All Russell had in college was KC Jones where they won 2 national championships at SAN FRANCISCO.
Top 5 centers of all time?
- Thread starter UKcats1988
- Start date
All Russell had in college was KC Jones where they won 2 national championships at SAN FRANCISCO.
Check the Celtics' records before Russell and after Russell. Guess all of those Hall of Famers arrived with Russell and left when Russell left.
I think it's legitimate to question if Russel would be as dominant now. He's a 6'9 220 lb center. He'd basically be prime Dwight Howard without the bulk, but a much better ball handler and passer. That's a really good player, but i don't know if that guy ends up being one of the five best players of all time.
Sorry, I can't carry on a debate or discussion with a fellow poster who is going to attempt to make that kind of argument. Just a sample of true big man 'footwork' from the same era in which O'Neal played: Olajuwon, McHale, Robinson, Ewing, Duncan, Moses, Mourning. What O'Neal did on the court didn't involve footwork.
of COURSE he was......and no one else could have played Roger Murdoch OR Mantis!
All I know is that none of those fools could have handled "The A-Train" on this night. It was Kentucky's only major professional league Championship (so far). Seriously, I would rank it Chamberlain, Jabbar, Russell, Shaq and Dream, but the top four are almost a dead heat in my opinion.
Last edited:
I saw Bill Russell in person many times. He unquestionably was a great player but to say he was more skilled than some of the other centers is simply not accurate, He was poorer free throw shooter than several of the players on the list. He could not shoot from more than 10 feet from the basket and in this respect was inferior to Robinson ,Hakeem and Ewing. He lacked the go to moves of Hakeem, Kareem and even Ewing. He was an average passer. Finally, he was much smaller than the other players on the list. He was about 6'9" and weighed at most 220. he would have given away at least 3 inches and in the case of Shaq at least 75 pounds.
Don't get me wrong. He had incredible timing and positioning skills but in my judgment lacked some of the basketball skills of the others. He does have 10 rings but that reflects some of the incredible "supporting cast" he enjoyed when it was possible to keep great teams together.
I am envious of anyone who saw Russell play live. I had to settle for watching on the tube.
I agree that Russell was not the most skilled player in the game. However, IMHO, he was by a considerable margin the best to ever play the game, for the three reasons I listed in my post above. I also agree that he was surrounded by some great players. But, as I alluded to in a second post above, the Celtics before and after Russell were an average to good team. Russell was unquestionably the one player that fueled the Celtics incredible run of championships.
While he was not the most athletic, most skilled, most any other attribute you want to come up with, he was nonetheless the best player to ever play the game of basketball.
By the way he was not my favorite player of the era. My favorite was Cliff Hagan. Afterall, I'm a Kentucky guy.
That's ALL? Just another NBA Hall of Famer? Don't most college teams with multiple NBA Hall of Famers on them win titles?
Oh, dear. You have some research to do on how the Celtics dynasty was built after the arrival of Auerbach in 1950. And Russell stopped playing after the 1969 season, yet Boston still won the NBA title in '74, '76, '81, '84 and '86. So I will respectfully disagree with you.Check the Celtics' records before Russell and after Russell. Guess all of those Hall of Famers arrived with Russell and left when Russell left.
There was never a more dominate center than Wilt Chamberlain. there was never another player at any position that the rules of the game were changed to try to stop other than Wilt. It's not even close. Not only was he the most dominating basketball player on the planet,he was also a high jump champion when he was in college.
Eh, didn't the guy people are trying to put ahead of him (Russell) play in the same era? Wasn't team scoring averages during Kareem's NBA career consistently in the 108-116 points/game range?
And let's not forget that both Russell and Wilt played during the brilliant "three to make two" years:
"Prior to the 1954-55 season, the NBA established the rule that a back court foul would result in a "three to make two" situation (up to three attempts to make two free throws) if the violating team was over the team foul limit.By 1979, the rule had been extended to the penalty situation for flagrant fouls, fouls made in the act of shooting (resulting in a miss), and fouls due to the swinging of the elbows. Prior to the 1981-82 season, this rule, as well as the related "two to make one" rule were abolished."
