were far, far better than the 1962 Knicks.

This was their best player

Richie Guerin, superstar. '62 was his fifth season in the league, and he had made the All-Star team in 4 of those 5 seasons. However, just a few years later he retired, still young. Not because of injuries, but because the racial barrier was finally broken and he simply couldn't compete. That happened to A LOT of these guys.

There's a reason that outside of basketball circles, someone like George Mikan is unknown even though he was just as dominant in his time as Wilt, Hakeem, or Shaq. We judge players based on their era and this was a time when the NBA was severely handicapping its product via racism. We now judge Paul Arizin and George Mikan and all these forgotten white guys as inferior to the modern game because of it. Why don't we apply the same standard to Wilt's 100-point game?

This post was edited on 4/9/14 at 8:50 am

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by slackster

Houston

Member since Mar 2009

85469 posts

Posted on 4/9/14 at 8:59 am to genro

I'm with you Genro. Wilt's 100 sounds incredible on the surface, but any research completely debunks the mystic. It does nothing for me as far as records are concerned. It will never be broken, but it deserves an asterisk just as much as Bonds HR record - although clearly not for the same reasons.

What Kobe did when he dropped 81 is much more significant that Wilt, and I despise Kobe. Hell, I hold most 50+ point games in higher regard than Wilt's.

I understand and respect Wilt's dominance, and I believe he would have been an All-NBA player in today's game, but the competition level today is absurd. I literally have no doubt that there are 15+ players in today's game that would have dropped 100 on that Knicks squad.

Also, the fact that I'm on the opposite side of a topic than Verlander gives me a robust sense of arrogance in this regard.