Top 100 Athletes of the 20th Century

[Papageorgio]

Kareem won 4 college NC - if you include his freshman season.

PERFECTO>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

And he was under pressure to do so being highly touted out of HS - and deleived.

Won theNBA title with Milwaukee in 2nd season.

Should be rated above Wilt C. or Jordan in basketball. (Jordan was crappy in HS and college)

Niclklaus should be in thetop 5.

Clay/Ali couldnt punch.

I have Jabbar right behind Jordan, the guy was unstoppable with that skyhook.

Really depends on what NBA we'd be talking about. The 60/70's in which small touches aren't called fouls or David Stern's jury rigged NBA where a good day is putting Jordan on the line 18 times. If we're playing Man Ball; I'll take Kareem; and I'll take Russsell over him probably; b/c he did all the little things.

You'd take Russell a Celtic over Jabbar a Laker. I AM SHOCKED!



Believe all the BS you want. You are so biased it isn't funny.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I have Jabbar right behind Jordan, the guy was unstoppable with that skyhook.

Really depends on what NBA we'd be talking about. The 60/70's in which small touches aren't called fouls or David Stern's jury rigged NBA where a good day is putting Jordan on the line 18 times. If we're playing Man Ball; I'll take Kareem; and I'll take Russsell over him probably; b/c he did all the little things.

You'd take Russell a Celtic over Jabbar a Laker. I AM SHOCKED!



Believe all the BS you want. You are so biased it isn't funny.

Believe it or not, I've always questioned whether Russell was over hyped. But then I studied his numbers head to head versus players like Chamberlain and I watched video of how he conducted himself on both ends of the court.

If I were to give you a 5 minute highlight film of Russell; you'd think, oh that's nothing special. But the reality is the guy had skills and he busted hump and fundamentally executed on each and every play at both ends of the court. If you wanted a timely rebound, block, steal, screen, dunk even assist; Russell did it.

I was watching a series finale game vs Cincy the other day. The C's were up 92-91 in the final minute. Havilicek just missed a 20 footer. Russell chased it down and he saw Havilicek in the same spot. He did not hesitate to get him the ball, saying 'hey you're gonna get us the win.'

I'm not sure why you're overly concerned with my 'bias.' We all have biases, it's like saying of course I'd support a Mitt Romney initiative instead of an Obama plan. So f'ing what? We all have biases. You think that I can't contain my biases?

 

[Papageorgio]

Really depends on what NBA we'd be talking about. The 60/70's in which small touches aren't called fouls or David Stern's jury rigged NBA where a good day is putting Jordan on the line 18 times. If we're playing Man Ball; I'll take Kareem; and I'll take Russsell over him probably; b/c he did all the little things.

You'd take Russell a Celtic over Jabbar a Laker. I AM SHOCKED!



Believe all the BS you want. You are so biased it isn't funny.

Believe it or not, I've always questioned whether Russell was over hyped. But then I studied his numbers head to head versus players like Chamberlain and I watched video of how he conducted himself on both ends of the court.

If I were to give you a 5 minute highlight film of Russell; you'd think, oh that's nothing special. But the reality is the guy had skills and he busted hump and fundamentally executed on each and every play at both ends of the court. If you wanted a timely rebound, block, steal, screen, dunk even assist; Russell did it.

I was watching a series finale game vs Cincy the other day. The C's were up 92-91 in the final minute. Havilicek just missed a 20 footer. Russell chased it down and he saw Havilicek in the same spot. He did not hesitate to get him the ball, saying 'hey you're gonna get us the win.'

I'm not sure why you're overly concerned with my 'bias.' We all have biases, it's like saying of course I'd support a Mitt Romney initiative instead of an Obama plan. So f'ing what? We all have biases. You think that I can't contain my biases?

I don't believe it.

I never said Russell was hyped, I am saying Jabbar was better center. I have seen games with Russell and he was good, I saw Jabbar play. He was better.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

You'd take Russell a Celtic over Jabbar a Laker. I AM SHOCKED!



