![]() ![]() Barkley and Malone are both Hall of Famers and two of the 50 greatest players of all-time. This may be the most difficult “who’s better” I’ve ever done. By 2003, Chuck was on TNT, kissing donkeys and trying to outsprint old men. In 1987, both were already dropping 20/10. ![]() The Mailman delivered for longer, finished with more individual accolades and had more team success. Various reasons – constant partying, coming into camp every year out of shape and an infatuation with doing things the hard way – caused Chuck’s prime to last for about half as long as Malone’s. Malone finished with 14 All-NBA teams (including 11 consecutive from 1989 to ’99) Barkley, just 11. Malone also won two MVPs while Barkley earned just one. Barkley was awful on defense, while Malone was at least respectable (and even made three All-NBA Defensive first teams). If you were starting a franchise and had the choice of a 22-year-old Malone or a 22-year-old Barkley, it’s not even a question.ĭefensively? Please. Chuck missed 207 games during the same period (despite playing three less seasons). Or how about 207 to 10? Malone MISSED 10 GAMES IN 18 YEARS (it wasn’t until his final year – in L.A. Conference Finals trips? Malone had six runs. By average, Barkley might’ve been the better rebounder (11.7 to Malone’s 10.1), but Malone scored more (25 a night to 22.1). The craziest number of all: Malone scored nearly 15,000 more points throughout his career than Barkley, and has him beat in every single major category for their careers. During that same period, if someone had called to check Malone’s availability, offering anyone outside of Michael Jordan, Larry Miller and the Jazz would’ve laughed and hung up before the person could’ve even finished their sentence. In ’98, Barkley got hurt and guess what? Malone and the Jazz beat them again.Īctually, with the best teams Barkley ever played on – the mid-’90s Suns – he blew a 2-0 lead heading home against Houston in 1994, then a 3-1 lead the following year against the same team.Ĭhuck was traded twice in his prime. But in ’97, Malone and the Jazz beat them. And while you didn’t expect the Mailman to deliver in a close game, Barkley wasn’t exactly UPS either.Įven though Malone’s best chances at a title (’95-98) produced zero rings, Barkley was playing on a Houston team that was expected to win titles (or at least be in the Finals). Because we like him so much now, we forget: Barkley had even LESS success in the playoffs then Malone. On the other hand, Chuck used perhaps his greatest gift (his mouth) to turn himself into the ringleader of the greatest basketball-related show ever. That was his vice, and rather than the consistent work he put in for nearly two decades, that became his legacy. ![]() He was a great player who failed in crunch time. In the aftermath of Chicago’s sixth NBA championship, and Utah’s second consecutive loss in the Finals, we all had Karl Malone pegged. Why? Inevitably, you’ll confuse Charles Barkley the player with Charles Barkley the must-see TV (the guy we love, and as a result, the guy you probably believe was better than Malone)… Who was the better player: Karl Malone or Charles Barkley? We argue. So why now? No reason, other than it’s always fun to debate. Karl Malone and Charles Barkley carried the power forward torch for nearly two decades (two decades that also happened to hold the best collection of big-men talent the game has ever seen). The other, a farm boy from Louisiana who dropped out of the limelight the minute he said goodbye to the NBA. Two complete opposites, one an out-going, comedian who’s perhaps become more famous since his retirement. Two franchise enforcers who never won rings. Two of the best 20-25 players of all-time. Two of the greatest power forwards who ever lived. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |