I saw a clip of kobe telling someone his list was "wilt, kobe and Michael" in that order, that's high praise for a latter day basketball player where you don't expect it. I saw a vid saying the average height of basketball players now is 6-6 and it was 6-5 (could have been just centers, I'm not sure but that was the stat)when wilt was playing, it also mentioned a number of guys who were around 7 foot. It's the athletic feats that intrigues me, not the basketball playing so much. A guy his size and his sport and he was making champions in other sports (Jim Brown, Arnold) look bad at what they did best, that is just phenomenal. and he looks pretty skilled in the vids I see of him. As an athlete, he may have been just what some people are calling him, the greatest athlete of all time.Keep in mind wil chamberlain was almost 7 ft. Playing against other big men who are 6’4.
He’s not even close to the most skilled. He was a big man when there weren’t any besides bill Russell.
can you imagine not only being one of the very few that could dunk. But being so tall the other big men are up to your navel.
wilt isn’t the best big man of all time. He played in an era of white small white guys.
you could also back a guy down for 30 seconds if you wanted to and just dunk on the little guy.
or simply put your hands in the air and have a guy pass you the ball.
it’s like a senior playing against 4th graders. Is that due to his skill? No. he had no jump shot. But what he could do is score from 4 feet away and there was nothing anyone could do about it.
Saying wilt is better than Jordan. Is like saying. Whatever the fastest white guy was in 1806. Is the superior runner over Usain bolt.
You know less than nothing about basketball in general.Keep in mind wil chamberlain was almost 7 ft. Playing against other big men who are 6’4.
He’s not even close to the most skilled. He was a big man when there weren’t any besides bill Russell.
can you imagine not only being one of the very few that could dunk. But being so tall the other big men are up to your navel.
wilt isn’t the best big man of all time. He played in an era of white small white guys.
you could also back a guy down for 30 seconds if you wanted to and just dunk on the little guy.
or simply put your hands in the air and have a guy pass you the ball.
it’s like a senior playing against 4th graders. Is that due to his skill? No. he had no jump shot. But what he could do is score from 4 feet away and there was nothing anyone could do about it.
Saying wilt is better than Jordan. Is like saying. Whatever the fastest white guy was in 1806. Is the superior runner over Usain bolt.
You know less than nothing about basketball in general
he was a genetic freak and could score a ton of points due to his freakish size especially at the time.
He’s an all time great Player. He was a very good athlete as well. He was ahead of his time.
He’s not the most skilled center to play.
A guy like Hakeem Olajuwon is the better ball player who played in an era when there were a ton of great big men.
If you think his giant frame compared to everyone else at the time didn’t play much of a part in being able to score 100 points at will I don’t know what to tell ya.
you basically just said wah.
Yeah his accomplishments and secondary description of him border on mythological folklore. How can a man so wirey be at 7'1" 276 lbs. Shaq was the same height and weight but built like a tank. How could he be so strong but have not much muscle mass, how did he only win 2 championships if he was averaging 40+ points a game and 22 rebs a game and 10 blocks or so. It's astonishing yet some things don't seem to add up. The 100 pts in a game are definitely real, but Wilt will always be an enigma for some reason. Probably the single most impressive specimen of a human that ever lived, almost to Superhuman ahead of his time.
But for most, from pure basketball standards, Michael Jordan still stands above. And a large part of that is because of what he accomplished in such a dominant fashion for so long with LESS physical attributes than Wilt. Jordan was ONLY 6"6' 210 - 215 lbs, yet was equally as unstoppable in his own right. He won 6 titles out of 6 attempts and broke every record in the NBA but Wilt's. Interesting argument for sure.
shaq always struck me as lazy, i could be wrong but a lot of big guys are, even wilt was accussed of not having enough desire. Bill Russel was the polar opposite. Same with boxers really, generally speaking, the heavyweights are a lot more mellow than the little guys.LOL the last time Shaq weighed 276 pounds was probably his freshman year of college.
Floyd Mayweather's style wouldn't have won him any favours in those days.
Interesting, how do you figure? Of many modern fighters he's the one I would pick to do better without adjustments in that era, especially at lightweight. His emphasis on foot and head movement is applicable to any time period. At welter his hands are definitely an issue for him but I still don't see how his technique does him a disservice in the 15 round, horse-hair era.
Now a guy like Winky Wright would definitely be out of place there.
