Joined: 07 Jun 2002 Posts: 9674 Location: San Diego
Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 9:43 am Post subject:
Who had more skills? Hakeem
Who was more dominant? Shaq
Who would bring you more rings with less talent around him? Shaq
Who would be better in todays game? Hakeem _________________ Never argue with stupid people! They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience!! - Twain
Hakeem is the 2nd best Center of all time, after Kareem. But, if I were starting a team I'd take prime Shaq over Hakeem.
Wilt is rolling.
I'm too young to have seen Wilt play, but from what I've seen I cant' say he had more skill than Hakeem. Plus, for how dominant Wilt was statistically, it sure didn't result in many championships.
So its just rings for you? then yes, hakeem is better than wilt.
Hakeem is the 2nd best Center of all time, after Kareem. But, if I were starting a team I'd take prime Shaq over Hakeem.
Wilt is rolling.
I'm too young to have seen Wilt play, but from what I've seen I cant' say he had more skill than Hakeem. Plus, for how dominant Wilt was statistically, it sure didn't result in many championships.
So its just rings for you? then yes, hakeem is better than wilt.
Hakeem and Wilt won the same number of rings - 2.
If it's all about rings, the best centers (among Hall of Famers) are Russell, Kareem, George Mikan, Shaq and Robert Parish.
Joined: 24 Dec 2007 Posts: 35717 Location: Santa Clarita, CA (Hell) ->>>>>Ithaca, NY -≥≥≥≥≥Berkeley, CA
Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 11:54 am Post subject:
activeverb wrote:
SuperboyReformed wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
SuperboyReformed wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
Hakeem is the 2nd best Center of all time, after Kareem. But, if I were starting a team I'd take prime Shaq over Hakeem.
Wilt is rolling.
I'm too young to have seen Wilt play, but from what I've seen I cant' say he had more skill than Hakeem. Plus, for how dominant Wilt was statistically, it sure didn't result in many championships.
So its just rings for you? then yes, hakeem is better than wilt.
Hakeem and Wilt won the same number of rings - 2.
If it's all about rings, the best centers (among Hall of Famers) are Russell, Kareem, George Mikan, Shaq and Robert Parish.
And John Salley. _________________ Damian Lillard shatters Dwight Coward's championship dreams:
Hakeem is the 2nd best Center of all time, after Kareem. But, if I were starting a team I'd take prime Shaq over Hakeem.
Wilt is rolling.
I'm too young to have seen Wilt play, but from what I've seen I cant' say he had more skill than Hakeem. Plus, for how dominant Wilt was statistically, it sure didn't result in many championships.
So its just rings for you? then yes, hakeem is better than wilt.
Hakeem and Wilt won the same number of rings - 2.
If it's all about rings, the best centers (among Hall of Famers) are Russell, Kareem, George Mikan, Shaq and Robert Parish.
And John Salley.
Don't leave out Will 'member of three headed monster' Perdue
Hakeem is the 2nd best Center of all time, after Kareem. But, if I were starting a team I'd take prime Shaq over Hakeem.
Wilt is rolling.
I'm too young to have seen Wilt play, but from what I've seen I cant' say he had more skill than Hakeem. Plus, for how dominant Wilt was statistically, it sure didn't result in many championships.
So its just rings for you? then yes, hakeem is better than wilt.
Hakeem and Wilt won the same number of rings - 2.
If it's all about rings, the best centers (among Hall of Famers) are Russell, Kareem, George Mikan, Shaq and Robert Parish.
And John Salley.
Well, I specifically mentioned only Hall of Fame centers because players have to be an equal level before the ring count matters.
We all know it makes sense to compare Kobe and Jordan or Kareem and Shaq, but we also know it doesn't make sense to bring guys like Salley and Steve Kerr into the discussion.
Big difference between being the 1-2 guy on a ring team and being the 6-9 guy.
Joined: 24 Dec 2007 Posts: 35717 Location: Santa Clarita, CA (Hell) ->>>>>Ithaca, NY -≥≥≥≥≥Berkeley, CA
Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 12:29 pm Post subject:
activeverb wrote:
CandyCanes wrote:
activeverb wrote:
SuperboyReformed wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
SuperboyReformed wrote:
vanexelent wrote:
Hakeem is the 2nd best Center of all time, after Kareem. But, if I were starting a team I'd take prime Shaq over Hakeem.
Wilt is rolling.
I'm too young to have seen Wilt play, but from what I've seen I cant' say he had more skill than Hakeem. Plus, for how dominant Wilt was statistically, it sure didn't result in many championships.
So its just rings for you? then yes, hakeem is better than wilt.
Hakeem and Wilt won the same number of rings - 2.
If it's all about rings, the best centers (among Hall of Famers) are Russell, Kareem, George Mikan, Shaq and Robert Parish.
And John Salley.
Well, I specifically mentioned only Hall of Fame centers because players have to be an equal level before the ring count matters.
We all know it makes sense to compare Kobe and Jordan or Kareem and Shaq, but we also know it doesn't make sense to bring guys like Salley and Steve Kerr into the discussion.
Big difference between being the 1-2 guy on a ring team and being the 6-9 guy.
But is Parish really on the same level as Kareem? _________________ Damian Lillard shatters Dwight Coward's championship dreams:
Hakeem is the 2nd best Center of all time, after Kareem. But, if I were starting a team I'd take prime Shaq over Hakeem.
Wilt is rolling.
I'm too young to have seen Wilt play, but from what I've seen I cant' say he had more skill than Hakeem. Plus, for how dominant Wilt was statistically, it sure didn't result in many championships.
So its just rings for you? then yes, hakeem is better than wilt.
