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

The quotes Spike put together include some gems. I think the quotes from Cousy, Heihsohn, and Red about Wilt are as revealing about themselves as they are about Wilt.

I'm treading into dangerous territory here. Please don't shoot me. I can't make it much more plain how much respect and admiration I have for those Celtic teams, for Bill Russell, for Red Auerbach, and for the selfless way they played team basketball.

But...

(I watched something recently -- I think it was Game of Thrones -- that included some back-and-forth dialogue, and one character said something to the effect that his father told him to ignore everything before the "but." I thought it was a fascinating line.)

However...

From my (ahem) outside point of view, the one aspect that has grated the most about those teams is arrogance. The line between confidence and arrogance can sometimes be difficult to gauge, but I've always felt it was an inherent part of Red's personality. I've gone back and forth about the ostensible dichotomy of grating arrogance and selfless play and whether the arrogance was a necessary element to achieve the unrivaled pinnacle of success that those teams attained and the beautiful game (to borrow a soccer term) that they played.

The arrogance was certainly an integral part of Red's personality, as evidenced by his quote in Spike's post -- "I'm not going to knock Wilt," followed by a scathing knock of Wilt. The quotes from Cousy and Heinsohn show that as well.

To an extent, I can't blame them. They were fiercely proud of their team and their accomplishments, and justly so. But I don't recall those type of statements from Russell. He obviously had a much different type of personality, but I recall his comments exhibiting a supreme confidence in himself and his team without crossing into overt arrogance. When I do my research on Wilt in the next couple of days, one of things I want to look for is quotes from Russell, because he was after all the primary one who battled Wilt, and also because of his way of analyzing and describing things.

That's not to say that what Cousy and Heinsohn said in Spike's post is untrue, because much of what they say about Wilt is accurate. But it also reflects the "them versus us" attitude that required a near demonization of a powerful opponent like Wilt. It was a necessary element in their approach to Wilt, making him fallible in their own minds, unlike so many others who lost the battle mentally before stepping on the floor. But it doesn't lead to an honest, fair assessment of Wilt as a player or a person.

I stand by my assertion that Wilt would've been a different player if he'd been on the Celtics, and Cousy's quote exemplifies that. There is no way they'd stand for him "loafing" up the court like he did at Philly. Other teams submitted to the force of Wilt's talent and personality, but the Celtics wouldn't have abided that and would've forced him to adapt to the will and needs of the team. I believe Wilt would've done that and become a much different player on the Celtics. If not, then he would've been traded as Sam suggests, but Wilt was an intelligent man who could be reasoned with, and above all, he wanted to win, so I believe he would've become a convert if immersed in the gospel of team play.

Anyway, it's back to work for me. Thanks everyone for a lively, informative, and entertaining discussion. Swish, I'll follow up as soon as I can with a post on Wilt.

Outside

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." -
If this is true, then why wouldn't we assume that if Red was his employer and Red told him to run more, be less selfish, etc that Wilt wouldn't do that for Red just as he did it for all the others? It's not as if Red didn't have the spine and the skill to bend stubborn players to his will.


Bob Cousy: But Russ remains the most productive center ever to play this game, because the ultimate production is winning titles." -
This statement baffles me a bit. If basketball is a team sport, and certainly all these Celtic HOFers being quoted would swear by that, then this statement is not cogent to me. If this is the standard by which "productivity" is measured, then Bill Wennington (3x Champ), Luc Longley (3x Champ), Bill Cartright (3x) and James Edwards (3x Champ) are more "productive" centers than future and current HOFers D12 (0x Champ), Nate Thurmond (0x Champ), Cowens (2x Champ) and Bill Walton (2x Champ) as well as Wilt (2x Champ).

Comparing Wilt as an individual player vs Russ as an individual player is moot, since basketball is a team sport. Imagining Wilt as a Celtic vs Russ as a Celtic makes sense, since it attempts to plug 2 players into the same system during the same timeline. That's why I must respectfully disagree with Cousy's very admirable defense of his teamate Russell. It assumes that Wilt would play the same game as a Celtic that he did under other coaches, with other players, playing other systems and it equates productivity with achieving a team accolade. We have all seen, many times by many different players on many different teams, how such a change can produce a significant difference in the style and effectiveness of that player and on the team.

