Buddy or Wayman?

[Big Old Booger]

Well, if there was an OU Mt. Rushmore for the "toughest" players, the question would be which two OU players would be joining Hollis Price and Corey Brewer?

I know I'm getting way off topic from the original post, so let me add one thing about Wayman vs. Buddy. While the rumor of me being a Wayman Tisdale fan is true, I won't hesitate to say that he didn't have anything close to Buddy's work ethic. What I like to tell people about Wayman is that he was a rare individual who had the ability to become a multi-millionaire in two completely different professions. The only problem with that in regards to hoops was that he didn't spend a lot of time honing his game. He was just a naturally amazing basketball player.

Agreed. I've said the same things, if he had Buddy's work ethic there is no telling how good he would have been and he was already otherworldly.

Somebody mentioned Wayman wasn't a national POY, well that's because he was competing against guys like Jordan, Ewing, Mullins, Barkley, Karl Malone, Olajuwon, etc., for that award. Most of the Dream Team played college ball when Wayman played. Make no mistake though, when Wayman got the ball you could guarantee it was going in the hoop. He, like Buddy, was a volume scorer. Another factor was the Big 8 in those days, before Wayman arrived, only would get 1 maybe 2 teams in the NCAA tournament. So, it wasn't thought of as a good basketball league but Wayman and Tubbs changed all of that as well as changed the perception of Oklahoma.

 

[152219]

Agreed. I've said the same things, if he had Buddy's work ethic there is no telling how good he would have been and he was already otherworldly.

Somebody mentioned Wayman wasn't a national POY, well that's because he was competing against guys like Jordan, Ewing, Mullins, Barkley, Karl Malone, Olajuwon, etc., for that award. Most of the Dream Team played college ball when Wayman played. Make no mistake though, when Wayman got the ball you could guarantee it was going in the hoop. He, like Buddy, was a volume scorer. Another factor was the Big 8 in those days, before Wayman arrived, only would get 1 maybe 2 teams in the NCAA tournament. So, it wasn't thought of as a good basketball league but Wayman and Tubbs changed all of that as well as changed the perception of Oklahoma.

Did someone mention Wayman didn't win the Wooden? I only mentioned Price.

And Wayman would have won the Wooden if he had stayed his senior year. He was next in line after all the great players you mentioned.

 

[skyvue]

I think Wayman would have won POY of the year as a senior. And it also hurt him that OU wasn't yet a prominent hoops program. He helped make it one but he didn't benefit from OU having the cachet of being a quality program.

Did sophomores and juniors even win national player of the year in those days? That barrier is down now, but I'm not sure it was then.

 

[152219]

Wayman was a consensus 1st team All American 3x. His place as OU's best player is still unquestionable IMO.

And Griffin easily has the best NBA career.

 

[NickZepp]

Wayman was a consensus 1st team All American 3x. His place as OU's best player is still unquestionable IMO.

And Griffin easily has the best NBA career.

Wayman averaged about 16 or 17 points 7 boards for his first 10 years or so. Real solid NBA career.

 

[152219]

Wayman averaged about 16 or 17 points 7 boards for his first 10 years or so. Real solid NBA career.

Did I say Wayman didn't have a solid NBA career? I am old enough to remember him in the NBA.

But Griffin's has been better. I would argue Mookie had a better NBA career. That isn't a slam on Wayman.

 

[sunny]

Sounds like its pretty much decided that the Mr Rushmore of OU Basketball includes Wayman, Buddy, Blake and Alvin, the last three in no particular order. Hollis would be a close fifth. Although there will never be complete agreement.

 

[Big Old Booger]

Did someone mention Wayman didn't win the Wooden? I only mentioned Price.

And Wayman would have won the Wooden if he had stayed his senior year. He was next in line after all the great players you mentioned.

I thought someone mentioned that, but I re-read the thread and don't see it. Maybe it was edited out or maybe I was confused.

