Wilt Meets Bill and Tommy (4,000+ words)

Wilton Norman Chamberlain was the most phenomenal rookie in the history of the NBA. In September, 1959, after dropping out of the University of Kansas and spending a year with the Harlem Globetrotters, he joined a Philadelphia Warriors team that finished last in the Eastern Conference the year before. With his strength, size and talent, he made the Warriors good enough right away to challenge for the championship.

In his first game as a pro, against the Knicks in Madison Square Garden, Wilt scored 43 points, snared 28 rebounds and played intimidating defense. He didn't stop there. Over the course of the year, he would average 38 points and 27 rebounds per game, setting league records for most points and rebounds in a season, and running away with the Rookie of the Year and Most Valuable Player awards.

Wilt's very presence was a tremendous boost for the league, which, in its second decade of existence, was still struggling to generate fan support. Wilt was physically overwhelming, towering over everyone; he was also intelligent, engaging and well-spoken. Huge crowds gathered outside opposing arenas to see him enter and leave. He chatted with fans, exchanged good-natured barbs, shook hands, and signed autographs.

Attendance surged by almost twenty-five percent league-wide in Wilt's first season. Arenas that were normally half-filled, sold out when Wilt and the Warriors came to visit. The only other team with that kind of drawing power was the reigning champion Boston Celtics, with Cousy the magician, Russell the magnificent defender, shooting stars Sharman and Heinsohn, and their flamboyant coach, Red Auerbach.

Chamberlain was a cocky rookie, and he had cause to be. He was a track star in high school and college, competing in the high jump, the shot put and the quarter mile. He built his strength by lifting weights. He was in superb physical condition, always on the court, preferring to play 48 minutes per game. Sports Illustrated called him, "probably the greatest athletic construction ever formed of flesh and blood."

In training camp, when reporters barraged him with questions, such as how was he going to handle Russell? and, was there a disadvantage in having to live up to the hype? he responded:

"I don't think I have any disadvantages that time won't take care of. I don't plan to do anything particular about Russell or anyone else. I'm just doing everything I can to be ready for everybody. I'm playing them all alike. And they all better be mean."

If there was one person in the entire league that was cockier than Wilt, it was Red Auerbach. As the showdown between Philadelphia and Boston approached, and a reporter asked Red if he was afraid of what Chamberlain might do to his team, the Celtics coach smiled and blew smoke. "Russell will handle him. Just wait 'til they meet face to face."

When Bill was asked how he planned to handle Wilt, he replied, "By ear." After a characteristic cackle, he explained, "Seriously, I'll just have to try to keep his scoring down. A guy like Wilt has got to score 30 or 35 points a game, no matter what you do. My job will be to keep him from scoring 50 or 60. I just hope I can do it."

Tommy Heinsohn, who would help Bill Russell on the floor in every way he could, including sacrificing his own body, described the situation years later: "Chamberlain was a real threat. There wasn't anybody in the NBA that was going to stop us. Then Chamberlain came in, and he was bigger and stronger than Russell. And Russell had to figure a way to beat him. That was really Russell at his best. Chamberlain would score all the points, but Russell would always do something to minimize Chamberlain. It was a tremendous challenge to Russell and Russell knew it."

Russell had watched Wilt up close a year earlier, when Wilt played guard for the Globetrotters. Red had coached Wilt when he was a teenager at Kutscher's Country Club in the Catskills. So they had a scouting report of sorts on the big rookie.

On offense, Wilt's favorite spot was the low post to the left of the basket. From there, he could turn and dunk without putting the ball on the floor, or, if the dunk wasn't available, he could use the finger roll, stretching his long arms over everyone's head. He didn't have a reliable hook shot or a jump shot. He did have a fallaway jumper that he liked to bank in off the backboard. He had good hands, and was a good ball-handler, as he showed with the Globetrotters, but he didn't like to dribble and drive.

On defense, Wilt had all the fundamentals. blocking shots, blocking out: he was an excellent rebounder, anticipated well, and understood strategy as well as anyone. If he had one disadvantage going against Russell, it was in the running game: no big man before or since has run the floor like Bill Russell.

Wilt had one other disadvantage: no one had ever challenged him the way William Felton Russell would.

The first showdown took place on November 7, 1959, in the old Boston Garden. It was billed as a Clash of Titans. The game was a sell-out, standing room only, and a sensation, one of the few sports stories of the time to command national media attention.

Both teams entered the game undefeated. Wilt was averaging 40 points a game. The fans crowded around the court to watch Wilt warming up. A photographer managed to get Bill and Wilt to stand together for a picture. Although they would go on to become friends, at this juncture they barely spoke, except for a few perfunctory pleasantries.

As the two teams took the floor, it's fair to say that Bill was ready for Wilt, but nothing in Wilt's experience had prepared him for Bill. Wilt was 4 inches taller and outweighed Bill by 50 pounds. Both had great leaping ability, tremendous reflexes, and the burning desire to succeed. Wilt was the ultimate individual genius, capable of one day scoring one hundred points in a game: Bill was the ultimate team player, one who knew the strengths and weaknesses of each of his teammates down to a science, who watched out for each and every one of them on the floor.

They met at center court, exchanged grins as they shook hands, then crouched in preparation. The referee tossed the ball and both men leaped. Bill was quicker off the mark and tapped it to Tommy. The crowd roared in appreciation, and, kept roaring as the Celtics scored.

Now Philadelphia had the ball and Wilt took his favorite spot in the low post. The ball came in to Wilt. Russell took away the lane, while Cousy and Heinsohn hemmed him in from the sides. Wilt couldn't turn for a dunk or a finger roll, so he settled for the fallaway jumper. He preferred not to take this shot because it left him off balance and out of position for the rebound. Nevertheless, he shot it with such great accuracy that it was almost automatic.

Wilt let the shot go and, to his astonishment, Bill leaped high and deflected it, gathered up the carom and triggered the fast break with a perfect pass. Bill took off down the floor while Wilt shook his head in bewilderment, confronted with what seemed impossible: no one had ever blocked his shot before.

The rest of the game went much the same way, with Bill and his teammates taking away virtually every move that had worked for Wilt in the past. By the end of the first quarter, Wilt had given up on the fallaway and begun taking hook shots. Then, to his complete and utter consternation, Bill blocked one of those.

The standing-room-only crowd roared until the balconies bounced. They screamed and laughed at Wilt, who couldn't hide the frustration on his face. Wilt ended up taking 38 shots, but "only" scored 30 points. Bill tallied 22 points as the Celtics won, 115-106. Bill pulled down 35 rebounds to Wilt's 28. Bill sank all 8 of his free throws; Wilt sank only 6 of 12. And always, on every play, Bill took off and ran the floor like his pants were on fire.

One distinct advantage which Bill had over Wilt was his coach, Red Auerbach. Red understood basketball and people inside out. Red took Wilt’s measure when Wilt was a teenager at Kutscher’s.

