[Dazzling Dunks and Basketball BloopersParticipant]

 The recent power forward thread got my brain going. I’ve always had my own personal opinion on Barkley vs Malone and I just wanted to see if how many people here agree. These guys both came into the league and reached their prime at roughly the same time. They were far and away the 2 best pfs of their generation and were compared throughout their careers. While I believe that Malone had the better overall career due to consistency, durability and longevity, I’m actually of the opinion that Barkley at his best was the better player of the 2.

I believe Barkley was the more versatile player, better rebounder, more dynamic scorer and better passer. Malone played his entire career in the same system that was specifically designed to maximize his offensive potential. He also had the benefit of playing with maybe the best pure passer ever. Barkley never had that luxury. He had a perimeter game, ability to handle the ball that Malone didn’t have. While Malone was primarily a finisher, Barkley had to create his own shot the majority of his career. His defensive effort could have probably been better at times, but when engaged he was a pretty good defender for his size. He was actually a guy that had the footspeed to stay in front of a lot of guards. In today’s league, I think it’s very possible he could be considered a plus defender.

The one thing that Barkley didn’t have was Malone’s insane work ethic and commitment to conditioning which is probably why he outlasted him and had the better career. But I still maintain that when both were at their best, Barkley was the slightly better player.What are your thoughts?

 

 

[whiteflashParticipant]

 

Charles Barkley is one of the top 5 physical specimens in NBA history. His speed, strength and explosiveness for a guy his size and build were insane. In his prime it was common to see him snatch a rebound, sprint past everyone on the floor while weaving through traffic and finish with a dunk that left the whole basket rattling. A true physical marvel. 

He was definitely more naturally talented than Malone, and his best statistical seasons were probably better, but as you pointed out Malone outworked him (and basically everyone else) and had the benefit of playing with not just the best pure passer, but who I consider the best pure point guard in league history. 

It’s close, but if we’re going on pure ability I think Barkley is the best individual PF of all time. In a team setting I’d probably put him behind Malone and Duncan, though I’d have to think about it.

 

[llperez]

Barkley being one of the 5 best physical specimens in nba history has to be one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read in this site

[whiteflashParticipant]

 That’s because you don’t know basketball. 

[llperez]

I’ll repeat… wilt, Lebron, Dwight, Greek freak, Blake griffin, Larry nance, kemp..,you tell me which ones Barkley is a better physical specimen than? Oh he could dribble length the court and beat guys off dribble while being strong? So can Julius Randle. Malone was the better physical specimen in this thread title alone

[llperez]

My popcorn is getting cold, I’m waiting to laugh my ass off about how Barkley is such a physical specimen stil, one of the best to ever grace the nba court

[whiteflashParticipant]

 Again, you have absolutely no idea of what you’re talking about. Notice how literally no one else is agreeing with you? Think about that…

[llperez]

 All you’ve said is I don’t know what I’m talking about. You haven’t actually given any reason. Try answering the very simple question I asked you instead of rallying around points and the circle jerk you are having with other people who agree with you. 

[whiteflashParticipant]

 You’ve gotta be trolling. I’ve explained why at least three times now. There’s no way you’re really this dumb…

[llperez]

Still waiting on you to answer question ….

[whiteflashParticipant]

 I have. Several times in fact. So have several others. You’ve also read them as I’m missing exactly one point from all of my posts here, and so is everyone else. So, you can either keep playing (or actually being) dumb and move along or keep writing the ridiculous things you’ve been writing and keep getting told how wrong you are by, well… everyone.

[llperez]

I’ll repeat for third time now, wilt, Dwight, Lebron, nance, Greek freak, Blake griffin, Shawn kemp. According to you, barkley was a better physical specimen then at least 3 of those guys if not more. So now can you answer question or not?