Using this standard, Derek Fisher is a "more productive" PG than Rajon Rondo. Cousy is a BIG fan of Rajon Rondo. Does Cousy think Derek Fisher is "more productive" than Rondo because Fisher has been on more championship teams? In fact, using this standard, Derek Fisher (5x Champ) is almost as "productive" as Bob Cousy himself (6x Champ) and is more productive than Oscar Robertson (1x Champ), Nate Archibald (1x Champ), Steve Nash (0x Champ) and John Stockton (0x Champ).

I think it's safe to say there's something fatally flawed with that statement by the Cooz.

bob

.

Bob

You expressed my feelings as well. As I mentioned before I think it all hinges on Red. ( if Wilt were a Celtic ). I've looked up as much stuff the past couple days on wilt as I can and nothing nowhere says he was UNCOACHABLE. And with Red being the supreme coach of his day he would most certainly found a winning formula with Wilt as the pivot. And perhaps may have won as much if not more. Pure speculation for sure but that is what this whole thing is about. No one can say just what would have happened if the roll of the dice had been different back then.

What I did find was a lot of people saying that Wilt was TOO NICE and didn't want to displease anyone. When a relative hit him up for tickets he always found some. I read somewhere where he said he regrets not being more physical with Russell when he played.

I also think once in the system and knowing what to expect from him the quotes that Russell had their back and they his would/could also be applied to Wilt.

Seems many feel Wilt would have played the same way for the C's as he did with his other teams of the time. We have no way of knowing had he played for the Celtics what would have happened but I feel that Red would have made him play to the betterment of the team and the team would have excelled. And once Wilt realized just what winning was like at that level he would have become as focused on doing what was needed to continue it (with the help of Red) as Russell was.

beat

Outside, Bob H, beat,

Like a breath of fresh air, you guys come through with a point of view that certainly presents another side to the story. Very interesting points of view.
Swish

I think Wilt would have had an entirely different playing experience under Red and that the Celtics would have been equally formidable. But; would Wilt have had liaisons with 10,000 plus women playing in Boston rather than Hollywood?

Of course they don't keep official statistics on that one...

NYCelt wrote:I think Wilt would have had an entirely different playing experience under Red and that the Celtics would have been equally formidable. But; would Wilt have had liaisons with 10,000 plus women playing in Boston rather than Hollywood?

Of course they don't keep official statistics on that one...

Based upon my 15 years of experience in Boston I'd say unlikely.

LA and Philly? Sure.

bob

.

Outside,

It's always difficult to determine where confidence stops and arrogance begins. I expect much of the difference involves the eye of the beholder. I don't believe any basketball team ever had the degree of confidence that the Russell Celtics had. I suspect Phil Jackson's Bulls might have come close....and for the same reason. Winning every year automatically reinforces confidence.

And, when the Celtics' constant winning became unbearable to non-fans of the Celtics, confidence turned to perceptions of arrogance in a hurry. I'm ure quotes like Havlicek's speeded up the perceptual transition: "Whenever we lose, we think it's a mistake."

So, whenever I think about confidence and arrogance, I have to conceive of them as a continuum (confidence....arrogance) and let the chips fall where they may.

To whatever degree the players' confidence evolved into arrogance, at least it was honestly earned. Red's always been a bit of an enigma to me because he was arrogant well before Russell came along.

I've often wondered what gave Red the self-styled right to be arrogant so early in the existence of the Celtics. Perhaps that was the way one had to be to survive in Brooklyn. Perhaps finishing 49-11 in his first season as coach of the Washington Capitals served to convince him that his basketball philosophy was superior to all others. But any such arrogance must have been somewhat tempered when the Caps were outsted in the semis of the playoffs. Red coached the Celtics for six seasons before Russell joined the team. While none of those six teams finished lower than .500, their overall winning ratio of .573 was nothing to write home about.

I have to conclude that a huge amount of Red's early confidence/arrogance simply came from a tremendous belief in himself and his preferred system of playing basketball. I find this particularly amazing, because his preferred system flew in the face of the established deliberate game of the times. I'll have to go to my Auerbach library and search for any references to self-doubts and the development of confidence/arrogance.

