Talk:Wilt Chamberlain's 100-point game

Rename?

I had proposed merging this to the Wilt Chamberlain article; that didn't seem popular, and I am kinda ambivalent about it after reading the debate. But I do agree with one comment, that this should be moved to a new title that's a little more specific. How about Wilt Chamberlain's 100 point game? It's short and unambiguous. -Cmprince 04:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. You (and Mwelch) have my support on the rename. Myasuda 04:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Support. (Probably not much of a surprise, eh?) 8-) Mwelch 08:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment Just to flesh things out, and since there's no real important deadline, how about these other alternatives: Wilt Chamberlain's record 100 point game or Wilt Chamberlain's NBA record 100 point game? Quadzilla99 13:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd stick with just Wilt Chamberlain's 100 point game Mwelch 21:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Semantically, the game isn't the record, Chamberlain's score is, so it's not really a "record game." Logistically, what happens if/when the record is broken? Kobe Bryant scored 81 recently, so it's not inconceivable. -Cmprince 01:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Then it would no longer be Wilt Chamberlain's record 100 point game. As for your semantics the title could be changed to "record setting 100 point game". The proposed title sounds too trivial to me. Quadzilla99 23:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, Oppose to the proposed title. Quadzilla99 23:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't like it but 3-1 is probably consensus, so if anyone is paying attention you can go ahead and merge. Quadzilla99 11:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I just made the move. Note that I chose to use the dash between "100" and "point" because most media references and official mentions of it (like mentions on the nba.com web site and so forth) use it. Mwelch 19:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Uncited text

I moved this from the article (and moved the link to "External links"). It may be replaced if properly cited:

Random House, the Publisher of "Wilt 1962" created a link advertising the book, and the link also includes audio of the entire 4th Quarter of Wilt's 100 point game, including the last 46 seconds. The link can be found at: http://www.randomhouse.com/crown/wilt/. Even Chamberlain himself had always maintained that the final 46 seconds of the game were never played. When an audio recording of the entire 4th quarter surfaced in the early 1990s, Wilt himself sat literally dumbfounded as he listed to the recording of the broadcast, and was astonished to learn that the game was, indeed, played to a conclusion. "I honestly do not remember anything about that (the final 46 seconds)", said Wilt after hearing the tape. It is apparently true that Chamberlain simply stood at the mid-court circle during the final 46 seconds of that game.

PRRfan (talk) 13:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Wilt being unable to remember the final 46 seconds of the game is documented in the book "Wilt: Larger Than Life" by Robert Cherry published in 2004. The story of Wilt's finding out (in 1990) that the final 46 seconds were actually played is found on page 112 of the softcover edition (Chapter 7: A Record For The Ages) The story quotes Todd Caso, a producer for NBA Entertainment: "He (Wilt) sat in my office in 1990 and I played part of the radiocast of the 100 point game for him...Wilt had been telling people for decades that it was the only game in NBA history that was never completed. He and I sat there, and he listened to the remaining 46 seconds of the game. He was incredulous that it actually happened. He turned to me and said "I don't remember a single thing about this"...then he mentioned that Wilt just stood near halfcourt for the rest of the game, because he wanted to end with exactly 100 points.

I also have video of an interview with Wilt from (I think) 1987, which would have been the 25th anniversary of his game. I think Pat O'Brien of CBS did the interview which was telecast during a CBS game of the week (perhaps the Lakers/Celtics game in February of that year, but I'm not sure). I actually have a few interviews with Wilt from that period, but he did always insist that his 100 point game was never finished. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bd001217 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Final score

I understand that the 169-147 final score has been broken several times since. However, each noted case has been in OT, while this final score was in regulation. Is this still the record for a regulation game? Glenn L (talk) 18:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry – I didn't see this question until just now. The answer is no. For example, Golden State defeated Denver 162 to 158 in a regulation game on November 2, 1990 (320 total points). See [1]. In addition to this game, Denver defeated San Antonio 163 to 155 on January 11, 1984 (318 total points). This was the game that broke the regulation record for total points. — Myasuda (talk) 01:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Myasuda, thanks for that clarification, which doesn't appear in the article as the overtime records do. Glenn L (talk) 23:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

When I loaded this page it was vandalized so that all the numbers were ridiculously high. Someone reverted the edit, but in many cases numbers still appear wrong (300 instead of 100 in multiple places). Someone who knows the numbers and wikipedia better should go through and double check them all. Action against the user(s) responsible for the vandalism would probably be a good idea too. 71.201.243.242 (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Enquiry

Resolved

 – Question on Bork reference resolved.

