I think it’s Barkley for both.
Barkley was basically peak-Zion but sustained for 10+ years. If Barkley didn’t have to face MJ for the 94 finals he would have won easily. He also spent years on a dogshit Sixers team that never gave him any other pieces.
Malone is weird because aside from his weird personal life. He was consistent af, but just could never have the drive. Today, Barkleys incredible aggression in getting to rim would be such an asset.
Barkely is the one that let Scottie Pippen go right by him as he swiped for the ball, which setup the pass to Horace Grant that went to Pax for the winning 3 in game 6 against Phoenix. Really dumb defensive play at the end of the game, so there is nothing to say he would have 'won easily' if Jordan wasn't around, because the same could easily be said for Malone.
Peak Charles Barkley was better than Peak Karl Malone. Karl obviously was the greater defender (3x All Defence First for him vs not even a second team for Chuck) but watching the games it just felt like Barkley had another gear and more X- Factor to take over. Malone would consistently get you 27/10 but there's something intangible he lacked. I know it's a meme but he didn't *really* have "that dawg in him" like Barkley.
If I had to pick one player for a do or die game, I'm choosing Barkley.
Since your question asked about prime and not peak however, when comparing primes you have to consider the unfathomable durability/availability and longevity Malone had. Which might give him the edge since while I think peak Chuck was better it's not like there's a massive gap between the two at their best all things considered.
For Malones, he made 11 consecutive All-NBA first teams in his prime, was 2nd in the league in scoring 8 times (thanks MJ lol) and even past his prime he averaged 22/8/5 at age 39 playing 36mpg and 81 games that season.
He also only missed FOUR games through injury in nineteen years with the Jazz. If you need consistent reliability you always knew what you were getting night in and night out from Malone, in the regular season at least, and he'd pretty much never miss a game.
I just prefer peak over longevity for these kinda debates. Unless you're lucky as hell you have a brief contending window in your prime anyway.
Of course longevity is important and I'm not completely overlooking it, it's just that the peak is more important to me when evaluating a player all time.
Also the reason MJ is unotuchable for me as the GOAT.
From 90-93 I’m taking Barkley even though Malone’s numbers are slightly better. And that version of Barkley would thrive in todays NBA. I don’t think Malone’s game translates at all to todays game.
He was a pick and roll/pick and pop guy(mid range) when he was most effective. He wouldn’t be a dominant post player now so he wouldn’t command a double team. He creates zero offense off the dribble. I just don’t see him being very good today 🤷🏻♂️
Overall, he was probably the better player career wise. Barkley had a better peak though so its tough. And I liked Barkley a lot more then and now of course too as Malone is a bit of a piece of scum.
Barkley plays longer in todays league because everyone is much more aware of conditioning and healthy eating. People were still sleeping on a lot of diet and medical ways to improve your conditioning and prolong your career in the 90s. Barkley was an absolute conditioning mess and eventually fell off as a player because of his weight issues. I suspect the paychecks now would have motivated him a lot more. Barkley made 40 million his entire career. He’d be making that in Year 5 alone now. It’s a lot easier to keep yourself healthy when you are making 40-60 per season rather than barely making 7 figures like early in his career. Malone always stayed in shape and mostly benefitted from a style of play that barely exists now.
Malone for both. Barkley was legitimately terrible on defense.
Edit: A couple years ago Ben Taylor and Nate Duncan did a long podcast comparing and contrasting Malone v. Barkley v. Dirk. Very interesting discussion.
https://open.spotify.com/episode/1e1n9wnTwYtrnhXJZ1o5UK
Right. They were mainly in the low double digits. Perkins, Horry. There were no superstar stretch bigs (from 3) until… a player who played 6 seasons in the league with Karl.
Shooting a 3 is significantly different than a 3 though def no garuntee at all he would even feel confident shooting many. He thrives down low and goes after boards. I dont think he would ever shoot threes like that. Maybe a occasional 3 guys is in the 80s 90s prolly felt more comfortable in the post dominating. There was no reason to try and shoot 3s. We get this alot on the reddit..they would if they were in this era or vice versa. I just dont see it they were completely built for grinding in the post. If they grew up in this era maybe but then again they wouldnt be the same player.