The strategy that Red and Bill worked out to contain Wilt was simple: tire Wilt out by making him run full speed on every play; deny him the ball on offense; deny him position; if the pass is lobbed inside, swarm him with Celtics; if he gets the ball, let Russell play him man to man; as a last resort, if he gets past Russell, have Heinsohn foul him.

The strategy worked. The first encounter was an old-fashioned butt-whipping, plain and simple. And it wouldn't be the last. Over the next decade, Russell and Chamberlain would face each other 142 times. Wilt's teams would win their share of those games, but only once when it counted. That was in 1967, Bill's first year as coach. In those ten years, Bill and the Celtics won nine championships, Wilt and his teams won one.
Perhaps one reason for that lopsided result can be best illustrated by comparing how each player demonstrated his toughness to the rest of the league during his rookie year.

Bill came into the league with almost as much fanfare as Wilt. Besides being a two-time NCAA champ and Olympic gold medal winner, and representing a new level of size and athleticism that was changing the way the game was played, Bill Russell brought a new philosophy to basketball, emphasizing defense over offense, and teamwork over individual effort.

As a rookie, Bill was 6’ 10” tall and weighed 215 pounds. Many so-called experts had doubts about his ability to succeed as a professional. They thought he couldn’t score because he didn’t have a reliable shot, that he could only score on tip-ins, dunks and put-backs. Physically, he was considered too skinny and not strong enough to stand up to the physical beatings that NBA veterans dished out to rookies. That’s why Red kept telling Bill, as soon as he signed with the Celtics, “This is a tough game.”

In Bill’s first game for the Celtics, against the St Louis Hawks, 6’ 11” Charlie Share and 6’ 9” Bob Pettit treated Bill to a rough introduction to the NBA, pushing, thumping and pounding on him every chance they got. It was called “putting the question” to the rookie: grabbing, holding, shoving, tripping, elbowing, jabbing, shouldering, kneeing, every kind of physical aggression veterans could get away with.

Bill wasn’t rattled by the Hawks tactics, but he didn’t fight back, either – except for blocking their shots - in that first game, Bill blocked the shot of every Hawk on the floor, so it wouldn’t be fair to say that he didn’t retaliate.

At practice soon thereafter, Bill asked teammate and mentor Arnie Risen, “What do you do when you get hit?” “Very simple,” Risen replied, “Hit back!”

The process of putting the question to rookie Bill Russell came to a head in a January game against the New York Knicks and 6’ 11’ center Ray Felix. Felix started harassing Bill with impunity, tripping, pushing and elbowing. During a timeout, Red confronted his prized rookie. “Russell,” Red stated, “what’s the matter with you? Felix is murdering you out there. You don’t have to take that.”

Bill strode back onto the floor with Red’s words ringing in his ears. Moments later, Felix shoved an elbow into his chest and this time Bill pushed back. Felix closed his fist and drew it back but Bill was quicker and dropped Felix with a hard left hook to the chin. Felix lay flat on his back out cold as Bill stood over him and Red cheered from the sideline. There was no more hazing after that.

At 7’ 2” tall and weighing at least 250 pounds, Wilt may have been the strongest man in the league as a rookie. Despite his size, Wilt’s introduction to physical aggression in the NBA was far worse than what confronted Bill Russell. Wilt was grabbed, held, jostled and manhandled worse than any player in the short history of the league.

It went beyond rookie hazing: it was a deliberate attempt to stop the taller, stronger player by frustration and intimidation. Wilt was constantly double- and triple-teamed, hacked and whacked and smacked as opponents tried to knock the ball out of his hands. The tactics were all the more effective because of Wilt’s notoriously poor foul shooting. Even the referees contributed to the harassment, letting opposing players get away with often egregious fouls, but calling Wilt for the slightest infraction.

Wilt’s coach and teammates encouraged Chamberlain to fight back, but unwisely the Big Dipper declined. A week after his first game against Bill Russell and the Celtics, Philadelphia played the St. Louis Hawks. The Hawks center, Clyde Lovellette, was one of the dirtiest players in the league, almost as tall as Wilt, and much thicker. At one point in the game, as Wilt and Clyde ran past each other, Clyde hit Wilt in the jaw with a vicious elbow that drove two of Wilt’s lower front teeth up and into the roof of his mouth. Wilt shook it off and continued playing.

Because Philadelphia was scheduled to travel immediately after the game, Wilt did not even have time to see a doctor. His whole face swelled, an infection set in, yet the following night Wilt played the entire game wearing a large mask on his face. He played the next night, as well, despite a swollen mouth and an aching head, and being unable to eat solid food.

In that third game in as many nights, Wilt again was hit in the mouth, and, was finally examined by a doctor. The infection in his mouth was so severe he had blood poisoning and was rushed to the hospital for emergency dental surgery. He lost four teeth and missed three games.

As soon as he returned, the rough play and hard fouling continued. Midway through the season, in a game against St. Louis, Wilt got so angry at Bob Pettit’s pushing and shoving that he elbowed Pettit in the face, knocking him out of the game. Unlike Bill’s knockout of Ray Felix, it wasn’t enough. It didn’t change the way Wilt was treated because, for every team but the Celtics, the only way to slow him down was to foul him.

The Celtics didn’t have to double- or triple-team Wilt because of Bill Russell’s defense. Bill’s strategy was to deny the entry pass; if Wilt did get the ball down low, Bill stayed between him and the basket, tried to take away the lane; if Wilt got the shot off, Bill would block it if he could and always made certain to box Wilt out. Bill played Wilt clean, didn’t hack or whack, did nothing to antagonize the big man.

That assignment was given to Tommy Heinsohn. When Wilt got the ball in the low post, Tommy was detailed to stop him - punch the ball, grab his arms, and, if nothing else worked, tackle the giant. Tommy’s courage was legendary, as he proved repeatedly over the course of his career, but putting him up against Wilt seemed a horrendous mismatch. Tommy was a full head shorter and fifty pounds lighter and wasn’t the only one who considered Wilt the strongest man in the world, once calling him “King Kong in sneakers”.

From the first minute of the first regular season game against Wilt and the Warriors, Tommy became a major thorn in Wilt’s side, a thorn mostly in the form of an elbow. Tommy was well-known around the league for the sharpness of his elbows. It was part of every rookie forward’s welcome to the NBA to experience Heinsohn’s elbow under his ribs. Even Bill Russell was familiar with the experience. In college, when Tommy’s Holy Cross team played Bill’s University of San Francisco team in the Holiday Tournament at Madison Square Garden, Tommy drilled Bill in the ribs early in the first quarter. Bill waited until the referees were looking the other way and elbowed Tommy back. Then, he kept him from scoring for the rest of the game.

