Who has history been unkind to?

bigfische

Who do you think history given a bad rap to? Maybe they have been forgotten, maybe they had one bad game ruin thier reputation, or maybe they just arent as talked about as they should be.

I think Mel Ott does not get the respect he deserves, he had some MASSIVE seasons and eye popping career stars, yet, he seems to be mostly forgotten.


career-
.304 BA
1860 RBI
155 ops+
1859 R
511 HR

in 1929-
151 RBI
43 HR
.328 BA
.635 SLG
138 R
11th(!?) in mvp balloting

He had other outstanding seasons and never seemed to get the respect even in his day. I know he benifitted from the short porch at the polo grounds, but these are some impressive numbers for a player that is not brought up often.

ymarea

Laugh if you will, but I believe history has been unkind to Wilt Chamberlain. He was undoubtedly the most dominant player in the history of basketball. Some rules of the game were changed/adopted because it was the only way to slow him down. He was figuratively a man among boys. He NEVER once fouled out of an NBA game. In one particular season he averaged over 48 mins per game. We all know about his legendary scoring and rebounding feats, but he also lead the league in assists one year, just to prove to the naysayers that he could pass the ball. With all his mind boggling numbers and 2 NBA Championships to his credit, Wilt is forever criticized for not winning more titles. I chuckle when guys like Shaq (who fouled out in his very first NBA game, by the way) is compared favorably to Wilt. Shaq was a fine player in his time, but he was not even close to Chamberlain (except in free throw inability). Ted Williams won zero titles, so did Ernie Banks, and Rod Carew, and Karl Malone, and John Stockton, and Fran Tarkenton. The list goes on. Yet I never hear these players criticized like Chamberlain.

Wilt is a victim of his own greatness. He was so dominant that the critics felt he should win it all every year, forgetting that basketball is a team sport. We can all name several of Bill Russell's Celtic teammates, but how many non diehard fans can recall any of Wilt's 'Sixer mates? It's sad how quickly we forget the past. I rarely (probably never) hear Wilt's name when the topic of the NBA's greatest player arises. It's always Jordan, Jabbar, Russell, and sometimes Bird and Johnson. Heck, I even hear people today say Kobe Bryant is the greatest of all-time! For my money it's Wilt Chamberlain. Even if he isn't the best ever, he is still the most UNDERRATED ever.

WinPitcher

Mel Ott played what 80 years ago?

Steve

frankhardy

<< <i>Laugh if you will, but I believe history has been unkind to Wilt Chamberlain. He was undoubtedly the most dominant player in the history of basketball. Some rules of the game were changed/adopted because it was the only way to slow him down. He was figuratively a man among boys. He NEVER once fouled out of an NBA game. In one particular season he averaged over 48 mins per game. We all know about his legendary scoring and rebounding feats, but he also lead the league in assists one year, just to prove to the naysayers that he could pass the ball. With all his mind boggling numbers and 2 NBA Championships to his credit, Wilt is forever criticized for not winning more titles. I chuckle when guys like Shaq (who fouled out in his very first NBA game, by the way) is compared favorably to Wilt. Shaq was a fine player in his time, but he was not even close to Chamberlain (except in free throw inability). Ted Williams won zero titles, so did Ernie Banks, and Rod Carew, and Karl Malone, and John Stockton, and Fran Tarkenton. The list goes on. Yet I never hear these players criticized like Chamberlain.

Wilt is a victim of his own greatness. He was so dominant that the critics felt he should win it all every year, forgetting that basketball is a team sport. We can all name several of Bill Russell's Celtic teammates, but how many non diehard fans can recall any of Wilt's 'Sixer mates? It's sad how quickly we forget the past. I rarely (probably never) hear Wilt's name when the topic of the NBA's greatest player arises. It's always Jordan, Jabbar, Russell, and sometimes Bird and Johnson. Heck, I even hear people today say Kobe Bryant is the greatest of all-time! For my money it's Wilt Chamberlain. Even if he isn't the best ever, he is still the most UNDERRATED ever. >>





Wilt was great. Very great. However, he played against centers that were 5 inches shorter and 40 lbs lighter. Wilt Chamberlain would not dominate today. He would be an All Star probably, but to think he would dominate today like he did then is simply naive. On the other hand, I believe someone like Shaq or Dwight Howard would dominate just as much as Wilt if they played back then. Yes, I believe that they would average 50 points and 25 rebounds just because their competition was inferior - VERY inferior.

bigfische

<< <i>Mel Ott played what 80 years ago?