The Celtics were 34-48 the season after Russell left. When a franchise is run as well as the Celtics were back in that time you don't stay down long but they were definitely down the year after Russell. Look it up.
As for him having KC Jones on his college team, yeah that's a good side kick to have but can you imagine what the rest of the roster looked like at a place like San Francisco? Having two future Hall of Famers on one college team doesn't guarantee you anything especially where they were.
Maybe it had something to do with the fact that
WOW. One bad season. You're right... they were run so well that they had some scrub named Hank Finkel to replace him. Oh, and they also had to get a new coach since Russell was doing that, too. Gotcha.
Great call. I guess that means Wilt was just an earlier version of Kwame Brown. Terrible comparisons are terrible.
Wallace was a 6'9" elite rebounder and shot blocker that led the league in both at some point as was Russell.
When did Kwame Brown lead the league in scoring, rebounding, fg%, assists...?
7'1 275 transcends generations. 6'9" 220 does not. That's all I am saying. Bill Russell is the same size as Marcus Lee. Anyone think Marcus Lee is going to be an NBA Hall of Famer?
Wilt was the most athletic big man ever to play in the NBA. His scoring, rebounding, blocks, assists and steals for a center is astounding...he is among the all time leaders in triple doubles.(4th)
. Also in 1968, Chamberlain had a streak of nine consecutive games in which he recorded a triple-double. The only NBA player that has recorded a Double Triple Double.
Chamberlain transcended the game. He would be just as dominant today as he was in his day.
. Also in 1968, Chamberlain had a streak of nine consecutive games in which he recorded a triple-double. The only NBA player that has recorded a Double Triple Double.
Chamberlain transcended the game. He would be just as dominant today as he was in his day.
Last edited:
Him only being 6'9 and skinny are not what's keeping him from being a hall of fame player. Again, terrible comparison. Russell would still be a hall of famer, because he'd put up great career numbers and be a key part of successful teams. Like Wilt, he loses the ridiculous athleticism and size advantage playing today. As well as the rule and style changes. Does he still have the skills to gain all of those accomplishments? I don't know.
Imagine how many triple doubles he and Russell would have had if blocked shots were kept as a stat back then...
Wilt was 7'1 and 275 pounds and was a high jump and long jump champion in college. He doesn't lose any physical advantage he had then if he was playing today.
The margin isn't nearly as wide as it was back in the 60's. That's the point. You think Shaq wouldn't average 50 a game or that LeBron couldn't average a triple double if they were properly motivated and you had them play in the 60's?
We're getting off track anyway. I would not have Wilt as the best ever because he was a terrible team mate who only cared about getting his. His accomplishments are worthy of being considered among the best of all time, and I believe he'd be good even today. How good is a legitimate question, because of how different the game is.
We're getting off track anyway. I would not have Wilt as the best ever because he was a terrible team mate who only cared about getting his. His accomplishments are worthy of being considered among the best of all time, and I believe he'd be good even today. How good is a legitimate question, because of how different the game is.
The NBA was not watered down like it is today. Shaq would foul out of many games if he played in the 60's
There was no stat on blocked shots so really not comparable. I saw Russell, Wilt Kareem and everyone forward from that. Wilt was the best of the best. Best athlete in the NBA? I would actually think the best athlete of all time. Period. He was a pro volleyball player, was about to box in a real match against Ali in 66, track and field guy. He just could do it all. Say what you want about how basketball was different. One thing it was a rougher game in the day. Another thing there was only 10-12 NBA teams. So there were great players every night. Today there are something like 32 teams in the NBA. Totally diluted as compared to then. Kareem would have been closest Im thinking.