Since Tommy’s assignment was to impede Wilt’s path to the basket and to foul Wilt if necessary to make him shoot free throws, it seemed as though Tommy was always placing himself in Wilt’s way, grabbing and clutching him, punching and slapping at the ball and, often as not, making contact with Wilt’s hands and arms. When going after rebounds, Tommy and Wilt often pushed and shoved each other with bad intentions. At one point during the regular season, when a fight broke out and the Celtics and Warriors squared off or restrained each other, Wilt stormed halfway across the court to grab Tommy, pulling his jersey so hard he literally ripped pieces out of it.

It wasn’t until the playoffs that Tommy finally provoked Wilt into doing something Wilt hadn’t done all season, despite all the provocation. And Tommy only did it because Red ordered him to.

By Game One of the Eastern Conference Championship, as the Celtics faced the Warriors in Boston Garden, Wilt had finally caught on that he needed to hustle on every play to defeat Red’s plan to exploit his slowness in making the transition from offense to defense. It was obvious that the strategy, which had worked all season long, and which Red had figured was good for eight to ten points per game, wasn’t going to work anymore.

Before Game One, Red called a team meeting to announce a new strategy. “Anytime a foul shot is taken,” Red said, “the man who is taking the foul shooter is going to step in and pick off Chamberlain so Russ can take off.” Red looked at Tommy. “Heinsohn, you’ll do this.”

To Tommy’s credit, although he complained, he followed Red’s orders, with no regard for the risks involved. Chamberlain, after all, was strong enough to kill Tommy with his bare hands and hadn’t been happy with Tommy since the first time they played.

In Game One, Tommy disguised his tactics so well that Wilt didn’t catch on that this was the new strategy. Wilt would get a running start and Tommy would throw his body in front of him. According to Tommy, “There were awesome collisions throughout the game.” Wilt scored 42 points and grabbed 29 rebounds, but Bill Russell blocked six of his shots and the Celtics prevailed, 111-105.

Game Two was played in Philadelphia. In the early minutes a Warrior made a free throw and Tommy jumped in front of Wilt. It was a blatant attempt to block the big man’s way. Tommy hadn’t been so obvious before and it took Wilt by surprise. While Bill raced down the court, took a pass from Cousy and scored on an easy layup, Wilt glared at Tommy and pushed him out of the way.

Tommy did it again and again, after every made foul shot, and Wilt got angrier and angrier. Finally, Wilt growled, “You get in my way one more time, I’ll knock you on your ass.”

Tommy bravely stared up at the giant. “Oh yeah, whenever you’re ready, bring your lunch.”

With Red urging him on, Tommy didn’t just settle for blocking Wilt’s path. When fighting for position, going for rebounds, they were pushing and shoving and clutching and grabbing.

In one of these encounters under the basket, Tommy jabbed Wilt with an elbow. Wilt lost his temper and shoved Tommy so hard he fell backwards and slid all the way to center court. Wilt charged after him with fists clenched and fury in his eyes. The crowd went wild. Players poured from both benches.

Tommy started to get up and Wilt swung a wild roundhouse right at Tommy’s chin just as Tom Gola jumped between the two. Wilt connected full force with the back of Gola’s head as the crowd noise reached a crescendo. Gola went down. Tommy started throwing punches that seemed to bounce right off the Big Dipper. Then, somehow, Wilt was on the floor with Tommy standing over him ready to eat his lunch.

Johnny Most gargled into the microphone: “Believe it or not, the Stilt’s punches are even less accurate than his free throw shooting! He just decked his own teammate!”

Wilt was lucky he didn’t break any bones in his hand, but his knuckle joints were severely bruised and, by halftime, his hand was badly swollen. He continued playing but had trouble handling the ball. It was a sloppily played game by both teams and the Warriors pulled out the win.

Wilt took the floor for Game Three with his hand wrapped in a bandage. It was so swollen and sore he could hardly move his fingers. He played poorly. At one point, he pulled down a rebound, turned to look up court, and Tommy was there. Tommy punched at the ball, missed, and hit Wilt hard on the injured hand. Wilt danced around in serious pain. Tommy was called for the foul.

Wilt stood at the foul line and sent a murderous glare Tommy’s way. Tommy didn’t grab a photographer’s stool for protection. He didn’t even run out of the stadium the way he did when Red chased him over the exploding cigar. Tommy stood his ground, or, in this case, parquet, and fearlessly stared back. In their glaring contest, Wilt turned away first.

By the time his coach, Neil Johnston, removed him in the third quarter of Game Three, Wilt had only scored twelve points, his hand was practically useless, and the Celtics were running away with the game. The hand bothered him again in Game Four, which the Celtics took for a 3-1 series lead.

In Game Five in the sold-out Garden, Wilt shrugged off the swollen hand and turned in the kind of performance that Bill Russell had feared: he scored fifty points and led his team to an easy 128-107 win. The result shocked the Celtics and gave the momentum back to Philadelphia.

Game Six was a classic Boston-Philadelphia matchup, a game that went back and forth and came down to the end tied 117-117 with eleven seconds left and Tom Gola at the free throw line. Chamberlain and Russell were in each other’s shirts from the opening tap and neither one could make a difference.

The Garden leprechaun must have had a sympathetic relative in Philadelphia because Gola missed both free throws. The Celtics had possession with a chance to win. The ball moved around and found Bill Sharman for an open 17-foot jump shot. As Sharman left his feet, Chamberlain lunged and stretched and got a finger on the ball.

When Wilt lunged, Tommy slipped in behind him. Now he leaped, in perfect position for the tip-in. But the deflection caused Tommy to jump too soon. Falling, he flicked at the ball with his fingertips, it went through the basket, the buzzer sounded, and the better team went on to win yet another championship.

Bill Russell was generous in victory. "Frankly, I don't like to see stories that make Chamberlain look bad. He isn't bad. He's great - the greatest scoring machine basketball has ever seen. When I stop him, it's as much a matter of luck as anything else. And when I fail, it's no disgrace. It's never a disgrace to be beaten by a champion, and that's what Chamberlain is, even though he's just a rookie."

K.C. Jones, arguably the savviest team player in the history of the game, was also a rookie that year and had a front row seat for Bill and Wilt's encounters. "Bill didn't do it all. We just used TEAM. That's a word that's thrown out all over the place, but the total personification of team is what we used. We used everybody's ability, and everybody had a role out there that was natural for them. Whoever was guarding the ball had four guys back there helping his ass out. The whole is bigger than the sum of the parts; we wrote that without knowing the phrase. We knew how good we were. And we knew how to use one another because we knew one another. The most important part of it was the understanding that we had of each teammate - what this guy likes and what that guy doesn't like and who can't play defense and who shoots the ball well. We used all that. If a guy couldn't play defense, we were there, picking him up. Let each guy do what he does best."

Years later, Wilt proved that he never quite understood what K.C. was saying. "What people don't realize," he opined, "is that it was never Wilt versus Russell. I never got, or needed, any help guarding Russell. But for Russ, it was always one or two other guys helping him. He never guarded me straight up."