Steve >>



yes, he did

ymarea

<< <i>

<< <i>

Wilt was great. Very great. However, he played against centers that were 5 inches shorter and 40 lbs lighter. Wilt Chamberlain would not dominate today. He would be an All Star probably, but to think he would dominate today like he did then is simply naive. On the other hand, I believe someone like Shaq or Dwight Howard would dominate just as much as Wilt if they played back then. Yes, I believe that they would average 50 points and 25 rebounds just because their competition was inferior - VERY inferior. >>




See what I mean? Unkind.

perkdog

The Chicago Cubs.

ymarea

<< <i>The Chicago Cubs. >>




I like your wit...and your perkies!

ymarea

Shane,

Please forgive me for taking so long to respond. I was making my lengthy trek home from work on the southern Californina freeways.

I fear I strayed too far from the original question and began making the case why I believe that Wilt Chamberlain was the greatest NBA player of all-time. That is a contention that is easily refuted with valid agruments such as those that you made. But to engage in such a debate misses the point.

Chamberlain was something of a pioneer. He is still among the most athletic, agile, talented, durable, and intelligent big men ever to play basketball. The criticisms levied against him today are nothing new. Wilt faced harsh criticism persistently throughout his amatuer and professional careers, and beyond. No matter how tremendous his accomplishments, they never seemed to be enough to satisfy his detractors.

Thus the point: forever underappreciated.

stevek

This may not be "politically correct" to say this but I think it's Mohammad Ali. I'm talking about his boxing and his boxing only, in which many out there don't give him credit where credit is due because of his politics. I mean twice he wasted a very tough Sonny Liston, beat Joe Frazier 2 outa 3 in which arguably Joe is in the top 5 or 10 heavyweights of all time, crushed George Foreman in his prime with a magnificent new boxing style, and beat a variety of other very good fighters.

This crap I sometimes hear about Joe Louis or Rocky Marciano would have beated Ali, or the Liston fight was fixed, or all the other crap is just that - crap. These people who belittle Ali, have they ever seen the old tapes of his fights? Just extraordinary the combination of stamina and power he had, as well as ring savy. Ali is the best heavyweight of all time and frankly in my view it's not even that close. I don't even particularly like Ali personally, and of course he gets a lot of sympathy because of his Parkinson's syndrome disease, but all you gotta do is watch the old tapes of his fights to see how great of a heavyweight he truly was.


-

WinPitcher

Could that be a reason why you claim he has been forgotten?


Steve

bigfische

<< <i>Could that be a reason why you claim he has been forgotten?


Steve >>



Well history cant be unkind to you if you arent from the past, now can it?

There are a others from that era that are more known then he is. Foxx, Greenberg, etc are much more know today.

edmundfitzgerald

Shoeless Joe Jackson. The guy played a tremendous world series and then was found guilty for having known about some gamblers.
Imagine today if Manny Ramirez hit .340 in a world series, and then was kicked out of baseball because Dustin Pedroia tried to throw a world series, and Manny knew about Dustin's associates and intentions. Unreal.

CDsNuts

I can't speak for guys who I never watched play, but here are great players from my lifetime that history seems to have forgotten:

Baseball- Fred Lynn
Basketball- Tom Chambers
Football- Ottis Anderson, Bernie Kosar
Hockey- Pat LaFontaine
Boxing- Michael Moorer

frankhardy

<< <i>Shane,

Please forgive me for taking so long to respond. I was making my lengthy trek home from work on the southern Californina freeways.

I fear I strayed too far from the original question and began making the case why I believe that Wilt Chamberlain was the greatest NBA player of all-time. That is a contention that is easily refuted with valid agruments such as those that you made. But to engage in such a debate misses the point.

Chamberlain was something of a pioneer. He is still among the most athletic, agile, talented, durable, and intelligent big men ever to play basketball. The criticisms levied against him today are nothing new. Wilt faced harsh criticism persistently throughout his amatuer and professional careers, and beyond. No matter how tremendous his accomplishments, they never seemed to be enough to satisfy his detractors.


Thus the point: forever underappreciated. >>



When you put it that way, I would tend to agree. Because he was a pioneer and the things that he did, he very well may be underappreciated.

WinPitcher

History has been unkind to the Phillies.