I do know that, while it could easily be argued that his confidence/arrogance was of tremendous benefit to the Russell Celtics and set the tone for their evolving level of self-esteem. But, it could also be argued that, AFTER the Russell era ended, perceptions of Red's arrogance hurt the team when it came to relations between the Celtics and either other teams or the league.

Red told me that there were at least three teams that would never consider trading with him. I've forgotten who those teams were, but (in an eight team league) that left only four teams that WOULD consider trading with him. The league had a conveniently short memory when it denied the Celtics any compensation when Reggie Lewis died. That decision really hurt Red because, when the Knicks had floundered in the 1950s or 1960s (I can't recall which), Red had lobbied the league until an extra draft choice was granted to the Knicks just to help them out. At the time (it must have been the 60s), he predicted that there would never be any such consideration given to the Celtics as a result of Red's gesture to the Knicks; and Red's prophecy was correct.

The confidence/arrogance spread to the mini-legion of Celtics fans. Many on this board know of my penchant for picking out the most vociferous fan of the opposing team in a number of BIG Boston Garden games and betting him $20 to nothing that the Celtics would win. And I never lost my $20. I recall having to tone it down considerably during business trips. I even had a taxi driver in Denver threaten to leave me out in the boonies.

Sam

there's some fascinating information in here I had never read before, and a little bit I had too.

Hope no one minds if I share some of these posts on a few other sites that have NBA 'historians' on it who love the game and have their own opinions about Wilt and Russ but like me never saw him play.

a lot of younger NBA fans believe Russ is not as great as he is made out to because he wasn't a great scorer (like Hakeem, Shaq and Kareem whom they all consider better than Bill and Wilt) and his low FG%, his small size for today's game etc etc. Some even say he'd be like Ben Wallace if he played in today's game. It's annoying and nearly futile to discuss Bill's greatness with such youthful arrogance, but sometimes, I take on the impossible task... yeah I'm a fool.

Some of the info on here, especailly from guys who got to watch Bill play, would maybe enlighten the young fans of today as to how different the game was then and how great these guys would be in any era of basketball (with the benefits of improvements in training, nutrition, medical treatments, first class travel etc)

It's threads like this I thouroughly enjoy about this site.

CF, ive read and reread this thread yesterday and today and yesterday thought about adding it to the discusion over at NBA boards regarding this very subject..

in fact i came on here to do just that..

on the topic of who was better, i think what it came down to had a lot to do with how wilt mentally approached the game vs the Celtics..

just reexamine what K.C. said about them and then what Wilt had to say about the duel.. its obvios Wilt never truely understood the game entirely (sort of like a modern day player known as King Nothing)

"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.""

Matty

You made my point, this whole exercise is just a guess on any of our parts. Thing is to put Wilt in Russells spot surronded by those players. He would have had no choice but to "fit" in, in some way shape or form.

All of those Celtic players then looked at Wilt as the opponent an enemy, not a teamate, had they actually played with him, been with him would there views have been altered?

I think Wilt on the C's would have approcahed the game much differently than were he was. Wether or not the end result would have been worse better or the same can be debated till the cows come home. Just think red would have used Wilts vast skills and made him be a complete and better player. I looked back on Wilt's team rosters over those early years these are all players that played at least (or nearly) 70 games those first 2 seasons with Wilt...

Joe Graboski
Woody Sauldsberry
Guy Rodgers
Vern Hatton
Ernie Beck
Ed Collins
Andy Johnson
Alvin Attles

Not exactly HOF players and although he had Tom Gola and Paul Arizin whom are in the HOF these first two season probaly put a mindset in Wilt that he HAD to do a lot whereas had he been with the C's he could have done what was needed.

So put Russell with those guys with Niel Johnson (not Red) at the helm?

Look at the C's roster those same years and see the players that played at least ( or nearly) 70 games (minus Russ of course) and put Wilt in the middle of these names

Tom Heishon
Bob Cousy
Bill Sharmen
Frank Ramsey
Sam Jones
Gene Conley
KC Jones
Tom Sanders
Jim Loscutoff

Again with Red to guide him and the players that would have surronded him I think Wilt would have done just fine. And the team would have done extreemly well also. Perhaps he would have been a bust but I doubt it. Just my opinion.