Believe all the BS you want. You are so biased it isn't funny.

Believe it or not, I've always questioned whether Russell was over hyped. But then I studied his numbers head to head versus players like Chamberlain and I watched video of how he conducted himself on both ends of the court.

If I were to give you a 5 minute highlight film of Russell; you'd think, oh that's nothing special. But the reality is the guy had skills and he busted hump and fundamentally executed on each and every play at both ends of the court. If you wanted a timely rebound, block, steal, screen, dunk even assist; Russell did it.

I was watching a series finale game vs Cincy the other day. The C's were up 92-91 in the final minute. Havilicek just missed a 20 footer. Russell chased it down and he saw Havilicek in the same spot. He did not hesitate to get him the ball, saying 'hey you're gonna get us the win.'

I'm not sure why you're overly concerned with my 'bias.' We all have biases, it's like saying of course I'd support a Mitt Romney initiative instead of an Obama plan. So f'ing what? We all have biases. You think that I can't contain my biases?

I don't believe it.

I never said Russell was hyped, I am saying Jabbar was better center. I have seen games with Russell and he was good, I saw Jabbar play. He was better.

You're just in love with Kareem's sky hook (which made him a unique player). But what you don't want to concede is that he was nothing special at the defensive end of the court. They even joked about that on Airplane; about how he had such a hard time containing Wilt Chamberlain.

But anyways, you want to blame it on my bias; but actually basketball reference currently has five centers ranked ahead of Kareem:

1. Olajuwon
2. Duncan
3. Russell
4. Robinson
5. Malone (Moses)

I would tend to agree with that list.

 

[Papageorgio]

Seen all sorts of polls and Russell, Chamberlin and Jabbar on the top, I have never seen one with Olajuwon as number one or Jabbar not in a top 5, but considering they use the Elo system, then you get what you get. As much as I loved Dr. J's game, I wouldn't rate him 7, all-time.

I hated the patented sky hook, I disliked the Lakers and Jabbar and took great pleasure when the lost. The facts speak for themselves and you are going to pick Celtics because that is your team and aren't objective, which is your right. I don't have to agree with your insanity.

 

[Synthaholic]

I think a "Least Athletic" list would be more interesting.

Charles Barkley
Harmon Killebrew
Boog Powell
Cecil Fielder
John Daly
Craig Stadler
Kurt Rambis
William 'Refrigerator' Perry

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Seen all sorts of polls and Russell, Chamberlin and Jabbar on the top, I have never seen one with Olajuwon as number one or Jabbar not in a top 5, but considering they use the Elo system, then you get what you get. As much as I loved Dr. J's game, I wouldn't rate him 7, all-time.

I hated the patented sky hook, I disliked the Lakers and Jabbar and took great pleasure when the lost. The facts speak for themselves and you are going to pick Celtics because that is your team and aren't objective, which is your right. I don't have to agree with your insanity.

No__ It's not a fact that I pick anything based upon my biases and that's a sorry insinuation to make. I give you well defined and acceptable reasons for my sound logic. And your determination to the contrary is just rancor on your part.

And I would also submit that it is even possible that your rooting against Kareem has created a reverse bias in which you could have overvalued his talent.

Again, you could not give an argument againt my logic that Kareem was not an especially great defensive player relative to many centers, so you had to use a fallacy of an alleged bias absolutely dictating my analysis. And to make up for your own lacking supposition, you tried to support it with the idea that you don't have a dog in the fight; and that somehow makes you more objective or better reasoned. It does not though.

And to the Olajuwon point__ as time passes, more and more people are coming to the opinion that he is the greatest center of all-time; so that poll, I wouldn't blame it on the system. Though it is an interactive ranking and he'll most certainly slide in the rankings from time to time as he is not a consensus greatest center of all-time.