[whiteflashParticipant]

 Dwight Howard posted a max vert of 35" at the NBA combine. Barkley could beat that, and he was quicker, stronger and much more fluid than Howard. Greek Freak is crazy long but isn’t especially quick or athletic. Blake Griffin also posted a max vert of 35", and Is in the same boat as Howard. Shawn Kemp couldn’t Out jump Barkley, wasn’t quicker and definitely wasn’t stronger. Wilt Chamberlain was a giant dominating 6’7" centers. You switch them in their respective era’s and Barkley’s rewritten all of Chamberlain’s records while Wilt would be coming off the bench. Putting Nance here is just silly. James is faster and a better leaped off one foot, but wasn’t near as strong and didn’t explode in traffic like Barkley. You also just unwittingly proved my point. You know what all of the people you mentioned have in common? TRAINING. Every single one of them was fanatical about fitness to improve their games. Barkley NEVER DID ANY OF THAT. He’d drink, stay out late, eat like sh!+ and physically dominate everyone he played against, and do it while being at least half a foot shorter and seemingly chubby. So, in conclusion, Charles Barkley is EASILY one of the five most impressive physical specimens in NBA history. 

[whiteflashParticipant]

 Dwight Howard posted a max vert of 35" at the NBA combine. Barkley could beat that, and he was quicker, stronger and much more fluid than Howard. Greek Freak is crazy long but isn’t especially quick or athletic. Blake Griffin also posted a max vert of 35", and Is in the same boat as Howard. Shawn Kemp couldn’t Out jump Barkley, wasn’t quicker and definitely wasn’t stronger. Wilt Chamberlain was a giant dominating 6’7" centers. You switch them in their respective era’s and Barkley’s rewritten all of Chamberlain’s records while Wilt would be coming off the bench. Putting Nance here is just silly. James is faster and a better leaped off one foot, but wasn’t near as strong and didn’t explode in traffic like Barkley. You also just unwittingly proved my point. You know what all of the people you mentioned have in common? TRAINING. Every single one of them was fanatical about fitness to improve their games. Barkley NEVER DID ANY OF THAT. He’d drink, stay out late, eat like sh!+ and physically dominate everyone he played against, and do it while being at least half a foot shorter and seemingly chubby. So, in conclusion, Charles Barkley is EASILY one of the five most impressive physical specimens in NBA history. 

[llperez]

 youre pure comedy dude, this shit is funny. Barkley would make explosice plays then jog on defense for the next 2 minutes since he would gas. Im sorry, but height, strength, speed , jumping, all in combination, the guys i mentioned kill him and i could go  on. Why not comare him to guys like julius randle, josh smith, david robinson, michael jordan, russell westrbook on top of all the guys i mentioned? They all kill him in terms of "PHYSICAL SPECIMEN", hell barkley himself said he wasnt the tallest, the fastest nor could he out jump everyone. But he worked hard. You could argue an unproven deandre ayton is a better physical specimen. You on some crazy shit here. But go ahead and ride with gassing ass basic dunking barkley who was shorter then most bigs  and slower than most 6-6 wings your god like praise. Im cracking up over here. Even your arguments dont make sense. For example you say barkley is beter PHYSICAL SPECIMAN than wilt chamberlain becasue barkely would dominate the same comp more. Okay, then if thats your logic, then larry bird was a superior physical specimen then barkley since he did in fact dominate competition more than barkley did while he was gassing out and playing sub par defense all career long. 

[whiteflashParticipant]

 Your lack of common sense, reading comprehension and basketball knowledge is truly astounding. Again, NO ONE is agreeing with you. Maybe you should find a new hobby. I’m done schooling you. Have a good’n. 

