Best All-Time Big Man

SemperFiCat

Heisman
Mar 2, 2009
14,566
30,005
0
The Last Dance thread got me thinking, who's the 'greatest', 'most dominant, and 'most talented' big man/men of all-time. Those are three different qualifiers. Could be the same guy, in your opinion, or three different guys. So, Russell, Kareem, Shaq, Wilt, Hakeem, Robinson etc? Walton if he stayed healthy?
 

BigBlue1992

All-Conference
Apr 17, 2011
2,009
3,722
81
I’m sure you’re talking about dominant careers after the NBA but I’m gonna give props to the Greg Oden we saw in college. The dude was a monster. I remember watching Ohio St and Florida in the title game and although Florida won, Oden single handedly outplayed the second best center and best power forward in college basketball that year and did it as a freshman. I’ll always wonder what might’ve been with him.

It’s hard not to go with Shaq. Guys would just bounce off of him when he went up. He was a tank. Plus he played against guys closer to his size than some of the others although you can’t go wrong with any of them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kygrandpa

University-6

All-American
Sep 28, 2017
1,127
8,713
113
Wilt wins all three...point...blank...period.
 

TeoJ

Heisman
Oct 19, 2001
24,688
21,043
65
Jabbar,he could score,he could defend,he could rebound,he played from start to finish,he could pass and make his team mates better.He also had unstoppable shot,the sky hook yeah I heard someone blocked one think about that one in how many years.Their are other great big men but IMHO no one does it better than Jabbar the complete package.
 

JasonS.

All-American
Moderator
Oct 10, 2001
41,863
7,306
66
Bill Walton has to be in the mix if we’re talking college.

Also Christian Laettner ...

(ducks)

... though he was somewhat positionless. Sort of a stretch center with guard skills.
 

Saguaro Cat

All-American
Apr 27, 2008
16,811
7,498
113
Wilt and Russell played at the same time in the NBA. Wilt was 7 time 1st Team, Russell was 3 time.

Wilt averaged 30 points his entire career. Shot 54% from the field for his career. Averaged 23 rebounds a game. Led the league in assists one year. He was truly the most dominant player.
 

TeoJ

Heisman
Oct 19, 2001
24,688
21,043
65
Wilt was a great player couldn't hit a foul shot most shots were dunks didn't make players with him better,skills he had should have won a lot more titles.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SuporChin

akaukswoosh

Hall of Famer
Jan 14, 2006
81,813
125,768
93
Bill Walton has to be in the mix if we’re talking college.

Also Christian Laettner ...

(ducks)

... though he was somewhat positionless. Sort of a stretch center with guard skills.
Yep. Walton was very, very special as a college center.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Blueaz

Bill Withers

All-American
Jun 23, 2019
2,756
5,924
0
Comparing players from different eras is so difficult. Old timers, when I was young, said Alex Groza was one of the best they had seen, but the point shaving scandal ended his career prematurely. He was more of a point-center, very good passer. And had a great hook shot. But, there's just not much to go on, and that was so long ago. Wilt, Russell, Kareem, all very good. Modern era, I'd almost have to say Hakeem Olajuwan.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RunninRichie

uk78_rivals88018

All-American
Feb 6, 2003
12,401
8,783
0
Did you watch Shaq in college? Shaq might have had more points in their head to head game but Laettner was able to score on Shaq when the game mattered. I remember watching and Laettner was way better. Shaq also was very foul prone perhaps because of his physical size and perhaps unfairly being called for some of those fouls. Now if we are talking about Pro's obviously betweent those two not even close.

Jabbar probably was the best college center although I could argue Walton because he had a slighly better all around game.
 

TheOtherGreatOne

All-Conference
Feb 5, 2003
3,005
3,365
0
Chamberlain.
Wilt Cahmberlain was the most dominate basketball player that ever lived. He dominated Russell every time they played. Russell won all those championships because he had more great players around him than other great players of the area. Russell was not that great player that he is cranked up to be today. He was not as good as Chamberland, he was not as good as Rick Barry, he was not even as good as his own teammate John Havilechek. Russell was about the same level of player as Nate Thurmond. The Celtics of those days were treated like Jordan's Bulls and college basketball's duke. Like Jordan never won a championship without Pippen, and Russell would not have won all those championships if he didn't always have 2 or 3 other hall of famers playing with him. Russell was a 12 to 14 point 12 rebound guy, while Chamberlain was leading the league in rebounding 10 or 11 years in a row along with 30 to 40 points a game and even leading the league in assists. If Chamberlain would have had the same teammates Russell had, he would have won even more championships, And no Russell would not have been a very good player against today's players. Oh and by the way the league changed the rules of the game to try and take away Chamberlains tallents, no other players have the rules of the game to thy and stop them. 50.4 points and 27.3 rebounds a game, that was not that Chamberlain's stats, not Russell's, and yes This wasagainst the same compition that Russell was getting his 13 points and 12 rebounds a game against.
 

eppsfan

All-Conference
Oct 2, 2010
826
1,508
0
Too young to have seen all of those legends. Of the ones I've seen, Hakeem.

Anthony Davis if he's allowed to count as a big man. He technically does play center from time to time.
 

TeoJ

Heisman
Oct 19, 2001
24,688
21,043
65
Wilt Cahmberlain was the most dominate basketball player that ever lived. He dominated Russell every time they played. Russell won all those championships because he had more great players around him than other great players of the area. Russell was not that great player that he is cranked up to be today. He was not as good as Chamberland, he was not as good as Rick Barry, he was not even as good as his own teammate John Havilechek. Russell was about the same level of player as Nate Thurmond. The Celtics of those days were treated like Jordan's Bulls and college basketball's duke. Like Jordan never won a championship without Pippen, and Russell would not have won all those championships if he didn't always have 2 or 3 other hall of famers playing with him. Russell was a 12 to 14 point 12 rebound guy, while Chamberlain was leading the league in rebounding 10 or 11 years in a row along with 30 to 40 points a game and even leading the league in assists. If Chamberlain would have had the same teammates Russell had, he would have won even more championships, And no Russell would not have been a very good player against today's players. Oh and by the way the league changed the rules of the game to try and take away Chamberlains tallents, no other players have the rules of the game to thy and stop them. 50.4 points and 27.3 rebounds a game, that was not that Chamberlain's stats, not Russell's, and yes This wasagainst the same compition that Russell was getting his 13 points and 12 rebounds a game against.
He did not dominate Russell every time they played,Russell was the only one that could check him. Wilt earned every thing he got against Russell.
 
  • Like
Reactions: westerncat

uky8unc5

Heisman
May 22, 2002
17,428
12,931
113
Russell at 6’9, 215 pounds would have no chance against Shaq.
You might be right.
But let me ask: did you see Russell play?
...He averaged 22.5 rebounds a game.
...He averaged 8 blocked shots a game.
...Wilt Chamberlain and Russell went toe to toe.
 

fs-ripcord65

All-Conference
Apr 29, 2009
5,718
3,880
113
Obviously, a lot of people on this board didn't see Russell and Wilt play. IMHO, Russell, Wilt, and Kareem are in a category all their own - heads and shoulders above the rest. And, just a reminder, Russell has ELEVEN N.B.A. Championships.