Thenameless
Registered User
- Apr 29, 2014
- 3,855
- 1,788
You're a little off. Russell indeed won 11, but it was eight in a row I think. MJ only won 6.
Gretzky only has 4 rings to Henri Richard's 11. That doesn't work for me.
Most Dominant athlete: Wayne Gretzky vs Wilt Chamberlain
- Thread starter VerySuperFamous
- Start date
You're a little off. Russell indeed won 11, but it was eight in a row I think. MJ only won 6.
Gretzky only has 4 rings to Henri Richard's 11. That doesn't work for me.
Should use Jordan over Wilt and I'd say Jordan was the most dominate in all sports. This is for multiple reasons, firstly basketball players play more of the game then any other player in the big 4 sports outside of NHL goalies, Jordan would play roughly 5/6 of every Bulls game and even more in the playoffs. Secondly he only lost one 7 game series between 1991-98 in the season he returned late in the year and was in baseball shape. Finally, no player outside of Jordan has led the league in scoring and been on the title winning team and he's done this 6 times. Gretzky may have the greatest difference between him and the next best in hockey but Jordan was the most dominate athlete of all time due to his ability to have a greater impact on each game played due to how Basketball is played.
He was a beast of a running back - possibly the best in history - but his baseball statistics are hardly dominant
Maybe the most exciting athlete of all-time
Possibly the most physically gifted athlete of all-time
But not the most dominant
Jim Brown, Walter Payton, Emmett Smith, Eric Dickerson, OJ, Earl Campbell and Tony Dorsett laugh at this statement. Jim Brown was actually a great 2 sport athlete regarded as one of the best college lacrosse players of all time. He never broke 1000 yards in the pro's or 6 rushing TD's in a season. And before you use college Dorsett, OJ and Campbell all have Heisman's, Brown should of won one but was robbed by the era and paved the way for Ernie Davis and if your only using college Archie Griffin goes down as the greatest.
Shaq, Kareem and Mikan all won scoring titles and rings in the same year.
And dominating a sport that is easier to dominate is not a point in his favour. It's like saying Gretzky's the better defender because his team gave up 3 goals per game instead of 95 points.
That being said, even MJ needed team support to win a title. Without strong teammates Jordan didn't win anything either. He didn't win single-handedly. They had a legitimate championship team.
Hey I'm getting old. You know how it is.
Point is Great Player show up for the Playoffs. No one remembers the Regular Season
Patriots went 18-1 Best season and NFL Team had. 2 more games than the undefeated Dolphins. BUT THEY LOST THE SUPERBOWL.
Why are we even talking Chamberlian? Was He even the top center of all time? (Jabar Shaq).
Never mind the greatest Basketball Player?
You can say Gretzky was the Best Hockey Player Of All Time. (Unless Your From Boston) Then You say Orr. Redwing Fans will say Howe A good percentage that's their top 3. But I can not say the same of Wilt.
Last edited:
Forgot about Shaq but Mikan and Wilt are of another era. Just got that from reading the Jordan Rules a few weeks back. In any sport if i had to choose one player to win me 1 game it would be Jordan, that makes him the most dominate in my eyes. Gretzky may have the greatest gap between him and his peers but he doesn't pass that test for me.
WingsFan95
Registered User
Jordan is the last all-time player who competed in the NA major sports leagues prior to the Cap.
Football and Baseball have too many variables for a player to get too much credit for Championships. I mean, you can have MVP seasons and not even be in the playoffs. So World Series and Super Bowl titles have to be taken with a grain of salt (see Dan Marino/Yastrzemski).
Jordan's heyday was in the 90s and he came back to make a presence in 02-03. In the internet age, he has that going for him and his brand has expanded exponentially. I find his greatness to often be exaggerated from diminishing his teammates to elevating his impact in some games. Simply put, those Bulls teams were stacked. The depth was insane. Steve Kerr was like 8th in minutes and roughly in that rank as a player on those 2nd Threepeat teams.