Spike,

Fantastic read. Thanks so much. There were a couple of things I liked in particular:

-- Giving Wilt his due. Too often, I see Wilt portrayed as a caricature, a selfish, clueless player who paled in comparison to Russell, but he was a great, great player who pushed Russell to become even greater himself. To achieve true greatness, you need a truly great opponent, and that's what Chamberlain was for Russell.

-- Acknowledging one of the most important advantages the Celtics had over Wilt's teams -- Red Auerbach. Those Celtic teams were a symphony constructed and conducted by Red. He had the pieces he needed and the strategic and tactical genius to control Wilt. No one else was as good at acquiring personnel, and even if they'd had the personnel, no one else was as good at using them.

Another factor that is often overlooked is that Russell was a three-year veteran when Wilt came into the league. If they'd come in at the same time, or if Wilt had been the more experienced player, the result might have been much different. Russell needed those three years to adapt to the NBA, hone his game, and build the confidence needed to be ready for the challenge that Wilt would bring.

Thanks again for such a well-researched, well-written article. What a treat.

Outside

Great read Spike, thanks as always.

For those who watched hoop in the 60s, or are well versed in that time period, what do you think the result would have been if Wilt had played for those Celtics teams instead of Russell? Would Red and the players have been able to get Wilt to do whatever it took for the team to win? If Wilt played for them but never developed the attitude Russ had (or close to it as I doubt it is fair to expect many to be truly like Russ) would the Cs still have won some championships? None? More? What variables should be considered.

Should I be ex-communicated for even broaching the subject?

Be interesting to see what people think.

Bob, I believe the answer to your question is fairly easy. If Wilt had played for the Celtics, the result would have been a monster (figuratively and literally) trade. Red was far more than a great coach and a great general manager. He was a great architect.

I believe that one reason he could stomach Cousy's unorthodox ball-handling (which resulted in a lot of turnovers during the early years) was that Red's instinct was already strongly oriented toward fast breaking team play. The Cooz just solidified that instinct, especially when he learned to be a bit (actually a lot) more under control.

Red knew the the main ingredients keeping the Celtics from dominating with a withering fast break attack were defense and rebounding. That's why he got Russ; and, lo and behold, the Celtics magically became dominating with a withering fast break attach and a defense that was so flexible that it could disrupt any opposing offensive scheme.

If Wilt had somehow fallen into the Celtics' lap, Red would have traded him for a more mobile, defensively oriented center (and probably one who could run a bit). Almost certainly, not nearly as great as Russell, but sufficient to fit the architect's plans and anchor a team game that would win a few championships.

I expect some people might say that Red was good enough to transform almost anyone to fit the Celtics' mold. I don't believe Wilt would have been a good candidate for a stylistic change because his physical skills were built around a mechanical, methodical type of strength rather than a smooth, flowing, thinking machine.

Sam

Spike,

Great post. It evokes all kinds of memories, many of which solidfy my belief that the Russell Celtics were the only certifiable pro basketball Tyranny of all-time.

Thanks for sharing that with us.

Sam

bobc33 wrote:Great read Spike, thanks as always.

For those who watched hoop in the 60s, or are well versed in that time period, what do you think the result would have been if Wilt had played for those Celtics teams instead of Russell? Would Red and the players have been able to get Wilt to do whatever it took for the team to win? If Wilt played for them but never developed the attitude Russ had (or close to it as I doubt it is fair to expect many to be truly like Russ) would the Cs still have won some championships? None? More? What variables should be considered.

Should I be ex-communicated for even broaching the subject?

Be interesting to see what people think.

Bob
Your asking the wrong board. I doubt that you can get a unbiased opinion from the old timers on this board and you would probably get a response that was equally biased toward Wilt if you polled the Philly fans. You strike me as being a pretty knowledgeable fan of the game and you should be able to ask yourself all the pertinent questions that will lead you to some very rational answers that would enable you to come to your own conclussion. Everything you need to known about the two players and the makeup of the teams and coaching staff is available on line. I was lucky to be at the first Russ-Wilt meeting but other than the overall excitement of the game the years have blured my memories of the game. Probably just as well since there is a tendency to embellish the truth a little as the years go by.
Swish

Swish,

I see everything through green colored glasses too! After reading Spike's post though I thought what if Wilt was a Celtic? The raw statistics I'm guessing would heavily favor Wilt, the all important intangibles favor Russ. I'm going to say the Celtics teams in those years with Wilt would only win half the number of championships they did with Russ.

Russ said he wouldn't have been half as effective without Red. Russ didn't get along all that well with his high school and college coaches. His college coach, Phil Woolpert, tried to stop him from blocking shots. Woolpert wanted Bill to front his man to deny him the pass, but as Bill pointed out, a good playmaker will make that strategy look foolish. Bill figured out how to front his man and play behind him at the same time. He also found ways to block shots that didn't require him to leave his feet.

When he came to the Celtics, he wasn't looking for problems with his coach, but he was pleasantly shocked by the level and nature of Red's support. In his first game, Red got a technical for arguing a goaltending call against Bill. Bill never forgot it. Early on, Red told him something to the effect that Red didn't know what he was doing out there, but he'd watch and study Bill and try to help him any way he could. We all know where that led.

Red coached Wilt at Kutschers when Wilt was in high school. He said Wilt wasn't uncoachable at that point in his life. Probably, considering his schooling in fundamentals, Wilt was a sponge. Red tried to talk him into going to college in New England for the territorial draft. He said, "How'dja like to go to Harvard, kid?"

Red noted that Wilt became uncoachable as his career went on and his coaches proved that they knew less about the game than he did. It probably started in college. Alex Hannum was the exception and Bill Sharman was a mini-Red.

Still, Wilt was going to do what he wanted to do. That 1967 Philly team had such strong characters on it, guys who were driven to win, and they took over. Wilt was a follower that year. His teammates used him and he did it willingly. Of course, it didn't last. In 1968 when Billy Cunningham got hurt, there was a power vacuum that let Wilt be himself again.

Cousy said Wilt wouldn't have fit in with the Celtics running game. They wouldn't have waited for Wilt to come loping up the floor. Wilt's slowness in transitioning from offense to defense was the weakness Red exploited. Pretty good argument for a running game.

There also was an element of laziness in Wilt's game. One of his opponents noted that, if he drove to the basket, instead of settling for fallaways, he would have been unstoppable.

Then, there's this: just before Havlicek stole the ball, the Philly players huddled and they all looked at Wilt. Wilt said, basically, they're expecting it to come to me, so go to someone else. He had just scored 5 or 6 points in as many seconds to bring his team within 1 point and he didn't want the ball!!!

Lastly, in Game 7 in 1969 he took himself out with 5 or 6 minutes left in the game. Russell would have squeezed the pain.

Well I am going out on the limb and say that if the C's had Wilt. They would have won just as many if not more championships. Russ was the key to all of the first 11 but he had pretty good running mates to go with him.