When you consider centers__ you have to consider defense (and rebounding); much more for that position than any other position. Kareem would not make anybody's top twenty list on defense. So you're basically saying, his offense was just that great. And there's a case for that! But you shouldn't be so dismissive and pretend that you have a superior opinion under the guise of my bias. Because I'm telling you right now. You're full of shit dude.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I think a "Least Athletic" list would be more interesting.

Charles Barkley
Harmon Killebrew
Boog Powell
Cecil Fielder
John Daly
Craig Stadler
Kurt Rambis
William 'Refrigerator' Perry

Barkley was a hell of an athlete.

Killebrew__ I don't know; but it seems like he was an athlete.

Rambis, most definitely was an athlete. I go back and watch the old games and I see that. Though, at the time, I thought he was a dork who didn't belong out there.

 

[Montrovant]

These "Top 100" lists are completely subjective, and there are so many VARIABLES involved that the whole list is nothing but a popularity contest.

How can you compare an athlete from 75 years ago to an athlete from 10 years ago? You really can't.

Plug in the variables, and it's extremely difficult to compare an athlete from one era to an athlete from a different era.

1. Equipment
2. Playing conditions
3. Quality and quantity of competition
4. Advances in conditioning, rehabilitation, surgery, etc.
5. Rules changes
6. The "color barrier"
7. Coaching
8. Natural progressions in height, strength, agility, etc.

Even with horse racing, it's difficult to compare the two greatest racehorses in history, Secretariat and Man O' War, and they raced "only" 54 years apart. These two horses had many similarities, but Secretariat raced against better competition, raced on better racing surfaces, and had, arguably, more advanced training "methods".

This sort of topic is a popularity contest.

My top "athletes" in each "major" sport, without choosing my "favorite" players and being as objective as possible, are:

Basketball: Michael Jordan. Nobody else is even close.

Football: Quarterback- John Elway. Running back- tie between Barry Sanders and Walter Payton. Wide receiver- Jerry Rice.

Baseball: Overall- Willie Mays. Pitcher- Roger Clemens

Golf: Jack Nicklaus

Hockey: I have no friggin' idea. Not a fan.

I agree mostly

You can't compare athletes of different eras. For the most part, athletes today are better than they were 40-50 years ago with very few exceptions. The best you can do is look at how they dominated the competition of the day. Babe Ruth was vastly superior to ballplayers of his day. I doubt if he would be as dominant against todays players

In sports like track and field, swimming and horseracing it is easy to compare. Secretariats records still have not been approached. Jim Thorpes times and distances in the Olympics are beaten by women today

I've always gotten annoyed at people who just dismiss athletes from too far in the past because they wouldn't be able to perform in today's game. It's how they were able to perform against the competition available at the time I find impressive.

I also wonder what the criteria for this list was, as many of the names may have been exceptional at their particular sport but not especially athletic compared to their peers.

And just a little minor bitching : Rice should be ahead of Montana and Peyton, he's the best WR that ever played by far. Otto Graham should be much higher, perhaps the top football player. He went to the championship every year of his professional career, winning 7 or 10 football titles, as well as 1 basketball. That is an astonishing level of success.

 

[NoNukes]

These "Top 100" lists are completely subjective, and there are so many VARIABLES involved that the whole list is nothing but a popularity contest.

How can you compare an athlete from 75 years ago to an athlete from 10 years ago? You really can't.

Plug in the variables, and it's extremely difficult to compare an athlete from one era to an athlete from a different era.

1. Equipment
2. Playing conditions
3. Quality and quantity of competition
4. Advances in conditioning, rehabilitation, surgery, etc.
5. Rules changes
6. The "color barrier"
7. Coaching
8. Natural progressions in height, strength, agility, etc.

Even with horse racing, it's difficult to compare the two greatest racehorses in history, Secretariat and Man O' War, and they raced "only" 54 years apart. These two horses had many similarities, but Secretariat raced against better competition, raced on better racing surfaces, and had, arguably, more advanced training "methods".

This sort of topic is a popularity contest.