What gave you the impression I think it's just about rings? You do know they have the same right? I said Hakeem was the more skilled player. Wilt is largely known for his dominant stat lines, but I wonder why his dominance didn't lead to more championships, like Shaq's did.
Hakeem is the 2nd best Center of all time, after Kareem. But, if I were starting a team I'd take prime Shaq over Hakeem.
Wilt is rolling.
I'm too young to have seen Wilt play, but from what I've seen I cant' say he had more skill than Hakeem. Plus, for how dominant Wilt was statistically, it sure didn't result in many championships.
So its just rings for you? then yes, hakeem is better than wilt.
Hakeem and Wilt won the same number of rings - 2.
If it's all about rings, the best centers (among Hall of Famers) are Russell, Kareem, George Mikan, Shaq and Robert Parish.
And John Salley.
Well, I specifically mentioned only Hall of Fame centers because players have to be an equal level before the ring count matters.
We all know it makes sense to compare Kobe and Jordan or Kareem and Shaq, but we also know it doesn't make sense to bring guys like Salley and Steve Kerr into the discussion.
Big difference between being the 1-2 guy on a ring team and being the 6-9 guy.
But is Parish really on the same level as Kareem?
For the purposes of this discussion I chose a criteria of being in the hall of fame as the minimum entry requirement to be in the debate. Obviously no one would actually consider parish and Kareem to be equal
Joined: 14 Apr 2001 Posts: 144412 Location: The Gold Coast
Posted: Sat Aug 13, 2016 11:01 am Post subject:
Shaq was as close to the dominance that Wilt brought as any other player. Both were able to do what they wanted and no one could stop them. Of course I am biased as well. _________________ RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
Very good one on one, not so good on help defense.
He was a paint plug extraordinaire. Imposing figure for a lot of smalls unless they could get him in a recovering position. When he was eye to eye with them, it wasn't easy to get a shot over him. _________________ GOAT MAGIC REEL SEDALE TRIBUTE EDDIE DONX!
I love Hakeem, I think he is a great dude and he was an amazing player.
He had his own style, he was truly without a doubt an all time great.
That said, I voted for Shaq and not because he played for the Lakers.
Shaq was arguably the most fearsome dominant force in the league besides Wilt Chamberlain, ever. If he had worked harder, he could have been the Greatest Player of All Time.
As it is, he is an obvious 1st Ballot Hall of Famer as is Hakeem of course. No one could stop an enraged prime Shaq, I will tell you that. _________________ Love, Laker Lanny
Joined: 17 Feb 2002 Posts: 14876 Location: Reseda, CA
Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2016 1:20 pm Post subject:
MJST wrote:
yinoma2001 wrote:
Hmm...this is a good one.
My inkling is Hakeem. Less overall weaknesses. Could even play in today's NBA IMO.
So could Shaq.
Imagine a team trying to put Draymond on Shaq to defend him >_>
Putting Draymond on Shaq would be just like what the Spurs did when they threw Malik Rose on Shaq. I remember Malik had to be at a 20 degree angle just to get some leverage on Shaq.
My inkling is Hakeem. Less overall weaknesses. Could even play in today's NBA IMO.
So could Shaq.
Imagine a team trying to put Draymond on Shaq to defend him >_>
Putting Draymond on Shaq would be just like what the Spurs did when they threw Malik Rose on Shaq. I remember Malik had to be at a 20 degree angle just to get some leverage on Shaq.
Precisely.
People act like post up centers couldn't work in todays NBA.
The truth is they can, what doesn't 'work' is centers that can't play defense.
If Okafor could play defense like Drummond or KAT no one would be saying he 'doesn't fit' in the era. It's due to his lack of defense imo. Same can be said of Greg Monroe.
But look at a center like Marc Gasol.. he fits just fine and he's a post up big. It's because he can also defend that it isn't said about him.
Shaq could also defend and had a masterful post game, soft touch and underrated one handed fadeaway. So he'd do just fine.
Man, I loved watching Prime Hakeem. So graceful and skilled. Shaq was a blunt instrument.
I voted Hakeem, but you really can't go wrong either way. Two of the greatest centers of all time. Imagine if Hakeem had Shaq's brute strength or Shaq Hakeem's skill set. Unstoppable!
Joined: 12 Jan 2008 Posts: 2634 Location: Orange County
Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2016 1:07 pm Post subject:
Wino wrote:
Who had more skills? Hakeem
Who was more dominant? Shaq
Who would bring you more rings with less talent around him? Shaq
Who would be better in todays game? Hakeem
QFT
Shaq's weakness on the defensive end was getting exposed and switching on the PnR. _________________ "Love me or hate me; it's one or the other. Always has been. Hate my game, my swagger. Hate my fadeaway, my hunger. Hate that I'm a veteran. A champion. Hate that. Hate it with all your heart. And hate that I'm loved for the exact same reasons."
Who had more skills? Hakeem
Who was more dominant? Shaq
Who would bring you more rings with less talent around him? Shaq
Who would be better in todays game? Hakeem
I agree except Im not sure Shaq wouldnt be better in today's NBA. He was so dominant he could single-handily destroy the small ball trend in the NBA as he would have field day against tiny stretch centers. Also he was quick and nimble for his size at his peak so its not like small ball teams could really exploit him as some slow lumbering center.
Who had more skills? Hakeem
Who was more dominant? Shaq
Who would bring you more rings with less talent around him? Shaq
Who would be better in todays game? Hakeem
I agree except Im not sure Shaq wouldnt be better in today's NBA. He was so dominant he could single-handily destroy the small ball trend in the NBA as he would have field day against tiny stretch centers. Also he was quick and nimble for his size at his peak so its not like small ball teams could really exploit him as some slow lumbering center.
shaq himself has said he wouldn't be as dominant with the zone.
All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3Next
Page 2 of 3
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum