This is why I have little to no faith in the younger crowd....

Legitimate question: Shaq with Kobe/Duncan work ethic. (Minus his own personality.) Better than Jordan? Or if you don't want to split big men and guards..who do you start the franchise with?

so you're asking if we prefer Hakeem over Jordan?

to play the dee4three card, i have been watching (live) basketball games since the 90's. i wished the Rockets played in the East so i could see them play more than the handful of times a year while the dream was playing!

the dream would routinely smash the bulls in their meetings. i always wondered how the a bulls-rockets finals could have gone

I personally believe the Rockets still would have won in 93-94 and 94-95.

Legitimate question: Shaq with Kobe/Duncan work ethic. (Minus his own personality.) Better than Jordan? Or if you don't want to split big men and guards..who do you start the franchise with?

What were the news on Shaq's work ethic? It was in near mid 30 he really started to slip as a dominating player and that was after injury too. Could a player of his size and quality stayed at the top for so long without much work? If it's mentality we're talking about, I think he really was more about team than just himself. Ofc his offcourt antics and showmanship kinda threw people away but he just was an excellent player that also made players around him better. But still he doesn't touch Jordan.

What were the news on Shaq's work ethic? It was in near mid 30 he really started to slip as a dominating player and that was after injury too. Could a player of his size and quality stayed at the top for so long without much work? If it's mentality we're talking about, I think he really was more about team than just himself. Ofc his offcourt antics and showmanship kinda threw people away but he just was an excellent player that also made players around him better. But still he doesn't touch Jordan.

Shaq could've legit been better than he already was. I'm sure he worked hard but he also coasted because that's just how he is. He would put on a lot of weight in the off season and then play himself in to shape during the regular season only to flip the switch in the playoffs. Not to mention him refusing to have surgery on the toe during the off season since "he got injured on company time" so he'll recover on company time.

His off court shtick wasn't as well publicized then as it is now. I was all for letting Kobe walk and having the Lakers continue with Shaq. In hindsight I'm glad they didn't obviously. I believe I was all for the trade Kobe for T-Mac and have T-Mac & Shaq lead LA train of thought. The dude put up 28-20-9 and 8 against the Sixers in the Finals, imagine he actually put that type of effort in to more games.

I'm not sure if you legit wanted articles or such on Shaq's work ethic/mentality but Google can help there. There's enough out there.

Real reason why anyone thinks Jordan was better than Wilt is exactly the same reason why today's people think LBJ is better than Jordan. Game and players evolved to be better so newer is better type of mindset. Otherwise nobody has a case against Wilt, then MJ, then LBJ.

Yeah, I cringe hearing or reading the nonsense coming from younger NBA fans, especially the Jordan-James debate. How the hell can you compare cats who played different positions and had different roles? Jordan was the best 2-guard ever. His primary role was scoring assassin. He had Pippen, Grrant (and later Rodman) to do the other stuff). LeBron is Magic & Oscar rolled into one - he does a little bit of everything. He's not the clutch scorer Jordan was but that's not his game. Kobe is the dude you compare to Jordan, not LeBron. But fans & media want to continue this silly Jordan-James talk, pumping up one at the other's expense. I saw this with fans pumping up Jordan putting down Wilt, Russsell & Oscar.

Judge the great players in any sport by the era they played in.

As for the Blazers shocking the 76ers in 1977. That was one of the most amazing playoff runs I've ever seen, with Walton at his greatest. But it wasn't just him - it was a true TEAM, 5 playing as 1, much like my Knicks during the championship years. Had Walton's career not been wrecked by injuries, he'd be in my top ten of all time. He's the second best college baller of all time, behind Kareem.

Funny thing is, Portland's championship run nearly ended in the first round (best 2 out of 3) against Chicago. That Bulls team was tough, physical and Artis Gilmore gave Walton fits.