 

[Big Old Booger]

Did I say Wayman didn't have a solid NBA career? I am old enough to remember him in the NBA.

But Griffin's has been better. I would argue Mookie had a better NBA career. That isn't a slam on Wayman.

In the documentary about Wayman that was released after his death, Barkley and a few other guys talked about how talented was Wayman but as has been mentioned already he didn't practice basketball much. He was working on his bass guitar skills which he played a right-handed guitar upside-down. Some say that shows his incredible musical talent to be able to do that. I know I love his music but part of it is because of how much I loved Wayman. He was, by far, my most favorite OU athlete of all time. Buddy, because of his demeanor and his amazing ability is a close second though.

ldwt356:

 

[Eielson]

I think we can put that Buddy>Blake nonsense to rest now.

 

[skyvue]

I think we can put that Buddy>Blake nonsense to rest now.

Based on...one game?

Check out the 2008 Louisville game in the round of 32 and get back to us.

 

[Eielson]

Based on...one game?

Check out the 2008 Louisville game in the round of 32 and get back to us.

I'd love to see you pick out a single bad game from his sophomore year. Buddy has bad games. Blake doesn't.

 

[vbdad]

I love Buddy but Wayman was so much better it isn't even close. Wayman was as good as a freshman as Buddy is as a senior.
Don't for a second think that it doesn't matter that nobody left after their freshman year and most didn't until after their junior year. Plus a whole bunch played all 4 years at that time.
Wayman had very little talent around him until his last year and they were all young except Choo.
He did lose in the elite 8 to Memphis State who had 2 guys drafted in the top 11 picks of the draft. Keith Lee who was 6'10 first team AA and William Bedford a seven footer. Andre Turner the point guard also bounced around the league for several years. The two big guys stood in front of Wayman and behind him the whole game and never left him. Our other guys just couldn't do enough to make them leave Wayman. This is basically how Wayman was always covered but these guys were huge.

 

[bgrch1350]

Based on...one game?

Check out the 2008 Louisville game in the round of 32 and get back to us.

Should we go look at buddy's freshmen year as well?

 

[SoonerTraveler]

I love Buddy but Wayman was so much better it isn't even close. Wayman was as good as a freshman as Buddy is as a senior.

. . . . .

Agree. I also love Buddy, but those that did not see Wayman play have a hard time realizing how good he was.

Buddy became a big time scorer, yet Wayman outscored Buddy by 370 points in his career; a career that only lasted 3 years at OU. In other words, if Wayman would have played 4 seasons like Buddy, Wayman would have totaled about 1,300 more points than Buddy. (Think about that!)

While only playing 3 seasons, Wayman is #1 all-time at OU in career:

> Points
> Points per Game
> FGs Made
> Free Throws Made
> Free Throws Attempted
> Rebounds


Also, Wayman is #2 all-time in FG % (.578); and #3 all-time in blocked shots.

Wayman was a scorer, but he was a lot more than that. Wayman was a 3-Time 1st Team All-American. Think about that!

 

[skyvue]

Should we go look at buddy's freshmen year as well?

Feel free! The only game you'll find that comes close is the 25-point loss to Gonzaga, and that was in the fourth game of his career. The Louisville loss, on the other hand, came in Blake's 35th game. It's often said that there are no freshmen in the NCAA tournament, and there's something to that line of thinking.

But I wasn't actually calling out Blake; I was responding to Eielson, who seems to have such an exaggerated attachment to Blake that he denigrates other Sooner stars to build BG up. He seems to find a sort of glee in the idea that Buddy "failed" on Saturday.

The truth about blowout losses (any loss, really, but especially blowouts) is that it takes the failure of an entire team to lose that badly. Blake scored 8 against Louisville in what was our worst tourney loss at the time, and Buddy scored 9 in what is our new worst tourney loss, but neither is solely to blame -- by a long shot -- for those defeats.

 

[skyvue]

Agree. I also love Buddy, but those that did not see Wayman play have a hard time realizing how good he was.

