bird vs james

[Chamillitary Click]

Look at that highlight reel "A" posted. Larry is shooting & passing & throwing a few punches; LeBron is less time, with less accolades probably has a more eye appealing highlight reel; from dunking, to blocking, to stealing.

& shuuuuutup with the rebounding. Larry was 6'10'', correct? LeBron is 6'8'' & can jump five feet off the ground; Larry isn't making up for that. Rebounding is controlled by using your body, which LeBron has EASILY has over Larry & jumping ability, which LeBron also has.

Bottom line, LeBron can out rebound anyone if he tried to; but more times than not, he's looking to lead the break.

Larry Bird would be nothing greater than Dirk in 2010 & I'm not even trying to make it out like Dirk is bad, he's an MVP winning, all-star. Bird's legacy is winning rings in the greatest basketball rivalry ever; legends will be made, but when you strip all the achievements it's a lot different.

Different athletes in different eras, but it's obvious that LeBron is nowhere close to Bird in terms of achievements.

That's probably the best way to sum it up; but if magically there was a draft tomorrow & I could pick any player in his prime & it was my pick & I had the choice of LeBron (who like A said, isn't even in his prime) or Larry, I'm taking LeBron.

I'm taking the driving, dribbling, rebounding, more athletic, faster, passing, defender over the shooter who plays with hustle & is co-signed by another GOAT because they played each other every year in the Finals.

I remember reading earlier in this thread someone said, "Put Bird on last years Cavs team & they would of beat the Celtics"; yeah, my reply is put LeBron on the Lakers or Celtics in the 80's & they would of won until Jordan came through in the 90's.

If LeBron doesn't win this year, I'll retract any good thing I've had to say about him lol; when your odds in Vegas of winning at 7/4 & at the time only three players are signed to the roster, you know you have a legitmate contender. When your second best player is Mo Williams, there is trouble afoot lol.

[Shallow]

Look at that highlight reel "A" posted. Larry is shooting & passing & throwing a few punches; LeBron is less time, with less accolades probably has a more eye appealing highlight reel; from dunking, to blocking, to stealing.

& shuuuuutup with the rebounding. Larry was 6'10'', correct? LeBron is 6'8'' & can jump five feet off the ground; Larry isn't making up for that. Rebounding is controlled by using your body, which LeBron has EASILY has over Larry & jumping ability, which LeBron also has.

Bottom line, LeBron can out rebound anyone if he tried to; but more times than not, he's looking to lead the break.

Larry Bird would be nothing greater than Dirk in 2010 & I'm not even trying to make it out like Dirk is bad, he's an MVP winning, all-star. Bird's legacy is winning rings in the greatest basketball rivalry ever; legends will be made, but when you strip all the achievements it's a lot different.

Different athletes in different eras, but it's obvious that LeBron is nowhere close to Bird in terms of achievements.

That's probably the best way to sum it up; but if magically there was a draft tomorrow & I could pick any player in his prime & it was my pick & I had the choice of LeBron (who like A said, isn't even in his prime) or Larry, I'm taking LeBron.

I'm taking the driving, dribbling, rebounding, more athletic, faster, passing, defender over the shooter who plays with hustle & is co-signed by another GOAT because they played each other every year in the Finals.

I remember reading earlier in this thread someone said, "Put Bird on last years Cavs team & they would of beat the Celtics"; yeah, my reply is put LeBron on the Lakers or Celtics in the 80's & they would of won until Jordan came through in the 90's.

If LeBron doesn't win this year, I'll retract any good thing I've had to say about him lol; when your odds in Vegas of winning at 7/4 & at the time only three players are signed to the roster, you know you have a legitmate contender. When your second best player is Mo Williams, there is trouble afoot lol.

I could care less about a highlight reel. Mike Vick's highlight reel would shit all over Joe Montana's. Who would you say is better?  Larry's total career is about the same number of games as Dirk's current career. Larry has 1000 more FGs and 1000 less 3 point attempts. And if you watch you'll see how much his 3 point attempt average jumped as his knees started to go. Larry has about 2000 more rebounds than Dirk and double the assists. He also has 1000 more turnovers and double the steels. They're about even on points. But it's Larry by a mile.

I never said the 80s Celtics with Lebron wouldn't win, but no way are they winning every year until Jordan comes along. And if Larry never got hurt and Magic never got aids there may never have been a first 3-peat. In fact, I'm positive it wouldn't have happened. Lebron may very well become better in my eyes, but before he becomes the player Larry Bird was he has to become the man Larry Bird was, and his recent debacle shows he's got a lot of learning to do.