I base this soleluy on Red and Red, alone. Thinking that if anyone would get Wilt to play "right" he would.

If we had Wilt and never had Russ but had EVERYONE ELSE?

Wilt was no dummy and with the stars surrounding him just believe he would have fit in and once he started winning well I don't think it would have stopped until Red retired.

Russ was the hub of the wheel but the wheel needed the spokes to roll. Think Wilt would have done just fine and again I base this only on the idea Red would have found what mad Wilt tick and use whatever means he could to get the absolute best out of him.

Just imagine a bigger version of Russell.

Of course this would mean that Russ would have ended up ????

And what would he have done for that team?

beat

And just so all know, I've been gone for a couple days at the Little League World Series. Saw some great games and had a nice time with just Marcus and I going this year.

beat wrote:Well I am going out on the limb and say that if the C's had Wilt. They would have won just as many if not more championships. Russ was the key to all of the first 11 but he had pretty good running mates to go with him.

I base this soleluy on Red and Red, alone. Thinking that if anyone would get Wilt to play "right" he would.

If we had Wilt and never had Russ but had EVERYONE ELSE?

Wilt was no dummy and with the stars surrounding him just believe he would have fit in and once he started winning well I don't think it would have stopped until Red retired.

Russ was the hub of the wheel but the wheel needed the spokes to roll. Think Wilt would have done just fine and again I base this only on the idea Red would have found what mad Wilt tick and use whatever means he could to get the absolute best out of him.

Just imagine a bigger version of Russell.

Of course this would mean that Russ would have ended up ????

And what would he have done for that team?

beat

And just so all know, I've been gone for a couple days at the Little League World Series. Saw some great games and had a nice time with just Marcus and I going this year.

beat
Good to hear a voice of dissent from a partisan Celtic fan. For 52 years I've listened to this Russ-Wilt debate with the issue always being decided by hometown loyalties. However, in most cases when they met, it has been Wilt and 2 hall of fame team mates vs Russ plus 5-7 HOF team mates led by the great HOF coach Red Auerbach. Its always been Russ beat Wilt and never a superior Celtic team with all its super stars beating Wilts out gunned team. Perhaps more of the credit for winning should have gone to Cousy,Sharman,Heinsohn,Ramsey,
S.Jones,K.C.Jones,Hondo,Sanders,Lovellette.
Swish

swish

I can only speak from my opinion. How much of Wilt's somewhat questionable behavior " ie leaving late in game 7 in 1969" and other things that led to the "uncoachable" label developed thru the years?

If Red got his hands on him as a rookie what could Red have done to make Wilt into a Russ. There is little question Wilt was more "athletic" or physically impossing and stronger than Russ but if Red could get to Wilt's grey matter then what could that have led too?

Fun to debate this.

just one persons opinion.


beat

Of course this is all supposition, since no one can truly know what would happen in Bob's "what if" scenario. But here's my two cents.

Wilt would've worked out well on the Celtics. By all accounts, he was an intelligent man who responded best when accorded respect. I have a book by John Wooden that has a chapter called something like "Working with Players." (I looked around but couldn't find it.) One thing I remember about that chapter is that Wooden originally titled it "Managing Players," but he changed it after hearing Wilt talk about coaches "managing" players and saying something to the effect that you manage livestock, but you work with players. I have no doubt that race relations factored into it since almost all coaches were white, but it was also standard practice for coaches to be dictatorial and essentially abuse players. Wilt was a proud man, and he chafed under such an unequal coach-player relationship. It's well known that Red adjusted his coaching style according to the personality of each player, berating those who could take it and needed that as a push to get better while avoiding any such treatment to players who needed something different. I'm sure he would've found an effective method for working with Wilt and would've made him an even better player and fit into a team vision of play. They would've won many championships. And I don't think Red would've traded him, unless it was to trade for Russell. (Knowing Red, he probably would've gotten Russell and two other hall-of-famers in a trade for Wilt.) But barring that trade, Red would've kept Wilt and made him into the greatest center in the winningest dynasty in NBA history.

But as great as Wilt would've been on those Celtic teams, Russell was the better fit. I cannot conceive of anyone who could've filled the center position for those Celtic teams better than Russell. Players are not perfect, teams are not perfect, but Russell was the perfect fit. His strengths were exactly what Red needed to anchor his fast-breaking, total team style of play. Red would've made Wilt into the player he needed him to be and likely would've adapted his overall strategy to take advantage of Wilt's offensive talents, but that was not necessary with Russell.

Bum Phillips once said of Don Shula that he "can take his'n and beat your'n, or he can take your'n and beat his'n." That was Red. With all those other pieces in place, he would've won with Wilt, or he would've won with Russell. But the fact is that there was a very good reason that Russell was "his'n."

Outside

beat wrote:Russ was the hub of the wheel but the wheel needed the spokes to roll. Think Wilt would have done just fine and again I base this only on the idea Red would have found what mad Wilt tick and use whatever means he could to get the absolute best out of him.

Basically the same argument I made in my previous post, so of course I agree 100 percent . I do love the image of the hub and spokes. Nicely done.

beat wrote:Just imagine a bigger version of Russell.

I have to disagree here. They were quite different players. Wilt was a far better scorer, and while he was obviously a fine athlete as well as a good defender and very good rebounder, Russell trumped him in all three areas. No one ran the floor like Russell, no one could match his defensive intelligence and intensity, and there have been great rebounders who succeeded through tenacity, but no one has ever been a more intelligent rebounder than Russell. He had such economy to his game, using well-placed intensity to plant the seed in opponents' minds that he was capable of playing that way at any time, playing in bursts throughout the game but always saving something for the fourth quarter, when the opponent would be too worn out to keep up. The combination of superior athleticism, unmatched basketball intelligence, intensity, passion, will to win, and trust in his teammates -- Wilt would've been great on the Celtics, truly great, but he could not match the gift to basketball that was Bill Russell.

beat wrote:And just so all know, I've been gone for a couple days at the Little League World Series. Saw some great games and had a nice time with just Marcus and I going this year.

See my post on the LLWS thread you started.

Outside

Wilt was a star track athelete too.
I think Red would have made him run if he thought that woudl have made the team better

Wilts time in the 440 of 49 sec is on par with what russel ran. And wilt also could do a sub 2:00 minute half..... somethig Russell never did if he ran it at all.

from wiki

Re Wilt....

Instead, he was an avid track and field athlete: as a youth, he high jumped 6 feet, 6 inches, ran the 440 yards in 49.0 seconds and the 880 yards in 1:58.3, put the shot 53 feet, 4 inches, and broad jumped 22 feet

Again I think Red had much to do about Russ becoming Russ and could have done about the same for Wilt too. Thus my line about Wilt being a bigger version of Russ. Just my opinion.

beat

Beat,

You're right that Red was a key component in Russell becoming the player he was, and I know Red would've done great things with Wilt. I agree wholeheartedly.