I made an enquiry about this article here. Thank you--Arnaugir (talk) 20:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

"Setting a then-record"

Resolved

 – "then-record" is appropriate.—Bagumba (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

"Setting a then-record" is awkward and redundant. All records were records "then" when they were set. If we feel it is important to stress that this is no longer a record, can we find a better way to do so? --Doradus (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't claim to be the best writer, but it is a common term based on a Google news search. It seems to be a convenient way to say a record was set, but it no longer stands. The alternative is a longer "The Warriors won the game 169–147, setting a record for the most combined points in a game by both teams with 316. It was later broken when the Detroit Pistons defeated the Denver Nuggets 186–184." However, the details of how the record was later broken is not relevant to the lead, and it is instead in the body. Omitting "then-record" leaves the record's current status unknown and perhaps gives the impression that it still stands.—Bagumba (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you mean. I'll revert my own revert. Thanks. --Doradus (talk) 13:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Chamberlain's NBA titles and comparison to Russell

Information on his titles and a comparison to Russell was deleted. I had debated myself if this was more related to his bio, but decided to add it here for the following reasons:

1. This game is widely considered Wilt's greatest achievement. It helps to see his other high level achievements.
2. Chamberlain being viewed an individualist vs a team player, and this being his ultimate individual achievement, it puts the arguments into context when seen against Russell.
3. If we go into the championships, it seemed notable that he played a role as a lesser scorer. I intentionally did not get into the fact that he was older and physically limited by then, arguments that he wasn't a team player until then, that the Celtics had arguably better players, etc.

Appreciate any thoughts on the merits of the points above or how to present this better (if at all).—Bagumba (talk) 05:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

My inclination would be against using as indeed beyond the scope of this article and much more suited to his biography article. If someone told me I had to include it, then I'd put it at the end of the previous paragraph, since that's the one that provides the context about comparisons between Chamberlain and Russell. Again though, my first choice would be to just not have it there at all. Mwelch (talk) 05:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Note there is also the following in the last "Legacy" paragraph: "Although Chamberlain won two NBA championships and was the NBA's all-time leading scorer and rebounder when he retired, he was mostly remembered as the man who had single-handedly scored 100 points in a game." A common question by those not familiar with Wilt and NBA would be, "Why?" IMO a couple of sentences saves many from having to read an entire article.—Bagumba (talk) 06:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The excised text does not answer this question at all. If you're looking for a forum to discuss the Chamberlain versus Russell rivalry, then you can augment the text at List of career achievements by Wilt Chamberlain#Chamberlain-Russell rivalry or even create an article devoted to the rivalry. It is fully deserving (and overdue) of a dedicated wikipedia article. This article, however, is not the appropriate place to insert such detail. If you want to direct the reader's attention to specific details of Chamberlain's career, you can insert wikilinks to the subsections of the relevant articles. — Myasuda (talk) 15:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. I now realize the text in question was compensating for Wilt_Chamberlain#Legacy needing to be improved, as it covers neither the 100-point game nor his rivalry with Russell. In the interim, we can either

1. Restore the text, which ideally needs to be removed from here and preserved (and expanded) in another article later.
2. Put links or "See alsos" to Wilt_Chamberlain#Legacy and List_of_career_achievements_by_Wilt_Chamberlain#Chamberlain-Russell_rivalry (others?), none of which currently discusses the 100-point's game legacy in the context of his other achievements.
3. Wait until the other article(s) are improved before any further mention is made in this article.

—Bagumba (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's what I suggest for now (feel free to disagree). I definitely agree that Wilt_Chamberlain#Legacy can be expanded and improved, discussing among other things, the impact of his career on the NBA in general rather than just limiting the discussion to his individual awards and accomplishments. But it seems to me that the bulk of what you are aiming to do can be done within the article List of career achievements by Wilt Chamberlain. In that article, you have a comprehensive listing of his statistical accomplishments (supplying context) and you have ready-made sections covering much of what you aim to highlight: List of career achievements by Wilt Chamberlain#The 100-point game, List of career achievements by Wilt Chamberlain#Chamberlain-Russell rivalry, List of career achievements by Wilt Chamberlain#Reputation, and even List of career achievements by Wilt Chamberlain#Rule changes. You could do a great service by expanding these subsections, and perhaps eventually the Chamberlain-Russell rivalry could be spun off into a separate article as discussed above. — Myasuda (talk) 21:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I admittedly only quickly browsed List of career achievements by Wilt Chamberlain, figuring it was a list with not as much prose as it actually does have. I would think "Reputation" would be better moved to his bio. Thanks for pointing out what is already in other articles. I'm almost burnt out on Chamberlain edits, so I might not immediately get to cleaning up the other articles. I'll try to find a happy medium in the interim. I invite others as well to move any content from here that might be better suited to other articles.—Bagumba (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the name of the article List of career achievements by Wilt Chamberlain is misleading. So, I've opened up a discussion Talk:List of career achievements by Wilt Chamberlain#Article name and content to solicit suggestions on how best to address this. By the way, thank you for all the work you've done in significantly improving this article! — Myasuda (talk) 11:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Boxscore layout