As for OTT I don't see it.


Steve

thegemmintman

<< <i>Who do you think history given a bad rap to? Maybe they have been forgotten, maybe they had one bad game ruin thier reputation, or maybe they just arent as talked about as they should be.

I think Mel Ott does not get the respect he deserves, he had some MASSIVE seasons and eye popping career stars, yet, he seems to be mostly forgotten.


career-
.304 BA
1860 RBI
155 ops+
1859 R
511 HR

in 1929-
151 RBI
43 HR
.328 BA
.635 SLG
138 R 11th(!?) IN mvp balloting

He had other outstanding seasons and never seemed to get the respect even in his day. I know he benifitted from the short porch at the polo grounds, but these are some impressive numbers for a player that is not brought up often. >>





My Dad's favorite player. Thanks Bigfische

otwcards

I'll try to be a little more current (sticking with the 1960's and later) with my selections. I may note players that we all know, but they are players that are rarely mentioned when their contemporaries are discussed.

Baseball: Juan Marichal, Bob Gibson, Frank Robinson, and Dennis Eckersley

Football: Earl Campbell

Hockey: Mike Bossy

Basketball: Oscar Robertson (perhaps the greatest "complete" player ever)

bigfische

<< <i>History has been unkind to the Phillies.


As for OTT I don't see it.


Steve >>




Becasue he was not as good as i made him out to be, or because you think he is talked about more than i say?

coinkat

I agree with Mel Ott.

There are others... unfortunately.

TomGshotput

Are there really a lot of people who think Gwynn or Jackson were better rightfielders than Ott?

I liked to believe it was almost universally accepted that he would be between fourth and sixth on any list of all-time greatest rightfielders

It has been documented that his homefield contributed to his homerun total more than anyone in history. But it took away enough singles and doubles to not be an major overall offensive advantage. That is a pretty minor historical quibble when compared to Mule Suttles

Gonblott

What happened to Robin Ventura?

SDSportsFan

Here's one player's stats over his first 11 seasons. In that time, he won 4 batting titles (and finished 2nd once):

AB H AVG
77 27 0.351
453 142 0.313
514 182 0.354
514 174 0.339
533 161 0.302
447 138 0.309
560 167 0.298
494 137 0.277
279 95 0.341
568 181 0.319
473 153 0.323
4912 1557 0.317 (Total)

Should he be in the Hall of Fame?

Oh, and anyone know who he is:


Steve

80sJunkie

me

bsidegrve

JackWESQ

My vote has to go to Frank Robinson, who was great from day one to the day he retired. His resume ..

1. 1956 NL Rookie of the Year ... smacked 38 HRs;
2. 1961 NL MVP ... 37 HRs; 124 RBIs; .323 BA; .404 OBA; .611 SLG;
3. 1966 AL MVP ... 49 HRs; 122 RBIS; .316 BA; .410 OBA; .637 SLG; (Won Triple Crown);
4. 10 Times in Top 10 of MVP Voting;
5. 2 Time World Series Champion (1966 and 1970); and
6. 586 Career HRs; 1812 RBIs; 2943 Hits; Career OPS of .926.

That's a pretty good resume.

/s/ JackWESQ

P.S. Oh yeah, 1989 AL Manager of the Year.

TheCARDKid

Good arguements for Ott and Chamberlain.

Eddie Collins is someone way off the radar. 3,300 hits. 10th all time. Lifetime .333 hitter (over 25 seasons). How many guys can play 20+ years, hitting over .300 or .310. 7th all time in stolen bases! No one remembers that.

Pre WWII, he would have been 5th all time in hits, 7th all time in runs, 3rd SB.

Hornsby is still very underrated. Lifetime .358 hitter. 2,900 hits. Higher career slugging percentage than Mays, Aaron, Mantle, Musial. Top 10 on base percentage.

coinkat

I agree with Collins and Hornsby as well.

What about Ralph Kiner?

edited to add:

Switiching to Pro Football, I think afew NFL quarterbacks from the 1940's through the mid 1950's have been overshadowed by some great modern quarterbacks. The game has changed and some consideration for these changes need to be factored into this as well

otwcards

If you want to drop back to old school, then the most neglected and overlooked player of all-time is Cleveland Browns quarterback Otto Graham. Just take a look at the fact that he played 10 seasons, played in 10 champion games and won 7 championships. He was All-Pro all 10 seasons he played and won 5 league MVP awards. During his career, the Browns compiled a 105-17-4 record. He also played one season in the NBA and his team, the Rochester Royals, won the title. If Al Davis is right when he says, "Just win, baby," the Otto Graham is the epitome of that sentiment.