[BOX5 the best poster on this site yell]

labron and his blocc'n hahaha, i can't believe anyone can think lebron is better then bird now, i mean fucc compare they first 7 years against each other and i'm not just talking bout stats,i'm talk'n bout making yo teamates way better,not being a quitter (lebron anyone),not having the most athletic ability but still whoopin ass,i hated bird cause he was a sellec but i always respected his skill yell

[IFB Flood]

Don't make me laugh. LeBron don't comes close to Bird's greatness. He gotta develop a lot and prove himself even more. Bird was a better player and he had what he took to win. Hell, he made McHale and Parish legends, without him they would've been just great.

The 80's didn't have no athletes? Get the fuck outta here, the 80's NBA shits all over the new millennium NBA. Back then basketball was a men's sport, you had your shirt pulled, you'll catch elbows and so on, right now you get ejected if you touch the opponent with your pinky, fuck that, Bron would get checked on his way to the basket like crazy if he tried to do what he does now. And back then they actually got called for traveling. Bird played against some of the best on ball defenders ever once in a while, Bron is guarded by scrubs most of the time, he only catches some great defenders a few times. Bron in gotta develop his game if he wants to win and be a legend, right now or if he played in the 80's, what you think Jordan did?

Bird one steal shy away from a quadruple-double in the beginning of the 4th period, KC asked Bird if he wanted to play even with his team winning by 30, he said he already done enough damage. Sometimes he started to shoot with his left hand claiming he was tired of doing it with the right one. The players on Hawks bench were astonished falling of the bench after he dropped 60 on them with some ridiculous shots. In the finals he had 34 points and 17 rebounds against the Lakers while the court temperature was at 97 degrees. He had one of the best one game duels against Wilkins, they both went back and forth and Bird came out on top. I could go on forever, now you ignorants gotta watch him to really see the greatness.

Only thing Bron got over Bird is athleticism and everything that comes with it and we're talking about basketball here, it's not all about athleticism, if you don't have much more than that you ain't going down with the legends, Larry had sick skills. Larry would get the best out of Bron most of the times if they faced with similar teams. If he wants to be better than Bird he gotta develop much more and prove himself too. Right now, Bird got on him so don't give me that shit.

If anything Bird was overhyped by the white media but Jordan was even more, Bird played great with pneumonia, some other players did crazy shit too but when Jordan had the flu everybody knew and just talked about it. Yeah they were overhyped, not overrated.

I could do this shit for every player right now that people claim are better than some legends just because they didn't watch them play. Kids these days be killing me.

[Chamillitary Click]

Don't make me laugh. LeBron don't comes close to Bird's greatness.

I could do this shit for every player right now that people claim are better than some legends just because they didn't watch them play. Kids these days be killing me.

That's about all I had to read.

"Greatness" & "legacy" have ZERO to do with being a better basketball player. I know what I'm about to say doesn't compare because he isn't great, but Robert Horry & Derek Fisher earned the title of "clutch" for hitting big shots in Playoff/Finals games. They recieve a certain level of "greatness" in the post-season; but FUCK what ESPN calls you in terms of "greatness", I'd take Steve Nash or Chris Paul over Derek Fisher even though they don't have the same level of "clutch" & "greatness" & "legacy".

& based on what you said after, you're clearly an older fella, who is caught up in this "When I was a youngster, I was watching the best. Fuck these new school kids thinking they can be compared to 'legends'". It's human nature to be in denial that better things have come & the new school is taking over. Just like if Kobe wins two more rings, older Lakers fans are still gunna call Magic the greatest Laker, because they were in the prime of their lives when Magic was in the prime of his career.

Same thing is going to go for today's new school; when we're older we're going to say "Fuck outta here, kiddo; Jordan & Kobe & Shaq & LeBron were the greatest".

[IFB Flood]

Don't make me laugh. LeBron don't comes close to Bird's greatness.

I could do this shit for every player right now that people claim are better than some legends just because they didn't watch them play. Kids these days be killing me.

That's about all I had to read.

"Greatness" & "legacy" have ZERO to do with being a better basketball player. I know what I'm about to say doesn't compare because he isn't great, but Robert Horry & Derek Fisher earned the title of "clutch" for hitting big shots in Playoff/Finals games. They recieve a certain level of "greatness" in the post-season; but FUCK what ESPN calls you in terms of "greatness", I'd take Steve Nash or Chris Paul over Derek Fisher even though they don't have the same level of "clutch" & "greatness" & "legacy".

& based on what you said after, you're clearly an older fella, who is caught up in this "When I was a youngster, I was watching the best. Fuck these new school kids thinking they can be compared to 'legends'". It's human nature to be in denial that better things have come & the new school is taking over. Just like if Kobe wins two more rings, older Lakers fans are still gunna call Magic the greatest Laker, because they were in the prime of their lives when Magic was in the prime of his career.