Keep in mind, while you can hardly win with one guy, you really only need 3-4 star players to be dominant. Here's a breakdown of the Threepeat Bulls:
91-93
Jordan
Pippen
Grant
Armstrong
96-98
Jordan
Pippen
Rodman
Kukoc
Yeah, Jordan was the best player in the league but keep in mind how well the 93-94 Bulls performed without him. Pippen, Grant and Armstrong's production went up and they were still very competitive. Jordan takes them to the next level but the team without him was Top 5-8 already. Jordan came back late but he still had some time to get ready for playoffs and without Grant the Bulls lost in the 2nd round.
Hakeem Olajuwon btw, carried the 94 Rockets far more than Jordan to any of his Championships.
So the whole "Jordan is unquestionably GOAT" is media driven. In the internet age he's been even further immortalized.
P.S. That 96 playoff run, Pippen could be argued as more valuable than Jordan. Just saying.
Football and Baseball have too many variables for a player to get too much credit for Championships. I mean, you can have MVP seasons and not even be in the playoffs. So World Series and Super Bowl titles have to be taken with a grain of salt (see Dan Marino/Yastrzemski).
Jordan's heyday was in the 90s and he came back to make a presence in 02-03. In the internet age, he has that going for him and his brand has expanded exponentially. I find his greatness to often be exaggerated from diminishing his teammates to elevating his impact in some games. Simply put, those Bulls teams were stacked. The depth was insane. Steve Kerr was like 8th in minutes and roughly in that rank as a player on those 2nd Threepeat teams.
Keep in mind, while you can hardly win with one guy, you really only need 3-4 star players to be dominant. Here's a breakdown of the Threepeat Bulls:
91-93
Jordan
Pippen
Grant
Armstrong
96-98
Jordan
Pippen
Rodman
Kukoc
Yeah, Jordan was the best player in the league but keep in mind how well the 93-94 Bulls performed without him. Pippen, Grant and Armstrong's production went up and they were still very competitive. Jordan takes them to the next level but the team without him was Top 5-8 already. Jordan came back late but he still had some time to get ready for playoffs and without Grant the Bulls lost in the 2nd round.
Hakeem Olajuwon btw, carried the 94 Rockets far more than Jordan to any of his Championships.
So the whole "Jordan is unquestionably GOAT" is media driven. In the internet age he's been even further immortalized.
P.S. That 96 playoff run, Pippen could be argued as more valuable than Jordan. Just saying.
Yea Your right. eight in a row. I'm getting old. You know how it is.
How many in a row did Chamberlain have?
Why are we comparing Gretzky, ( GOA in Hockey). To Chamberlain? Not even the best center. Jabar!!!
As far as Gretzky and Henri Richard go. They played in different era's. But both showed up in the Playoff. (More than I can say for Wilt). Regular season nice. But who remembers the Presidents Cup winner, or care from 5 years ago? (without google) Its who won the Stanley Cup.
NE Patriots went 18-1 Best record in NFL History, 2 more wins than the Undefeated Dolphins. BUT THEY LOST THE SUPERBOWL!!!!
When it comes down to it its Championships.
Russell does not have the records that Chamberlian has. But He has the rings.
Jackson averaged 5.4 yards per carry during his NFL career, with a single season high of 6.8 yards per carry
Brown's best season was 6.4 (5.2 for his career)
Payton's best season was 5.5 (4.4 for his career)
Smith's best season was 5.3 (4.2 for his career)
Simpson's best season was 6.0 (4.7 for his career)
Campbell's best season was 5.2 (4.3 for his career)
Dorsett's best season was 5.6 (4.6 for his career)
So Jackson's career average trumps some of the best individual seasons of the running backs you mentioned
Jordan wasn't too far off where he was as a player on the second three-peat teams by the 1995 playoffs.
The often overlooked key to trouncing Orlando in 1996 was having Rodman, the best rebounder in history, and the Magic not having Grant. All of a sudden the defensive matchups work in Chicago's favour and the Bulls outrebound Orlando by 50%.
The favoured narrative seems to be Jordan was rusty in 1995, but had recovered by 1996 to three-peat by himself. His supporting cast was one of the best in history.
Rules were change becasue Wilt could dominate the game so easily. Lane changes, goaltending, and inbound playes were all changed due to Wilt.
George Mikan also had major rules changed.
George Mikan also had major rules changed.
They also changed rules to make it easier for Wilt by not forcing him to shoot free throws in the last two minutes for off the ball fouls.