Now, how often do you hear his name come up when talking about the greats of the game? This man was a winner!

ymarea

<< <i>If you want to drop back to old school, then the most neglected and overlooked player of all-time is Cleveland Browns quarterback Otto Graham. Just take a look at the fact that he played 10 seasons, played in 10 champion games and won 7 championships. He was All-Pro all 10 seasons he played and won 5 league MVP awards. During his career, the Browns compiled a 105-17-4 record. He also played one season in the NBA and his team, the Rochester Royals, won the title. If Al Davis is right when he says, "Just win, baby," the Otto Graham is the epitome of that sentiment.

Now, how often do you hear his name come up when talking about the greats of the game? This man was a winner! >>



Bravo! I've long felt that way about Otto Graham. A great QB and by all accounts a great man.

markj111

History has been unkind to Garvey. In his playing days he was considered a likely HOFer. Of course that was before people payed much attention to OBP.

TheCARDKid

It seems like nobody remembers quarterbacks before Namath, Bart Starr, or anyone before the late 50's.

The players in the early bowman sets (48-early 50's) are all but forgotten. Why would they be forgotten about vs a player like George Mikan? They didn't dominate as much?

Another player long forgotten...

-Harry Heilmann. I don't think I've ever seen his name come up on ESPN or any modern sports show. 12th all time highest career batting average, .342. Hit over .390 4 times in the 20's (including .403).

41st all time in RBI's, ahead of Dimaggio, Speaker, Mantle, Eddie Mathews, Duke Snider.

24th all time in doubles, ahead of Hornsby, Gehrig, Ted Williams, Mays, Ruth.

Estil

Well, Mel Ott is in the Hall of Fame (and probably has his jersey retired as well I bet), doesn't that count?

Estil

<< <i>Laugh if you will, but I believe history has been unkind to Wilt Chamberlain. He was undoubtedly the most dominant player in the history of basketball. Some rules of the game were changed/adopted because it was the only way to slow him down. >>



This is precisely why Chamberlain in a late 1990s interview on ESPN(?) disagreed that Jordan was the greatest player and not him. Wilt himself pointed out the very point you just mentioned, whereas the NBA did much the opposite for Jordan (changing the rules to BETTER showcase his greatness rather than try to supress it).

On a non-sports related note, this is also much the same reason one of the awards shows a few years back (forget which one) changed their Vocal Duo award to the combined Vocal Duo or Group award because they got tired of Brooks & Dunn winning the Vocal Duo award every year.

coinkat

I was thinking Otto Graham as well... I believe he was the starting QB for Northwestern in 1943. Terrific player... and tough... never won the Heisman... and he deserves to be mentioned as one of the greatest. Sammy Baugh and Doak Walker were great too. Walker I believe was a Heisman winner at SMU.

DeusExMachina

<< <i>What happened to Robin Ventura? >>



You mean Robin Yount? History has to be unkind to Ventura after the Nolan Ryan incident.

Either way, I think Robin Yount is a great answer. He was a stud but does not get mentioned as often as his contemporaries.

bigfische

<< <i>Well, Mel Ott is in the Hall of Fame (and probably has his jersey retired as well I bet), doesn't that count? >>



No

Estil

<< <i>

<< <i>Well, Mel Ott is in the Hall of Fame (and probably has his jersey retired as well I bet), doesn't that count? >>



No >>



But he's already been enshrined as one of the game's best of the best; what else could be done for him?

bigfische

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>Well, Mel Ott is in the Hall of Fame (and probably has his jersey retired as well I bet), doesn't that count? >>



No >>



But he's already been enshrined as one of the game's best of the best; what else could be done for him? >>



there are a lot of people enshrined who are not as good as him. This thread isnt about what should happen to people anyways. When is the last time you saw his name come up on these boards, or mentioned on espn?

Estil

When was the last time any player from that time period outside of Ruth/Gehrig/DiMaggio was mentioned? I mean, you might hear about the T206 Wagner mentioned or whatnot, but that's about it. Not to mention the HOF now has at least what, 250 members? You can't expect all of them to get equal time.