twocoach, et. al., FYI, here are the records for the Celtics for the 5 years preceding the Russell era, the Russell era, and the 5 years following the Russell era:
1951–52 — Eastern 2nd 39 27 .591 Lost Division Semifinals (Knicks) 2–1
1952–53 — Eastern 3rd 46 25 .648 Lost Division Finals (Knicks) 3–1
1953–54 — Eastern T-2nd 42 30 .583 Lost Division Finals (Nationals) 2–0
1954–55 — Eastern 3rd 36 36 .500 Lost Division Finals (Nationals) 3–1
1955–56 — Eastern 2nd 39 33 .542 Lost Division Semifinals (Nationals) 2–1
1956–57 — Eastern 1st 44 28 .611 Won NBA Finals (Hawks) 4–3
1957–58 — Eastern 1st 49 23 .681 Lost NBA Finals (Hawks) 4–2
1958–59 — Eastern 1st 52 20 .722 Won NBA Finals (Lakers) 4–0
1959–60 — Eastern 1st 59 16 .787 Won NBA Finals (Hawks) 4–3
1960–61 — Eastern 1st 57 22 .722 Won NBA Finals (Hawks) 4–1
1961–62 — Eastern 1st 60 20 .750 Won NBA Finals (Lakers) 4–3
1962–63 — Eastern 1st 58 22 .725 Won NBA Finals (Lakers) 4–2
1963–64 — Eastern 1st 59 21 .738 Won NBA Finals (Warriors) 4–1
1964–65 — Eastern 1st 62 18 .775 Won NBA Finals (Lakers) 4–1
1965–66 — Eastern 2nd 54 26 .675 Won NBA Finals (Lakers) 4–3
1966–67 — Eastern 2nd 60 21 .741 Lost Division Finals (76ers) 4–1
1967–68 — Eastern 2nd 54 28 .659 Won NBA Finals (Lakers) 4–2
1968–69 — Eastern 4th 48 34 .585 Won NBA Finals (Lakers) 4–3
1969–70 — Eastern 6th 34 48 .415
1970–71 --- Eastern 5th Atlantic 3rd 44 38 .537
1971–72 --- Eastern 1st Atlantic 1st 56 26 .683 Lost Conference Finals (Knicks) 4–1]
1972–73 --- Eastern 1st Atlantic 1st 68 14 .829 Lost Conference Finals (Knicks) 4–3
1973–74 --- Eastern 1st Atlantic 1st 56 26 .683 Won NBA Finals (Bucks) 4–3
Except for the title in the fifth year after the Russell era and arguably the 72-73 Celtics that won a lot of games but folded when it counted, as I stated before, the Celtics were an average to good team. With Russell, the Celtics were an incredible team and played their best when it mattered.
1951–52 — Eastern 2nd 39 27 .591 Lost Division Semifinals (Knicks) 2–1
1952–53 — Eastern 3rd 46 25 .648 Lost Division Finals (Knicks) 3–1
1953–54 — Eastern T-2nd 42 30 .583 Lost Division Finals (Nationals) 2–0
1954–55 — Eastern 3rd 36 36 .500 Lost Division Finals (Nationals) 3–1
1955–56 — Eastern 2nd 39 33 .542 Lost Division Semifinals (Nationals) 2–1
1956–57 — Eastern 1st 44 28 .611 Won NBA Finals (Hawks) 4–3
1957–58 — Eastern 1st 49 23 .681 Lost NBA Finals (Hawks) 4–2
1958–59 — Eastern 1st 52 20 .722 Won NBA Finals (Lakers) 4–0
1959–60 — Eastern 1st 59 16 .787 Won NBA Finals (Hawks) 4–3
1960–61 — Eastern 1st 57 22 .722 Won NBA Finals (Hawks) 4–1
1961–62 — Eastern 1st 60 20 .750 Won NBA Finals (Lakers) 4–3
1962–63 — Eastern 1st 58 22 .725 Won NBA Finals (Lakers) 4–2
1963–64 — Eastern 1st 59 21 .738 Won NBA Finals (Warriors) 4–1
1964–65 — Eastern 1st 62 18 .775 Won NBA Finals (Lakers) 4–1
1965–66 — Eastern 2nd 54 26 .675 Won NBA Finals (Lakers) 4–3
1966–67 — Eastern 2nd 60 21 .741 Lost Division Finals (76ers) 4–1
1967–68 — Eastern 2nd 54 28 .659 Won NBA Finals (Lakers) 4–2
1968–69 — Eastern 4th 48 34 .585 Won NBA Finals (Lakers) 4–3
1969–70 — Eastern 6th 34 48 .415
1970–71 --- Eastern 5th Atlantic 3rd 44 38 .537
1971–72 --- Eastern 1st Atlantic 1st 56 26 .683 Lost Conference Finals (Knicks) 4–1]
1972–73 --- Eastern 1st Atlantic 1st 68 14 .829 Lost Conference Finals (Knicks) 4–3
1973–74 --- Eastern 1st Atlantic 1st 56 26 .683 Won NBA Finals (Bucks) 4–3
Except for the title in the fifth year after the Russell era and arguably the 72-73 Celtics that won a lot of games but folded when it counted, as I stated before, the Celtics were an average to good team. With Russell, the Celtics were an incredible team and played their best when it mattered.