Yep. Wayman's the greatest Sooner player of them all. Buddy, Blake and Adams (plus a few other candidates) are battling for second.

 

[Eielson]

Feel free! The only game you'll find that comes close is the 25-point loss to Gonzaga, and that was in the fourth game of his career. The Louisville loss, on the other hand, came in Blake's 35th game. It's often said that there are no freshmen in the NCAA tournament, and there's something to that line of thinking.

But I wasn't actually calling out Blake; I was responding to Eielson, who seems to have such an exaggerated attachment to Blake that he denigrates other Sooner stars to build BG up. He seems to find a sort of glee in the idea that Buddy "failed" on Saturday.

The truth about blowout losses (any loss, really, but especially blowouts) is that it takes the failure of an entire team to lose that badly. Blake scored 8 against Louisville in what was our worst tourney loss at the time, and Buddy scored 9 in what is our new worst tourney loss, but neither is solely to blame -- by a long shot -- for those defeats.

Saying that teams lose as teams, and not just as individuals, seems like a silly argument. Does anybody actually disagree with that? If that were the case, the best player in the country would never lose. My point wasn't that we suffered a 40+ point loss, and that it's all Buddy's fault. My point was just that Buddy wasn't the best player on the court for that given night, and that he's not unstoppable (Nova actually defend him pretty well in the regular season matchup as well). During Blake's sophomore year, he dominated everybody who stood in his way, and never left any doubt who the best player on the court was. Even when we bowed out in the Elite 8, he mopped the floor with Hansborough, Thompson, and Davis.

The fact that you have resorted to petty personal insults seems to be more of an indirect admission that you're incapable of defending your point of view than anything else. Never have I ever said Buddy isn't a phenomenal players. Almost everybody has off nights, or some sort of kryptonite, but Blake is one of those select few that didn't in his sophomore year. If you can argue my claim that Buddy has off-nights (Nova, WVU, Tech, etc.) and Blake doesn't, or can at least overcome that claim to state that Buddy was even more phenomenal, I'd love to hear your POV. If you're going to resort to childish personal insults, though, then there's clearly nothing else to discuss here.

 

[skyvue]

My point was just that Buddy wasn't the best player on the court for that given night, and that he's not unstoppable (Nova actually defend him pretty well in the regular season matchup as well). During Blake's sophomore year, he dominated everybody who stood in his way, and never left any doubt who the best player on the court was. Even when we bowed out in the Elite 8, he mopped the floor with Hansborough, Thompson, and Davis.

In Hawaii, Buddy scored 18 on Villanova in a game when we had five players in double figures. There was no reason for him to score more; the Sooners shared the ball and dominated the game.

Blake scored 23 on UNC when he and Warren were our only options -- no one else shot worth a darn -- but even so, it was hardly a dominant performance. Blake scored his first points in the game -- a pair of free throws -- nearly 12 minutes into the first half, at which point OU was already down by 11, and he scored just four points in the game's final 15 minutes--none in the final four minutes.

I don't say any of that to knock him, but I would hardly call that domination. A dominant performance doesn't see a player disappear for long stretches like that. He had a strong 13-minute stretch, divided by halftime, but in the other 27 minutes, he scored four points.

Domination in that game would have been 36 or 39 points, carrying the team on his back for at least the second half, as Buddy did against Oregon.

Finally, I honestly don't see anything personal in my remarks, but if they strike you that way, you have my sincere apology. I've gone back and read over your posts in this thread, and the impression that you are a Blake fan above all else stands. When you stress shooting percentage as an argument in BG's favor, that's a clear indication of a fan's bias. Blake ought to have had a better shooting percentage, given the nature of his game in college. He was shooting from six feet or closer most of the time, when he wasn't dunking it.

 

[campbest]

Buddy is a great player and had a phenomenal run this year, highlighted by the last couple weeks.

But, to say he is better than or more dominant than Blake is silly.