Most Dominant athlete: Wayne Gretzky vs Wilt Chamberlain

[BobbyAwe]

I'll take Gretzky on skates and Chamberlain in sneakers

 

[McGuillicuddy]

This is a very good answer that I'm inclined to agree with.

Why thank you .

Now, let's pose the hypothetical question to show that a well-rounded game still helps one to dominate. With equal goalies, would 5 Gretzkys beat 5 Orrs? I'm inclined to go with the Orrs on this one. The Gretzky team would have a definite advantage in offensive ability, but I believe the Orr team would overcome this with superior defense and physical play. The Orr team could better handle a Gretzky team attack, but a Gretzky team would have quite a bit of trouble in its own end. I believe the gap would widen in power play situations.

Depending on which era the game was played in, 5 Howes might even beat 5 Gretzkys. Gretzky would get roughed up pretty badly, and Howe is the superior defensive player by quite a bit.

I wouldn't want to put 5 Russells or 5 Jordans up against 5 Wilts. The Wilts would dominate either team.

I am also inclined to agree. A team of Orrs or a team of Howes probably beat a team of Gretzkys. But I'm not sure what that really means when you consider that the vast majority of us have Gretzky ahead of Howe, and a smaller majority have Gretzky ahead of Orr on our All-Time lists.

But I think we can all agree that the goaltending on any of those teams is going to be horrendous .

 

[McGuillicuddy]

Also, I think asking Gretzky to play defense is like asking an elite concert pianist to play the cowbell.

 

[BobbyAwe]

Also, I think asking Gretzky to play defense is like asking an elite concert pianist to play the cowbell.

Claude Julien hates you

 

[04' hockey]

speed's a killer.....where do I bet my house on the Jordan's

I wouldn't want to put 5 Russells or 5 Jordans up against 5 Wilts. The Wilts would dominate either team.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

i think we're getting bogged down in a hypothetical version of reality that looks like this:

and if we really pursue the fat guys/skinny guys method of evaluating the ideal player, you'd probably most want to have five lebron jameses, or perhaps five magic johnsons.

but the proverbial "five/six gretzkys/wilts/etc." has no basis in reality.

 

[Czech Your Math]

and if we really pursue the fat guys/skinny guys method of evaluating the ideal player, you'd probably most want to have five lebron jameses, or perhaps five magic johnsons.

I'd definitely take 5 Magics or 5 Wilts over 5 Lebrons (or Kobes).

5 Magics: You have probably the best PG in history, who at the age of a junior in college dominated Daryl Dawkins in the clinching game of the NBA Finals. He would go up against power forwards like Roy Tarpley, could post up, yet still run the fast break to perfection and hit 3 pointers.

5 Wilts: You have a player who even in his later years could block consecutive sky hooks by Kareem and was incredibly large and strong, so much so that he wouldn't fight for fear of killing someone (even the larger players in the league). On the other hand, you have someone who was the fastest player on his team, who was nimble and a good enough ball-handler to play on the Harlem Globetrotters right out of college, and who led the league in assists near the end of his career, just to show he could.

Either of those teams would crush 5 Lebrons like a grape.

 

[blogofmike]

I'd definitely take 5 Magics or 5 Wilts over 5 Lebrons (or Kobes).

5 Magics: You have probably the best PG in history, who at the age of a junior in college dominated Daryl Dawkins in the clinching game of the NBA Finals. He would go up against power forwards like Roy Tarpley, could post up, yet still run the fast break to perfection and hit 3 pointers.

5 Wilts: You have a player who even in his later years could block consecutive sky hooks by Kareem and was incredibly large and strong, so much so that he wouldn't fight for fear of killing someone (even the larger players in the league). On the other hand, you have someone who was the fastest player on his team, who was nimble and a good enough ball-handler to play on the Harlem Globetrotters right out of college, and who led the league in assists near the end of his career, just to show he could.

Either of those teams would crush 5 Lebrons like a grape.

Lebron has the same versatility as Magic.

In earlier eras, Wilt may have the more relevant skillset, but for modern times Lebron was a pretty good 3-point shooter in Miami and Wilt would likely be poor.

