What's new
By:

Enes Kanter works out for the Jazz

AKMVP said:
7'1 footer with 50 inch vertical. Never averaged less then 18 reb per season. The only player in NBA to average over 20 reb a game per season ( 9 straight seasons) . Numbers like that a mind boggling and telling just how superior Wilt was at that time. Just watch these blocks here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QF8yJ1J1W7Q
Click to expand...

Is there any video of Wilt's 50" vertical?

Asking just out of curiosity. I'm totally fine with Wilt>Hakeem thinking. It is a classic debate and many people think that way.
 
Anyways... I sure hope Wilt... I mean Kanter's shoulder is fine for this season and that he's still working out for the Jazz.
 
fishonjazz said:
I don't think so
Click to expand...
I don't think so too.

The guy was 7'1"(216 cm), 50"(127 cm) vertical would put his head 1'3" above the rim, 11'3"(343 cm).

In best videos of him, his head is barely level with the rim, just like todays athletic freaks.
 
fishonjazz said:
I don't think so
Click to expand...

Ok, maybe it was few inches less

What's unfortunate is that most people regard the great leapers as being only the short guys who could dunk," said the 7-1 1/16 Wilt Chamberlain. "My sergeant [vertical leap] was higher than Michael Jordan's. When I went to Kansas, they had a 12-foot basket in the gym, because Dr. Phog Allen was advocating the 12-foot basket. I used to dunk on that basket. It was an effort, but I could do it. Ostler, Scott (1989-02-12). "The Leaping Legends of Basketball". The Los Angeles Times.

Wilt Chamberlain claims that his sergeant, during his prime, was "46 to 48 inches, easy."
 
Enes CanTear You Apart said:
He was the most dominant player in leagues with 6-6 centers and 10-12 teams.
Click to expand...

Trying to pick up the "one" player that rises above all the others is a difficult thing to do and in my opinion it is not suitable to compare players that have many decades between each other's class. Wilt can still be called the most dominant by considering him "something else" in his own era. In terms of physical dominance, he was legitimately a destroyer. But dominance is a wide word. Talent-wise? Which kind of talent? Are talent and success the same thing? These kind of questions always keeps me from picking the best or the most dominant ever. Maybe there is some unspoken or common knowledge meaning for them, but I know that I'm not aware of such. In conclusion of this lame post, I would like to say that we should compare players with their own age only and nothing more.
 
addictionary said:
Trying to pick up the "one" player that rises above all the others is a difficult thing to do and in my opinion it is not suitable to compare players that have many decades between each other's class. Wilt can still be called the most dominant by considering him "something else" in his own era. In terms of physical dominance, he was legitimately a destroyer. But dominance is a wide word. Talent-wise? Which kind of talent? Are talent and success the same thing? These kind of questions always keeps me from picking the best or the most dominant ever. Maybe there is some unspoken or common knowledge meaning for them, but I know that I'm not aware of such. In conclusion of this lame post, I would like to say that we should compare players with their own age only and nothing more.
Click to expand...

So, we can't say "Wilt is the most dominant player ever", right?
 
I'm pretty sure the most dominant player ever is me against an infant if you want to get technical.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top