The test of whether a rule change is simply meant to address one player's/team's dominance is whether or not they change the rule back after Wayne Gretzky leaves the Oilers or Kareem leaves the NCAA.
Much like offsides in the NHL, goaltending is a sensible rule change that has stayed in place. And if it was brought in to stop one player, it was George Mikan, not Wilt.
jigglysquishy
Registered User
The trapezoid rule was largely intended to stop Brodeur, but I doubt they change it with him out of the league.
Same with the 4 on 4 rule in the 80s. They kept it far after the Oilers dynasty disbanded.
Same with the 4 on 4 rule in the 80s. They kept it far after the Oilers dynasty disbanded.
Say Hey Kid
Bathory
Gretzky AINEC. Wilt was the 2nd best center of his era, lost to the best 7 of 8 times in the playoffs, and won only 2 titles despite playing on the most talented team with Hall of Fame players such as Jerry West and Egin Baylor, and Gail Goodrich. Gretzky has more assists than any other player has points and if you took all his goals away, he would still be one of the 4 greatest players of all time.
WingsFan95
Registered User
The only people who think Russell was better than Wilt are the same who pick Troy Aikman over Dan Marino.
The guy had better teams than Wilt all his career. Wilt's so called greatest team ever in 72? He was the Finals MVP for crying out loud. West was in his later years and Baylor was way past his prime his last two seasons in L.A. (71 & 72).
You know what guys? Mark Messier>Gretzky. Guy lead the Oil to a Cup after Gretzky, Coffey and others had left. He won a Smythe while Gretzky was there! Then he goes to New York and breaks their 54 year drought. Better than Gretzky.
Is this the logic that prevails here? Seems so.
Russell was a great rebounder but Wilt was better AND piled up the points. Here's how Russell finished ON HIS TEAM in PPG his entire career:
3rd
4th
4th
4th
3rd
2nd
3rd
4th
3rd
3rd
5th
4th
7th
Sam Jones anyone? He retired same season as Russell, lead the Celtics in points several seasons. Hmmmm....
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I believe they changed the 4 on 4 rule in 1992, shortly after the Oilers disbanded.
Say Hey Kid
Bathory
You're so right! Points is more important than being the best player on a team that won 11 rings during his 13 year career, beating Wilt 7 out of 8 times in the playoffs, and averaging 25 boards a game in the playoffs!
Finlandia WOAT
js7.4x8fnmcf5070124
- May 23, 2010
- 24,167
- 23,800
WingsFan95
Registered User
You're so right! Points is more important than being the best player on a team that won 11 rings during his 13 year career, beating Wilt 7 out of 8 times in the playoffs, and averaging 25 boards a game in the playoffs!
Alright, first thing's first. The League MVPs are a joke. They were voted on by the players up until 79 and Russell was a hell of a lot more well liked than Wilt. Chamberlain after his rookie season (still only rookie to win MVP) was blackballed largely because of his mammoth dominance over a multitude of players.
I've used the Barry clip and others to substantiate the reverence players developed for Wilt after their blinding jealousy faded. This is why Wilt would garner 3 MVPs from 66-68.
Now keep in mind the 61-62 season when Russell won the MVP, Chamberlain averaged that monster 50PPG while Oscar Robertson maintained a triple double. To this day this is considered the worst MVP in any of the four major sports. Obviously flipping this one MVP would give Wilt 5 and Russell 4, but 3 of those other 4 MVPs are also very controversial in hindsight.
Russell's 57-58 MVP is arguably his most defensible.
Points aren't everything, but when you're consistently between 3rd and 4th on your team in that category, it paints the picture of being one-dimensional. Russell's disproportionate rebounding totals are indicative of his half-court play. While Chamberlain essentially did everything but rack up assists...as a C.
Now sure, Russell wasn't asked to score as much but when he was he was effective right? How bout that field goal percentage?
Russell in his best seasons couldn't break .500%, a career best .467% he broke .450 in only four seasons. Chamberlain's career low was .461% in his rookie year when he won MVP.
Now you want to talk about Russell "beating" Wilt. It's insane and unfounded. The fact Chamberlain averaged slightly less production against the Celtics than his regular season totals is indicative of facing THE BEST TEAM IN THE LEAGUE. If he just played the Celtics all regular season his averages wouldn't be as great but neither would Russell's rebounding totals.