We've also seen Nelson and Pop retool Hack-A-Shaq. While the NBA changed the rules to HELP Wilt deal with poor FT shooting and off-the-ball fouls in the last 2 minutes, in the first 46 minutes a team can foul off the ball. Of course, 5 Wilts can be fouled at will no matter which Wilt has the ball. 5 LeBrons may as well foul on Wilt's first 15 posessions of the 4th quarter. Though it would be more helpful if they were able to put 1 Lebron on the bench and let a random scrub get fouled out each quarter.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

well, both in all-time career sense and in a who-i'd-want-for-one-game-all-the-marbles sense, i'd have lebron comfortably behind kareem, wilt, and yes also magic.

but in terms of versatility, i don't think there's a player that's ever existed that you'd rather have five of on the floor at the same time as peak lebron. he can play 4 positions at an elite level, and unlike magic he can also guard those 4 positions at an elite level.

but none of that makes lebron a better or more dominant player than wilt. it just means that playing wilt at PG or SG is a recipe for complete and utter disaster (can you imagine 7'2 wilt carrying the ball up the floor against chris paul or klay thompson?), while lebron would dominate at PG, SG, and PF and would be at least replacement level at C. i don't love the idea of lebron banging bodies with the likes of roy hibbert but would he do any worse than mozgov?

which is why the "five wilts > five gretzkys" argument should have no bearing on who the better or more dominant player is. the most versatile player is far from the best or greatest or most dominant.

 

[amnesiac]

Gretzky
Ruth
Jordan
Federer

are in a class in their own, imo

Nicklaus
Woods
Pele

Orr
Manning
Brady
Chamberlain

 

[McGuillicuddy]

which is why the "five wilts > five gretzkys" argument should have no bearing on who the better or more dominant player is. the most versatile player is far from the best or greatest or most dominant.

Agreed wholeheartedly. It's a bit of a silly argument.

And just to add an extreme example to illustrate just how silly the point is, a team of Patrick Roys probably gets destroyed by a team of Moe Manthas.

Who's taking Moe Mantha ahead of Patrick Roy in their next all-time draft?

 

[Czech Your Math]

well, both in all-time career sense and in a who-i'd-want-for-one-game-all-the-marbles sense, i'd have lebron comfortably behind kareem, wilt, and yes also magic.

but in terms of versatility, i don't think there's a player that's ever existed that you'd rather have five of on the floor at the same time as peak lebron. he can play 4 positions at an elite level, and unlike magic he can also guard those 4 positions at an elite level.

but none of that makes lebron a better or more dominant player than wilt. it just means that playing wilt at PG or SG is a recipe for complete and utter disaster (can you imagine 7'2 wilt carrying the ball up the floor against chris paul or klay thompson?), while lebron would dominate at PG, SG, and PF and would be at least replacement level at C. i don't love the idea of lebron banging bodies with the likes of roy hibbert but would he do any worse than mozgov?

which is why the "five wilts > five gretzkys" argument should have no bearing on who the better or more dominant player is. the most versatile player is far from the best or greatest or most dominant.

Five Wilts could just pass the ball successively down the court to each other, usually resulting in a dunk. No dribbling necessary.

On defense... it's sort of mind-boggling to think of how many shots 5 Wilts would block.

 

[crobro]

Wilt chamberlain played 1200 games in his career and never fouled out once!!!!

 

[Stonewall]

Most dominant athlete of all time is Bo Jackson.

 

[Kale Makar]

The question isn't who was the better player, it's who was most dominant. Wilt dominated his sport like few others could. I put him in a category with Mike Tyson. Not the best of all time, but about as dominant of your peers as you can get

And Gretzky didn't?

 

[tazzy19]

And Gretzky didn't?

Yes, it's rather shocking that people don't see what Gretzky did his first 10 seasons. I mean, here's a guy that -- were it not for a 16 game injury in 1987-88 -- would have easily won 10 straight Hart Trophies. Think about that for a second. Ten straight Harts. I mean, what more can a guy do to be considered uniquely dominant?! No one has done that in any other professional sport. 9 MVPs in 10 years (20 MVPs in his first 10 years if you count his 2 Conn Smythes, 1 Canada Cup MVP, 2 All Star MVPs, 1 Randez-Vouz '87 MVP, 5 Pearson Awards...that's an average of 2 MVPs per year during his first 10 years!). I mean, what more does a guy have to do?!?!

 

[Black Gold Extractor]

Yes, it's rather shocking that people don't see what Gretzky did his first 10 seasons. I mean, here's a guy that -- were it not for a 16 game injury in 1987-88 -- would have easily won 10 straight Hart Trophies. Think about that for a second. Ten straight Harts. I mean, what more can a guy do to be considered uniquely dominant?! No one has done that in any other professional sport. 9 MVPs in 10 years (20 MVPs in his first 10 years if you count his 2 Conn Smythes, 1 Canada Cup MVP, 2 All Star MVPs, 1 Randez-Vouz '87 MVP, 5 Pearson Awards...that's an average of 2 MVPs per year during his first 10 years!). I mean, what more does a guy have to do?!?!

I think Gretzky's lustre was lost somewhat because his career overlapped with Lemieux's career in combination with what his former Oiler teammates managed to accomplish without him. Lemieux's peak was roughly as high as Gretzky's (although Gretzky was more consistent and sustained his peak for more years). In a way, Lemieux's injury time and temporary retirement helps his image: we know what Gretzky can do*, but people can always imagine what Lemieux could have done.

