What's more impressive to you? 81 or 100?

[Chaos81]

Re: What's more impressive to you? 81 or 100?

Wilt, but I'm biased.

[Weeks]

I'd go with Wilt. I know he was far superior against the rest of the league in size, but he still scored triple-digits in one game.

100 points is ridiculous.

[RedSceptile]

Re: What's more impressive to you? 81 or 100?

Wilt's record lost a lot of luster to me when I realized he was being force fed against bad defense (say what you will about Kobe at least he didn't have a ridiculous size advantage like Wilt).

Personally I'd either go with Kobe's 62 Dallas 62, his 81 scored, Jordan's 63 against the Celtics, or Jordan's 69 against the Cavs. The fact these guys did this mainly on the perimeter is pretty freaking impressive especially when they weren't 4-5 inches taller, and 40-60 lbs bigger than everyone else. Wilt's is cool but the circumstances behind it don't really make it all that impressive to me anymore.

[TUSS11]

Re: What's more impressive to you? 81 or 100?

I dislike Kobe...100.

[Kashanova]

Re: What's more impressive to you? 81 or 100?

169 to 147, great, competitive defense back then from guys who were towered over.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

different era, the game back then was more uptempo. the level on competition Kobe faced that day was actually worst than the one Wilt face if you think about it. I mean that raptors team was atrocious

[st0rmb11]

Re: What's more impressive to you? 81 or 100?

what about Pete Maravich's 68 point game? He went 26 of 43 from the floor, and according to the distances recorded on his shots, he would have finished with 79 points had there been a 3 point line. (according to a source; I watched the game, and it seems like he only took one from that distance, so he would've had 69).Then, take into account that he fouled out in the 4th quarter on two horrible charge calls (both baskets he made), so that puts him at 83.

And, to put it over the top of Kobe's 81 point game, Maravich had 5 assists at the half, but I never heard how many he had at the end of the game (and I can't find an official box score).

Then take into account that he was guarded by Walt Frazier for much of the night.


and in regards to Wilt's 100, again, if he had shot like..40 for 53 in that game, I would be much more impressed. But to think that he was towering over his competitors like he was, and still only shot 36 of 63?...that really hurts his case in my opinion.

[Hassan Darkside]

Re: What's more impressive to you? 81 or 100?

different era, the game back then was more uptempo. the level on competition Kobe faced that day was actually worst than the one Wilt face if you think about it. I mean that raptors team was atrocious

Not buying that. I'm thinking and thinking about it and can't see any reasoning how that Raptors D could be any worse than the Knicks that day. That Knicks team had 9 rookies, gave up 118 ppg, and missed their starting center. They had 2 extremely undersized, second year guys guarding Wilt. Kobe was guarded by 33 year old Jalen Rose most of the game, along with MoPete and Joey Graham. Sure the Raptors were bad, but they were good enough to be beating the Lakers pretty badly throughout the game. That Lakers team was atrocious and particularly atrocious that game, outside of Kobe.

That was also the season that Wilt averaged 50 and 26 a game and Big O averaged his triple double and Elgin Baylor averaged 39 and 19. Numbers were very inflated during that era.

[AlexBrady]

Re: What's more impressive to you? 81 or 100?

Not buying that. I'm thinking and thinking about it and can't see any reasoning how that Raptors D could be any worse than the Knicks that day. That Knicks team had 9 rookies, gave up 118 ppg, and missed their starting center. They had 2 extremely undersized, second year guys guarding Wilt. Kobe was guarded by 33 year old Jalen Rose most of the game, along with MoPete and Joey Graham. Sure the Raptors were bad, but they were good enough to be beating the Lakers pretty badly throughout the game. That Lakers team was atrocious and particularly atrocious that game, outside of Kobe.

That was also the season that Wilt averaged 50 and 26 a game and Big O averaged his triple double and Elgin Baylor averaged 39 and 19. Numbers were very inflated during that era.

Wilt, Oscar, and Elgin were power players that could always create their own shot under any circumstance. Oscar (6'5" 220 lbs) and Elgin (6'5" 230 lbs) could blast their way to the rim, post and shoot with countless release points, and they each had irresistible head fakes. Wilt (7'1" 300 lbs) was an automatic post target, from the left box he could shoot fade-a-ways and offensive rebounds were automatic points.
True, these guys were only allowed to be single covered but that advantage is somewhat negated because every aspect of defense was more violent back then. Hand-checking, horsing, and cut bumping were influential tactics.

It is inaccurate for anyone to say that Wilt played against stiffs and weaklings since he routinely had to face this cast of Leviathans:

-Bill Russell, 6'10" 220 lbs
-Nate Thurmond, 6'11" 250 lbs
-Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, 7'2" 230 lbs
-Willis Reed, 6'10" 250 lbs
-Bob Lanier, 7'2" 255 lbs
-Dave Cowens, 6'9 240 lbs
-Walter Dukes, 7'0" 230 lbs
-Clifford Ray, 6'9" 230 lbs
-Zelmo Beaty, 6'10" 230 lbs
-Wes Unseld, 6'7" 270 lbs
-Darrall Imhoff, 6'10" 220 lbs
-Elmore Smith, 7'0" 250 lbs

Neither high-scoring game is particularly impressive to me. Simply because the total number of points for a ballplayer is irrelevant. 'When' points are scored is more important.