My top "athletes" in each "major" sport, without choosing my "favorite" players and being as objective as possible, are:

Basketball: Michael Jordan. Nobody else is even close.

Football: Quarterback- John Elway. Running back- tie between Barry Sanders and Walter Payton. Wide receiver- Jerry Rice.

Baseball: Overall- Willie Mays. Pitcher- Roger Clemens

Golf: Jack Nicklaus

Hockey: I have no friggin' idea. Not a fan.

I agree mostly

You can't compare athletes of different eras. For the most part, athletes today are better than they were 40-50 years ago with very few exceptions. The best you can do is look at how they dominated the competition of the day. Babe Ruth was vastly superior to ballplayers of his day. I doubt if he would be as dominant against todays players

In sports like track and field, swimming and horseracing it is easy to compare. Secretariats records still have not been approached. Jim Thorpes times and distances in the Olympics are beaten by women today

I've always gotten annoyed at people who just dismiss athletes from too far in the past because they wouldn't be able to perform in today's game. It's how they were able to perform against the competition available at the time I find impressive.

I also wonder what the criteria for this list was, as many of the names may have been exceptional at their particular sport but not especially athletic compared to their peers.

And just a little minor bitching : Rice should be ahead of Montana and Peyton, he's the best WR that ever played by far. Otto Graham should be much higher, perhaps the top football player. He went to the championship every year of his professional career, winning 7 or 10 football titles, as well as 1 basketball. That is an astonishing level of success.

There are some Pittsburgh Steeler fans and defensive backs who might disagree with you about Rice being the best wide receiver.

 

[rightwinger]

These "Top 100" lists are completely subjective, and there are so many VARIABLES involved that the whole list is nothing but a popularity contest.

How can you compare an athlete from 75 years ago to an athlete from 10 years ago? You really can't.

Plug in the variables, and it's extremely difficult to compare an athlete from one era to an athlete from a different era.

1. Equipment
2. Playing conditions
3. Quality and quantity of competition
4. Advances in conditioning, rehabilitation, surgery, etc.
5. Rules changes
6. The "color barrier"
7. Coaching
8. Natural progressions in height, strength, agility, etc.

Even with horse racing, it's difficult to compare the two greatest racehorses in history, Secretariat and Man O' War, and they raced "only" 54 years apart. These two horses had many similarities, but Secretariat raced against better competition, raced on better racing surfaces, and had, arguably, more advanced training "methods".

This sort of topic is a popularity contest.

My top "athletes" in each "major" sport, without choosing my "favorite" players and being as objective as possible, are:

Basketball: Michael Jordan. Nobody else is even close.

Football: Quarterback- John Elway. Running back- tie between Barry Sanders and Walter Payton. Wide receiver- Jerry Rice.

Baseball: Overall- Willie Mays. Pitcher- Roger Clemens

Golf: Jack Nicklaus

Hockey: I have no friggin' idea. Not a fan.

I agree mostly

You can't compare athletes of different eras. For the most part, athletes today are better than they were 40-50 years ago with very few exceptions. The best you can do is look at how they dominated the competition of the day. Babe Ruth was vastly superior to ballplayers of his day. I doubt if he would be as dominant against todays players

In sports like track and field, swimming and horseracing it is easy to compare. Secretariats records still have not been approached. Jim Thorpes times and distances in the Olympics are beaten by women today

I've always gotten annoyed at people who just dismiss athletes from too far in the past because they wouldn't be able to perform in today's game. It's how they were able to perform against the competition available at the time I find impressive.

I also wonder what the criteria for this list was, as many of the names may have been exceptional at their particular sport but not especially athletic compared to their peers.

And just a little minor bitching : Rice should be ahead of Montana and Peyton, he's the best WR that ever played by far. Otto Graham should be much higher, perhaps the top football player. He went to the championship every year of his professional career, winning 7 or 10 football titles, as well as 1 basketball. That is an astonishing level of success.

