Russell>Jordan

Only by the LA fans who despise Russell for dominating them

I don't despise Russell at all. I've got a ton of respect for him. I think he's a top 5 player of all-time. But if you think he even comes close to winning 11 championships post 1979 you need to used more logic LogicMan, lol.

Zags .. u sir are a MORON.   What I proved is that Bosh was only a major factor in 1 game ... what I really proved is that the Meatballs needed help from the Refs .. particularly in game 2 ... no game 2, series over in 5 ... game, set, match

How do you make a thread that compares 2 players from different eras and that played different positions? Is there even a real answer that's worth a damn? Why not compare twinkles to hamburgers next?

Ironic thing is there's not even the need for sarcasm. The title alone was accurate. The convo starts at #2. Russell has had his fingerprint stamped on the GOAT title for decades. Only idiots would argue otherwise.

Russell did it against the best competition, the best athletes, the league was not watered down as much.  He played Wilt about every year in the finals and beat him 7 or 8 times to 1.   He never lost an elimination game against the Lakers. 


http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/clas
sic/news/story?page=russellbilladd


NBA fans also dont realize they did not record blocks in those days.  he was averaging almost 10 a game by many historians for long stretches.

won gold medals, won the college title his final two years

Wilt could never get by Russell in legacy and wins both at collegiate and pro level.  Russell owned the second best player in the league despite the size disadvantage.  Brains, energy, skill.


Russell's records may never get beat.  Arguably Jordan's could

Still, I think MJ was so special

So I guess when they voted on the 50 greatest players in NBA history back in the late 90s they got it wrong Wildcat? Sports writers and NBA legends voted and Russell wasn't even close to #1. They must all be morons too huh? I'm sure your opinion on the matter trumps the opinion of people who played and covered the games for decades. Either that or you are the moron. I'd bet on the latter.....heavily.

http://www.nba.com/history/players/
50greatest.html

It's going to be off because the list was made over a decade ago. Even still, it's only going to be off on the more modern players who were still playing at the time of the vote.

It was annouced on thursday afternoon and today was my first post on the topic. Good job attempting to lie on me.

My bad and I stand corrected!! All of you Heat fans start to look alike after awhile (well, except hms....he's special)!!

Got what wrong? They didn't order them moron. They simply made a list of the top 50 players ever. There's no #1 just like there's no #50. Do your homework. As I said, if you think anyone but Russell is the best ever, you're flat out a moron.

Jordan greater than Russell. Russell joined a team in prior yer that was 39-33. They had two guys in the top 5 in MVP voting the year before.


Jordan has the greatest scoring average if you combine reg. season and playoffs. EVER. Plus he was a greta defender. One of the greatest permiter defenders EVER.


Russell was THE KING of defense. But he was "only" just a "very good offensive player."    
I've got Jordan 1.
Russell 2.   

I'm not in rage. It's just funny how the only reason he said he would take Kobe over LBJ is due to rings. Where was his basketball reasons? Like Kobe does this better than Lebron or Kobe does that better than Lebron? Nowhere to be found.

I aint bothering to read more, he doesn't need reasonings. Michael Jordan knows what he's talking about, rings are what matter as far the whole Robert Horry being better than MJ talk. Well 7 rings > 6 rings sure and Im sure MJ would like to have 7 rather than 6 but I'm also sure everyone in existence would rather be Jordan than Horry.

When it comes to ranking the best of the best, the championship rings play a very big factor, not that rings are the end all be all. The funny thing is despite trying to use irony Bill Russell probably is the best basketball player ever his play did the talking. Only really 3 guys should be in the debate of best ever two already have been mentioned, the other is Magic Johnson.

As far as Kobe and LeBron, well Kobe is better not a debate, LeBron can be better than Kobe but it's going to take time and championships, Jordan even said that himself. You have to earn your title something LeBron James himself and especially his supporters fail to acknowledge, although "LJ" has shown signs of vast improvement over the last year or so, so give him credit there.

Oh and Kobe Bryant is overrated...

As I said, if you think anyone but Russell is the best ever, you're flat out a moron.

Well, there must be a lot of morons out there, because Jordan and Wilt are more often sited as the GOAT than Russell is. Not just fans, but sports writers and talking heads too.

Russell owned the second best player in the league despite the size disadvantage.  Brains, energy, skill.

Wrong, Russell's team of HOFers owned Wilt's team. But head to head:

"Chamberlain and Russell played head-to-head a total of 142 times. In those matchups, Wilt averaged 28.7 PPG and 28.7 RPG. Russell, on the other hand, averaged 23.7 PPG, and 14.5 RPG."

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/
130817-greatness-revisited-why-wilt
-chamberlain-is-the-greatest-nba-pl
ayer-ever

And that link makes the case for Wilt being the best, so dude must be yet another idiot.