And I know Wilt was a great athlete and did well in track and field. Of the three things that I gave the advantage to Russell -- athleticism, defense, and rebounding -- the margin was slimmest in athleticism. The one thing I'd point out is that maybe Wilt would've been better at the half mile, but I bet Russell would've been the better sprinter. And I don't know, if you'd lined up Russell and Wilt in the 880 in the same race, I'd be hard pressed to bet against Russell.

But I know what you mean when talk about Wilt being a bigger version of Russell. It's just that the differences between the two were so significant that I had to say something.

Outside,
I'm always confused by statements about ones mental capacity to play at a superior level. Words like Intelligent,intensity,tenacity, passion,will to win, sound great but who does the grading? Who gets to decide which player is superior in tenacity etc.? Did the person making these claims get to see both players play a equal number of times? Is there any player bias involved? Does one player show his emotions more outwardly? Is one player more likely to receive undue credit simply because his team is more successful?. Like most people I, for the most part, only got to see the 2 of them on T.V (Russ much more frequently than Wilt). With the degree of greatness that both had I'm happy to call it a draw and stay away from the mind reading and story telling aspect of the game.

swish

Outside

i found references to Wilt running a 10.9 second 100 yd dash. Same place alluded to him beating Jim Brown in the early 60's in a 100 yd sprint. Brown is alledged to have used a sprinters stance and Wilt a standing start. Brown jumped out quickly and got the lead but Wilt's long stride caught him and beat him at the finish.

same site alludes to a sparing match that Wilt had with Ali. For 4 rounds Ali could only flail away as Wilt but his long arm out and just kept fliking him away.


Lastly this place said that Wilt hit the weights with Arnold Swarzenegger and claims he could bench 500LBS

I did not bother ot post the site as all of this is from a web site of people talking like this so again this was nothing that was documented although some reference to the Brown race was supposedly mentioned in the Sporting News at one time.

beat

Sometimes I think it's easy to pooh pooh the opinions of home town fans simply because they are home town fans. That can be a very short-sighted characterization that sells us terribly short. Terribly, terribly short.

It's especially true when people discuss "homers" who are old-timers. Usually, on this board, they're talking about me, or at least I'm fairly high on the list. Just because I'm a fan of the Celtics doesn't negate objective instincts born of a lifetime of doing research for a living. I'm not noted for throwing out unsupported subjective opinions but, instead, for backing up my comments with all sorts of facts, statistics, logic, etc.

I noticed that the discussion of the 60s Celtics vs. the 80s Celtics stopped almost on a dime when I introduced the very OBJECTIVE matter of when the mythical series would be played. Games played in the 80s would give the Russell Celtics a big advantage because most of them would have have gained at least an inch in height and considerable athleticism (if that's possible). Games played in the 60's would also give the Russell Celtics a big advantage because their opponents would each have shrunk an inch (compared with the 80s) while becoming even less athletic. Those are not subjective thoughts; they're a simply matter of genetics and evolution.

I probably saw no fewer than 40 Russell-Wilt games—mostly in Boston, but also in Philly and Los Angeles. I had the good fortune to listen to players (and not only Celtics) talking about Russ and Wilt, among many other things. I saw Russ in the locker room; watched him puke into towels even during games; observed his catlike grace compared to what I always felt was a wooden, mechanical aspect of Wilt's game; watched (or listened) in game after game when Russ dominated down the stretch, which is where Wilt often tended to fade (as he did in both 1968 and 1969.)

Based on a passel of OBJECTIVE facts, I believe that Russ was vastly better suited to Red's vision (reinforced by the presence of Cousy) than Wilt would have been, by dint of Russ' greater intensity and will to win; his willingness to subjugate his own stats and role to the betterment of the team; his coach-on-the-floor, team solidification mentality; and his superiority in running the floor. Perhaps some of the latter involved athleticism and some involved desire, but the resulting combination was nothing but special. Heck, at the precise end of his career, after playing 48 minutes in the previous six finals game, Russ was consistently beating Wilt down the floor well before Wilt got hurt and had to leave the game. Mel Counts came in and was playing Russell better than Wilt had.

As for playing with better players, it's fair to say that was an advantage for Russell. But we're not really talking about player vs. player; we're discussing how Wilt would have fared as part of the Celtic TEAM. I believe the Celtics might have won some championships if they had kept him (I still believe they would have traded him), but they might not have been the Celtics we know and love. Red might well have put on his architect hat and built a different type of team to take advantage of Wilt's strengths.

Would Red have drafted guys like KC Jones, Sam Jones, John Havlicek and Tom Sanders to strengthen the defense and elevate the fast break (even after Cousy's days) to whippet level? My suspicion (and this is only a guess) is that the Chamberlain Celtics might have become closer in makeup to the Celtics of the 80's, in an attempt to "out-size" the competition without much of a speed element.

We can only conjecture at what could have happened if Sam, John, KC, Satch, etc. had landed elsewhere. Perhaps some other coach might have developed a fast-breaking offense that would have run the Chamberlain Celtics into the ground....at least in a number of seasons. I believe there's a greater likelihood of that occurrence than a run of 11 championships in 13 years (which I believe to be an historic FACT, not a figment of my subjectivity).

Sam

swish wrote:Outside,
I'm always confused by statements about ones mental capacity to play at a superior level. Words like Intelligent,intensity,tenacity, passion,will to win, sound great but who does the grading? Who gets to decide which player is superior in tenacity etc.? Did the person making these claims get to see both players play a equal number of times? Is there any player bias involved? Does one player show his emotions more outwardly? Is one player more likely to receive undue credit simply because his team is more successful?. Like most people I, for the most part, only got to see the 2 of them on T.V (Russ much more frequently than Wilt). With the degree of greatness that both had I'm happy to call it a draw and stay away from the mind reading and story telling aspect of the game.

swish

Swish,

You're absolutely correct that these qualities are difficult, probably impossible, to quantify in any meaningful way. Although I'm not a born-and-bred Celtic fan, I have no problem acknowledging that I am biased toward the Russell Celtic teams and toward Russell especially. However, I do attempt to be fair in my judgments, and in this case, writing what I did served to convince myself that my argument was correct, or at least as correct as one person's opinion can be. So that gives you a brief, scary look into my addled mind.

I have particular images of both Russell and Wilt in my mind. Sam capsulized the one feature of Russell's athleticism that stands out most to me -- "catlike grace." Wilt, on the other hand, was an overwhelming physical force, so strong that once he dunked with such force that when the ball hit the floor, he broke the toe of Johnny "Red" Kerr. I don't know how to quantify such things, but as Justice Potter Stewart said about pornography, "I know it when I see it."