Since some aren't getting the team concept of basketball, I'll break it down on a house-league level:
Team A
Great Center
Great Power Forward
Great Small Forward
Great Shooting Guard
Great Point Guard
Team B
Star Center
Mediocre Power Forward
Good Small Forward
Mediocre Shooting Guard
Decent Point Guards (Split time)
In 61-62, the year Chamberlain averaged those monster numbers of 50PPG, Paul Arizin was by far his best teammate, at 33 years old playing SF. The team went 49-31. They lost to Boston in 7 games. The head bashing rhetoric that Wilt was a crap teammate who cost his team wins by producing too much is blatantly false. Proven time and again. Look at the 61-62 Celtics roster here:
61-62 Celtics
Now the 61-62 Warriors.
Now I want you to take a look at something. Below is the rosters and performance of the 62-63 Warriors and the 63-64 Warriors:
62-63 Warriors
Guy Rodgers & Tom Meschery
Rodgers would make the Hall of Fame but remains one of its weakest members. That being said, he garnered most of his 4 all-star placements after the 62-63 season, though that season he DID lead the league in assists (feeding the ball to Chamberlain averaging 44PPG). Tom Meschery garnered his lone all-star appearance that 62-63 season, racking up points off Chamberlain's double teams and garbage time. The 62-63 squad was the only losing team Chamberlain was ever apart of and it's not hard to see why.
63-64 Warriors
Basically the same team now with Nate Thurmond, Chamberlain has even less help on the scoring front but that doesn't matter as he averages 22.3 rebounds and is .524% while the team improves by 17 wins. O. Robertson gets his only MVP that season.
I don't know how you people look at win shares, but they're suppose to be an indication of how much a player contributes to his team's wins. Chamberlain lead the league in this regard for 8 seasons. Jordan by comparison did 9 times. Russell never lead the league in win shares and his career high was 17.3, followed by 16.9 and 15.5
Chamberlain averaged over 20 his first 9 seasons.
Going by rebounds is silly because Wilt averaged 24.5 rebounds a game in the playoffs, while playing a little longer and having his rebound numbers fade a bit to the end. Russell does not have an advantage in rebounding vs. Wilt.You're so right! Points is more important than being the best player on a team that won 11 rings during his 13 year career, beating Wilt 7 out of 8 times in the playoffs, and averaging 25 boards a game in the playoffs!
Voight
#winning
The only people who think Russell was better than Wilt are the same who pick Troy Aikman over Dan Marino.
The guy had better teams than Wilt all his career. Wilt's so called greatest team ever in 72? He was the Finals MVP for crying out loud. West was in his later years and Baylor was way past his prime his last two seasons in L.A. (71 & 72).
You know what guys? Mark Messier>Gretzky. Guy lead the Oil to a Cup after Gretzky, Coffey and others had left. He won a Smythe while Gretzky was there! Then he goes to New York and breaks their 54 year drought. Better than Gretzky.
Is this the logic that prevails here? Seems so.
Russell was a great rebounder but Wilt was better AND piled up the points. Here's how Russell finished ON HIS TEAM in PPG his entire career:
3rd
4th
4th
4th
3rd
2nd
3rd
4th
3rd
3rd
5th
4th
7th
Sam Jones anyone? He retired same season as Russell, lead the Celtics in points several seasons. Hmmmm....
I couldn't agree with you more. Whenever I say the same thing all I hear is "11 rings"
WingsFan95
Registered User
I'd say it's pretty much even.
The Lakers were more stacked than the Celtics but it wasn't the margin of Russell/Wilt. It depends how highly you rate Kareem as he was 32 when Magic came in. The 80s Celtics had a 3 headed monster and some nice secondary players, while the Lakers had more depth.
I never like ranking the two but I'd probably go Magic. He could score as well as Bird while being able to setup his teammates. His rebounding wasn't bad either. Basically a triple double threat.
Say Hey Kid
Bathory
You're right. Being the best player on a team that won 11 rings during his 13 year career and beating Wilt 7 out of 8 times in the playoffs when they guarded each other doesn't matter.
Voight
#winning
Magic for me IMO. But on a scale of 100 if Magic was 99, Bird was like 98 or 98.5. If that makes sense.