One final thought can you show me a player with a ton of talent that came to the C's that Red did not get the most out of? Is there one? Perhaps but what would have Red done with a talent like Wilt? We can only speculate.

beat

One thing I think that is overlooked is how good of a passer Bill was and how he used his passing to make his team mates better, not to make a point like Wilt eventually used his talents to do.

A lot of the guys known as Celtics greats may not have realised their potential on another team without Bill and Cousy and of course Red there to guide them along the way.

It's kinda how I view Scottie Pippen. Without having played with Michael Jordan in practices to push him, would he have been nearly as good as he turned out? I have my doubts and I think the same of a lot of the Celtics players who followed Red and Russell's lead.

Another point in Russ's favor was his personal leadership skills. He not only played a helluva game himself, he led the Celtics. There's a saying that says that "no (war) plan survives the first contact". In other words, the second the bullets start flying, you are improvising. Well, Russ took Red's plans out onto the court and led the team after the ball was inbounded. Would the bigger but more compliant giant Wilt have done the same? Who would have led the Celtics if Russ had been swapped out for Wilt? That, to me, is a major intangible in Russ's favor. Enough to offset Wilt's assets? Hard to say, of course. Having an irresistible force like Wilt frees up shooters like Tommy and makes the offense more effective. Having a leader on the floor gets you past the dead periods in your game and carries you onward and upward.

bob

.

Bob, I think there are two answers to your question on who would have led the Celtics. For Chamberlain's first four seasons, the player who would have led them was the same player who led them while he played with Russell—Cousy. I'm certainly not taking anything away fro Russ when I say that it was Cousy who was the catalyst for those teams and who was most in sync with Red's philosophy. After Cousy left, the issue might have been debatable, but I believe the leader would have been John Havlicek.

Actually, this entire discussion is a bit far-fetched beyond even the hypothesis stage because Wilt didn't come along until 1959-60. By then, the Celtics were working on their third championship and had a pretty good center named Russell. Would they have cast Russ aside to make room for Wilt? Would they have played together, creating a sort of perpetual cloud over opposing shooters' heads but perhaps creating a traffic jam in the lane?

Interesting!

Sam

beat wrote:Matty
. Thing is to put Wilt in Russells spot surronded by those players. He would have had no choice but to "fit" in, in some way shape or form.

All of those Celtic players then looked at Wilt as the opponent an enemy, not a teamate, had they actually played with him, been with him would there views have been altered?

Not exactly HOF players and although he had Tom Gola and Paul Arizin whom are in the HOF these first two season probaly put a mindset in Wilt that he HAD to do a lot whereas had he been with the C's he could have done what was needed.

So put Russell with those guys with Niel Johnson (not Red) at the helm?

Look at the C's roster those same years and see the players that played at least ( or nearly) 70 games (minus Russ of course) and put Wilt in the middle of these names

Tom Heishon
Bob Cousy
Bill Sharmen
Frank Ramsey
Sam Jones
Gene Conley
KC Jones
Tom Sanders
Jim Loscutoff

One final thought can you show me a player with a ton of talent that came to the C's that Red did not get the most out of? Is there one? Perhaps but what would have Red done with a talent like Wilt? We can only speculate.

beat

Beat definetly see your point, but then, lets go back to the argument so often made by "the enemy" how often have we heard these guys (jim, tom, K.C., Tommy H., Sam ect...) wern't really that good, but made the HOF and won all those titles because of having Russel as a teammate?

Im of the opionion that those 60's teams were what they were due to all the intertanglables, Red the Mastermind who handpicked the peices and nutered the ideals those teams were founded on, the skills of the on court leaders (Coz and Russ) and the acceptence of everyone to be part of the TEAM..

