MJ fullstop

You must remember the era wilt played in.
he was the only player over 7 foot in the league with the next most dominate centre being
bill russell at 6 foot 8 who has more championship rings than fingers.

MJ was the complete package.

Spike Lee " 5 Michael Jordan's would beat 5 Wilt Chamberlains."

Jordan was 1 and 11 in the playoffs without Pippen. I think Pippen was better than MJ

That video didnt convince me but not everyone in the world will say mj is the best although most will so we take it as mj is the best????

In the 90's era Manute Bol was the only 7 foot 8 guy with the next most dominant centre being Hakeem at 6 foot 10.

Hard question, as different eras, positions etc, but for sheer dominance, I'd go with Wilt.

Consider: How many players have been so dominant, that the NCAA changed several rules to make him LESS effective ?
Only one person - Wilt
The NBA was focussing on rules that made the game EASIER for MJ to play ...


in response to earlier comments, you cant penalise Wilt just because he was taller - thats like saying "well MJ was just blessed with a better vertical than the other guys of his era". No matter the physical gifts, they were BOTH still responsible for making themselves into dominant, complete players.
As far as less success goes, Wilt was not surrounded with the depth that a lot of other players had (eg. Bill Russell, and yes, MJ), so the fact he has less champs is not a clear reflection on the quality of The Dipper.

C'mon............ you can't use the words 'dominate' and 'centre' and then manute bol.

You really don't have much idea about 90's NBA if you think Hakeem and manute were the only two dominant centres during that era. I guess David Robinson, Patrick Ewing, Shaq, Brad Daugherty, Zo Mourning don't rate..

Michael Jordan.

IMO jordan wasnt the best alround player in the league at the time he played... Compare Charles Barkley's numbers during his Philly days... He had a supporting cast that would have struggled in the NBL and still took teams deep into the playoffs... For what its worth i'll take the Big Dipper.

Those 76ers teams were disgustingly bad.... Charles definitely carried that franchise on his shoulders.

i think what mr clutch is getting at TR is that at 7'6 manute was an awful centre, whereby his height had no real postitive effect on him. and that the best centre in that period was most probably hakeem being 6,10. thus outlining the fact that height doesnt necesarily make them a good centre. and in many cases the opposite. it seems yao is the only true giant centre to sustain good form over an extended period of time.

surmdog please dont post again! if you dont know something dont pretend like you do.

"You must remember the era wilt played in.
he was the only player over 7 foot in the league with the next most dominate centre being
bill russell at 6 foot 8 who has more championship rings than fingers.

bill russell 6'9 - nate thurmond - 6'11 - walt bellamy 7,0 - willis reid 6'10 - lew alcindor 7,2 - elvin hayes 6'11 - wes unseld 6'7.... just to mention a few. dont those heights look pretty similar to many current NBA centres.

well if spike lee says it, it must be true....... in case you couldnt tell i was being sarcastic.

Paging ELG.....paging ELG......

Hakeem 6 foot 10??? Sorry guys but he was a footer.

TR - too right. The 90s was the era of the centre. Throw in (although not dominant but very very good) Rony Seikaly, Vlade Divac, Arvydas Sobonis and Robert Parish earlier in the 90s and you're talking a pretty bloody good bunch of centres there.

For the record, Jordan IMO. A great defender (not only was he the best offensive player in the L, but also the best defensive player), and his understanding of the game and movement off the ball was second to none.

mr clutch, that has to be one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard.

Lock, I thought the same as you about Hakeem, until I found this article last night.

http://linky.com.au/h28rt

"Listed at 7 ft 0 in (2.13 m) but closer to 6 ft 10 in (2.08 m) by his own admission" I was likw WOW..

Why do people get so caught up in stats?

If your number gets called for the ENTIRE offensive scheme aka wilt, then your numbers will reflect that.

I've been reading some comments from josh childress about how the game is different in Europe, he says the team only looks at the win.

If you score or not depends on the flow of the game.

They value the player that makes the play when it counts, be it a jumper or a charge or diving for a loose ball.

Even rotating quickly towards the best shooter so he has to pass it to a weaker shooter is huge for a team.

Bearing that in mind- i have to call it a tie for GOAT with MJ and Russell. The dudes won games- forget stats- they won games and championships. MJ never lost a finals series. Ever. They both did the things needed to win.

Olajuwon was at that level for a couple of seasons, as was Shaq, but MJ and Bill did it over and over.

Forget Wilt.

If you can justify an edge between MJ and Bill your doing better than me.

Was having this conversation several days ago. Both totally dominant players in different eras. However, MJ needs to get the nod because he made his team better than any other player in any other situation.

3 Championships -> retire.

Bulls miss finals

MJ returns mid-season, Bulls just miss finals

3 Championships -> retire.

True- but Bill Russell did it straight. I know that MJ had two sets of 3, which is awesome, but he retired and along came Hakeem... that is a match-up we will never get to see. Would MJ still have been able to attack the rim with Hakeem there? Horry would have drawn Grant away from the bucket... I'm not saying it would of been a rockets win, but you can't categorically say the bulls would of beaten them...

There is no doubts with Russell. No lingering thoughts because he won it all time and again.

The question i guess i'm asking is when MJ took a break, came back and won another 3, does that enhance his rep or create the doubt about never facing a dominant big player in a finals series...

