Chamberlain or Jordan? Why, Jordan, of course
News blogs, sports blogs, entertainment blogs, and more from Philly.com, The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News.
Chamberlain or Jordan? Why, Jordan, of course
John Mitchell, Inquirer Staff Writer
There is no athlete more mythologized than Wilt Chamberlain is in his hometown. He could palm a 16-pound bowling ball. He could grab money off of the top of a backboard.
Here’s a fact: He was and still is the greatest statistical athlete in the history of any team sport in North American history.
Here’s another one: He is not better than Michael Jordan. Not in this era, that era or any other era yet to come.
Period.
Philadelphia 76ers coach Doug Collins made this abundantly clear to me last week on the 50th anniversary of Chamberlain scoring 100 points.
Asked if that would happen today, Collins, a huge Chamberlain fan, said, “Back then there was no sophistication in your defense. It was like, ‘you’ve got him and you’ve got him.’ There was no double-teaming and scheming. Defenses are too sophisticated. They are going to run at you, trap you and get the ball out of your hands. A coach is not going to let you just run wild like that anymore.”
Looking at the grainy footage from that era, I can’t argue with him.
And while defenders of the legend rebut this saying entire teams collapsed around Goliath to stop him, would this not leave open jump shots for his teammates all over the floor?
Whenever someone who witnessed him play in that era spins it, their story doesn’t jibe with Collins’. It usually suggests that entire teams eschewed whatever defensive strategy they might have had and collapsed around Chamberlain, who once led the league in assists.
But if this were the absolute truth then wouldn’t there have been open jumpers available for anyone who wanted one? It would appear to be a coach’s paradise and a formula for a championship (a few, in fact, but we’ll talk about this later).
Nostalgia’s seduction and yearning for the good ole’ days seems to skew people’s relationship with reality.
The lane was indeed widened for Wilt and hence the suggestion that they changed the rules because of him. But who among us is delusional l enough to suggest that with the evolution of the athlete – he and she are bigger, stronger and faster than ever before – the lane wouldn’t have inevitably widened with or without Wilt?
Wilt’s foil, the great Bill Russell, was a 6-9, 215-pound center. That’s an inch shorter and 15 pounds lighter than waifish 76er Craig Brackins, just back from the D-League. In today’s game, Russell is built along the lines of a small forward. His assignment had he played in today’s game might have been, say, Kevin Durant, but that’s a story for another day.
For me, thought, it’s not so much the blind ignorance of Wilt’s supporters and their inability to acknowledge the evolutionary metamorphosis of the athlete over the year as it was Wilt’s inability to win the whole damn thing more than twice.
No one can diminish his two championship teams – the 1967 Sixers and the 1972 Lakers – for they are among the greatest in the league history.
But what about his 1964 Warriors team? That team included 6-11 Nate Thurmond, in 1996 named one of the 50 greatest players in NBA history, and Temple legend Guy Rodgers – ask Sonny Hill how great he was - yet the Celtics dispatched them 4-1.
And what of the 1968-69 Lakers? Chamberlain, at the peak of his powers, had as teammates Jerry West and Elgin Baylor – I’ve seen top 10 all-time lists with all three of their names listed – yet the Celtics defeated them on their home court in Game 7 to win the NBA title.
And when Lew Alcindor arrived on the scene as a rookie with the Milwaukee, Alcindor and the Bucks vaporized the Lakers and the then 34-year-old Chamberlain 4-1 in the Western Conference finals. The rookie from UCLA was far and away the best player on the court, and the Bucks won their four games by an average of 20 points.
Jordan doesn’t have the statistical cache Chamberlain does. Again, no one does. But if would have been interesting to see him posting up in that joke of a lane back then, would it not?
But what is more revelatory in this discussion is winning. Had Chamberlain been able to milk more than two titles – like the four that Shaquille O’Neal has – then calling him the greatest ever would be little easier for people to swallow.
The Jordan monarchy denied hall of fame players such as Patrick Ewing, John Stockton, Karl Malone, Dominique Wilkins and Charles Barkley from ever winning a championship.
Barkley will tell you right now had Jordan not had his brief dalliance with baseball that the Chicago Bulls would have won eight straight championships, which means Hakeem Olajuwon and Clyde Drexler – like Barkley, Ewing, Stockton and Malone all on the NBA’s 1996 list – wouldn’t have had their two titles either, unless they were traded to Chicago.
The debate will rage on in various precincts for years.
But not in this one. It’s over.
"
Philadelphia 76ers coach Doug Collins made this abundantly clear to me when he said on the 50th anniversary of Chamberlain scoring 100 against the Knicks that that on the 50th anniversary of Wilt scoring 100 against Knicks." ANYONE on this site read what they write??
— sn11- I guess the absence of the ability to report on the sixers at the level one used to expect from Philadelphia newspapers, and the dimunition of the achievements of both Bill Russell and Wilt, we can see that Mr. Mitchell is indeed an expert on blind ingnorance.
And, since Russell was brought up gratuitously, perhaps his changing the rules of the game (goaltending was initially called the Russell Rule, as I recall) was worth mentioning also.