I just dont think Wilt understood the importance of teamwork, like King Nothing today, if there was to be a 2011-2012 season this fall, how many of us would take those "talets from down south" or instead take someone like kevin Durant or Kevin Love, chris Paul ect??? I think Russ and company would not have chosen Wilt first as a teammate over some of the other names in the league at that time either..

sam wrote:Bob, I think there are two answers to your question on who would have led the Celtics. For Chamberlain's first four seasons, the player who would have led them was the same player who led them while he played with Russell—Cousy. I'm certainly not taking anything away fro Russ when I say that it was Cousy who was the catalyst for those teams and who was most in sync with Red's philosophy. After Cousy left, the issue might have been debatable, but I believe the leader would have been John Havlicek.

Actually, this entire discussion is a bit far-fetched beyond even the hypothesis stage because Wilt didn't come along until 1959-60. By then, the Celtics were working on their third championship and had a pretty good center named Russell. Would they have cast Russ aside to make room for Wilt? Would they have played together, creating a sort of perpetual cloud over opposing shooters' heads but perhaps creating a traffic jam in the lane?

Interesting!

Sam

sam,

If Red could trade for Russell, maybe he could have traded Conley, Frank Ramsey and some Ipswich clams to be named later for Wilt?

bob

.

Bob,

I know you're kidding, but it does seem to be documented that, at one time, Red really wanted Wilt for the Celtics. I am not at all clear at what point in time that was, but I think I heard it was while Wilt was at Overbook High School. I believe that would have been before Russ became available (or should I say Red MADE him available?) to the Celtics.

I'm still wrestling how this debate would have been logistically possible because, when Wilt came into the league, Russ was well-entrenched as a championship Celtics center. It's sort of like the arguments about the Celtics of the 60s versus the 86 Celtics. K.C. Jones would have been worn to a frazzle, playing the equivalent of point guard for one team and coaching the other.

Sam

sam wrote:Bob,

60s versus the 86 Celtics. K.C. Jones would have been worn to a frazzle, playing the equivalent of point guard for one team and coaching the other.

Sam

that aspect never has occured to me before, i wonder which teams K.C. favored?

I think they 86 Celts just could have made Larry the player/coach and DJ the assistant and they'd have been fine

Swish asked me a couple of days ago to provide some analysis to "flesh out" Wilt beyond the obvious, similar to my attempt to describe the intangibles that I felt made Russell the better player and a perfect fit for the Celtics. My time has been taken up with work and other obligations, so I haven't gotten to this as quickly as I would've liked.

I'm probably going overboard, but I don't mind, for a couple of reasons:

-- I always learn a lot when I write these posts. I dig a little deeper and find out more about the subject, even if I was fairly well versed about it already. I'm certainly learning more about Wilt.

-- It's my attempt at something of a public service for the board. I get a lot of enjoyment from the board, and this is a way to give back by offering my outside point of view. In this case, I think Wilt hasn't been given a fair shake over the years by a lot of people and has been portrayed simply as a guy who cared about himself and piled up stats while Bill Russell cared about his team and collected championships.

I want to be clear -- I think Bill Russell is the better player. Regarding the question of whether the Celtics would've done even better if Wilt had replaced Russell, I'm on record as saying the Celtics would do better with Russell and that Russell was a perfect fit for those teams. But I don't think the difference in championships won would be much less with Wilt. He was a tremendous player, much more than the cariacature that time and repeated derision have made him to be, especially among the Celtic faithful. It is not my intention to elevate Wilt above Russell, because in my view, Russell will always be above everyone. But it is my hope that some of you may come away with an increased appreciation and respect for Wilt.

Rather than present one (ridiculously) long post, I'm dividing this into a series of posts. Here's what I have in mind:

1. By the numbers

2. How Russell and Wilt changed the NBA

3. The gentle giant

4. Did Red want Wilt?

5. Was Wilt coachable?

6. Wilt on the Celtics -- would it have worked?

I'm starting with first one below. I'll post the other ones as I finish them.



WILT, PART 1. BY THE NUMBERS

A common refrain about Wilt is that all he wanted to do was rack up stats and that his stats didn't mean anything when compared to Russell's championships. What's gotten lost along the way is how astounding his stats were.

Most people know about his 100-point game, but there's much more beyond that. Consider this:

-- In his first NBA game in 1959, Wilt had 43 points on 17-of-20 shooting, 28 rebounds, and an unofficial 17 blocks (which weren't kept as a stat until 1973-74).