In terms of comparing old school athletes to present day athletes, I have to put an asterisk next to their names when it comes to talking about number of championships won. Vince Lombardi, Bill Russell, Otto Graham, Yogi Berra all get credit for the large number of championships they won.
You have to remember that the leagues were much smaller back then. Usually twelve teams. Leagues were divided into two divisions and you needed to win your division and then play for the championship. Today, there are 32 teams in most leagues, you have to qualify for the playoffs and then beat three opponents to win a championshp.

 

[Papageorgio]

Seen all sorts of polls and Russell, Chamberlin and Jabbar on the top, I have never seen one with Olajuwon as number one or Jabbar not in a top 5, but considering they use the Elo system, then you get what you get. As much as I loved Dr. J's game, I wouldn't rate him 7, all-time.

I hated the patented sky hook, I disliked the Lakers and Jabbar and took great pleasure when the lost. The facts speak for themselves and you are going to pick Celtics because that is your team and aren't objective, which is your right. I don't have to agree with your insanity.

No__ It's not a fact that I pick anything based upon my biases and that's a sorry insinuation to make. I give you well defined and acceptable reasons for my sound logic. And your determination to the contrary is just rancor on your part.

And I would also submit that it is even possible that your rooting against Kareem has created a reverse bias in which you could have overvalued his talent.

Again, you could not give an argument againt my logic that Kareem was not an especially great defensive player relative to many centers, so you had to use a fallacy of an alleged bias absolutely dictating my analysis. And to make up for your own lacking supposition, you tried to support it with the idea that you don't have a dog in the fight; and that somehow makes you more objective or better reasoned. It does not though.

And to the Olajuwon point__ as time passes, more and more people are coming to the opinion that he is the greatest center of all-time; so that poll, I wouldn't blame it on the system. Though it is an interactive ranking and he'll most certainly slide in the rankings from time to time as he is not a consensus greatest center of all-time.

When you consider centers__ you have to consider defense (and rebounding); much more for that position than any other position. Kareem would not make anybody's top twenty list on defense. So you're basically saying, his offense was just that great. And there's a case for that! But you shouldn't be so dismissive and pretend that you have a superior opinion under the guise of my bias. Because I'm telling you right now. You're full of shit dude.

It's a computer ranking system that basketball reference used, it is based on a computer model like they used in chess ranking.

Jabbar was all defensive team 11 years, behind Duncan with 13, Bryant and Garnett with 12. The coaches vote the all defensive team.

Jabbar's presence altered teams because of his shot blocking, third all time, third all time rebounds, and his size.

 

[rightwinger]

We are 12 years into the new century.

Why are we still discussing the top athletes from the last century?

If you include the first 12 years of this century you would have to include:

Lebron James
Kobe Bryant
Albert Puhols
ARod
Tom Brady
Peyton Manning
Roger Federer
Serena Williams
Michael Phelps

 

[Montrovant]

In terms of comparing old school athletes to present day athletes, I have to put an asterisk next to their names when it comes to talking about number of championships won. Vince Lombardi, Bill Russell, Otto Graham, Yogi Berra all get credit for the large number of championships they won.
You have to remember that the leagues were much smaller back then. Usually twelve teams. Leagues were divided into two divisions and you needed to win your division and then play for the championship. Today, there are 32 teams in most leagues, you have to qualify for the playoffs and then beat three opponents to win a championshp.

While that is certainly true, and needs to be taken into account, Graham went to the championship game in every year he played. Small leagues or not, that's very impressive, especially when you add in the season of basketball he also played and went to a championship.

Between his level of success and his multi-sport abilities, Graham was exceptional.

 

[rightwinger]

I've always been a fan of Otto Graham. Best QB of the 40s-50s. No question he had a Joe Montana like drive to win no matter where he was.

Football was a different game back then and QB was a different position. I think Paul Brown invented the pocket passing around Graham. Graham won four championships in the AAFC and three in the NFL. Is that better than Terry Bradshaw or Joe Montana winning four in a much tougher playoff structure?