Not going to read through two pages of comments Iam just going to say this, I've had the pleasure to watch both Jordan and LeBron in there prime and if the question is who is better then my answer is Jordan because Jordan didn't need front office to get him a team of all stars or take a pay cut to team up with other HOF players to win a championship.

Continue as you were.

Agreed. Ranking other greats below Michael Jordan still leaves plenty of room to give them a lot of praise. In all fairness though, there probably are some people who legitimately do "hate" on LeBron and don't give him his due, but you can say that for a lot of the all-time greats (even MJ).

Exactly. LeBron is one of the best NBA players ever (he's in my Top 10), he's just not on the level of Wilt, Jordan, Russell, Oscar or Kareem. No crime in that.

Agreed. Ranking other greats below Michael Jordan still leaves plenty of room to give them a lot of praise. In all fairness though, there probably are some people who legitimately do "hate" on LeBron and don't give him his due, but you can say that for a lot of the all-time greats (even MJ).

Exactly. LeBron is one of the best NBA players ever (he's in my Top 10), he's just not on the level of Wilt, Jordan, Russell, Oscar or Kareem. No crime in that.

unless you are on reddit. say this shit there and you might get sent to the electric chair


lebron is great but he went out of his way to take the easiest road he could. people need to stop acting like taking his teams out of the pathetic eastern conference is some sort of feat

Agreed. Ranking other greats below Michael Jordan still leaves plenty of room to give them a lot of praise. In all fairness though, there probably are some people who legitimately do "hate" on LeBron and don't give him his due, but you can say that for a lot of the all-time greats (even MJ).

Exactly. LeBron is one of the best NBA players ever (he's in my Top 10), he's just not on the level of Wilt, Jordan, Russell, Oscar or Kareem. No crime in that.

unless you are on reddit. say this shit there and you might get sent to the electric chair


lebron is great but he went out of his way to take the easiest road he could. people need to stop acting like taking his teams out of the pathetic eastern conference is some sort of feat

Dude, I only talk sports here, OS, GTAforums & my Facebook page. I don't even go to the Knicks official fan page anymore. You have clowns there who think the 2012-13 Knicks could hang with the teams from the 70s & 90s, or that Carmelo is on LeBron's level.

i guess if you only view basketball through highlights you could say such stupid things

To use NovU's format from the Bosh post, who do you take over who? This is at the players best, not factoring in injuries.

My picks are in bold:


1) Reggie Miller or Ray Allen
2) Karl Malone or Charles Barkley
3) Shaquille O'Neal or Hakeem Olajuwon
4) Patrick Ewing or David Robinson
5) Clyde Drexler or Dominique Wilkins
6) Shawn Kemp or Amare Stoudamire
7) Allen Iverson or Tracy McGrady
8) Grant Hill or Scottie Pippen
9) Kevin Durant or Julius Erving TIE
10) Steph Curry or John Stockton
11) Kyrie Irving or Tim Hardaway

I can't express how much I despise the love/hate culture that has dominated the past 10-15 years. When you say that you don't love something/-one like the majority does, you are labeled a hater by default. Why is it so hard to understand that there is a middle ground? There always is. Do I hate LeBron? No. Why should I? Do I like his style of play? Not really. It's highly impressive how he builds up momentum and then seemingly can't be stopped. But it's not a finesse game. It's not as polished and - yes - beautiful as Jordan's or Bird's game was. That is a matter of preference. As much as it pains me, a comparison between players from 20+ years ago and players of the modern days should not be made. The game has changed so much since then, it would be unfair to today's athletes to hold it against them. Their style is tailored to fit today's rules. No one could claim to know how they would have fared back then. They would have adapted, though. So the only thing that's safe to say is that due to their basketball skills and their obvious understanding of the game, Bird and Jordan would be very good in today's league and the same goes for LeBron back then.

