addictionary
Well-Known Member
No you can.
Enes Kanter works out for the Jazz
- Thread starter jazzyapma
- Start date
No you can.
I don't understand. Are Jordan's, Lebron's or Shaq's dominances less valuable than Wilt's dominance which had happened in a ridiculously weaker competition?
addictionary
Well-Known Member
No no no. E.g. put Shaq in competition with Wilt. Would Wilt dominate that much? Or Jordan against Russell. It would look unreal. What I'm saying is, leave players in the time-space dimension they are in. Also, if a player like Lebron was in Jordan's time, (skipping the part that Lebron looked up to him) Jordan wouldn't be considered that kickace stand alone dude.
So we are looking at the difference between a player and his opponents to judge his dominance but we don't look who he dominated?
So Wilt had much bigger gap upon the opponents thus he has the biggest dominance?
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
Questionable.
Russell and Reed are at the top of my head now.
Reed at 6-9, Russell at 6-10(some say 6-9 for him too). Those guys don't change the fact that those times are incomparable to the leagues of after 80ies size wise.
No surprise that 6-10 Bill Russell also dominated rebounds like a maniac.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
This is tough due to lots of different biases that come into play. In the minds of many of the posters on this site I am sure that the 80's represents a sort of "golden age" for basketball. The biggest players (as opposed to Wilt/Russell NBA with all those short people), the most skilled/fundamental (as opposed to Kobe/Wade NBA with the chuckers and floppers). While in reality the great players of yesteryear (Wilt/Russell NBA), the Golden Age (80's), and today would all be competitive no matter what era you drop them into. The skills are transferable, the sizes are comparable, athleticism is a gift, but really it is the heart that dominates, and that you cannot teach, and it doesn't fade or get stronger with age or recency. The will to win is what defines the greatest players, and they would find a way to win no matter when they might play or who they might face.
There is nothing I disagree in this post. But also none of it justifies calling Wilt the most dominant ever.
If someone says Wilt was one of the greatests and he had the heart of a true winner and he is a legend, then it's fine, his era or his opponents, none of it matter one bit. I'm fine even with Wilt>Dream opinion.
But if someone says that he was the most dominant ever, then I argue about his era and his opponents.
I don't think Wilt was true winner.
Noone ever dominated like Wilt in their own respective eras. That makes him the most dominant player ever in my mind. Opposition doesn't matter. What matters is what he did on the floor. I think Hakeem probably would dominate like Wilt in Wilt's era but he didn't play in that time. While specalutaions are fun, there is no fact in it.
Then it's NUMBERICA.
Opponents matter. Whenever I hear someone saying Wilt was the most dominant ever, I take it as injustice to the likes of Jordan, Shaq and Lebron.