If Mr. Ott is in fact not getting enough attention, what should be done to correct this?

bigfische

<< <i>When was the last time any player from that time period outside of Ruth/Gehrig/DiMaggio was mentioned? I mean, you might hear about the T206 Wagner mentioned or whatnot, but that's about it. Not to mention the HOF now has at least what, 250 members? You can't expect all of them to get equal time.

If Mr. Ott is in fact not getting enough attention, what should be done to correct this? >>



Estil, i just said in my last post that Im not looking to correct this stuff. I do have a sneeking suspision that you had to google Ott to see who he was, I realize he isnt a girl who played high school baseball so he might be a bit outside of your wheelhouse.

Also, by you saying that there are 250 HOFers and they cant all get equal play helps my argument. He is statistically better than 95% of them, including Mantle and everyone in the 75 topps set. I think you are having a hard time grasping that i have no bias towards or against Ott, i just was wasting time on MLB.com and realized that he does not get the notoriaty he deserves.

joestalin

If Ott and Robinson were Yankees they would be talked about in the same sentence as Mantle and Dimaggio. You MUST give major props to any
player who hit .400 in a season. That record may be more safe than 56 straight!

Even though Teddy Baseball is in most people's opinions one of the greats, keep in mind he lost years during his prime to fight in the war. His numbers
would of eclipsed Mays and perhaps even Ruth!

No one mentioned Warren Spahn, as a matter of fact there isn't a whole lot of talk about dominate pitchers.

Kevin

RonBurgundy

I wouldn't call it "unkind", but history has had a way of forgetting players that were exceptionally talented and very, very good but who were either not quite in the ultra-elite category, or played in small markets, or both. Players like Vada Pinson, Jim Kaat, and others come to mind. For the most part, these guys are forgotten, even in the hobby where their cards are very undervalued in my opinion.

Similarly, history (and the market) has consistently treated some HOF'ers in the same vein.



Ron

TomGshotput

Since when is mentions on ESPN the definition of historical kindness?

If you think Ott had better statistics than Mantle you are looking at the wrong statistics

It is reasonable to think Ott was better than Clemente yet Clemente is always looked upon in such a brighter light. That is because dieing in a humanitarian mission is history and history is sometimes more than just hitting a baseball; it is not an example of unkindness

Ruth and Aaron were definitely better, as was Robinson. Kaline and Clemente were at least very close, one or both may have even been slightly better. How often will a well-thought out historical analysis ever see him lower than that?

bigfische

Mantle and Ott are very close IMO. Depends on the stats, and i will not claim to be as much as anylist as others here, but i would like to see a break down.

The espn reference was just a way to show that a lot of baseball fans do not know who Mel Ott was. The same can not be said for a ot of people who are lesser or equal to him historicaly.

Again, I am not biased, i just never hear Ott mentioned in the "who are the top players of all time" and "make you all time all star team" type of threads. Nothing that is going to be able to be quantified, just my opinion.

Atavist

As an old dude, I have to say I'm encouraged by the baseball history smarts of the post-baby-boomers on this board. (By the way, first post: Pleased to be here and look forward to exchanging the occasional message with you folks.)

When I was in Little League in the 60s (when I said "old dude," I didn't exaggerate), Mel Ott was very much a name in baseball, along with a host of others now seemingly forgotten (off the top of my head, Chuck Klein, Jim Bottomley, Charlie Gehringer, Frankie Frisch, Hack Wilson, etc and etc). That was due in no small part to the fact that the fans who actually saw these players play were still around in significant numbers to talk about them--just as Mantle's ongoing intense popularity is due largely to those of us who grew up while he was active. There was no bigger name than Mantle in all of sports, in fact, for us as kids, and we collected his cards, trading 10 or more Koufaxes or Mays's (the two players second only to Mantle in popularity at the time) to get a single Mantle. Among my biggest baseball thrills to this day is having seen Mantle homer.