-- As a rookie in 1959-60, Chamberlain averaged 37.6 points, 27.0 rebounds, 2.3 assists.

-- His averages for 1961-62: 50.4 points (NBA record), 25.7 rebounds, 2.4 assists.

-- During 1961-62, he set eight NBA season records. He had 50 or more points 45 times in 80 games. He averaged 48.5 minutes per game.

-- His averages for 1967-68: 24.3 points, 23.8 rebounds, 8.6 assists.

-- His averages for 1972-73, his final season at age 36: 13.2 points, 18.6 rebounds, 4.5 assists. He led the league in rebounds and was voted to the all-defensive team.

NBA.com's all-time stats are a hassle to navigate and incomplete in any event, but Wikipedia says that he is the holder of 72 official NBA records, 63 of which he holds by himself. That's a lot of records.

Most amazing to me, and probably the safest from being broken, are the rebounding records. Russell is right there with him on many of them; the two of them were a level above everyone else. Here are some of Wilt's rebounding records:

-- Most rebounds in a single game, regular season -- 55, against Boston and Russell. (Russell is next with 51.) Consider that the top rebounding game the Celtics had last season as a team was 54. That says a lot about how different the pace of the game is now, but also how dominant Wilt (and Russell) were as rebounders. The two of them were so dominant in rebounding that they have all 10 games of 43 rebounds or more, and 42 of the 46 games of 38 rebounds or more.

-- Most rebounds in a single game, playoffs -- 41, again versus Boston and Russell. (Russell is next with 40, which he did three times.) The two of them have all 11 playoff games of 38 rebounds or more.

-- Most rebounds per game, season -- 27.2. (Russell's best was 24.7.)

-- Most rebounds per game, career -- 22.9. (Russell is next with 22.5.)

-- Most times leading the league in rebounds -- 11, out of 14 total seasons. (Russell led the league five times -- all three years before Wilt joined the NBA and twice while Wilt was in the league.)

A few of Wilt's other notable career records:

-- Minutes per game - 45.8 (think about it -- that's over his entire career)

-- Consecutive field goals made - 35

-- Highest field goal percentage -- 72.7% in 1972-73 (426/586)


Head-to-head with Russell

Wilt and Russell played against each other 142 times in 10 years. As these stats show, Russell, the best post defender in the game, did not stop Wilt; he only slowed him down as best he could.

-- In those games, the Celtics won 88 and Wilt's teams won 74. The Celtics had the advantage, but it wasn't a mismatch.

-- In those games, Wilt averaged 28.7 points and 28.7 rebounds. Russell averaged 14.5 points and 23.7 rebounds.

-- Wilt had a high of 62 points and six other 50+ point games against Russell.

-- Wilt set the regular-season record of 55 rebounds in a game and had six other 40+ rebound games versus Russell. Russell only had one 40+ rebound game against Wilt.

-- Wilt set the playoff record of 41 rebounds in a game against Russell.

-- In the 1967 Eastern Conference Finals against Russell, Wilt averaged 22 points, 32 rebounds, and 10 assists (a triple-double). In the clinching game 5, he had 29 points, 36 rebounds, and 13 assists.

-- In the playoffs, the two played against each other in a deciding game 7 four times, and Russell's Celtics won all four. The total margin of victory in those four games was nine points. Russell and the Celtics had what it took to win those games, but they were exceedingly close.


A stat of another kind -- the 20,000 women thing

Wilt explained why he claimed in his autobiography that he'd slept with 20,000 women. "We're all fascinated by the numbers, as we were about the 100 points," he said "So I thought of a number that was a round number that may be close and may be whatever, and I used that number. Now according to the average person, that number is so preposterous that I can understand them not believing it. But the point of using the number was to show that sex was a great part of my life as basketball was a great part of my life. That's the reason why I was single.

"It was a different sexual situation going on than it is in the '80s and '90s, and I did a very poor job of describing that," he continued. "With all of you men out there who think that having a thousand different ladies is pretty cool, I have learned in my life that having one woman a thousand different times is much more satisfying."

