Valuable Information about Wilt Chamberlain

I know a lot of people like to say "Wilt Chamberlain was only good because he was 4 inches taller and 50 lbs heavier than everyone else." And while Wilt did benefit from the era he played in, that can't be held against him.

I know mixes can be misleading, but this guy had incredible post moves. Look at some of the hooks he made, and his bankshot was automatic. There's even one clip of Wilt handling the ball on a break and making a no look pass to finish it off. So the myth that Wilt had no skill and just used his size to dominate is completely wrong... ask anyone who has seen him play or better yet - watch him for yourself - and they will tell you that while Wilt is definitely one of the strongest players ever to play in the NBA, he played much more of a finesse game and relied on his skills rather than his sheer size, which was arguably his biggest weakness. Wilt was obssesed with being portrayed as a nice guy and didn't want to overpower/injure his opponents. Although he was a terrible free throw shooter, he was a very skilled player and all videos will show this.

Now, everybody's favourite "Wilt wasn't as dominant as guys like Shaq, he had such a massive weight advantage" is a bigger lie than Santa Claus. These are some facts that another guy pointed out to me arguing against Wilt Chamberlain -

Wilt was 7-1 and 275 pounds...let's keep this in mind for a moment, while I talk about what the NBA had at center.

There were a total of 18 centers in the league in 1961-62.  Only five of them (including Wilt) averaged over 30 MPG.

• 
  
  • Bill Russell was 6-9 and 215 pounds (-4 inches and -60 pounds)
  • Walt Bellamy was 6-11 and 225 pounds (-2 inches and -50 pounds)
  • Wayne Embry was 6-8 and 240 pounds (-5 inches and -35 pounds)
  • Red Kerr was 6-9 and 230 pounds (-4 inches and -45 pounds)
  Only one of those four had the height to defend Wilt, and played longer than 30 minutes per game, and that was a 225-pound Bellamy that gave up 50 pounds to Wilt.

What about the rest?

• Clyde Lovellette: 6-9, 234 lbs. (only played 40 games, also)
• Phil Jordon: 6-10, 205 lbs. (a stick)
• Jim Krebs: 6-8, 230 lbs.
• Walter Dukes: 7-0, 220 lbs. (JaVale McGee, only 17 pounds LIGHTER)
• Bob Ferry: 6-8, 230 lbs.
• Charlie Tyra: 6-8, 230 lbs.
• Larry Foust: 6-9, 215 lbs.
• Darrall Imhoff: 6-10, 220 lbs. (19.8 MPG bench player behind Phil Jordon - mentioned above - in NY)
• Ray Felix: 6-11, 220 lbs. (18.5 MPG bench player behind a much smaller Jim Krebs - mentioned above - in LA)
• Hub Reed: 6-9, 215 lbs. (18.1 MPG bench player behind a smaller Wayne Embry - mentioned above - in CIN)
• Swede Halbrook: 7-3, 235 lbs. (played just 14.2 MPG behind Red Kerr, who was much smaller, and he lasted just two seasons in the league)
• Wayne Yates: 6-8, 235 lbs. (7.1 MPG, worthless)
• Bevo Nordmann: 6-10, 225 lbs. (5.9 MPG, worthless)

Wilt was, by far, the heaviest player during that season.  He was also the second tallest out of the three seven-footers (the tallest being a guy that logged just 14 minutes off the bench).  The other seven-footer gave up 50 pounds to Wilt.

Fantastic. Wilt Chamberlain was bigger and stronger than all his opponents. However, I would like to share you some research I did on Shaquille O'Neal. Now - if you mentioned Shaquille O'Neal, people will be quick to tell you how he was so big and strong and dominant. But what they never do is say "Shaq played against weak competition." That seems like a crazy thing to say right? Not so crazy once you have a look at the numbers of the centers Shaq faced in the playoffs during his MVP season. Keep in mind Shaq was 7"1 and 325 lbs:

• Vlade Divac was 7"1 and 243 lbs (-0 inches and -82 lbs)
• Luc Longley was 7"2 and 265 lbs (+1 inches and -60 lbs)
• Arvydas Sabadonis was 7"3 and 279 lbs (+2 inches and -46 lbs)
• Rik Smits was 7"4 and 250 lbs (+3 inches and -75 lbs)

So they while Shaq was up against taller opponents, he was much stronger than his opponents. Yet Wilt Chamberlain was only dominant because of his era, while Shaq gets tons upon tons upon tons upon tons upon tons of credit for being sooooo much stronger than his opponents. It makes Shaq good and Wilt bad. Well gee, that sure is strange. Maybe I'm looking at it wrong, let's look at some of the elite defensive centers in the NBA at the time.

• Alonzo Mourning was 6"10 and 240 lbs (-3 inches and -85 lbs) - Zo was all DPOY aswell. How the [expletive] was he supposed to match up against Shaq!?
• David Robinson was 7"1 and 235 lbs (-0 inches and -90 lbs)
• Dikembe Mutombo was 7"2 and 245 lbs (+1 inches and -80 lbs)
• Theo Ratliff was 6"10 and 225 lbs (-3 inches and -100 lbs)
• Shawn Bradley was 7"6 and 235 lbs (+5 inches and -90 lbs)

Oh my. That kinda makes you feel bad for those guys... I mean, they had no chance of stopping Shaq. Theo Ratliff was an elite defender, but how are you gonna defend a guy who has 3 inches and 100 pounds on you!?

But, despite all of this, Wilt is criticised for the era he played in, whereas Shaq is often complimented for his strength and dominance. Now, I don't know about you, bit that hardly seems fair to me. So, how come Shaq gets praised heaped upon him for being so dominant, but Wilt gets criticised for being too big and too strong (When Shaq's competition typically gave up more weight)