If you are a basketball fan, chances are you have either believed at one time or still believe that Wilt Chamberlain is on the Mount Rushmore of professional basketball. Part of the reason you believe this is because he did things like score 100 points in an NBA game and average 50 points over an entire season. These feats are pretty spectacular. The other part of the reason you believe this is because people who don’t understand how much competition level matters tell you it’s true. So, it must be, right? Well, I’ll let you decide, but for all his exploits on the court, Chamberlain had the largest decline in career scoring average from regular season to playoffs in NBA history, played in a league that had just nine players who were taller than 6’9, and shot just 50% from the field during his record breaking season, including a meager 46.7% in the playoffs, despite playing against, by far, the weakest competition in NBA history. In fact, it wasn’t until he cut his field goal attempts in half during his age-30 season that his teams started to have success in the playoffs. Yes, all of those record breaking offensive achievements likely prevented playoff success. There are several players in NBA history who would have had little problem matching Chamberlain’s scoring prowess had they been afforded 40 shots per game by their head coach, and they likely would’ve done so with a much higher shooting percentage. This isn’t a Wilt thing, it’s an era thing. Chamberlain was the greatest player of a really flawed era. 

Let’s get right into the ugly underbelly of Chamberlain’s competition. We cannot begin any conversation about Chamberlain’s status on the all-time list without loudly and emphatically stating that he did his cooking on “easy mode.” He was not only the tallest player in the NBA, but he was also at least three inches taller than 92% of the league, and at least six inches taller than 78% of the league. In fact, there were only nine players in the NBA who were taller than 6’9 in 1962. By 1982, that number had ballooned to 73. Height is a physical trait, not a skill. Yet, 21 of the first 25 NBA MVPs played center. That says quite a bit about what was important in the NBA in the 1960s. As the league became more skilled, being tall stopped mattering as much. Starting with Larry Bird’s MVP in the 1983-84 NBA season, 34 of the next 37 NBA MVPs were not centers. Magic and Bird ushered in the era of skill, and the league has not looked back. Chamberlain was tall and athletic, and that was largely it. NBA competition was so watered down in the 60s that being tall and athletic was the only prerequisite to dominating the league. It is not hyperbole to suggest that DeAndre Jordan would have been a monster in the 1960s.  Footwork, skill, handles, and high-efficient shooting were merely a pipe dream. Chamberlain exclusively played within 10 feet of the basket because he had to. Consider he shot just 51% from the free throw line despite having nearly 12,000 attempts to figure it out. That’s worse than Shaq! 

Now, about that 100 point-game and 50-point scoring average.  On March 2, 1962, Wilt Chamberlain scored 100 points in an NBA game against a New York Knicks team that had just one player in the starting lineup taller than 6’6 (Cleveland Buckner, 6’9). Chamberlain hoisted a ludicrous 63 field goal attempts along with 32 free throw attempts, which means he took roughly 80 shots from the field if we include shot attempts in which he was fouled. Nobody has ever come close to taking that many shots in a single NBA game. In fact, Chamberlain missed 27 shots. Michael Jordan and LeBron James never averaged 27 shot attempts in their entire careers. For perspective, David Robinson entered the final game of the 1993-94 regular season in a razor-close battle with Shaquille O’Neal for the league scoring title. Robinson dropped 71 points largely by being force-fed the ball, just like Chamberlain’s teammates did in 1962. In a significantly more competitive NBA landscape, Robinson was much more efficient in his 71-point game than Chamberlain was in his 100-point game, beating him not just in field goal percentage (63.4% to 57.1%), but also in True Shooting % (68.3% to 64.9%). Robinson also scored 63% of San Antonio’s points compared to Chamberlain scoring 60% of Philadelphia’s. Several players throughout the history of the NBA had the talent to score 100 points in a game had they been gifted 80+ shot attempts, and many would’ve done it more efficiently. Robinson’s 71-point game provides a glimpse of that. The reason NBA teams don’t allow players to shoot that many times in a game is because it’s inefficient against good defenses. Chamberlain’s playoff success, or lack thereof, supports this.

Chamberlain took a lot of shots, and he missed a lot of shots. This is best exemplified by the 1961-62 season in which he averaged an NBA single-season record 50.4 points per game. While he chucked shots in 1962 like nobody before or since, he also missed a remarkable 1,562 shots, which is, by far, the highest total in NBA history. Nobody else has even missed 1,300 shots in a season. Chamberlain’s field goal percentage during his record-setting season was just 50.6%, despite shooting almost exclusively within 10 feet of the basket and playing against players who were several inches shorter than he was. That percentage would be borderline unplayable for a high-volume center in today’s NBA.

In the early days of the NBA, the league was regional, and the money was not lucrative. This resulted in a small talent pool to draw from. To water the league down even more, unofficial racial quotas made the league largely inaccessible to black athletes. Only 25% of the NBA was black in 1962. That number has been steadily above 70% since the late 70s. Chamberlain feasted on this compromised league and, even then, his numbers plummeted when it mattered most. Consider his career regular season scoring average was an impressive 30.1 points, but his playoff scoring average fell to just 22.5 points. While the league overall was competitively weak, there were good teams with legitimate defenses. These teams made life quite difficult for Chamberlain despite the fact that he was the most physically gifted player in the league by leaps and bounds. Modern basketball players prove every day that there’s more to the game than size and athleticism. That was true even in the 1960s as the Boston Celtics proved repeatedly throughout Chamberlain’s career. For all his dominance, Chamberlain was just 1-7 in playoff series against the Celtics.  

