2006-09-18 18:38:51 · 16 answers · asked by Big Daddyztik 2 in Sports ➔ Basketball
You may want to expound on your selection and why.
2006-09-18 18:43:23 · update #1
Wilt would get the better of the matchup, but Shaq could have his nights as well.
The idea that Wilt didn't play against anyone is absurd... Not only did he go against Bill Russell, Willis Reed, Nate Thurmond, Walt Bellamy, Jerry Lucas, Dave Cowens, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Bob McAdoo, Wes Unseld, as well as several other hall of famers, he went against Russell an average of 14 times/year (he played 142 games against Russell in 10 years, including playoffs).
On the other hand, Shaq is the ONLY center in the NBA today who is a shoo-in for the Hall of Fame. (Ben Wallace has NO shot).
You don't think Wilt would love to go against Zdrunis Ilgauskas 10 times/year...OMG! Or Edie Curry??? I can see Wilt shaking in his sneakers at the thought of going up against guys like that LOL!
And of course, Wilt never played against high school kids in the NBA, whereas Shaq has had that luxury.
In his prime, Wilt was at least as strong as Shaq, if not stronger, but he was also much, much better schooled in the fundamentals. In his early days, Wilt played more like Scottie Pippen than Shaq... his agility was amazing...he was a skilled enough ball handler to have played with the Harlem Globetrotters, and he's the only non-guard ever to lead the league in assists (Shaq is a decent passer himself). Wilt also had a far superior in-depth knowledge of the game. Wilt was also the greatest leaper in the history of the NBA. He could easily touch the top of the backboard, Shaq has never been that great of a leaper, even in his prime.
Shaq would have his nights against Wilt, but overall, Wilt would be the better of the two.
Wilt's (far) superior endurance would also come into play. In his career, he averaged just under 46 min/game, despite having played until the age of 36. He's also the only player to AVERAGE more than 48 min/game in a season ... he sat out eight minutes of regulation in one game, after being ejected, but played many more minutes of overtime, bringing his min/game to 48.5 that year (1962). Shaq has only played 40 min/game in one season (2000, exactly 40.0 min/game)... Shaq's 40 min/game would have been a career low for Wilt, who averaged over 45 min/game in 10 of his 14 years, and averaged 42, 44, 42 and 43 min/game in his other seasons. So, unlike Shaq, Chamberlain was always in shape.
2006-09-19 00:17:21 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I can't say either would "dominate" the other, because they are both dominant forces. I would give the slight edge to Chamberlain. Wilt had a little bit better footwork, a softer touch, and better mobility. I remember when Karl Malone was in his prime, and while Shaq didn't have to guard him one on one a great deal, when he did, he usually came out on the short end of the stick. Malone could maneuver around O'Neal, and either score the goal, or get the Big Guy in foul trouble. I make this comparison because Chamberlain and Malone were both physically strong players, who could both find ways to score the ball around the basket, and on the fast break. When O'Neal gets good position under the basket he will simply overpower his opponent. But I can't see that being enough of an advantage in a match-up against Wilt. I think Chamberlain would really fight Shaq for that good low post position spot.
2006-09-18 20:47:17 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well honestly Shaq would win. Wilt was a great player in his time but he wasn't really playing against much competition. Plus they barely had any rules that could limit him from doing what he wanted on the court. Shaq is a monster and is super strong it takes about 4 people plus 3 refs to stop Shaq from doing what he does plus his presents alone in the paint scares everyone. Half of the big men in the League now would probably dominate if they played in the days of Wilt because of their physical abilities. Wilt was lucky enough to be basically the only tall and talented person when he was playing compared to what Shaq and other big men are up against now. Shaq has to face plenty of other big men who are talented and strong and players who double team and foul him and take charges on him.
2006-09-18 20:06:02 · answer #3 · answered by Randy G 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wilt Chamberlain,Because He Is Better
2006-09-19 12:01:23 · answer #4 · answered by jojo 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Wilt is among the greatest ever, but Shaq has a lot more brute force, which he always uses to his advantage. It'd be a close battle but I think Shaq would edge him out.
2006-09-18 18:47:14 · answer #5 · answered by . 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It would be a hard fought, rough and tough battle with Wilt getting the edge.
To Randy G - I will be nice. You need to study more about the NBA. The Library, NBA.com & basketball reference and a video called "The History of the NBA". Learn the about the game, son.
These are some of the players that went up against the"Dipper" at the center position:
Russell
Thurman
Kareem
Hayes
Bellamy
Lucas
Reed
Cowens
Gilmore
Lanier
Unseld
2006-09-19 14:31:24 · answer #6 · answered by smitty 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Wilt had more skill. Shaq is a genetic freak.
2006-09-18 18:51:51 · answer #7 · answered by camalien 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Shaq, He's the most Dominate force ever.
2006-09-19 01:08:15 · answer #8 · answered by Ms. S 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
wilt chamberlain,shaq?,are you kidding?i don't like the deffensive style of shaq,that's it.
2006-09-19 03:27:24 · answer #9 · answered by Lost Phoenix 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Shaq because he has more finesse; Wilt had none (God rest his soul).
2006-09-18 18:53:51 · answer #10 · answered by adrianj_518 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