Kobe's 81 or Wilt's 100?

Seems like this is the debate of the day around the sports world so who you got?

I think the majority of people that would actually say Wilt just don't like Kobe or are assuming Wilt's game was more impressive just because 100 points is more than 81.

I think when comparing basketball then to basketball now honestly, negativity towards Kobe personally aside, I have to side with Kobe on this one.

Wilt played the entire 48 minutes, and the game became all about trying to get Wilt 100.

Kobe played 6 less minutes, took 17 less shots, 12 less free throws (while shooting a better % on both) and scored 81 in the flow of the game. Remember the Lakers that night were down at the half until Kobe's 55 in the 2nd half got them the W.

Kobe also had 81 of 122 points. 81 and 122 in an era where that is ridiculously above average. Besides the Suns being an outlier at 108 points per game only 4 other teams averaged over a 100. The Lakers averaged 99

Wilt had 100 of 169. The entire league averaged 118, the lowest being 110 and Wilt's own Philly team highest at 125.

Kobe also has Wilt on the NBA being more competitive now than then.

Kobe also has Wilt on the variety of his dominance the night of his 81 point game as opposed to Wilt's just more one dimensional dominance at the center position.

I think if you look at it deep enough it's hard to side with Wilt. Sure, he has the iconic nature of the nice round 100. The historical sentiment. The awe and mystery around the game.

100 being more than 81 is not enough to be more impressive to me. The game has changed.

I agree that Kobe's was more impressive. You presented some very valid points, well thought out.

How many 3's did Kobe had that night? I believe Wilt played at a time when there wasn't a 3 point shot.
Regardless, both were impressive.

Wilt Chamberlain.
That's 19 more points.

Do you think every single player was average 50 points back then?
Yes, teams scored more than they do now but you are also forgetting it was much more of a team game back then than what you see with ISO today.

Also, Kobe took a higher percent of his teams shots. 66% to 59%.
The game had just introduced the shot clock back then and most NBA teams were getting shots off very quick into the shot clock.

There was no 3 point back then but Wilt never took long shots but for comparison sake - Kobe would have 7 less points in the game back then. So that makes it 74 vs 100.

That's 26 point differential in a 48 miinute period. That is very hard to ignore for me to say 74 is better than 100 even if the game HAS changed..that doesn't mean the game is any easier now than it was then.

Also, it's not like there are a bunch of basketball players who scored 100+ back then or even 80+.

It's literally Kobe 81 and Chamberlain 100.
If a bunch of different guys back in Wilt's era were in between Kobe & Chamberlain...you might have a better point with the era differences but 26 points between the most scored versus second most in the same time allowed is a huge differential for me to pass up.

Chamberlain was just a dominant force back then and there were very few teams who could match up with him.
But it isn't his fault that he was the most dominant post-player in the game back then and no one could stop him, no more than is it Kobe's fault that his ball fakes, fade aways, and jump shots are pretty much unstoppable when he is on.

Both great feats by two of the greatest players of all time...

But I got to go with Wilt.

On this day 3/2/2012, 100 is still greater than 81.
And for a real comparison 100 is still greater than 74.

There wasn't a 3 point line, but none of Wilt's shots would have counted for 3

So just for argument's sake...yes, 100 is greater than 81, but do you believe every stat is better simply by being bigger. Like, for example, Barry Bonds, Big Mac, Sosa in an era where HRs were flying left and right vs Maris or Ruth. Are those more impressive? What about Drew Brees passing yards vs Marinos? That's very similar to the Kobe v Wilt argument since both games have changed. Yeah, Brees beat Marino, but the league is pass happy like never before.

The point I tried to make was all of Wilt's points come around the basket (and at the free throw line). Kobe had the benefit of making several three points shots.
Both are still incredible achievements.

My bad, my initial thought was that you were trying to say Wilt would have scored even more if there was a 3 point line.

I think also one thing people forget is that Wilt was 7'1", which was very tall for the 60's. (Don't quote me on that), but the tallest guy on New York was 6'10" but was a below average player. Wilt had a huge height advantage over the opposing team and was more talented. From a scoring perspective, Wilt's is more impressive because he only free throws and two points. Kobe had the three point line to his advantage. But when I look at then and now, Kobe's was better because the competition has greatly increased

Kobe's 81 is more impressive. It is a lot harder for a perimeter player to score that many than a 7'1 center who was 4 inches taller than everyone he played against. Plus Wilt's team was blowing out the Knicks. Here a just a few articles from people who all say the same thing.

http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/22748484/35060192

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=stein_marc&id=2302749

http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports....sive-chamberlains-100-point-game-or-kobes-81/

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/ball_dont_lie/post/Why-Kobe-is-right-there-with-Wilt?urn=nba,71053

20 points is 20 points. Which would be more impressive, a 60 point game for Wilt or a 40 point game for Kobe?

Kobe's.

Difference in competition, Wilt's rare specimen at his time, and type of shots Kobe had to shoot.

However, the fact Wilt's historic game was never televised and the fact that it is seems to be THE mythical number (100) , adds to the mystique of it.

Wilt....

19 more points and they actually tried on defense back then. Plus maybe the biggest reason is there didn't seem to be, at least there is zero talk of it, no blatant star pandering in the NBA or stupid continuation where if you are touched within 5 seconds of shooting the shot counts.

Teams scored more back then than now, as pointed out earlier, with the lowest scoring ball club avg 110 ppg.

I don't understand the defensive jabs at the modern NBA, if the league hated defense so much, why do so many collegiate offensive all-stars never make a dent in the league?