What's new
By:

Enes Kanter works out for the Jazz

Hekate said:
Russell and Reed are at the top of my head now.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Enes CanTear You Apart said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
LogGrad98 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Enes CanTear You Apart said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Hekate said:
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.
Click to expand...


Then it's NUMBERICA.
NUMBERICA said:
I'm pretty sure the most dominant player ever is me against an infant.
Click to expand...


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.
 
My grandfather played for Kentucky and he is an 'all-time great'...

I played against him later and even though he was in his 60's at the time, I can tell you he would've been KILLED in today's game against today's players. A all time great wouldn't even get a walk-on role today. Sad but true.

(not telling his name)
 
Enes CanTear You Apart said:
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?
Click to expand...

Of course we are looking at who he dominated. But at the same time, belonging to a different phase of basketball makes them face different opponents, right? This also makes them deserve appreciation of the dominance they've had in their time in my opinion. They all have risen in different times and different contexts, so they may not be the guy that dominated the next decade, but they are the best that could happen or at least happened in their context. That's why we shouldn't debate for instance if Jordan was more dominating than Wilt to set the score eternally. You can ask and answer of course, but this won't be too healthy is what I'm saying. The context is really important for a high ceiling player to reach his best. The 90's was the most talented decade of the NBA for my taste. Jordan was the leading act. Now we're discussing Lebron. If Lebron emerged in Jordan's time, maybe he would steal the act. Or if Jordan emerged in a time without dunks, maybe he would play by layups, or even play at center LoL

I think we should leave players where they belong. Bill dominated his time, then Wilt did his, Kareem, Dr. J., Magic, Jordan, Lebron... Can we even say that Stockton-Malone didn't dominate more than any other duo up 'till them? They were unstoppable. If you are remembered as such, that means that you are in the golden pages of the history.
 
I can't follow you.

addictionary said:
Of course we are looking at who he dominated. But at the same time, belonging to a different phase of basketball makes them face different opponents, right?
Click to expand...
Right.


addictionary said:
This also makes them deserve appreciation of the dominance they've had in their time in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Sure, I appreciate Wilt's dominance in his time.


addictionary said:
They all have risen in different times and different contexts, so they may not be the guy that dominated the next decade, but they are the best that could happen or at least happened in their context. That's why we shouldn't debate for instance if Jordan was more dominating than Wilt to set the score eternally.
Click to expand...
Then how can we say that Wilt was the most dominant ever? Isn't it saying Wilt was more dominating than Jordan and setting the score eternally?


addictionary said:
I think we should leave players where they belong. Bill dominated his time, then Wilt did his, Kareem, Dr. J., Magic, Jordan, Lebron... Can we even say that Stockton-Malone didn't dominate more than any other duo up 'till them? They were unstoppable. If you are remembered as such, that means that you are in the golden pages of the history.
Click to expand...
I'm all for it, I leave Wilt where he belonged and won't call him the most dominant ever.
 
Enes CanTear You Apart said:
Then how can we say that Wilt was the most dominant ever? Isn't it saying Wilt was more dominating than Jordan and setting the score eternally?



I'm all for it, I leave Wilt where he belonged and won't call him the most dominant ever.
Click to expand...

You keep saying this but I've never said he is the most dominant ever. All I was saying is that you can't pick a most dominant ever, but it's my opinion. If anyone wants to pick one player, they can. It just doesn't sound healthy judgement to me.
 
addictionary said:
You keep saying this but I've never said he is the most dominant ever. All I was saying is that you can't pick a most dominant ever, but it's my opinion. If anyone wants to pick one player, they can. It just doesn't sound healthy judgement to me.
Click to expand...
Was your whole point freedom of speech/thinking?

If so I misunderstood you big time.
 
Last edited:
Enes Kanter @Enes_Kanter 15 Sep


Officially back @ Home *$w4t L4k£ €it¥* Let's get this crazy season started, miss the best fans in NBA #JazzNation Show some Love
 
addictionary said:
LoL Not the main point but that too. What I mainly said was the context is important to consider when choosing between two players from different eras.
Click to expand...

Meh, then, what's the difference between your opinion and mine? This would be a dull argument from this point. (If it wasn't already)



Revolution 9 said:
Enes Kanter @Enes_Kanter 15 Sep


Officially back @ Home *$w4t L4k£ €it¥* Let's get this crazy season started, miss the best fans in NBA #JazzNation Show some Love
Click to expand...
I wish you guys could read some Turkish responses to his tweets, they are hilarious.
 
dogtoucher said:
How do you all not have rules against bumping old **** like this? Make a new ****ing thread, Christ
Click to expand...

It was interesting to see what people were saying then. There isn't a rule against it. No I will not make a new thread, I had nothing new to add. Suck it.

P.S. pos rep incoming, we need love not hate, bro.
 
Enes CanTear You Apart said:
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.
Click to expand...

Which floor NUMBERICA play on? His backyard (Looking at you NUMBERICA)? Or are you saying any of the other players than Wilt wasn't professional?

I am not belittling Shaq or Jordan. I think they dominated their era but not in the same fashion as Wilt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top