I think I can't make a decision because I haven't seen Wilt's game, have you? At first glance hell no Kobe's isn't more impressive.

kobe's 81 came against the lol raptors

Wilts was also when they had no 3 sec in the key violation. I'm 75 % sure of that. Kobes was against the shitty raptors but its still 81 points due to making every shot possible. He drove to the hoop a million times, made 3s, fadeaways, pull up jumpers, literally every shot. The conditions kobe played in were much harder. He wasn't able to just score 50+ a game because the coach, the team, and opposing nba teams aren't going to let a guard wreck them like that without bringing on tough defense. Wilt definitely dominated which caused his consistent high scoring games. If you're the 7 foot beast that no one can outrebound or block your shot, wouldn't you expect the ball to be fed to you nonstop so you can sit under the basket and make easy layups and dunks. I'm not taking anything away from wilt but if he doesn't have much competition to stop him then the big games are going to be consistent. Kobe wasn't playing aginst great defense but it was still 5 players he was crushing that game. They accepted defeat that game and even started acknowedging kobe's sick shots by smiling and patting him on the butt. Basically I think wilt was crushing players who had no defense for him as far as bigs go while kobe found every way to score that game and his was more significant imo.

Kobe. I've said it a million times.

81 points via jumpshots, layups, freethrows, 3 pointers, fadeaways, post ups, fadeaway 3 pointers, spinning off the glass lefthanded 10 footers, dunks, etc in a more advanced league WILL ALWAYS BE MORE IMPRESSIVE THAN 3 FOOT BABY HOOKS OVER SMALLER, WEAKER PLAYERS.

 

Originally Posted by shanetrain22

kobe wins

Wilt Chamberlain got 100 without a 3 point line. I believe that is a little more impressive.

btw shanetrain i didn't intentionally just respond to you, it just did that for some reason lol.

Sexploits: 20,000 slam dunks
Wilt Chamberlain�s 1991 autobiography, A View from Above, goes some way to revealing
the extent of the basketball star�s sex drive. A cool 20,000 women shared Chamberlain�s
(extra long) bed at one time or another. As Seymour Goldberg puts it: �Some people collect
stamps; Wilt collected women.�
If Chamberlain did indeed bed that many lucky ladies, he certainly had the tool for the job.
Friends of the man asserted that he possessed an 11 inch member that would sometimes
pop out of his shorts during games.
Acknowledged as one of the greatest players in the history of the sport (he once scored 100
points in a single game), Chamberlain defended his astounding sexual statistics, saying that
he never bedded a married woman, and added: �I was just doing what was natural�chasing
good-looking ladies, whoever they were and wherever they were available�
Chamberlain died of congestive heart failure on October 12, 1999 in California.

and not 1 rape

wilt > kobe

I have an irrational hatred of the Lakers but it's Kobe's 81.

 

Originally Posted by 1.21Gigawatts

exactly. Had Wilt Chamberlain had a 3-point line he probably would've scored 100 points.

lool

i may be biased but i'll take kobe's 81. it may be 19 less points and kobe may have the advantage of the 3 (of course partially negated by it very obviously being a more difficult shot) but chamberlain was huge compared to everybody, i'm pretty sure there was no 3 second violation then as somebody mentioned, chamberlain went 36 for 63 from the field (57%) while kobe was 28 of 46 (60%), taking much more difficult shots. chamberlain also was 28 of 32 from the FT line as compared to kobe's 18 of 20, as players were simply fouling at the end of the game (players from both sides actually - the warriors fouled on purpose to extend the game to try to get chamberlain to 100).

 

Originally Posted by 7DeLuX

mj said he could avg what was it like 65?(taking random guess/dont feel like looking) wilt was just dominate in a way other teams were physically unable to stop him..gotta go with wilt but its close..

Why do people constantly use the word 'dominate' when they mean 'dominant'? I see this pretty often, even in the real world.

If I had $1 for every time I read 'dominate' used in this context, I wouldn't have to clean toilets for a living (but can't imagine giving up something you love just for money).

IN B4 DARKPOKER!

At first glance I totally thought it was kobe, just because Wilt was a beast and people weren't built like him back then. However, I did look up the New York Knicks team he did it against and they had two 6'11 guys and a couple of 6'9 guys. I think its so ridiculously close though, either way the best 2 individual scoring games of all time.

I see what your saying and you know what I meant. I am just disagreeing. It is a more difficult shot but it is still an advantage for Kobe getting 3 points for it. I am sure Wilt didn't score all 100 points backing people down. It's simple you take those shots away because if Kobe was playing under Wilt's rules he would have had 7 less points. If we are comparing the two performances I think it's fair to say a 3 point shot is an advantage as it is an extra point every time you hit. I agree on not penalizing a player for harder shots but the fact is they didn't have them back then. That means Kobe wouldn't have ever had 80+ under the rules Wilt had. If you can say ok Kobe can't score easy baskets like Wilt can then why can't you make the argument for Wilt saying ok Wilt can't shoot 3's like Kobe can? Regardless Jodie Meeks 54 point game against tennessee was more impressive then both lol :)

Gotta go with Wilt.

I don't give a fuck about the "buuuuuuuuuuuuuut he was so much bigger than the others" argument, that's horseshit. I'm pretty sure George Muresan was bigger than 99% of the NBA but never scored anywhere close to 100 points. Hell, I'm not even sure if he ever scored close to 40 points. Shaq pretty much dominated everyone when he came onto the scene and never sniffed 100 points. 100 > 81, therefore Wilt's accomplishment is greater.

Both are amazing feats, but I can't fathom how anybody would argue a performance that's 19 points fewer than the other would be more impressive.