Shaq or Wilt

[Buckley]

This is a tough one. Shaq has the advantage when it comes to strength and rings. And Id doubt that Wilt would be able to defend one of Shaq's monster dunks. But Wilts quickness and athleticism compared to Shaq might make him better. FT shooting for both cancels each other out, as they both get 50%. Going back to whos better, its difficult to tell because they played in different times.

What do you think?

[Laxation]

put wilt in with todays players and he wont have the dominating height advantage he did when he played

saying that, however, you still have to pick him...

[fgrep15]

Wilt, in today's day and age, he'd put up KG like numbers with more points and blocks but less assists, steals, and also a much lower FG%.

Hakeem is also better than Shaq IMO.

[Jeffx]

Wilt >>>> the rest

[J@3]

Oh God do we have to do this thread again. Let me go start a MJ vs Kobe one while we're at it.

[hipn]

Wily in todays game wouldnt dominaye because todays players aare better a driving in, dribbling, shooting and dunking and everything.

[Jugs]

i'd take Shaq because i loved his acting in that movie + his rapping

so that means i'll take Shaq > Bird in acting terms

[Riot]

Shaquille O'Neal is more dominate physically than Wilt Chamberlain if you compare them to the modern era.

Neither could hit a free throw though.

[air gordon]

Oh God do we have to do this thread again. Let me go start a MJ vs Kobe one while we're at it.

maybe you should create a "player comparison" thread and sticky it. it's done over at realgm

[beau_boy04]

Hakeem is even better than Shaq... why even compared Shaq to Wilt then?

The true comparison should have been Hakeem or Wilt???

[spreeul8r]

To me its a pretty easy call.

Definately Shaq. If you put Shaq into Wilts shoes during those early years of basketball you would find shaq was the more dominant bigman. It has aready been mentioned but the average height of the centers back then was much shorter than it is today. 6'8 centers were everywhere. Shaq is only one inch shorter than Wilt and much more powerful. Athletically i would rate Shaq (in his prime) better than Wilt. Neither had much of a shooting touch so thats a mute point. The game has developed alot since those very early days. If the Wilt of old played in todays NBA he wouldnt be anyware near the offensive force he was during his era. Defensively he still would have been great, but offensively he probably would average about 15ppg.

You have to understand that im talking about the exact Wilt from back then. Now, if you were to ask me how good could Wilt have been if he grew up in the modern bball era, with all the advancements in sports science and player development programs...who knows what could have been?

[Its_asdf]

Hakeem is even better than Shaq... why even compared Shaq to Wilt then?

The true comparison should have been Hakeem or Wilt???

Shaq and Wilt both play similiar in style and have that dominating presence, while Hakeem played with a little more finesse in his game.

[Drex]

but offensively he probably would average about 15ppg.

...

[Joe']

Now....ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS SAYING THAT SHAQ IS BETTER THAN WILT??
Goddamnit, go watch some Wilt games... even if he played in the 60's and early 70's it doesn't mean he couldn't be able to play basketball in Shaq's era... I don't want to tell you the stats ('cos you'll probably say: "The stats do not say anything")
but I just have to: 100 points in a game, 30.1 ppg in career, even more than 50 ppg in a season, 22 rpg in career (and a lot more that I don't remember )...
You can't just say that Wilt'd score only 15 ppg in Shaq's era... not while you see the stats I posted.
Shaq's powerful because of his weight advantage, he's not athletic, no one can be athletic while weighin' 340 pounds (Even Yao, that is 5 inches taller than Shaq, weighs less than him)... He just receives the ball under the basket, then he moves who's guarding him with his power and then he goes up for the dunk.
I'm not saying that Shaq isn't a good player, but Wilt was better hands down

[magius]

actually shaq just doesnt use his bulk. when he came into the league he wasnt huge and still put up big numbers, and in college he put up some pretty scary numbers that exceed the ones hakeem or duncan or ewing put up despite not just pushing people around. he has great hands, great lateral for a big man his size, and good pump moves, i think his talents are very underrated. just because he cant hit the 3 or fade away doesnt mean he's not talented, what he does an mj couldnt do for example and vice versa. in the end a points a point, and scoring them at such a high percentage if its in your arsenal is only smart. why in the hell would he sky hook if he could just dunk it? im sure he could, but why? playing to their strengths is really what makes great players great not the versatility of their strengths.

that said i'd pick wilt. but shaq is definitely top 3 or 5 big men ever. right now, i'd go:
1. russell
2. hakeem
3. wilt
4. shaq
5. duncan

[spreeul8r]

actually shaq just doesnt use his bulk. when he came into the league he wasnt huge and still put up big numbers, and in college he put up some pretty scary numbers that exceed the ones hakeem or duncan or ewing put up despite not just pushing people around. he has great hands, great lateral for a big man his size, and good pump moves, i think his talents are very underrated. just because he cant hit the 3 or fade away doesnt mean he's not talented, what he does an mj couldnt do for example and vice versa. in the end a points a point, and scoring them at such a high percentage if its in your arsenal is only smart. why in the hell would he sky hook if he could just dunk it? im sure he could, but why? playing to their strengths is really what makes great players great not the versatility of their strengths.

that said i'd pick wilt. but shaq is definitely top 3 or 5 big men ever. right now, i'd go:
1. russell
2. hakeem
3. wilt
4. shaq
5. duncan

Thats my point, Shaq wasnt always this lumbering 340 + lbs monster he is today. During his physical prime shaq could really move. Even ran the break. And he was still the most powerful physical presence in the league.