That may not change your point of view about "the 20,000 women thing," but I found it interesting nonetheless and thought I'd throw it in.



http://nbahoopsonline.com/History/Leagues/NBA/reboundsinglegame.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_records

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/c/chambwi01.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/r/russebi01.html

Outside,
Fantastic start outside. Keep it coming.
swish

outside,

I learn a lot when you write these posts too.

Thanks for your efforts. Also, by showing how he compares to Russell, it brings it back to how close they were in some categories.

Obviously we have a "Russell-centric" crowd here, as we should being this is a Celtic board, but I'm really enjoying this discussion (even though it does exist in the universe of "mental masturbation").

bob

.

Outside

here is a titbit about how the 20,000 women thing came into being.

According to Rod Roddewig, a contemporary of Wilt's, the 20,000 number was created when he and Chamberlain were staying in Chamberlain's penthouse in Honolulu during the mid-eighties. He and Chamberlain stayed at the penthouse for 10 days, over the course of which he recorded everything on his Daytimer[clarification needed]. For every time Chamberlain went to bed with a different girl he put a check in his daytimer. After those 10 days there were 23 checks in the book, which would be rate of 2.3 women per day. He divided that number in half, to be conservative and correcting for degrees of variation. He then multiplied that number by the amount of days he had been alive at the time minus 15 years. Which was how the 20,000 number came into existence.[18]

In a 1999 interview shortly before his death, Chamberlain regretted not having explained the sexual climate at the time of his escapades, and warned other men who admired him for it, closing with the words: “With all of you men out there who think that having a thousand different ladies is pretty cool, I have learned in my life I’ve found out that having one woman a thousand different times is much more satisfying.”[19] Chamberlain also acknowledged he never came close to marrying, and had no intention of raising any children.[20]

Also found this Youtube of Wilt at the age of 17. I obviously never remember him ever being this skinny but never saw him or remember him from TV till the mid 60's.


Wilt at 17 in HS

Notice in the game action near the end how narrow the lane is!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9GPibuasw4


Also looking forward to the next instalment.

beat

beat wrote:Outside

here is a titbit about how the 20,000 women thing came into being.

According to Rod Roddewig, a contemporary of Wilt's, the 20,000 number was created when he and Chamberlain were staying in Chamberlain's penthouse in Honolulu during the mid-eighties. He and Chamberlain stayed at the penthouse for 10 days, over the course of which he recorded everything on his Daytimer[clarification needed]. For every time Chamberlain went to bed with a different girl he put a check in his daytimer. After those 10 days there were 23 checks in the book, which would be rate of 2.3 women per day. He divided that number in half, to be conservative and correcting for degrees of variation. He then multiplied that number by the amount of days he had been alive at the time minus 15 years. Which was how the 20,000 number came into existence.[18]

In a 1999 interview shortly before his death, Chamberlain regretted not having explained the sexual climate at the time of his escapades, and warned other men who admired him for it, closing with the words: “With all of you men out there who think that having a thousand different ladies is pretty cool, I have learned in my life I’ve found out that having one woman a thousand different times is much more satisfying.”[19] Chamberlain also acknowledged he never came close to marrying, and had no intention of raising any children.[20]

Also found this Youtube of Wilt at the age of 17. I obviously never remember him ever being this skinny but never saw him or remember him from TV till the mid 60's.


Wilt at 17 in HS

Notice in the game action near the end how narrow the lane is!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9GPibuasw4


Also looking forward to the next instalment.

beat

beat (or BOB for short),

Not to be picky, but it's "tidbit", not "titbit.

Given the subject matter, however, you might be onto something here.

bob (aka Would Always Refer Relatives, Even Nieces - or WARREN for short)

.

beat
Not very wide are they. I know that the nba went from 6'to 12' in 1951 but the best that I could do for high School was the fact that Iowa High Schools went from 6' to 12' in 1957. Since Wilt was born on 9-21-36 he would have been about 17 in 1953. Thus there's a good chanch that the lane was only 6' wide.
swish

Bob

fingers type where the mind tells them to go......titbit sounded better accordingly. ( man you are a tough proofreader )

Swish

The lane looks even less than 6 feet. If Wilt stood with his heels on one side facing the other.....i think his toes would touch the other side.

beat