You have multiple fail going on now.
1) I did NOT talk about how a 6'11" guy has the advantage. You apparently have continued to misread a relatively short post. Oh, a 6'11" guy absolutely has almost every advantage -- which is why you see a bunch of 6'11" dudes dominating the game while the 6'6" guys play in the D-league. But, as I clearly said, and I think most other people picked upn on, a short stout guy has the advantage in leverage. You get a strong 6'6" guy who understands leverage, and it should be darn near impossible for any tall guy to move him off his spot unless the tlall guy has 40lbs on him. There is a reason noseguards in football (which I was) are not 6'6" towering behemoths. Closer to the ground = better leverage. And hence Hayes should be able to, if nothing else, get under guys, not be backed down, and move his feet (shorter guys also being quicker than taller ones).
2) the Barkley compariosn is flat out dumb, again, because Charles Barkley did not play 6'5". Charles Barkley played the game almost as 6'10" as the towers out there. He was an above the rim player, he could sky for huge rebounds in traffic. In short, his height did not hold him back because with his leaping ability and freakish build he could play the game "tall", grab rebounds up high with the 6'11" guys, dunk on their face, and in general avoid the geometry problems that short guys have with the sport. Chuck Hayes on the other hand is just a true 6'6" There's nothing Barkleyish about him except the first name. Hayes has to play the game on the ground, as a guy shorter than all his opponents. As such he wil always be very limited in what he can do against guys who have 5 inches and length on him. Barkley wasn't limited in that way because he could get so far off the ground he could look those taller players square in the eye. There's just no comparison. Saying Hayes can do it because Barkely can do it is ridiculous because Hayes can't do any of the things Barkley could do physically.
