Barkley Claims He Was A Much Better Basketball Player Than Shaq: 'Basketball IQ? We Are Not On The Same Level.'

On the latest episode of The Steam Room podcast, Charles Barkley was asked who'd be better between him and Shaquille O'Neal, if they were both six feet tall. Unsurprisingly, Barkley went with himself without hesitation and stated he was a better pure basketball player than O'Neal.

"No question, I'm a better player," Barkley said. "Shaq is one of the most physically imposing and dominating players of all time. But for strictly a basketball IQ? We are not even on the same level. He can take that how he wants to."

"But just as a pure basketball player, I'm a much better basketball player," Barkley stated. "... I've never played against Wilt Chamberlain, but I've never played against a player more physically imposing than Shaq."

Barkley also added later that he'd "kill" O'Neal on the court if they were both six feet. Co-host Ernie Johnson sarcastically stated that O'Neal would take these comments well. I'm sure the big man won't be too happy when he hears this and I expect him to respond on Inside the NBA or The Big Podcast with Shaq at some point.

As for Barkley's claim, I think he is right. If they were both six feet tall, I'd back Sir Charles to get the better of O'Neal as he was the more skilled player of the two and had a higher basketball IQ.

That said, I do believe it is overlooked just how skilled O'Neal was. He had an array of post moves, excellent footwork, a soft touch near the basket, and was a capable passer. It wasn't just all about him overpowering opponents with his size and strength. But, the fact is, there were other big men who had a similar skill set and what separated O'Neal from them was his size and strength.

O'Neal stood at 7'1" and weighed over 300 pounds, and Barkley believes he was the most physically imposing player he faced. I think most players who went up against him would probably say the same. When you combine that physicality and skill set, you get one of the greatest players of all time and arguably the most dominant one.

O'Neal averaged 23.7 points, 10.9 rebounds, 2.5 assists, 0.6 steals, and 2.3 blocks per game in his 19-year career. He won four titles, three Finals MVPs, an MVP, and two scoring titles along the way.

If you take away that overwhelming physical advantage from O'Neal by shrinking him to six feet, though, I don't think he'd have that much success. His skill set and athleticism would have made him a good-to-great player, but not an all-time great.

Barkley, meanwhile, stood at 6'6 and weighed around 250 pounds during his career. You'd think someone of that size wouldn't be a great power forward in the 1980s and 90s, but he sure was.

Barkley averaged 22.1 points, 11.7 rebounds, 3.9 assists, 1.5 steals, and 0.8 blocks per game in his career. He won an MVP to go with a rebounding title and is regarded as one of the best ever at his position.

Would Barkley have been less effective had he been six feet tall? Absolutely, but I don't think the drop-off would have been as significant as O'Neal's. I am almost sure O'Neal would disagree, though, and I am very interested to hear his response to Barkley's claims.