As for Russell's basketball intelligence, I point to numerous interviews and books where he talked about his approach to the game. On defense, he blocked shots to unsettle the opponent, not just blocking as many shots as possible, but blocking shots in different ways and at certain times that planted the seed in the opponent that Russell could block any shot any time he wanted, which in turn made the opponent think about that every time he shot the ball. And that, in turn, is an example of the economy of play that he exemplified, using a few blocked shots to affect an opponent almost continuously. Numerous opponents have talked about how they would wonder where Russell was any time they drove into the key because he was so stealthy and quick that he could arrive at the last second to challenge the shot. But back to Russell's intelligence:

-- Blocking shots to keep them inbounds, and not only inbounds, but in an advantageous position for his team.

-- Knowing the tendencies of opponents and teammates alike to gain better rebounding position.

-- Instinctively knowing the geometry and physics of shots to understand how they would come off the rim or backboard.

-- Letting an opponent have a particular shot throughout a game but then exploiting the opponent during a crucial time to deny the opponent position, block the shot, or otherwise employ a defensive technique that he'd kept in reserve.

-- Knowing teammates' strengths and tendencies and adjusting his play to make his teammates, and therefore the team, more successful.

He played the game with a plan in mind over the course of the game that gave himself and his team the advantage in the fourth quarter. He was like a great pitcher that way, adjusting his approach and setting up hitters, not just within an at-bat but also across multiple at-bats within a game. He also played with such awareness of the situation, what was needed now, in crucial situations, whether it be a screen, a pass, or a change in tactics to exploit a weakness or surprise an opponent. I've read about these things, again and again, from both Russell and other players, teammates and opponents, and it's cemented my opinion that he was the exemplar of basketball intelligence. He was the master of the mental side of the game.

Of course, he's just a man. Someone listening to what I just said might think the Mighty Russell never lost a game, missed a shot, or let an opponent score. He had his weaknesses on offense, but those were weaknesses more than compensated for by his teammates, which is why I think he was such a perfect fit for those Celtic teams.

And I don't want it lost in my reverence for Russell that Wilt was a great, great player. I respect him tremendously. He may have been considered one of the greatest champions ever if he'd played at any other time in the history of the league. He had the misfortune to play at the same time as the greatest dynasty the league has ever seen. He has the misfortune in this question -- who would've been better on the Celtics, Russell or Wilt -- with being compared to the greatest champion who has ever played the game who was also the perfect fit for those Celtics. There's no shame in coming in as second choice in this survey.

In the end, you're correct -- we can't measure or quantify this stuff. Who's to say Wilt wouldn't have been better when my argument for Russell is that he was the king of intangibles? I vote for Russell as the better of the two for the Celtics, and that's just my opinion. Like Potter Stewart, I know it when I see it, and I haven't seen anyone like Russell.

Outside

Outside wrote:

swish wrote:Outside,
I'm always confused by statements about ones mental capacity to play at a superior level. Words like Intelligent,intensity,tenacity, passion,will to win, sound great but who does the grading? Who gets to decide which player is superior in tenacity etc.? Did the person making these claims get to see both players play a equal number of times? Is there any player bias involved? Does one player show his emotions more outwardly? Is one player more likely to receive undue credit simply because his team is more successful?. Like most people I, for the most part, only got to see the 2 of them on T.V (Russ much more frequently than Wilt). With the degree of greatness that both had I'm happy to call it a draw and stay away from the mind reading and story telling aspect of the game.

swish

Swish,

You're absolutely correct that these qualities are difficult, probably impossible, to quantify in any meaningful way. Although I'm not a born-and-bred Celtic fan, I have no problem acknowledging that I am biased toward the Russell Celtic teams and toward Russell especially. However, I do attempt to be fair in my judgments, and in this case, writing what I did served to convince myself that my argument was correct, or at least as correct as one person's opinion can be. So that gives you a brief, scary look into my addled mind.

I have particular images of both Russell and Wilt in my mind. Sam capsulized the one feature of Russell's athleticism that stands out most to me -- "catlike grace." Wilt, on the other hand, was an overwhelming physical force, so strong that once he dunked with such force that when the ball hit the floor, he broke the toe of Johnny "Red" Kerr. I don't know how to quantify such things, but as Justice Potter Stewart said about pornography, "I know it when I see it."

As for Russell's basketball intelligence, I point to numerous interviews and books where he talked about his approach to the game. On defense, he blocked shots to unsettle the opponent, not just blocking as many shots as possible, but blocking shots in different ways and at certain times that planted the seed in the opponent that Russell could block any shot any time he wanted, which in turn made the opponent think about that every time he shot the ball. And that, in turn, is an example of the economy of play that he exemplified, using a few blocked shots to affect an opponent almost continuously. Numerous opponents have talked about how they would wonder where Russell was any time they drove into the key because he was so stealthy and quick that he could arrive at the last second to challenge the shot. But back to Russell's intelligence:

-- Blocking shots to keep them inbounds, and not only inbounds, but in an advantageous position for his team.

-- Knowing the tendencies of opponents and teammates alike to gain better rebounding position.

-- Instinctively knowing the geometry and physics of shots to understand how they would come off the rim or backboard.

-- Letting an opponent have a particular shot throughout a game but then exploiting the opponent during a crucial time to deny the opponent position, block the shot, or otherwise employ a defensive technique that he'd kept in reserve.

-- Knowing teammates' strengths and tendencies and adjusting his play to make his teammates, and therefore the team, more successful.

He played the game with a plan in mind over the course of the game that gave himself and his team the advantage in the fourth quarter. He was like a great pitcher that way, adjusting his approach and setting up hitters, not just within an at-bat but also across multiple at-bats within a game. He also played with such awareness of the situation, what was needed now, in crucial situations, whether it be a screen, a pass, or a change in tactics to exploit a weakness or surprise an opponent. I've read about these things, again and again, from both Russell and other players, teammates and opponents, and it's cemented my opinion that he was the exemplar of basketball intelligence. He was the master of the mental side of the game.

Of course, he's just a man. Someone listening to what I just said might think the Mighty Russell never lost a game, missed a shot, or let an opponent score. He had his weaknesses on offense, but those were weaknesses more than compensated for by his teammates, which is why I think he was such a perfect fit for those Celtic teams.

And I don't want it lost in my reverence for Russell that Wilt was a great, great player. I respect him tremendously. He may have been considered one of the greatest champions ever if he'd played at any other time in the history of the league. He had the misfortune to play at the same time as the greatest dynasty the league has ever seen. He has the misfortune in this question -- who would've been better on the Celtics, Russell or Wilt -- with being compared to the greatest champion who has ever played the game who was also the perfect fit for those Celtics. There's no shame in coming in as second choice in this survey.

In the end, you're correct -- we can't measure or quantify this stuff. Who's to say Wilt wouldn't have been better when my argument for Russell is that he was the king of intangibles? I vote for Russell as the better of the two for the Celtics, and that's just my opinion. Like Potter Stewart, I know it when I see it, and I haven't seen anyone like Russell.