[llperez]

If I wanted to get people to agree with me, i could start a seperate thread asking about barkley being a pbetter physical speciment then the numerous guys ive mentioned and we could get more responses but i dont care to becasue quite frankly im pretty done with this as you are. And you questioning my knowledge while making the argument that barkley was a better physical specimen then lebron james is hysterical. I thought for sure even if you wanted to go back at me you wold leave lebron out of it and accept he was ahead of barkley, but nope. You went in on lebron’s weaknesses too. I mean that was a gimme and if i created a athread just narrowing it down to him vs barkley, i can assure you would get destroyed in points and a couple of guys agreeing since you seem to care so much about that. However, despite our disagreement on this, i wont encourage you to find a new hobby. Basketball is awesome. been playing my whole life, have gone toe to toe with numerous nba players and play in a league to this very day at 37 years old (went undefeated this past year). I love this sport and encourage everyone to enjoy it as much as possible. Good day

[whiteflashParticipant]

 Show me where I wrote that Barkley is a better physical specimen than James. If you can’t even understand what you’re reading, then you have no business trying to debate. I’m done responding. Take it easy.

[llperez]

 i asked over and over to tell me which of those 7 guys i mentioned were worse physical specimens then barkley. You responded by breaking down their weaknesess. You didnt specifically say any of them were worse then barkley. I assumed you would not waste both our time by responding to them as individuals if you didnt think barkley was better. But apparently you did. So why even respond if you werent goign to answer my question i keep asking over and over? SO you still havent told me which guys barkley is a better physicsal specimen then. If you cant answer the most simple and basic of questions, then there is no debate here. Its just you spouting off and not backing it up

[whiteflashParticipant]

 I know I wrote I wouldn’t respond, but this is insane. You either have a legitimate mental disability or are trolling. Either way, you need help, man. I’m being completely serious. A 37 year old shouldn’t struggle with basic reading comprehension and processing of clearly written messages like that, and DEFINITELY shouldn’t be trolling on the internet. Go seek help.

[llperez]

Dude, you keep responding with insults and I’m still asking the same plain as day simple as it gets question I’ve been asking for over a week that you still haven’t answered, keep throwing insults because you sure as hell aren’t doing anything remotely resembling smarts

[RUDEBOY-Participant]

 1 stat that amazes me is even tho Barkley was known as a point forward. Malone has about 1000 more career assists than he does. Malone has the edge in defense. But Sir Charles was the more versatile scorer .Barkley was about 6’4 played PF during what might be the NBA’s greatest era of bigs. And yet he was dominant on the boards. Malone developed his mid range shot about midway through his career. Both guys would still be amongst the NBA’s top players today. 

[whiteflashParticipant]

 Malone played longer. Barkley has a higher career apg average. Barkley was also a much better rebounder, and shot a higher percentage from the field.

[high floorParticipant]

Barkley was more exciting, and had a bit more flair / personality to his game…….. but I have to respect & go with Karl. Work ethic is a skill……. and he was one of the game’s all-time most committed / focused athletes.

Also as a side note, the mailman was ruthless. He gave Isiah Thomas a WWE elbow resulting in 40+ stitches in 1991 & had the audacity to flirt with Kobe’s wife at one of their Laker’s game. Not supporting either incident, but damn………

[EndlessknightParticipant]

Once saw a national TV interview where call Kobe out for a fight! Not joking. Said he loved playing with Shaq but Kobe had an open invitation to meet him in the parking lot.

[llperez]

 I watched both their primes and got heavy into watching the nba when Barkley was a sixer. I think it’s close but give me Malone. His defense was far superior, like not even in the same realm. And you can’t simply dismiss longevity and consistency. Barkley was more skilled and flashy but Malone was just so consistent night in and night out. Jumper was solid, passing very underrated(although below Barkleys) and he ran the court like a freight train. 

 

 

[cabbycabParticipant]

 I’ve said this before, but Barkley might be the best natural bball player of all time.  The reason why I say this is because the guy never practiced or worked on his game and he still dominated.  Danny Ainge, his teammate in Phoenix said he never saw Charles work on his game outside of team practice.  On the other hand he said Bird was constantly working on his game.  CB just dominated with natural physical abilites.  Unreal, and otherwordly what he was able to do in this frame.  Forget top 5, he might be top 3 physical specimen in history. 