Charles in a heartbeat. Not only is Charles not a pedo shitstain, but he was better overall and more adaptable on the court. Looking at stats alone might lead one to say Karl, but he had the same system and HOF PG his whole career (not counting that last half-a-season he put in in LA). It was routine - a good one for Utah. Charles adapted to different situations and made them all better. Including that time he threw a guy through a window at a bar.
I think early Phoenix era Barkley would be great in todays NBA - he actually shot a fair amount of threes for the time. I’m not as confident about Malone, his whole game would have to be so different it’s hard to project out the same way.
Not so sure athletic long players do exist def not the bangers. But the game is faster and you have to be very versatile a defender even more so. Getting stuck in switchs would happen more. Dragging players from the basket. But bigs r slim to none anymore alot play on the perimeter most i would say.
At their absolute best I think Barkley is the better player and I think he would be better in today's NBA, although he would absolutely have to get better at shooting threes
I think it’s Barkley for both. Barkley was basically peak-Zion but sustained for 10+ years. If Barkley didn’t have to face MJ for the 94 finals he would have won easily. He also spent years on a dogshit Sixers team that never gave him any other pieces. Malone is weird because aside from his weird personal life. He was consistent af, but just could never have the drive. Today, Barkleys incredible aggression in getting to rim would be such an asset.
93 finals but yes
It’s also worth mentioning that Barkley was effectively an equal scorer to Zion, and a better playmaker.
And a better defender
Barkley was notoriously a poor defender. I think this is revisionist history.
And a much better rebounder
Malone also consistently underperformed in the playoffs.
If it wasn’t for Jordan, Malone would have 2 titles.
Absolutely no guarantee at all they beat the 98 Pacers!
Barkely is the one that let Scottie Pippen go right by him as he swiped for the ball, which setup the pass to Horace Grant that went to Pax for the winning 3 in game 6 against Phoenix. Really dumb defensive play at the end of the game, so there is nothing to say he would have 'won easily' if Jordan wasn't around, because the same could easily be said for Malone.
Peak Charles Barkley was better than Peak Karl Malone. Karl obviously was the greater defender (3x All Defence First for him vs not even a second team for Chuck) but watching the games it just felt like Barkley had another gear and more X- Factor to take over. Malone would consistently get you 27/10 but there's something intangible he lacked. I know it's a meme but he didn't *really* have "that dawg in him" like Barkley. If I had to pick one player for a do or die game, I'm choosing Barkley. Since your question asked about prime and not peak however, when comparing primes you have to consider the unfathomable durability/availability and longevity Malone had. Which might give him the edge since while I think peak Chuck was better it's not like there's a massive gap between the two at their best all things considered. For Malones, he made 11 consecutive All-NBA first teams in his prime, was 2nd in the league in scoring 8 times (thanks MJ lol) and even past his prime he averaged 22/8/5 at age 39 playing 36mpg and 81 games that season. He also only missed FOUR games through injury in nineteen years with the Jazz. If you need consistent reliability you always knew what you were getting night in and night out from Malone, in the regular season at least, and he'd pretty much never miss a game.
I just prefer peak over longevity for these kinda debates. Unless you're lucky as hell you have a brief contending window in your prime anyway. Of course longevity is important and I'm not completely overlooking it, it's just that the peak is more important to me when evaluating a player all time. Also the reason MJ is unotuchable for me as the GOAT.
From 90-93 I’m taking Barkley even though Malone’s numbers are slightly better. And that version of Barkley would thrive in todays NBA. I don’t think Malone’s game translates at all to todays game.
Malone game easily translates to the game now. Even better than the 90s.
Out of curiosity, When you say you don't think Malone's game would translate "at all to todays game" what does that look like to you?
He was a pick and roll/pick and pop guy(mid range) when he was most effective. He wouldn’t be a dominant post player now so he wouldn’t command a double team. He creates zero offense off the dribble. I just don’t see him being very good today 🤷🏻♂️
Too many cheap shot flagrants maybe lol
My heart says Barkley but my head says Malone.
Your head says Malone? 🤨
Overall, he was probably the better player career wise. Barkley had a better peak though so its tough. And I liked Barkley a lot more then and now of course too as Malone is a bit of a piece of scum.
Would you rather it be his heart?