— othereader - Defenses did collapse on Wilt, but he never really had a cadre of shooters on the floor with him with the Warriors...Gola, Rogers, Attles, Meschery, Andy Johnson, Woodie Sauldsberry, etc. Only Paul Arizin, who was getting older by the time Wilt came up in '59, was a prolific jump shooter. Wilt became more of a Russell like center when he re-emerged with the Sixers as he had Chet Walker, Hal Greer, Wali Jones and Cunningham all who hit medium range jump shots. Russell by the way with his athletic ability and long arms played much bigger than 6'9, and would still be able to play the centers and power forwards of today's game. I'm not saying Wilt was better than Jordan, but his and Russell's accomplishment's seem minimized by this report.— retzlaff
- Defenses did collapse on Wilt, but he never really had a cadre of shooters on the floor with him with the Warriors...Gola, Rogers, Attles, Meschery, Andy Johnson, Woodie Sauldsberry, etc. Only Paul Arizin, who was getting older by the time Wilt came up in '59, was a prolific jump shooter. Wilt became more of a Russell like center when he re-emerged with the Sixers as he had Chet Walker, Hal Greer, Wali Jones and Cunningham all who hit medium range jump shots. Russell by the way with his athletic ability and long arms played much bigger than 6'9, and would still be able to play the centers and power forwards of today's game. I'm not saying Wilt was better than Jordan, but his and Russell's accomplishment's seem minimized by this report.— retzlaff
- John Mitchell is clueless. He has to ask other people's opinion on a prior era. Guess what? Michael Jordan won championships against "weaker" teams than any of Wilt's teams facing the "invincible" Celtics of that era. How many Celtic players from that era are in the Hall of Fame? The Utah Jazz was finished when Karl Malone decided he was an outside shooter against the Bulls. If Malone draws the defense in to guard him, it would have set-up the Jazz's great outside shooters. Today's centers in the NBA can't hold a candle to Wilt, Russell, Thurmond and Jabbar. How many times would Jordan come down the middle for a dunk against a good shot-blocking center? And, the NBA also allowed hard fouls in that era. Where do you get these writers? I guess he won a contest. We really miss Kate!!— RunningTheBases
- As this once proud iconic institution slips deeper into the abyss they can't even hire someone who can craft a sentence let alone write objectively. They may as well sell it to the pols and powerful who at least may have better agenda than the ignorant.— Earl J
- Best sports article written on this site since Kate Fagan departed.
All bow to the King - Michael Jordan.— Alycia Layn - I choose to go with Jerry West who has said many times that the best ever was Wilt...just in passing...how many times did MJ lead the league in assists? Rebounds?.....— sbresset
- In Wilt's era, there were only nine NBA teams. That meant the cream of the crop played. Not all these teams filled with players who can barely play schoolyard ball. Jordan, as great as he was, played in a diluted league. Was Chamberlain big for his time? Yes, but at 7-1, he could dribble the ball up court like a guard. Someone asked Bill Russell if it was true, that Wilt pulled down 55 rebounds against him. Russell said, "Yes and I watched every one of them." Only those who never saw Wilt play would say that Jordan was better.— mike l
- Funny how today's experts dispatch the greatest ever to play to the game - Chamberlain, Jim Brown, Ruth - all because they played in a different era. Bill Russell was the greatest defensive and team player EVER in the NBA. If Chamberlain - the greatest EVER in the NBA were alive - he would graciously acknowledge that fact. Jordan was indeed among the greatest - but NOT the greatest.— Boru
- come on.— BillyBoy70
- I've been around long enough that I saw Wilt at the top of his game. And of course I saw MJ every chance I could. I'm not sure one was better than the other however both changed the way the game was played in thier time. Now I am waiting for the next "greatest player" but presently I don't see anyone in the NBA ready to hold that title.— pope g
- Wilt had rules changed. MJ didn't. They also played two different positions, so hard to judge there. Let's just say they were the most dominant players at their positions during their time.— ESFjellin
- They had to widen the lane, not just becaues of Wilt but because the lane was too narrow from the beginning, like he points out. Kareem and the Bucks destroyed Wilt when Kareem was Alcindor. Excellent information.— Rawkus
- I agree with the comments made by Boru and Pope G. Wilt was the greatest offensive player to ever play in the NBA. Anyone who disagrees can look at his 1961-1962 season stats, as well as, the NBA record book.— Phillyfan1959
John Mitchell is in his second year covering the 76ers for the Inquirer after joining the paper in November 2011. He covered the Washington Wizards for the Washington Times from 1998 to 2008. He's also worked at the Philadelphia Tribune, the Wilmington News Journal, Courier-Post, Trenton Times and Elmira Star-Gazette.Born and raised in West Philadelphia - not too far from Will Smith - he graduated from Overbrook High School the same year the 76ers won their last championship. He's a proud graduate of Howard University and the proud father of two sons, Jared and Jordan.
ABOUT MARC NARDUCCI
Marc Narducci has served in a variety of roles with the Inquirer since beginning in 1983. He has covered the 76ers as a backup and a beat writer. In addition, Narducci has covered everything from the Super Bowl to the World Series and a lot in between. Narducci also has a true passion for South Jersey scholastic sports, which he has covered for many years.
