The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
2 Points

Wilt Chamberlain was the greatest basketball player of all time

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/3/2011 Category: Sports
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,138 times Debate No: 15092
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)




Wilt Chamberlain was the greatest basketball of all time. He is presumably the most dominant player that has ever played basketball. Think about it this way, he scored 100 points in one game, most teams dont score that many points on certain nights. One player can score more than a whole team has is impressive. Not only did he have those 100 points in one game but he also had 55 rebounds in one game. According to he is a holder of 72 nba records.


Yea, yea. But he was so tall and back then people were shorter than they are today, at least on average. It doesn't take that much skill to just reach out and drop the ball in the basket. He was good, I'm not arguing that, but I don't think he was the "greatest" by any means. Just because he scored 100 in one game shouldn't make him the greatest player ever.

I think Michael Jordan or Pistol Pete should be considered for this honor, however. "He is still the all-time leading NCAA Division I scorer with 3,667 points scored and an average of 44.2 points per game." (1) Stats for Pistol Pete. Stats like that make someone the greatest. Michael Jordan obviously would be a contender.
Debate Round No. 1


Pistol Pete averaged 24.3 points per game in the NBA, I am sure you will agree with me that the NBA is a much tougher league than College Basketball. However Wilt Chamberlain averaged 50.2 points per game in one season and his career average in rebounds is 22.9. Pistiol Pete scored over 50 points 6 times in his career and Wilt averaged that over an 80 game span. Wilt is the only player to average over 40 points a game in a season. Yea he might of been taller but he went against other centers who were in the 6'8" range thats only about 5 inches. It's not like he was a whole foot taller than everyone, look at Yao Ming hes 7'6" does he score over 30 points a game and 20 rebounds? No he doesn't. Wilt Chamberlain also made the NBA change a foul shot rule because he would start from the the top of the key run and jump from the free throw line and dunk it. The stats that he put up are uncomparable to anyone in NBA history, he is the greatest of all time.


"perhaps the greatest creative offensive talent in history" (1)

"In an April 2010 interview, Hall of Fame player John Havlicek said "the best ball-handler of all time was (Pete) Maravich."" - Hall of famer John Havlecik

Most points per game doesn't make you the greatest, but if they did, Pete would still have to be up there with the greatest. "Maravich scored 50 or more points six times and 40 or more points thirty-five times in the regular season. Maravich's career high in the playoffs was 37 points." (2)

I'm not saying Wilt wasn't great, he was. But he was so tall, it didn't take nearly as much talent for him as it would have for a shorter player who had to actually work to get open. Wilt was always open, lol.

(1)Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame. Retrieved October 31, 2008.

Debate Round No. 2


so your saying that because someone said Pete Maravich was the best ball handler of all time that makes him the greatest player of all time? I don't think so, Wilt Chamberlain did it all, scored, rebounded, played solid defense, won 2 championships in his career. I don't understand how Pete Maravich being the best ball handler of all time is relevant to him being the greatest player of all time. Your going to say someone that average under 25 points per game for his career and only averaged 5.4 assists and 4.2 rebounds. Someone that won 0 MVP awards can't be the greatest player of all time, he wasn't even the greatest player of his time period. According to he was ranked as the 37th player of all time. You would have had better luck arguing with Michael Jordan beng the greatest of all time. Pete Maravich may have been the greatest college basketball player of all time but not the greatest player of all time.


I'm not saying Pete is the greatest player ever, but Wilt is not.

Jordan's career average ppg is 30.1 as well.

Also, during the kincks 61-62 season, they were terrible. From 1960 to 1966, the Knicks fell on hard times, and they finished last in the NBA's Eastern Division every year. (1)

So not only was wilt very tall and very good, the Warriors were playing the worse team in the Eastern division.

He was a great basketball player.

If it comes down to most points, I guess Abdul Jabaar should take it. over 38,000 points takes the cake.


Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Andre3000 6 years ago
Wilt was in a different time period where his height and size were so much advantage against the white players plus just because he made 100 points in one game does not make him great if you look at Wikipedia there are high school and other basketball games that people score over 100 points but do they get the credit for it no wilt can't be the greatest basketball player of all time for doing it if he is not the only one who has archived that.
Posted by Alex 7 years ago
The pace of the game was completely different then, it's hard to compare him to more recent players.
Posted by knucklepuk 7 years ago
dhaase you won this debate easily. Con didn't even definitively pick a player that was better than Wilt. If you'd be interested in debating this again I think I could give you a bit more of a challenge.
Posted by Jallen289 7 years ago
Lol. I didn't know the stats, I just felt like debating something different for a change and automatically thought of pistol Pete. Then I saw the stats compared, lol. It's amazing to think what those guys could do without a 3-point line.
Posted by dhaase 7 years ago
lol thank yu i enjoyed the debate, it's nice actually arguing with someone that actually knows their stuff
Posted by Jallen289 7 years ago
Nice debate, lol.

This was a nice change of scenery for me.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by BangBang-Coconut 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: The only thing I can either of you, is a source vote for the Con. I'm a bit disapointed that con didn't play up the fact that there can never be a best at something like a sport or a game. it's all subjective. Neither side really did much in the way of proving they where right either, so that's a huge voting issue as well.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was fragmented.