 

[Synthaholic]

These "Top 100" lists are completely subjective, and there are so many VARIABLES involved that the whole list is nothing but a popularity contest.

How can you compare an athlete from 75 years ago to an athlete from 10 years ago? You really can't.

Plug in the variables, and it's extremely difficult to compare an athlete from one era to an athlete from a different era.

1. Equipment
2. Playing conditions
3. Quality and quantity of competition
4. Advances in conditioning, rehabilitation, surgery, etc.
5. Rules changes
6. The "color barrier"
7. Coaching
8. Natural progressions in height, strength, agility, etc.

Even with horse racing, it's difficult to compare the two greatest racehorses in history, Secretariat and Man O' War, and they raced "only" 54 years apart. These two horses had many similarities, but Secretariat raced against better competition, raced on better racing surfaces, and had, arguably, more advanced training "methods".

This sort of topic is a popularity contest.

My top "athletes" in each "major" sport, without choosing my "favorite" players and being as objective as possible, are:

Basketball: Michael Jordan. Nobody else is even close.

Football: Quarterback- John Elway. Running back- tie between Barry Sanders and Walter Payton. Wide receiver- Jerry Rice.

Baseball: Overall- Willie Mays. Pitcher- Roger Clemens

Golf: Jack Nicklaus

Hockey: I have no friggin' idea. Not a fan.

I agree mostly

You can't compare athletes of different eras. For the most part, athletes today are better than they were 40-50 years ago with very few exceptions. The best you can do is look at how they dominated the competition of the day. Babe Ruth was vastly superior to ballplayers of his day. I doubt if he would be as dominant against todays players

In sports like track and field, swimming and horseracing it is easy to compare. Secretariats records still have not been approached. Jim Thorpes times and distances in the Olympics are beaten by women today

I definitely believe he would. Pitchers didn't throw any slower in the 1920s than today. There were fastballs, curveballs, changeups, and forkballs (sliders) back then. Prolly not knuckleballs, and the variations of the slider (split-finger, etc.). So eye-hand hasn't changed. Dimensions haven't changed other than the mounds being lowered, making it easier on the hitter, not harder. And modern manufacturing of baseballs would ensure Ruth's balls going farther, and a lot of his outfield flyouts becoming home runs. And the intimidation factor of brush-back pitches has all but been eliminated.

I think he would be even better today.

 

[Synthaholic]

We are 12 years into the new century.

Why are we still discussing the top athletes from the last century?

If you include the first 12 years of this century you would have to include:

Lebron James
Kobe Bryant
Albert Puhols
ARod
Tom Brady
Peyton Manning
Roger Federer
Serena Williams
Michael Phelps

Jeter
Andruw Jones (before he let himself go)
Rafael Nidal

 

[rightwinger]

We are 12 years into the new century.

Why are we still discussing the top athletes from the last century?

If you include the first 12 years of this century you would have to include:

Lebron James
Kobe Bryant
Albert Puhols
ARod
Tom Brady
Peyton Manning
Roger Federer
Serena Williams
Michael Phelps

Jeter
Andruw Jones (before he let himself go)
Rafael Nidal

Jeter and Jones? I don't think top 100

If anything, I would have to go Griffey Jr and Bonds before he turned all Darth Vader on us

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Seen all sorts of polls and Russell, Chamberlin and Jabbar on the top, I have never seen one with Olajuwon as number one or Jabbar not in a top 5, but considering they use the Elo system, then you get what you get. As much as I loved Dr. J's game, I wouldn't rate him 7, all-time.

I hated the patented sky hook, I disliked the Lakers and Jabbar and took great pleasure when the lost. The facts speak for themselves and you are going to pick Celtics because that is your team and aren't objective, which is your right. I don't have to agree with your insanity.

No__ It's not a fact that I pick anything based upon my biases and that's a sorry insinuation to make. I give you well defined and acceptable reasons for my sound logic. And your determination to the contrary is just rancor on your part.