That was the rational part. But when I get emotional about the topic, I take MJ or Larry over LeBron any day. Because theirs was a smart and unbelievably competitive style. They played to their skills to get the best possible result. With James, I sometimes get the feeling that he doesn't play how he should, but rather how he thinks he should. It seems like he could be even more effective than he already is.

Last edited by debiler on Mon Jun 12, 2017 3:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Some of the posts in this thread increase the readers' risk of cancer.

It's not impossible to show how good the past players were without denigrating the players of today.

Some of the posts in this thread increase the readers' risk of cancer.

It's not impossible to show how good the past players were without denigrating the players of today.

Dude, stop with the cancer reference. It's really immature. I've lost someone I was close with recently to cancer at a young age. It's never funny, and it makes no sense.

Also, it's calling the game as we see it. As in, when you appreciate one type of basketball you watched, a type of player you watched, and another player comes along and shows a type of basketball that is just not enjoyable to watch, or a play style that deserves criticism, it's okay to call that out. Bottom line. There are plenty of players in other decades that I didnt enjoy watching, and I don't mind being vocal about that, either.

I lost a loved because of cancer too, what now.

Your opinion is that bad that I had to compare it to cancer.
'Being vocal', 'keeping it real', call it whatever you want, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it same way I'm entitled to my opinion about your cancerous opinion.

If a cancer reference was good for KG then it's good enough for me.

Wow....

No words can describe how incredibly horrible your comment is. You need to rethink the way you interact with people.

Cry me a river.

The way you present your opinion is no different from the likes of Skip Bayless.

It's that bad.

I'm sorry for your loss, btw. You stated "what now", like you made a great point. Sorry but, I don't think bringing up the death of someone close to you from cancer strengthens any point, it's just plain sad.

And I have plenty of reasons for my opinions, and I stand by them (I noted them in this thread). You absolutely don't have to agree, that is fine.

I don't think bringing up the death of someone close to you from cancer strengthens any point.

The irony. Wish you applied that thought to yourself before you started preaching about your life story.
Your situation is different to others situation, how you cope with it is different with others.


Carry on, then.

When you need to compare an opinion to cancer, while not giving any reasons why you are having a differing opinion on the topic being discussed, I question your communication skills/intellect/common sense.

Carry on, I will. However, not any better after having this conversation with you.

I question your reading skills if you think I haven't given a reason on why I think your opinions are cancer.

I question your reading skills if you think I haven't given a reason on why I think your opinions are cancer.

I just went through both pages of this thread, and you havn't given any actual reasons to disagree with my points. I gave a ton of reasons why I have my opinion, you didn't give anything.

Unless you are talking about this

"It's not impossible to show how good the past players were without denigrating the players of today."

Which is a very bland, simple statement.

There is hating for the sake of hating, or because of bias, where someone comes to the table with a general opinion/statement without any backing or strong stance, which should be frowned upon.

But the people who come forward with an actual strong opinion based on many examples they give to why that opinion is had, and actually have the ability to have a productive discussion based on basketball in its current state, and it's history, should not be frowned upon in the same light. This isn't just "past and present" either, it's talking about basketball players vs basketball players, etc.

People know where I stand on here and why I stand where I do. They don't necessarily agree with it, and that's fine. But they know why based on the many examples I give to why I feel that way.

God damn NLSC Questioneer, I've missed your cancerous homo erotic ass.

Take me now.

The statement was intended to be simple because it's supposed to summarize what I read in this thread.

You said it yourself and it's obvious to any reader to know your stance and reasons for it, there are also opinions here that I agree with that reflect my own opinion about the matter.

Why should I rehash the discussions again and again when it's clear where you stand in regard to the various discussions in the thread.

I'm not in this thread to change anyone's opinions.
I'm not here to enlighten with an epiphany about the topic.
I'm just here to give my reaction of what I just read and my very first post in this thread is exactly that.



Jackal, to quote one of the greatest thespians in our time, "I'd beat your ass like a Cherokee drum!"
Maybe fist it too.