Also, interesting read :

http://basketbawful.blogspot.com/2006/07/word-of-day-chronological-snobbery.html

This is a retarded debate.....

Wilt is not even the best centre of all time so why would he be better then Jordan who is at the very least the best shooting guard of all time and for me the greatest player of all time.

I would take Kareem or Akeem just to name two before Wilt any day of the week. Wilt could do one thing and one thing only and that was dunk in an era where he was the biggest going around.

Melvin Corpuscle, you are completely wrong with the statement you make, which was:

Consider: How many players have been so dominant, that the NCAA changed several rules to make him LESS effective ?
Only one person - Wilt

FYI,
The NCAA implemented the no dunking rule in 1967, a rule many believe was intended to prevent Lew Alcindor (Kareem-Adul Jabbar) not Wilt from dominating the game. Wilt was in college at Kansas University for two years from about 1955.

The NBA has never banned the dunk.

"jordan never lost a finals series"

so what was the losses to the pistons in the 80's about. he clearly did loose in the finals. in fact jordan couldnt win a championship in the 80's. he had to wait for the league to get weaker in the 90's.

"wilt could do one thing only".

you moron. as a matter of fact he came into the league as a shooter out of the pivot. due to his vertical leap he could fade and get a clear shot without being called for offensive fouls. he then became more a dunker as he got older and stronger. did u not know he lead the league in assists, you idiot. lastly they believe that if block stats were kept back then he and russell would have avg close to 10 bpg.

once again if u have no knowledge other than mj and lebron youtube packages could you please not comment, leave to proper debate. i.e oppinion backed up with evidence

Wilt
Russell
Earl "THE GOAT" Manigault
MJ/Pippen/Magic

Thats how i shape things up

oh lets not forget Wilt was asked by teams to return at age 50, doubt MJ can claim a team will ask him at that age

Undersized PF,
do you honestly believe your own shit.
for starters i like the list of players
you named that are over 7 foot
bill russell 6'9 - nate thurmond - 6'11
walt bellamy 7,0 - willis reid 6'10
elvin hayes 6'11 - wes unseld 6'7....

the only player over 7 foot Lew alcindor 7,2 - played in 70s and 80s ya tool wilt was well and truly retired by the mid 70s so there battles didnt really go on for decades did they maybe you would say a differant era.

thats about as funny as Hakeem not being a 7 footer.
but thats right you toped it off with the Jordan losing in the Finals in the 80s against detroit.
Hot tip there is a East and West conferance ya mess.
it doesnt take a brain surgeon to work out what the Finals are.

ive added your own spice to the end of this post
and for good reason

please dont post again! if you dont know something dont pretend like you do.

could you please not comment, leave to proper debate. i.e opinion backed up with evidence.

bahahahaha...... Undersized PF...... owned......

well done surmdog your last post just solidified your stupidity. kareem rookie in 1969 and wilt retired in 1973 you moron. id say they had enough battles to warrant a debate.

and the strength of your arguement is based on the the difference between 7'0 and 6'11 (being a few cm). so if chamberlain was 2 cm shorter his feats would be worthy. it seems like a few current nba centres have also had quiet a career under the ilustrious 7'0 mark (kg 6'11 , timmy 6'11). ohh and put away your 1996 fleer that says hakeem was 7'0. i once saw charles barkely listed at 6'7 on one of those.

ohh ok a technicailty. ill rephrase. mj wasnt even good enough to get his teams past the eastern conferance finals.

well done genius

Nice one Undersized PF
what a duel the whole 4 years wow they might of played against each other a dozen times.
like i said Kareem played in the 70s and the 80s and wilt retired in the mid 70s.

You really think wilt was 2cms smaller than Kareem as well did your bball cards tell ya that as well.

Remember i stated

"he was the only player over 7 foot in the league with the next most dominate centre being
bill russell at 6 foot 8"

read in to that what you want champ but it seems pretty simple what the point is here.

Duncan and Garnett are Power Forwards as well.

This doesnt make me a genius it just
makes you look stupid.

so clearly he wasn't the only 7 ft player in the league then, which was my original point.

you actually just validated my point.

and what you fail to realise is that the NBA isnt about basketball anymore, its about selling jerseys. why would the marketing team at the housten rockets promote hakeem at 6'10 1/2 and 258 lbs? it doesnt excite people as much as 7 ft 270 lbs. marketing techniques like this have been used for years. understand, merchandising and tv deals are what control the game. the reason they have stars is to push the merchandise. its easy for a NBA marketing team to market a player.

people like you get sucked into this trap, rather than watch the basketball, and see the facts, you get swept up in hype.

sumdog you kinda got owned on that last post lol...

but back to the original debate... MJ is not the best player ever. Best of his era at best (even that is up for debate)

of course 5 michael jordans will beat 5 wilt chamberlins, they play different positions and a guard can move quicker than a centre thats fact, so you cant compare them in that sense

Undersized PF,
Just when i thought your orginal point was naming all the players under 7 foot from the 60s and 70s and Jordan never won in the 80s.
Garnett and Duncan are Centres was a nice touch.
theres always Wilt was a Shooter.

you now have made it all so clear for me.

Gee i must of got swept up in the hype thinking Hakeem was 7 foot.

how will i survive in this world of Marketing.
i was so excited over him being 7 foot i went straight out a bought his Jersey.