Furthermore, despite Gretzky's heroics in the spring of 1993, he never won another Stanley Cup while the Oilers and Rangers won with Messier and company. If one looks carefully, Gretzky was great before the Oilers became great, but to a casual hockey fan, Gretzky's success is sometimes attributed to him being the product of a dynasty team rather than him being a key reason for the dynasty... especially with the mainstream emphasis on winning the Stanley Cup as opposed to individual awards.

(As an aside, I think the "keys" to the dynasty were handed over in the '87 Finals, though Gretzky would have one last monster playoffs as an Oiler the next year before his tearful farewell.)

*EDIT: Although I guess one might imagine what Gretzky could have done without a bad back thanks to the Suter hit... maybe a few more points left in the tank for the '93 Finals?

 

[tazzy19]

I think Gretzky's lustre was lost somewhat because his career overlapped with Lemieux's career in combination with what his former Oiler teammates managed to accomplish without him. Lemieux's peak was roughly as high as Gretzky's (although Gretzky was more consistent and sustained his peak for more years). In a way, Lemieux's injury time and temporary retirement helps his image: we know what Gretzky can do*, but people can always imagine what Lemieux could have done.

Furthermore, despite Gretzky's heroics in the spring of 1993, he never won another Stanley Cup while the Oilers and Rangers won with Messier and company. If one looks carefully, Gretzky was great before the Oilers became great, but to a casual hockey fan, Gretzky's success is sometimes attributed to him being the product of a dynasty team rather than him being a key reason for the dynasty... especially with the mainstream emphasis on winning the Stanley Cup as opposed to individual awards.

(As an aside, I think the "keys" to the dynasty were handed over in the '87 Finals, though Gretzky would have one last monster playoffs as an Oiler the next year before his tearful farewell.)

*EDIT: Although I guess one might imagine what Gretzky could have done without a bad back thanks to the Suter hit... maybe a few more points left in the tank for the '93 Finals?

Well, there are two ways of looking at that. The Oilers sure were not able to do much without him the year he got traded. They lost to Gretzky's Kings the very same season in the first round of the playoffs. Imagine a player so dominant that he gets traded from a dynasty (and defending cup champions) to the fourth worst team in the NHL, and he still somehow beats his old dynasty team the very same season? How important is said player to his new team and his old team under this scenario? To me, this is unheard of....and is living proof of how valuable a player Gretzky was at that time to either team. The fact that the Oilers were able to lick their wounds two years later and squeeze out all the experience they gained from playing with Gretzky into one last cup win is more a testament to Gretzky's influence on those players (more a result of a decade of playing with and learning from Gretzky's greatness) than anything else IMO.

 

[Voight]

I always thought we were so privileged to see the GOAT in 3 major sports all at the same time/same era.

Gretzky, MJ and Joe Montana (I would accept Jerry Rice & Tom Brady here too). If only Ruth was around in the 80s and 90s.

 

[Fallenone]

Wilt chamberlain played 1200 games in his career and never fouled out once!!!!

Bill Russell 11 Rings.

I remember Wilt got a contract that made Him the highest paid player. Red Aurback (Celtics GM) found out. Ripped up Russell's contract and paid Him $1.00 more than Wilt..

Wilt great regular season player. Playoffs? Russell ate his lunch.

I take The Great One.

 

[Fallenone]

I always thought we were so privileged to see the GOAT in 3 major sports all at the same time/same era.

Gretzky, MJ and Joe Montana (I would accept Jerry Rice here too). If only Ruth was around in the 80s and 90s.

I agree with Your list, but as of now I'm crossing out Montana and adding Brady.

 

[Voight]

I agree with Your list, but as of now I'm crossing out Montana and adding Brady.

I will accept him there too.

 

[Thenameless]

For the NFL, I'd go with Jim Brown.

 

[Thenameless]

Wilt Chamberlain has 72 NBA records. Wayne Gretzky has 61 NHL records.

Wilt's records have stood the test of time longer. Both hold what look to be some "unbreakable" records unless there are significant changes in the game.

Guys like Lebron/Okafor and Crosby/McDavid have basically zero chance of even coming close to the records these two have set.

 

[Fallenone]

Wilt Chamberlain has 72 NBA records. Wayne Gretzky has 61 NHL records.

Wilt's records have stood the test of time longer. Both hold what look to be some "unbreakable" records unless there are significant changes in the game.

Those were mostly Regular Season Records?

How many Championships?.

Sorry I feel Rings count for something. An I am old enough to remember the times He was MIA in the Playoffs. (Maybe it was just Russell)

Did I mention Russell's 11 rings? 10 in a row?

When MJ won His 8'th. Russell was asked what He thought about it.

"Not Much"