Outside

Outside,

You are certainly well versed in the word as spoken by Russ. How about background info on Wilts opinions about the game? Can you share any comments on his behind the scene thoughts? I have great respect for your knowledge of the game and always enjoy your opinions which are always backed by solid reasoning.
swish
swish

Leonard Koppett: "I call Wilt Chamberlain a very honest workman. By that, I mean he always did what his employer wanted. No star athlete has ever given his boss more for the money than Wilt did during his career. Eddie Gottlieb wanted Wilt to score like no man ever had, so Wilt did. Hannum and some of his other coaches wanted him to pass and play defense so he did that and he played 48 minutes a night. Those who criticized Wilt -first for his scoring, then for not scoring more- really should have criticized his employer."

Bob Cousy: "If Wilt thinks that with all the Hall of Famers on our team we'd have waited for him to get his ass down on offense the way Philadelphia did, forget it. We wouldn't watch anyone shoot it every time he got it, like he did the year he scored 50 a game. Nor would we have wanted to watch all the garbage he did in the pivot with the ball. . . . He could have averaged those 50 points for us, but we never would have won a championship. It also would have produced a lot of disharmony. Russ didn't care about scoring. . . . I don't mean to criticize Wilt. We probably would have won a couple of titles with him. He'd block shots and do a helluva job on the defensive boards. But Russ remains the most productive center ever to play this game, because the ultimate production is winning titles."

Tom Heinsohn: "If you go strictly by the record book, then you've got to say that Chamberlain was the greatest player in basketball history. The 50-points a game average, the 100 point game, all the rebounds, even the assists. But as great as Wilt was, he couldn't beat us. That's because Russell was the fulcrum of a team effort - he covered for us and we covered for him.

"I've heard Wilt say, "If I had all those guys around me like Russell did, then I'd have won all those championships.

"I don't buy that."

"First, it is difficult to measure Russell's value in statistics. I believe he was worth 50-60 points a game for us. There was the fifteen or so he scored. Then all those blocked shots, the intimidation on defense in the form of shots missed because they thought Bill would block it. He changed entire teams' offenses, and he was the starting point of our fast-beak offense. How can you put a number on what that's worth to a team?"

John Havlicek: "When you played with Russell, you knew exactly what to expect from him each night. But Wilt, he was liable to decide, "Tonight I'm going to score 60 . . . or tonight I'm getting 40 rebounds . . . or 20 assists." He was preoccupied with answering people who said he couldn't do things - that he couldn't pass or that his rebounding was down. He'd have a great stat game, but his team would lose. It was as if he had an axe to grind with the press, whereas Russell never let himself get caught up in that."

Red Auerbach: "I'm not going to knock Wilt. I will say that when he played in Philadelphia, Wilt lived in New York and he'd come and go his own way with the team. He wasn't at the heart of his team or as close to the players as Russell was with us."

Satch Sanders: "We all knew that the Celtics revolved around Russell. He never had a serious injury. We knew he made us better - that he brought out the best in all of our individual skills. Also, Bill had no interest in scoring. He was totally unselfish. He was always there for us, getting the clutch rebound, making the big blocks. He was the reason we won and why all those championship banners hang at the Garden. He was the reason Red could keep us together, why there was no reason for trades. So we paid him the respect he deserved."

Billy Cunningham: "They are the two greatest talents to ever play the game. When you were on the court with them, they so dominated that you'd find yourself stopping just to watch them. I've never had that feeling with any two other players."

Tom Meschery: "We're talking about classic duels, like two huge dinosaurs going at each other. It was almost cataclysmic, as if they were about to fight to the death. Not that they were dirty. They never actually fought each other, but it was a basketball war between two great gladiators."

Wilt: "I give the Celtics and Russell credit. I think they had a great coach in Auerbach. They had great talent and Russell was the best clutch rebounder this game has ever seen. But they also seemed to be lucky. They'd beat us in the most amazing ways - Havlicek steals the ball, I got called for dubious goaltending, and on and on it went."

I think one reviewer of the very good book "The Rivalry" puts his finger on the essence of the reason why, even if he had played with the same supporting cast that Russell had, Wilt couldn't have been able to be a fulcrum of a team effort that got the most out of every single player:

"Taylor shows that Wilt wanted to win every bit as much as Russell but never quite understood, as Russell did, how to sublimate his ego for the betterment of the team."

Spike, of the great quotes you listed, I thought Cousy's and Havlicek's remarks were particularly telling. Philly was a more deliberate team because Wilt was a more deliberate player. Perhaps Red could have forced Wilt to run the floor and be an effective trailer on the break; but it wouldn't have been consistent with Wilt's inner instincts, and I don't believe the relationship would have lasted long.

Havlicek's comment about Wilt's deciding what he was going to achieve in any particular game reinforces the fact that Wilt's rigid personal agendas left him unable to adopt the philosophy of Russell, who used an interactive, flexible approach to each game that basically amounted to doing whatever was necessary to win.

Sam

Sam,

Snuff out that victory cigar Sam. I took your below statement as a concession that the 86 Celtics team was the best team and no further comment was neccessary.

I noticed that the discussion of the 60s Celtics vs. the 80s Celtics stopped almost on a dime when I introduced the very OBJECTIVE matter of when the mythical series would be played. Games played in the 80s would give the Russell Celtics a big advantage because most of them would have have gained at least an inch in height and considerable athleticism (if that's possible). Games played in the 60's would also give the Russell Celtics a big advantage because their opponents would each have shrunk an inch (compared with the 80s) while becoming even less athletic. Those are not subjective thoughts; they're a simply matter of genetics and evolution.

The very idea that a Celtic team from the 60's would need "points" tells me that you indeed see them as the underdog in this battle against the 86 Celtics. Nice try though.
swish

swish wrote:[Outside,

You are certainly well versed in the word as spoken by Russ. How about background info on Wilts opinions about the game? Can you share any comments on his behind the scene thoughts? I have great respect for your knowledge of the game and always enjoy your opinions which are always backed by solid reasoning.
swish
swish

Swish,

I've got a project to finish today, so it may take me a day or two to put something together. I'll see what I can do.

Swish,

Good one. That's really funny. If you interpreted anything about any of my comments as a concession, you need to go back to the drawing board. I'd say very loud silence was the indicator of a "concession."

I don't even know what the words "needed points" is intended to mean or imply.

My comments were designed solely to put the two teams on equal footing, which seemed to fit the criterion of OBJECTIVITY that you very correctly value so highly. And, when I did introduce a very OBJECTIVE factor suggesting that four games of a mythical seven-game series might be played in the 80s and three games in the sixties (going overboard to give the 86 team home court advantage), it spotlighted the fact that any possible advantage of the 86 team (namely height) was largely a function of human evolution and genetics rather than basketball prowess. Dead silence ensued!

If you wish to reopen the topic, I'm always ready.

Sam