And I would also submit that it is even possible that your rooting against Kareem has created a reverse bias in which you could have overvalued his talent.

Again, you could not give an argument againt my logic that Kareem was not an especially great defensive player relative to many centers, so you had to use a fallacy of an alleged bias absolutely dictating my analysis. And to make up for your own lacking supposition, you tried to support it with the idea that you don't have a dog in the fight; and that somehow makes you more objective or better reasoned. It does not though.

And to the Olajuwon point__ as time passes, more and more people are coming to the opinion that he is the greatest center of all-time; so that poll, I wouldn't blame it on the system. Though it is an interactive ranking and he'll most certainly slide in the rankings from time to time as he is not a consensus greatest center of all-time.

When you consider centers__ you have to consider defense (and rebounding); much more for that position than any other position. Kareem would not make anybody's top twenty list on defense. So you're basically saying, his offense was just that great. And there's a case for that! But you shouldn't be so dismissive and pretend that you have a superior opinion under the guise of my bias. Because I'm telling you right now. You're full of shit dude.

It's a computer ranking system that basketball reference used, it is based on a computer model like they used in chess ranking.

Jabbar was all defensive team 11 years, behind Duncan with 13, Bryant and Garnett with 12. The coaches vote the all defensive team.

Jabbar's presence altered teams because of his shot blocking, third all time, third all time rebounds, and his size.

My reasoning isn't based upon the ranking system. I allude to it, to show you that it is in line with other empirical analysis.

And Jabbar won defensive player of the year awards when he was one of only a few seven footers in the league. If you goto tape of him in his early 30's; just slightly past his prime; I can't say he's anything but an average defender. He's nowhere near the defender KG, Olajuwon, Robinson, (In shape) Shaq and Duncan were.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

No__ It's not a fact that I pick anything based upon my biases and that's a sorry insinuation to make. I give you well defined and acceptable reasons for my sound logic. And your determination to the contrary is just rancor on your part.

And I would also submit that it is even possible that your rooting against Kareem has created a reverse bias in which you could have overvalued his talent.

Again, you could not give an argument againt my logic that Kareem was not an especially great defensive player relative to many centers, so you had to use a fallacy of an alleged bias absolutely dictating my analysis. And to make up for your own lacking supposition, you tried to support it with the idea that you don't have a dog in the fight; and that somehow makes you more objective or better reasoned. It does not though.

And to the Olajuwon point__ as time passes, more and more people are coming to the opinion that he is the greatest center of all-time; so that poll, I wouldn't blame it on the system. Though it is an interactive ranking and he'll most certainly slide in the rankings from time to time as he is not a consensus greatest center of all-time.

When you consider centers__ you have to consider defense (and rebounding); much more for that position than any other position. Kareem would not make anybody's top twenty list on defense. So you're basically saying, his offense was just that great. And there's a case for that! But you shouldn't be so dismissive and pretend that you have a superior opinion under the guise of my bias. Because I'm telling you right now. You're full of shit dude.

It's a computer ranking system that basketball reference used, it is based on a computer model like they used in chess ranking.

Jabbar was all defensive team 11 years, behind Duncan with 13, Bryant and Garnett with 12. The coaches vote the all defensive team.

Jabbar's presence altered teams because of his shot blocking, third all time, third all time rebounds, and his size.

My reasoning isn't based upon the ranking system. I allude to it, to show you that it is in line with other empirical analysis.

And Jabbar won defensive player of the year awards when he was one of only a few seven footers in the league. If you goto tape of him in his early 30's; just slightly past his prime; I can't say he's anything but an average defender. He's nowhere near the defender KG, Olajuwon, Robinson, (In shape) Shaq and Duncan were.

I shouldn't forget about Bill Walton__ Before his injuries, a lot of people think he was the greatest defensive center of all-time.

But I guess you'll just write that up to my Celtics bias__ How convenient.

Seriously though, go on yt and watch his 77 Finals performance. If you want to see probably the best defensive performance I've ever seen in a Finals.