If you think Wilt was only after his as you call it,how did he lead the league in assists? It's pretty apparent that you never saw Wilt play.
If you're talking about the margin between the best team and the worst team not being as big, I might go along with that. If you're saying the average talent level was higher, that's completely wrong.
Ukslim you are right. In Wilt's day the league was 8 teams 12 players. That's the best 96 players in the world. If the league was as watered down as it is today with teams loosing on purpose so they can get a high draft choice,Wilt would have averaged 100 points a game if he wanted to.
Like Wilt, you're confusing assists with actually making your team better. He was just doing it in a misguided attempt to prove he wasn't selfish, even though he was mostly doing it just so he could say he led the league in assists.
I didn't deny the accomplishment, just that it doesn't disprove anything I've already said about him.
And as a response to him doing the same stuff today, if you truly believe that, you are ignorant to how the game has changed.
You can't be this slow. Just because he led the league in assists one season doesn't mean he wasn't after his. He just changed what he felt was most important because people kept calling him selfish. And even though he led the league in assists, he still showed how selfish he was because he totally changed how he played, blatantly passed up open lay ups to give the ball to teammates in hopes of getting assists, and routinely checked with the scoring table to see what his stats were at a particular point in the game. As I've stated repeatedly, it's funny that all that statistical "dominance" didn't actually lead to winning.
There is no way that Hakeem is not among the 5 best centers to ever play this game. His overall body of work is not necessary to achieve that status. His performances during that short period when the Houston Rockets were back-to-back NBA champions IS. The overall skill level in which he played the position during that time has no equal. The clip provided earlier is only a modest example and David Robinson should never have been expected to defend that alone - an ability to go left or right with that length, facing front or playing back to basket. Truly a super-natural. The ONLY thing missing from that period is the wasteful musing of a superstar in Birmingham, Alabama - his imagination with minor league baseball following his father's tragic end. Personally, I don't think even Michael Jordan would have stopped The Dream in that time, but we will never know. That IS the best the center position has ever been performed and probably ever will be.
He's saying there were only NINE TEAMS so every team had multiple great players in the sport on it.
If you put the greatest player in the sport on the worst team in the league, is he "less great"? We aren't naming the 5 most successful center. We are naming the 5 BEST. If the only thing you have that puts Russell over Wilt is that his team won more then you have made my argument for me and Wilt wins. He was the BEST. Russell was the most successful.
Just curious if you placed Wilt in today's game vs. today's players, whether you give him the benefit of better training, better nutrition, year-round competition, weight training, more focus on one sport etc. ? I.e. advantages that today's athletes enjoy over when Wilt was playing.