Wilt Chamberlain was the greatest basketball player of all-time once upon a time. He was the king of his era, but his era was a small pond compared to the lakes and oceans that have existed since. It’s OK to acknowledge how much better Chamberlain was than the very homogenized collection of athletes that existed in the league’s infancy. It’s also OK to rate him higher than any player from his era. In fact, it would be illogical not to. However, it is disrespectful to the sport to ignore how little skill was involved in professional basketball in the 1960s. It’s also disrespectful to the stars who have thrived in a drastically more inclusive and competitive NBA environment in the six decades since. 

Tiger Woods and Jack Nicklaus are the two greatest golfers of all-time by just about the size of the universe. There is nobody else even remotely close to challenging the throne. So while golf features the closest two-player GOAT race in sports, the race for the third spot is wide open. There are no fewer than seven golfers who have a legitimate argument as the third greatest of all-time. It’s not hard to put together a compelling case for each, but there is plenty of evidence to suggest that Phil Mickelson has the best argument of the group. Among golfers born since WWII, only Tiger Woods (82) has more PGA Tour titles than Mickelson (45). In fact, besides Woods, only Tom Watson (39) is within 10 of Mickelson’s mark, and only Vijay Singh (34), Rory McIIroy (27) and Johnny Miller (25) are within 20. Mickelson’s case doesn’t just rely on being the most prolific golfer on the PGA Tour outside of Tiger Woods since WWII. His performance at major championships and The Players Championship (TPC) also supports his claim. Among golfers outside of Woods born since WWII, only Tom Watson (8) has won more majors than Mickelson (6). Watson is among the golfers who have a legitimate claim to the third spot, but Mickelson just might have a more impressive resume despite winning fewer majors. Mickelson won the TPC which Watson did not, and in the history of golf, nobody outside Nicklaus (37) and Woods (22) has more top-two finishes at majors than Mickelson (18). The same is true for top-three, top-five, and top-10 major finishes.

It’s clear that Mickelson’s competition for the 3rd spot really only includes Watson and people who were born prior to WWII when golf was nowhere near as competitive as it has been in the 21st century. Not only did Mickelson face the most competitive field the sport has ever seen, he had the misfortune of his peak coinciding with the juggernaut that was Tiger Woods. Watson, for all his accolades, did not have to contend with Nicklaus’s peak. Mickelson had no such luck as he landed smack dab in the eye of the Tiger storm. Yet, Mickelson still managed to outperform every golfer of the past 50 years outside of Woods. This is a significant advantage in Mickelson’s favor over the others in the running.  

However, it’s not just the degree of difficulty that gives Mickelson the inside track at the third spot, it’s how much more impressive he was than every other golfer outside of Woods from his era. Walter Hagen (1913), Bobby Jones (1916) and Gene Sarazen (1920) all debuted at majors within seven years of each other and have fairly similar career accomplishments. Ben Hogan (1934), Sam Snead (1937), and Byron Nelson (1937) all debuted at majors within three years of each other, and have fairly similar career accomplishments. Arnold Palmer (1952) and Gary Player (1956) debuted at majors within four years of each other and also have fairly similar career accomplishments. Outside of Tiger Woods, there isn’t a golfer who debuted in the last 50 years who is even in the same stratosphere as Mickelson. No golfer other than Woods in that span has more major championships, 2nd place finishes, or top-two finishes. In fact, nobody outside of Woods is even close. Mickelson has a whopping 18 top-two finishes at major events. Outside of Woods, only Greg Norman (10) and Ernie Els (10) are within eight of Mickelson over the past 50 years. Similarly, nobody who debuted outside of Woods in the past 50 years is even close to Mickelson’s 25 top-three finishes. Only Els (15) is within 10 of Mickelson. The same goes for top-five and top-10 finishes. Outside of Woods, only Els (23), Norman (20), and Nick Faldo (19) are within 10 of Mickelson’s 29 top-5 finishes, and only Els (35), McIIroy (31), and Norman (30) are within 10 of Mickelson’s 40 top-10 finishes. 

Ernie Els, Greg Norman, Nick Faldo, Brooks Koepka, and Rory McIIroy are the most accomplished golfers to debut in the last 50 years outside of Woods and Mickelson. However, the resume comparisons between those four and Mickelson end in a blowout in favor of Mickelson. With Woods and Nicklaus in a different dimension, Mickelson’s relative dominance over the most competitive 50-year stretch of golf that the PGA Tour has ever seen makes him a worthy selection for the 3rd spot on the all-time list. The argument for someone in the Hogan, Snead, Nelson triumvirate could’ve been strengthened had eight* major championships not been canceled during WWII. However, without knowing who would’ve won those tournaments, there’s no way to prorate resumes.

* There were actually 14 majors that were canceled, but the best American golfers like Hogan, Snead, and Nelson typically did not compete in the Open Championship (The British Open) during this era. Therefore it is unlikely that their resumes were negatively impacted by the six Open Championships that were not held.