Which modern fighting style do you think would translate to the most success in first half of the 20th century?
He has fragile hands so he would struggle to fight as often as boxers did in those days. You wouldn't have been able to make a living fighting only once or twice a year. The judges were also less appreciative of the low workrate/defensive styles, and often rewarded fights to the aggressor even if they were wholly ineffective (see Louis-Walcott I for example). Would he have gotten the benefit of the doubt in a fight like Castillo I? Probably not.
Not sure how he would do against the clutching and grabbing that used to be quite prevalent, before referees got more involved in the fights. He does make solid use of his elbows.
It looked more like MMA stand-up at times:
Guys like Toney and Hopkins would've done well for sure.
I remember floyd tapping the canvas when hurt his hand, was he a lightweight then?His hands didn’t develop problems until later in his career, which is why I differentiated between lightweight and welterweight. At 130-140, he was much more offensive.
Floyd is a good infighter; people gave Cortez a hard time for breaking Mayweather and Hatton early, but Floyd was the one outworking Ricky in the clinch. He knew how to fight rough on the inside. He’s also one of the best at being dirty while maintaining enough sense in the ring to hide it from the ref. I don’t see his inside game being a problem in any era regardless of how much grappling there is.
Does he go undefeated fighting 6-8 times a year consistently? Doubtful, but not being undefeated doesn’t mean it’s an inherently bad style.
I remember floyd tapping the canvas when hurt his hand, was he a lightweight then?
you are dumb as shitI think he’d be mediocre.
His hands didn’t develop problems until later in his career, which is why I differentiated between lightweight and welterweight. At 130-140, he was much more offensive.
Floyd is a good infighter; people gave Cortez a hard time for breaking Mayweather and Hatton early, but Floyd was the one outworking Ricky in the clinch. He knew how to fight rough on the inside. He’s also one of the best at being dirty while maintaining enough sense in the ring to hide it from the ref. I don’t see his inside game being a problem in any era regardless of how much grappling there is.
Does he go undefeated fighting 6-8 times a year consistently? Doubtful, but not being undefeated doesn’t mean it’s an inherently bad style.
I don't think his style is inherently bad, it's just that fighters who kept breaking their hands, usually had short careers in those times. The horse-hair gloves rather than the huge gloves Mayweather prefers to use, probably wouldn't help. The money just wouldn't be there for them and they'd usually figure out a better-paying gig. "Money Mayweather" certainly wouldn't exist in those times, even Ali had to fight very often to get himself paid.
He's also a low output fighter who relies on clean punches, but they gave more credit for the "dirty work" in those days. Winning decisions even against Maidana (the first time) wouldn't be guaranteed. That doesn't mean they were good decisions, but in a lot of (infamous) cases, the ineffective brawler got the nod, just for the workrate and pushing the action.
In many ways this was the perfect era for Mayweather to come about. He could preserve his body, and judges and referees, more so than ever, gave more respect to fighting the way he did. In the old days it would've been a bunch of Larry Merchants for Mayweather to contend with, stubborn old bulls who only liked the brawling.
A referee once said in regards to Gene Fullmer, a Ray Robinson opponent, when asked why he allows Fullmer to foul Robinson and others at will, that if he didn't allow Fullmer to foul then he would have no offense left. Leading with the head, hitting low and rabbit-punching was basically his style.
Interesting, how do you figure? Of many modern fighters he's the one I would pick to do better without adjustments in that era, especially at lightweight. His emphasis on foot and head movement is applicable to any time period. At welter his hands are definitely an issue for him but I still don't see how his technique does him a disservice in the 15 round, horse-hair era.
Now a guy like Winky Wright would definitely be out of place there.
Which modern fighting style do you think would translate to the most success in first half of the 20th century?
He has fragile hands so he would struggle to fight as often as boxers did in those days. You wouldn't have been able to make a living fighting only once or twice a year. The judges were also less appreciative of the low workrate/defensive styles, and often rewarded fights to the aggressor even if they were wholly ineffective (see Louis-Walcott I for example). Would he have gotten the benefit of the doubt in a fight like Castillo I? Probably not.
Not sure how he would do against the clutching and grabbing that used to be quite prevalent, before referees got more involved in the fights. He does make solid use of his elbows.
It looked more like MMA stand-up at times:
Guys like Toney and Hopkins would've done well for sure.