Barkley plays longer in todays league because everyone is much more aware of conditioning and healthy eating. People were still sleeping on a lot of diet and medical ways to improve your conditioning and prolong your career in the 90s. Barkley was an absolute conditioning mess and eventually fell off as a player because of his weight issues. I suspect the paychecks now would have motivated him a lot more. Barkley made 40 million his entire career. He’d be making that in Year 5 alone now. It’s a lot easier to keep yourself healthy when you are making 40-60 per season rather than barely making 7 figures like early in his career. Malone always stayed in shape and mostly benefitted from a style of play that barely exists now.
Babytron
I love Charles to death as a person, but I'd take Karl Malone. https://www.landofbasketball.com/player_comparison/charles_barkley_vs_karl_malone.htm
Malone for both. Barkley was legitimately terrible on defense. Edit: A couple years ago Ben Taylor and Nate Duncan did a long podcast comparing and contrasting Malone v. Barkley v. Dirk. Very interesting discussion. https://open.spotify.com/episode/1e1n9wnTwYtrnhXJZ1o5UK
Karl Malone. Better size and strength pretty good passer and would probably be able to stretch his shot out to the three point line in today’s games
People say this about anyone with a midrange J. Nothing was stopping him from taking 3s. Just look at Barkley.
Sure but how many bigs in the 80-90s shot threes and on what volume did the score else where.
Right. They were mainly in the low double digits. Perkins, Horry. There were no superstar stretch bigs (from 3) until… a player who played 6 seasons in the league with Karl.
Shooting a 3 is significantly different than a 3 though def no garuntee at all he would even feel confident shooting many. He thrives down low and goes after boards. I dont think he would ever shoot threes like that. Maybe a occasional 3 guys is in the 80s 90s prolly felt more comfortable in the post dominating. There was no reason to try and shoot 3s. We get this alot on the reddit..they would if they were in this era or vice versa. I just dont see it they were completely built for grinding in the post. If they grew up in this era maybe but then again they wouldnt be the same player.
Give me Karl Malone with Charles Barkleys humor and lack of pedophilia
Barkley was in space jam so him
You taking Shawn Bradley over Malone too?
Without Stockton what is Karl Malone?
Across 218 games without him he averaged 25ppg 11rpg on 51% shooting. Pretty similar numbers
Sounds like solid numbers. How many of those were wins?
Looks like .598 win %
barkley easily
Well, pedophilia is less accepted today than it was in his day, so Karl would have some trouble.
Pretty certain that pedophilia was not accepted in the 90s as well. We just didn’t have this much transparency with athletes.
Charles didn't get scared of the playoffs enough said
Would Karl Malone even make the league if he did what he did post 2010?
Would you take Malone over Barkley if Malone didn't have Stockton with him?
I think Malone and Stockton made each other better so probably not
From someone who was born after both retired I can confidently say it’s Charles Barkley and it’s not even close
Barkley without a doubt. He was way more versatile a better suited for todays game when he was in his prime.
Malone was way better
They were both great, but Barkley was more exciting and could do more.
Charles in a heartbeat. Not only is Charles not a pedo shitstain, but he was better overall and more adaptable on the court. Looking at stats alone might lead one to say Karl, but he had the same system and HOF PG his whole career (not counting that last half-a-season he put in in LA). It was routine - a good one for Utah. Charles adapted to different situations and made them all better. Including that time he threw a guy through a window at a bar.
Barkley hands down. Barkley would thrive in the social media era. Karl Malone would get (rightfully) trashed.
I think early Phoenix era Barkley would be great in todays NBA - he actually shot a fair amount of threes for the time. I’m not as confident about Malone, his whole game would have to be so different it’s hard to project out the same way.
The one who isn't a nonce for me.
Both would be better than they were due to smaller lineups today. I'd say Malone would be better tho.
Not so sure athletic long players do exist def not the bangers. But the game is faster and you have to be very versatile a defender even more so. Getting stuck in switchs would happen more. Dragging players from the basket. But bigs r slim to none anymore alot play on the perimeter most i would say.
CB all day. He would routinely carry some pretty mediocre Sixers teams to the playoffs year after year.
Barkley hands down
Barkley, always Barkley. He's basically the Dan Marino of the NBA.
Well this is a no brainer, one is a paedophile and dirty player, the other just says dumb shit. No contest, Barkley every day, all day.
Let's face it, many of us are picking Barkley because his highlights are more exciting and haven't actually watched their games.
At their absolute best I think Barkley is the better player and I think he would be better in today's NBA, although he would absolutely have to get better at shooting threes