I think it's time we agree that Bill's dominant team and Wilt's amazing stats are overrated and both Shaq and Hakeem are better. They played in weaker eras with fewer teams and weaker competition. Bill struggled on the offensive end averaging a staggering 40Fg% in his career and Wilt was a pretty bad teammate who cared for stats for most of his years. Both Hakeem and Shaq played in arguably the strongest era ever filled with strong big-men - The 90s, and had partial success but dominance and efficiency unlike the other two, Both gave two of the best individual season ever with Hakeem in 94' and Shaq in 00'. They were spectacular on both ends and
Bill Russell played against Elgin Baylor, Wilt Chamberlain, and Jerry West all on one team. And beat them 11 damn times. While yes, the NBA was much weaker back then, he still had extreme competition that he beat nearly every time.
Yeah, I guess you could argue that Shaq and Hakeem were better than Russell and Wilt. But they weren't greater. Wilt holds the most ridiculous individual records and was the most physically dominant player to ever play the game whilst Russell was the best player on the 50's and 60's Celtics which is the greatest dynasty of all-time with the 11 Championships they won in 13 seasons from 1956-69.
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Hakeem Olajuwon, Shaquille O'Neal, Wilt Chamberlain, Bill Russell, Moses Malone, David Robinson, Patrick Ewing
After these players, a few can take the last two spots:
Dave Cowens / Willis Reed / Bill Walton / Wes Unseld / Robert Parish / Dwight Howard / George Mikan / Pau Gasol