| |
 Larger than life until the end
Posted: Tuesday October 12, 1999 10:42 PM
Sports Illustrated NBA writer Phil Taylor spoke to CNN/SI anchor Johnny Phelps following the news of Wilt Chamberlain's death: Johnny Phelps: A lot of fans in this generation grew up watching Michael Jordan play. Can you give us an idea of the type of player that Wilt Chamberlain really was and how he changed the game? Phil Taylor: I would say to people who never saw Wilt Chamberlain to try to imagine a mythical basketball player, kind of a super-hero basketball player and give him talents that you don't imagine any real human being could actually have. Have him average 50 points a game, have him score 100 points in a single game, have him decide to become a passer and lead the league in assists, have him become a great high jumper in college. These are things that Wilt Chamberlain did, all of these things. He was probably the most versatile basketball player we've ever seen and I really think that he was one of the greatest athletes we've ever seen in any sport. And he really changed the game. He forced teams to start really adopting the concept of double-teaming because he was so dominant that they had to throw two or three people at him when he got the ball. That was something that really wasn't done in the NBA before Chamberlain came along and changed the face of the game. Phelps: He is always going to be linked with Bill Russell, especially when Wilt played in Philadelphia. Yet Russell always seemed to get the better of their duels. Why was that, do you think? Taylor: It was probably because Russell played on a team that really complemented him, maybe even better than Wilt's teams did, even when Wilt had Jerry West and Elgin Baylor, great players, beside him. I think that the Celtics were always a better overall team than the Lakers were, even though Chamberlain -- and I don't think anyone would really argue this -- was a better individual player than Russell was. The other thing about Wilt was I don't think he really could galvanize a team the way that Russell did or the way that Michael Jordan did with the Bulls. He couldn't rally people around him to that same degree because he was such an individual force; he kind of just expected everyone else to keep up with him instead of making other players better. So I think that's one reason that the Celtics and Bill Russell usually came out on top in those matchups. Phelps: It sounds funny to say this -- since he was 7-foot-1 -- but he was a guy who was larger than life and larger-than-life people seem to attract a lot of criticism. Wilt was that kind of a guy, he provoked a lot of criticism. Why was that? Taylor: I think it was because he wasn't humble. The public wants guys who are that big to be a little uncomfortable in their own skin, to be a little bit afraid of their own power and their own talent. Wilt wasn't at all. He wasn't afraid to tell you just how good he was and I think that turned people off a little bit, rubbed them the wrong way. And the other thing was that in defeat, he really wasn't devastated. There were no great shots of Wilt in tears, or with him hiding his face in a towel after another close loss to the Celtics, for instance. I think people thought that the game almost came too easily to him, that he didn't care as much as they wanted him to. I don't think that was true because it certainly bothered him to lose to Russell as often as he did. But I think the perception that the public got was that this was a guy who was happy scoring 30, 40, 50 points and if he won, great; if he didn't, he didn't care that much. I think that's one reason people were turned off a little bit.
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 1999 CNN/SI. A Time Warner Company. Terms under which this service is provided to you.
| |||||||||||||||||||||