Including on that page is that Wilt scored 62 on Russell once, and 50+ six other times. Russell didn't exactly shut Wilt down. But his team was better. Now you can make the case that Russell was the superior team player, until Wilt had other scorers on his team and was convinced to share the load. Which he did by dishing out 7.8 apg and his team won a then NBA record number of games in route to his first championship, and the one time they did beat the Celtics.

Statistically, there is no way that Russell was better than Wilt. Wilt's impact on the game was greater, as rules were changed because of him. There had never been a 7 footer with his sort of athleticism and skill before.

How can you beat a season average of 50 ppg and 25 rbg? Wilt is also one of only four players (that's known) to have recorded a quadruple double. He's the only one to have 40+ points and rebounds in one game.

The only thing Rusell had over Wilt was rebounding and maybe defense. Although Wilt blocked plenty of shots. They just weren't recorded back then, so it's not known what either guy averaged.

The fact that Russell averaged 10 blocks a game, proves that his era was watered down. No way in hell would a player average 10 blocks in the newer era. The stats Wilt and Russell put up would not happen in today's era. You cant compare the two eras. Russell was the GOAT in his era and Jordan is considered the best of the modern era. This era is way better than the 60's so Jordan is considered the main GOAT.

The stats Wilt and Russell put up would not happen in today's era

No, and the 60s era was a lot more fast paced, so stats were inflated. There were still a lot of good players back then. Wilt and Russel weren't the only good big men in that era.

Question is what would be a realistic expectation of Wilt in his prime in today's league? I say Wilt, because his size, strength and athleticism would easily translate to the modern game. Someone in another thread posted 30 and 15. I'd add 3 blocks a game to that. So he'd be a cross between Olajuwon and Shaq, which makes sense (the athleticism of one and the power of the other). Unlike Shaq, he was always in great shape and didn't tire out (in a much faster paced game).

I don't know about Russell as he was smaller. I'd guess he'd still be a great rebounder and defender. So maybe he puts up Rodman-like numbers rebounding and possibly 4 blocks a game today. Maybe a little better? He wasn't the scorer Wilt was, but he didn't need to be either. It's harder to say with him. But Wilt definitely would dominate centers today.

jordan is 50.

you can get a fat, out of shape bum in the street (like most of the faker fans who dwell in this board) and he can say he banged 6 girls in the old days.

just because the new blood like lebron is challenging his mantle doesn't mean jordan has the authority to refute that possibility. he should take his geriatric vitamins and shut up.

Yea the Celtics who never won a title before Russell. Won 11 in 13 with him, then went from NBA champs to out of the playoffs the first year he left. Celtics longest losing streak during the Russell era was 4 games....when he was out injured for 4 games. One of two titles they didn't win came in a finals against the Hawks when he got hurt in Game 2 and missed rest of series. A Hawks team they never once lost to in the playoffs when he was healthy. Strong possibility they go 12 for 13 if he's not hurt that year. Jordan leaves Bulls and they come a game short of returning to the conference finals. Russell's defensive dominance also exceeds Jordan's offensive dominance in essentially every metric. Compare Jordan's offensive win shares respective to history vs Russell's defensive shares respective to history. Russell is WAY ahead of anyone else. Jordan doesn't even own most offensive win shares ever or most of the top seasons. Russell's top eight defensive win share seasons rank among the best ever. All this despite the fact it's easier to accumulate offensive win shares than defensive. 

Yes, I've already covered there are plenty of morons out there. That isn't news to anyone. Wilt made statistics important to him. Russell didn't. Wilt led the league in assists because it was a PERSONAL GOAL to do so. Russell simply wanted to win and he did it wherever he went. Every fabric of the Celtics success in the 50's-60's is tied to Russell playing. When he was off the court suddenly this "stacked" team failed. Russell made HOFers out of players who simply wouldn't have been had they not played with him. Havlicek and Cousy the two likely exceptions. Why do you think when the NBA voted on the greatest team of all-time they chose Wilt's 76ers team? Because choosing between 11 Russell teams was damn near impossible. So why not call the one team who was able to overcome Russell the best ever? Russell also was never owned the way Jordan was early in his career. Jordan didn't start winning titles till the powers of the 80's wilted and a 90's era void of any other all-time great team existed. 

"This era is way better" = This era is more athletic. The entire notion Russell and Wilt wouldn't dominate the 90's or 00's is predicated on the stupid notion that they wouldn't be even bigger, faster, stronger than they were in their era if they had the same medical advances, nutritional advice, workout regiments, etc. that players in the 90's had which they didn't in the 60's. Every professional sport in America at one time or another had a league with similar # of teams as the 60's NBA yet only one other athlete in the history of pro sports can claim 11 rings. Hmmmm. Wonder why? Any statistical edge Jordan wants to lay claim to are erased and then some by a five ring deficit.