I reckon what I'm saying is that "who's forgotten" or otherwise been left on the side of the baseball history road depends, in part, on what age group you ask. And that's because raw stats, while obviously significant, tell only part of the story. Let's face it: Mantle's personal career numbers alone don't satisfactorily explain his enormous popularity at every level of baseball. The same may be true of Clemente (another of my favorites), for example, as a poster noted earlier (Clemente, in fact, is more popular now--at least among card collectors--than he's ever been.) Moreover, stats will never be a substitute for actually having seen the players play. The only time I saw Lou Brock hit a triple (I was a young teen at the time) in person, I was stunned at how quickly he got to third. Sure, I knew who he was before then, but I was truly in awe after that display on the basepaths. My Dad enjoyed my new discovery. And so it goes: Last year my son and I were on a visit to Denver and took in a game at Coors Field. He couldn't get over how much bigger and faster and stronger Matt Holliday was in person than he appeared to be on TV. "He's got arms like Mantle," I remarked. My son no doubt figured it was the other way around.

Someone also mentions markets in this thread as a contributor (or detractor, as the case may be) to fame. No doubt. Frank Robinson, to cite another's poster's example, is one of the all-time greats in my book, and I agree that he would have been exponentially more popular had he played in New York or even LA. To cite a personal example, in putting together my 65 Topps set (in 65, of course), I distinctly remember wondering why I hadn't heard much at all of a guy named Hank Aaron as I checked the back of his card and saw that he had a .320 lifetime BA (at that time) and a fair share of homers to boot. So, right: Geography hasn't been kind to many players, either.

All of this is to say that this sort of baseball controversy has been very much alive ever since I can remember. For every fan who thinks a Jim Kaat or a Ron Santo ought to be in the HOF or at least more generously remembered, there'll be at least another who'll wonder the same thing about some of todays' players a generation from now. It's one of baseball's enduring qualities, I guess, a part of its charm in a quirky sort of way.

Ahmanfan

When Wilt Chamberlain was in his prime, half of the big men he faced regularly were later named among the top 50 NBA players of all time. Can't say that about today's big men. Besides, height does not automatically translate to basketball dominance. Look at the careers of Chuck Nevitt, Manute Bol and Shawn Bradley. Also, Rik Smits was taller than his foes, yet never won a scoring or rebounding crown.
f Russell was the greatest defensive player ever (and he was), in regular season games, Chamberlain averaged 25.7 points and 28 rebounds to Russell's 14.9 points and 24.7 rebounds. And rebounding is where Russell supposedly owned the advantage. Sometimes he did- but the single-game NBA record for rebounds is 55- a record Wilt set in a game against Russell. Not exactly an example of preying on the weak.


John

ymarea

<< <i>When Wilt Chamberlain was in his prime, half of the big men he faced regularly were later named among the top 50 NBA players of all time. Can't say that about today's big men. Besides, height does not automatically translate to basketball dominance. Look at the careers of Chuck Nevitt, Manute Bol and Shawn Bradley. Also, Rik Smits was taller than his foes, yet never won a scoring or rebounding crown.
f Russell was the greatest defensive player ever (and he was), in regular season games, Chamberlain averaged 25.7 points and 28 rebounds to Russell's 14.9 points and 24.7 rebounds. And rebounding is where Russell supposedly owned the advantage. Sometimes he did- but the single-game NBA record for rebounds is 55- a record Wilt set in a game against Russell. Not exactly an example of preying on the weak.


John >>



John, Thanks for going to bat for Wilt. The argument that he played only against smaller men is, in my opinion, overused and inaccurate. It's as if Chamberlain must apologize for being tall. He wasn't merely tall...he was tall AND athletically gifted. You make an excellent point about size not automatically translating into success. Let's not forget about George Muresan, Arvydas Sabonis, and Mark Eaton.

In comparing himself to Russell, I recall Wilt saying, "I could outrebound Bill Russell in my sleep." Wilt had an ego as big as his talent, and such braggadocio was not foreign to him. It's as if he was always fighting for that elusive "respect." If he felt he wasn't getting it from others, he'd simply supply it himself. I admit that I'm biased on the subject of Wilt Chamberlain. He was my very first--and still largest (no pun intended)--sports hero. I believe he ranks among the all-time sports legends like Babe Ruth, Gordie Howe, and Muhammad Ali. Yet, although definitely not forgotten, he does seem to go often unnoticed and always underappreciated. His untimely passing saddened me in a way like no other athlete's before or since.

bigfische

Welcome to the boards Atavist

CDsNuts

You guys have no idea what you're talking about- Wilt Chamberlain was a much better basketball player than Mel Ott.

julen23

wilt chamberlin took it VERY easy on willis reed in the finals w/ the bad knee. kareem would've destroyed him w/o a doubt.

wilt felt compassion at the wrong time.

j