[llperez]

 He dominated based primarily on skill. He wasn’t taller, longer, faster, quicker etc… what’s your basis for being one of the very best  physical specimens to ever play in the nba? Just being awesome despite being primarily physically inferior in most regards? He’s like the anti Dwight Howard. Now which one of those 2 do you think qualifies as the better physical specimen? 

[cabbycabParticipant]

" Anti Dwight Howard ".  Yup, that’s my point.  He does not have the body of Adonis.  Basically short, fat dude dunking on people.  Physical specimen as in doing things someone his size shouldn’t be doing.  

[llperez]

Again, he did things on the court due primarily to skill. Wasn’t like he was just going between the legs with tomahawk dunks and sprinting past everyone. Even his breakaway fastbreaks had more to do with ball handling and head of steam. He wasn’t regualarly leading breaks.

But if your defenitely of the top 3 greatest physical specimens in the history of the nba is the slow fat short guy then this back and forth is useless because we clearly have different mind sets on what makes some an elite physical specimen

[whiteflashParticipant]

 You have absolutely no idea of what you’re talking about. 

[llperez]

Wilt chamberlain, Dwight Howard, LeBron James, Larry nance, Blake griffin , Shawn kemp, Greek freak. … I could go on for days but you Tell me , which of those guys is barkley a better “physical specimen” then? Hell hes not even the best physical specimen in the title of this thread. He was known for beating guys DESPITE physical limitations. But he could grab a board and lead the break… so can Julius Randle yawn. You seriously crazy on the this one

[timinator1Participant]

 Barkley, who didn’t work out, was stronger and quicker than his counterparts. He could outrun you down the court, he could push you out of the way with his strength, and he could out jump you. These aren’t skills like ballhandling and jumpshot. He was an athletic unicorn.

[whiteflashParticipant]

 I’m honestly wondering if Perez is confusing Barkley with someone else, or is just trolling. You’d have to put serious effort into being that wrong.

[cabbycabParticipant]

maybe he was thinking about his teammate Oliver Miller….

[whiteflashParticipant]

Literally laughed out loud at this.

[whiteflashParticipant]

 Exactly. Despite the fact that he was shorter and kind of chubby, he was HANDS DOWN the most athletic PF of his era. He was stronger, faster and could out jump literally everyone else at his position. A total physical anomaly.

[whiteflashParticipant]

 What are you talking about? Barkley was faster and more athletic than literally every other PF of his era. You claim to have watched him in Philly then call him slow. Something doesn’t add up here.

[cabbycabParticipant]

 agreed, completely useless.

[whiteflashParticipant]

Here’s highlights of the “slow, unathletic ” Barkley-
https://youtu.be/mu3vkwP3GHQ

[kobyzParticipant]

 malone had much more refined game, most underrated player ever !

[sweaterflexParticipant]

Barkley is historically underrated and was easily a top 5 player of his era (I would place him behind MJ and Hakeem, ahead of Stockton, Robinson, then Malone). Comparing these two is a good use for advanced stats:Regular Season: bkref.com/tiny/zcI1Q  Playoffs: bkref.com/tiny/KXsi4

Barkley is a little bit better than Malone at almost everything except longevity. Barkley grabbed 45% more offensive rebounds while being an equal on the defensive glass. Barkley had a lower usage rate, but scored more efficiently and got to the free throw rate more despite being a historically bad three point shooter (his biggest weakness, he loved chucking at the end). Barkley was a better distributor, though he also turned the ball over more. He also never played with a point guard as good as Stockton (to be fair, few did). 

 

 

[holefillers1Participant]

 That’s how I remember it.  Air Jordan, The Dream and Sir Charles were the top three players in the league.  Ewing was great during that period as well.  

[whiteflashParticipant]

 I’d put David Robinson ahead of Ewing, but it was pretty close.

[daggers818Participant]

 No Stockton, but I wouldn’t sleep on Kevin Johnson in his day.