Im well aware of Wilts stats, but i still get the feeling that there more difference between that era and this era than you realise. Anyway, there is no point in argueing about it. This was a poll and i just put my 2 cents in.

[Drex]

If you're arguing that Shaq in his prime could really move, you should know that Wilt in his prime did T&F.

[Jing]

the stilt has my vote even in death he can kick shaq's ass. lol


actually they are both like the same. or share quantities that if combined will make almost the ultimate player. though if you combine like their FT averages. haha

[Fenix]

When Shaq came into the league, he was near 300 pounds and 8%BF. He was a athletic freak. Now combine all those facts together:7'1'', 300, 8% BF, super run&jump athleticism. How many guys like that are in this league today? Or were ever? So saying that he wasn't always psychically dominant is a joke.

[GloveGuy]

This is pathetic, guys.

If you're really a basketball fan and if you're really willing to appreciate the sport's history, you need to read up on Wilt Chamberlain. The guy was a physical specimen. Without exaggeration, he was a combination of Kevin Garnett and Shaq, taking each of their best traits: athleticism and strength.

Shaq might be the most dominant player you guy's have ever seen, but don't think for a second he was the most dominant player of all time. That title goes to Wilt.

Does this look like a frail seven footer to you guys?



Does this guy look un-athletic?



Who gives a crap about what era he played in. He stuck out then, and he'd stick out now. He was arguably the greatest athlete of all time. Don't give crap about him dominating a bunch of white guys. The center position was loaded with talent then. Not to mention the fact that the league didn't have half the amount of teams it had now.

Your opinions are skewed by what you've seen and what you haven't. It's time for a lot of you guys to grow up and realize that Wilt Chamberlain is the second greatest player of all time.

[cyanide]

Damn, he can probably bang his head on the rim based on that picture. Anyway, I saw him play for a quarter, and that guy can snare rebounds like no other. Hell, everybody runs off on offense once the opponent takes a shot because they know Wilt will grab it.

[magius]

you know gloveguy, i dont disagree with you that wilt was a great player, and i do agree he was above shaq, but i do disagree with your statement that our opinions "are skewed by what we've seen and what we haven't", because in the context you put it it seems they're always skewed towards us underrating what we haven't. i believe they can just as much be skewed to us overrating what we haven't seen. sometimes the people stuck and in love with the past are the ones that need "growing up". you can say you've watched tape of wilt, but unless you're really, really old, you can't really say you've seen him play. live and tape are different, and yes, competition does matter, shaq would have a field day against those "small white guys", and to think otherwise (which im not saying you do) is ignorant. a lot of people will look back in history and see wilt's 50 ppg average and then compare them will bill russell's averages, and automatically conclude one was the better than the other, when in fact i believe russell was more valuable than wilt. even if you watched games of both of them, most of us would be amazed by wilts pure offensive dominance and overlook russell's pure defensive dominance. if theres one thing true in a majority of all sports, no matter the era, its the fact that defense wins.

[bigh0rt]

Wilt.

[Andrew]

you know gloveguy, i dont disagree with you that wilt was a great player, and i do agree he was above shaq, but i do disagree with your statement that our opinions "are skewed by what we've seen and what we haven't", because in the context you put it it seems they're always skewed towards us underrating what we haven't. i believe they can just as much be skewed to us overrating what we haven't seen. sometimes the people stuck and in love with the past are the ones that need "growing up". you can say you've watched tape of wilt, but unless you're really, really old, you can't really say you've seen him play. live and tape are different, and yes, competition does matter, shaq would have a field day against those "small white guys", and to think otherwise (which im not saying you do) is ignorant. a lot of people will look back in history and see wilt's 50 ppg average and then compare them will bill russell's averages, and automatically conclude one was the better than the other, when in fact i believe russell was more valuable than wilt. even if you watched games of both of them, most of us would be amazed by wilts pure offensive dominance and overlook russell's pure defensive dominance. if theres one thing true in a majority of all sports, no matter the era, its the fact that defense wins.

My sentiments exactly. I like to think of it as the "fog of time". It can cloud people's judgement almost as much as hear-say and watching an athlete's performance years after the fact. We all like to think that the era we grew up in was the most dominant, that those players are the best. We tend to forget the negatives over time.

[GloveGuy]

you know gloveguy, i dont disagree with you that wilt was a great player, and i do agree he was above shaq, but i do disagree with your statement that our opinions "are skewed by what we've seen and what we haven't", because in the context you put it it seems they're always skewed towards us underrating what we haven't.

But they are skewed. All you(in general) do is hear misconceptions that Wilt played against skinny white dudes with short shorts. And because of that, you're not forced to watch and find out for yourself. You're not forced to do the research. You assume that since this era > Wilt's era, Shaq > Wilt. That's totally false.

sometimes the people stuck and in love with the past are the ones that need "growing up". you can say you've watched tape of wilt, but unless you're really, really old, you can't really say you've seen him play. live and tape are different

Yes, there are those people out there who refuse to accept that some positions are more developed than they were fourty years ago. I'm not one of them. I think that Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player of all time, not Wilt. But that doesn't matter. Because sometimes these people who have seen Wilt play can offer great insight. Maybe with a little bias but it's still important to digest what they say because it's informative.

And tape is the next best thing to watching live. It's better than those who have seen neither and form opinions on what they hear about the era, which, like I said, are misconceptions.

and yes, competition does matter, shaq would have a field day against those "small white guys", and to think otherwise (which im not saying you do) is ignorant.

I didn't know Bill Russell was a small white guy. Willis Reed? Nate Thurmond? Wes Unseld? Hall of Famers.