Resolved

 – Boxscore presentation was made contiguous.—Bagumba (talk) 17:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Any particular reason the game summary using {{basketballbox}} is spaced apart from the actual box score. IMO it would look better to have them together.—Bagumba (talk) 05:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed—Chris!_c/t 05:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

No particular reason, I only borrowed the format from 1951 NBA All-Star Game where the game summary is followed by a report on the game. Anyway, I've moved the game summary back together. It does look better this way. — MT (talk) 07:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

footage

there is some claimed footage here at 5:48 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8Q4UaQ02zs

Bork

There is reference to "Bork, p. 33–35" without any links to the source (the book, I gues). I'm pinging @Bagumba: as I can see that he is one of the main contributors of article (you could at least know, who should be pinged next :) ). --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 10:24, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I had filled in the reference a few years back.[2]. Must have got broken at some point. I'll go and fix it. Nice catch.—Bagumba (talk) 22:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Clarifying Detail as to the technique Wilt Utilized to accomplish this feat: Underhanded Free Throws

I'm proposing that we add detail to the opening section of this article, regarding the technique Wilt used to score 28/32 free throws this night. I've made this edit a few times, but due to a myriad of rationale, it has been reverted back to it original opening which leaves out the single most important detail of the entire section. Concerns have been addressed as follows: 1.) The detail is mentioned in the body of the article, so it shouldn't be mentioned in the opening. Response: This holds true for all articles, the opening serves as a summary of the body, this detail is relevant. Far more relevant than the detail calling out the absence of the New York press at the event, which closes the said paragraph. 2.) The detail added isn't cited. Response: Citation is not allowed in the opening paragraph and does exist in the body below. 3.) The detail is not grammatically correct or worded properly. Response: The detail should be re-worded in a way to make that possible as opposed to being deleted all together. When a basketball player makes a change to his game and yields a huge accomplishment such as this, I am of the opinion, that it is of extreme importance to call out the change that was made in the opening to clearly articulate how it happened. Thoughts? Adidasmjo (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD: "the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources.". His shooting underhanded just isnt discussed much relative to this game. It is worth mentioning, and it's already recieved due weight in the article's body. Pomerantz's book which is dedicated to the 100-point game put little emphasis on his free throw technique.—Bagumba (talk) 00:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Bagumba (talk So by that logic, there are a lot of details in the lead that don't fit the criteria outlined. I suggest a full reconstruction of the paragraph and place all future information that is accepted, under the same level of scrutiny. Agreed? Additionally, the fact that it isn't talked about makes it of more importance because it paints the proper narrative, he accomplished the feat by doing something differently. He never had another 100 point game in his career because he stopped shooting underhanded free throws. So if anything makes it into the lead due weight the style of his shooting should be spoken to before we mention the absence of the New York Press. Adidasmjo (talk) 17:48, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to get consensus for any changes you are pondering. Be careful that you are not trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS re: the free throws, and I trust you are not making a point by suggesting that the lack of coverage for the game hasnt been oft discussed since. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 18:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

This was Gimpy's second 100-point game

I need to find the microfilm Philadelphia Inquirer &/or Evening Bulletin articles and scan them for references; but in fact "Gimpy" had scored 100 points in a game at Overbrook High in early 1955. The reason I know this is that my late father, Joe Schwartz of Westbury Drive in Overbrook Park, was in the famous gym with the backboards bolted to the unpadded brick walls, and with no seats.

Since my late father was on the track & field team (cross-country), he was the athletic rep for his homeroom; and he distributed sporting event tickets, keeping the scarce basketball tickets for himself and his friends. Gimpy was Track & Field teammates with my father — The only white guy on the team, as per the famous team photo in the Overbrook `55 yearbook — with Wilt specializing in shotput and the javelin throw, which for the latter — to this day— he still holds the City high school record.

Wilt's nickname of "Gimpy" was what he preferred: The "Wilt the Stilt" moniker was applied later in his career when he was at Univ. of Kansas by a sportswriter… And he hated it.

Wilt's unofficial "friendly nickname" among his track & field teammates would be Politically Incorrect today, as it was "Spearchucker," which he relished with delight.

In the spring of 1955, everyone knew he was going to Kansas: He was driving around West Philly in a brand new Oldsmobile convertible… with Kansas tags!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Discpad (talk • contribs) 04:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Discpad: The article mentions him scoring 90 in a high school game. At List of basketball players who have scored 100 points in a single game, there is mention of him scoring 100+ in an amateur game but with no other details. —Bagumba (talk) 09:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)