[sweaterflexParticipant]

I loved KJ back in the day but he actually had injury plagued, underwhelming years while Barkley was in Phoenix. He was great in the years leading up and had a revival before he retired. A shame he couldn’t keep his hands to himself. 

[whiteflashParticipant]

 KJ is probably the most slept on point guard of all time, and is one of only 3 players in league history to average over 20ppg and 12apg in the same season, but as someone else pointed out he was injury prone and had some less than KJ years at certain points. Dennis Smith Jr actually kind of reminds me of a bigger, modern KJ.

[cabbycabParticipant]

 A favorite of mine as well.  One of the first ( if not the first ) PG to routinely dunk on 7 footers.  The best inside out dribble of all time ( even better than Jason Kidd ).  

[bloodshyParticipant]

Loved both of these guys. I became a basketball fan by watching the Jazz lose to Portland in the 1992 WCFs. My older brother was rooting for Clyde and the Blazers, but I couldn’t root against Malone. It was like watching The Hulk playing bball with mere mortals. 

I tend to agree with the consensus. Both were athletic unicorns at their peak. Barkley was more dynamic and Malone dominated for longer. At their peak they were comparable. In their (arguably) best statistical season Malone posted 31 ppg, 11.1 rpg, 2.8 apg and 1.5 spg, compared to Barkley’s 28.3 ppg, 11.9 rpg, 3.2 apg, 1.3 spg. The high point in each category is also interesting. Barkley posted a whopping 14.6 rpg one year and 5.1 apg in another (compared to Malone’s high marks of 12.0 rpg and 4.7 apg). Top ppg for each were the 31/28 previously listed. 

One big truth that I think is frequently overlooked is how dominant these guys would be today.

Defense: Barkley was a capable defender. He would bang with Malone and (later) Shaq even though he had a major height disadvantage. He could also guard on the outside. In today’s NBA I think he would be even more valuable on D due to his versatility. Malone was faster than most guards while being one of the strongest to ever play the game; he would be great on D now, just like he was in the 80s/90s.

Offense: Barkley played on the outside a bit and had great handles and vision. He averaged .266 on 3s over his career. However, the bulk of Barkley’s work was on the inside. I believe his 3pt% would be much higher had that been a major focus. When Barkley shot the 3 at his highest rates of 2-4 per game (1992 – 1997) he averaged around 30%.

Even moreso than Barkley, there is reason to believe Malone could have been a serious deep threat in today’s game. As was mentioned by others, Malone developed a strong mid-range game, but he almost never shot 3s. In fact, he averaged just .2 attempts per game, posting a .274 3pt% over his career. Many of those taken were out of desperation after a broken P&R at the end of a shot clock. However, in three of his seasons Malone shot .5 threes per game and averaged .372, .268 and .400 during those three seasons. Unfortunately, while Sloan’s system catered to many of Malone’s strengths, it generally viewed 3-pointers as something to be avoided when possible. It makes me wonder what Malone could have done had Sloan’s system been a little more open to letting Malone take 4-5 from deep each game.

Thanks for this post Dazzling! It’s always fun to remember/compare the all-time greats.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[cohenbc1Participant]

 For a brief span, say 1993-97, Shawn Kemp was as good as either of them. 

[Dazzling Dunks and Basketball BloopersParticipant]

 Um no he wasn’t 

[nath09Participant]

 He led the league for years in child support claims. Dominated.

 

 

[whiteflashParticipant]

 Kemp was fun to watch, but people remember him being better than he was. If it wasn’t for the highlight reel dunks, he would’ve probably never been an All-Star. He was good, but never great. Barkley and Malone weren’t just great, they were all-timers.

[r377Participant]

 Malone was more durable. Barkley was a unique athlete, he had a bad back and other injuries but was a great and better player.

If you were to sign each one to a long term contract at 31 or 32yo of age you would go with malone due to his durability, but if you had to choose one against the other in a 7 game series Im picking Barkley.  He was unbelievable, especially since he was actually a bit shorter than Jordan to go up against other PF

 

 

[Author]

Posts