The argument of Russell being better than Wilt has always been a joke to me.
The rings he won aren't proof that he was a superior player to Wilt. The Celtics had
better talent, including goons to physically punish the other teams best player. Refs
were scared to make calls against the Celtics in the old Garden, more so in the playoffs.
Put Wilt on those vintage Boston teams and they win at least as many rings.
Wilt was absolutely the most dominant player of his era. He hurt himself by his inability
to respect some of his head coaches.
Wilt would be just as dominant in any era. Russell, not so much.
Wilt came into the league weighing about 250 and was up over 300 when he was with Philly as a 76er. In
an interview he claimed his best weight was 275. And he was very strong.
Shaq would have eaten Wilts' lunch off the court, but they would have had epic battles
on the court.
Celtics forward Heinsohn said: "Half the fouls against him were hard fouls ... he took the most brutal pounding of any player ever."
And Tommy would know as he was committing many of those fouls.
Suggest you read Ben Taylor's assessment of Wilt:
Backpicks GOAT: #9 Wilt Chamberlain
Note: This is the first profile in an historical series on the most valuable NBA careers of all-time. Key stats and trends Overrated offensively (scoring blindness) – didn’t create and score…
backpicks.com
Monster athlete but Taylor finds he is overrated on offense because he wasn't a good playmaker and his individual scoring did not benefit the team as much as you'd expect. Also finds he was very turnover prone (although a lot of his career happened before there were definitive turnover stats).