Same thing is going to go for today's new school; when we're older we're going to say "Fuck outta here, kiddo; Jordan & Kobe & Shaq & LeBron were the greatest".

I ain't talking about legacy or career wise right here now, of course that puts some players above others, it's you achieve that counts not what you could, but right now I'm comparing both as players.

I don't give a shit about what era they played on, I saw the best teams and players from the 80's, 90's and 2000's playing. I can judge it clearly without being caught in any bullshit, Bird was a better player then LeBron is right now, not saying he can't surpass Bird as a player but right now he has not. Bird would school LeBron if they faced in the 80's with equal good teams, Bird could do everything on a basketball court and even said that scoring is overrated. He was a sharp shooter, creating his own shot or coming off a screen, he was deadly, he had great passing ability and was a great facilitator, he was clever like he always knew where the ball was gonna be so he was a great rebounder and could defend mostly because of that, he was a fighter inside and could drive too. People that say he couldn't defend and was slow are people that never seen him play and base that on cliches, I saw Bird stopping 3-on-1 fast breaks, of course he was not your great perimeter defender but with his cleverness and wit he could defend very well, Bron would have trouble against him with some 80's rules because Bird would playing him rough and would trouble him with anticipation. Bird was one of the toughest perimeter players to guard man, only with a few above him. You had to be on your toes or else he would score it in your face, he could also dish too well or drive but really his shooting and creating shots ability from wherever he wanted too was scary.

You say fuck ESPN but I'm the one who should say that because saying the 80's had no athletes and if the players changed generations are some ESPN analyst type bullshit to say. I saw both generations and both players, I think I can compare the two better than someone who didn't. Go watch some games man before you launch them cliches man seriously.

To me Kobe is already the best Laker and I consider Tim Duncan the greatest PF ever, so fuck that new school, old school bullshit.

[IFB Flood]

Don't make me laugh. LeBron don't comes close to Bird's greatness.

I could do this shit for every player right now that people claim are better than some legends just because they didn't watch them play. Kids these days be killing me.

That's about all I had to read.

"Greatness" & "legacy" have ZERO to do with being a better basketball player. I know what I'm about to say doesn't compare because he isn't great, but Robert Horry & Derek Fisher earned the title of "clutch" for hitting big shots in Playoff/Finals games. They recieve a certain level of "greatness" in the post-season; but FUCK what ESPN calls you in terms of "greatness", I'd take Steve Nash or Chris Paul over Derek Fisher even though they don't have the same level of "clutch" & "greatness" & "legacy".

& based on what you said after, you're clearly an older fella, who is caught up in this "When I was a youngster, I was watching the best. Fuck these new school kids thinking they can be compared to 'legends'". It's human nature to be in denial that better things have come & the new school is taking over. Just like if Kobe wins two more rings, older Lakers fans are still gunna call Magic the greatest Laker, because they were in the prime of their lives when Magic was in the prime of his career.

Same thing is going to go for today's new school; when we're older we're going to say "Fuck outta here, kiddo; Jordan & Kobe & Shaq & LeBron were the greatest".

And I think I didn't explain myself clearly in that last paragraph, I mean I could do that for players that some people rate above others without watching them play and because they're on top right now, like popularity wise sometimes. Back in the day I heard kids saying T-Mac was better than Jordan, that's more outrageous than to say Bron is better than Bird, but he ain't at least right now imho.

[tempo2]

come on is this really a debate? when lebron wins multiple titles then we can start talking about it, until then i dont see the need to have this argument.

people read to much into athletism in basketball to be quite honest, if the game is played "the correct way" then astonishing athletic ability is not needed. hence why bird was the master of the "thinking" mans game

[tempo2]

for example was kobe best when he was the most athletic? or was he the best when he devloped a low post, mid range, thinking mans game?

[Sccit]

LOL...i can't believe people still debate with Cham on basketball related topics.

[IFB Flood]

come on is this really a debate? when lebron wins multiple titles then we can start talking about it, until then i dont see the need to have this argument.

people read to much into athletism in basketball to be quite honest, if the game is played "the correct way" then astonishing athletic ability is not needed. hence why bird was the master of the "thinking" mans game

for example was kobe best when he was the most athletic? or was he the best when he devloped a low post, mid range, thinking mans game?

exactly

[Chamillitary Click]

LOL...i can't believe people still debate with Cham on basketball related topics.

At least they give a response & don't give some generic ass "you don't know what you're talking about, I'm the God of basketball knowledge. I even have a Kobe tatoo on my left ass cheek" bullshit.

----------

Anyway, most people are missing the point. I keep hearing the words "rings" & "greatness" thrown into an argument. Karl Malone >>> 99% of all Power Fowards, no ring to show for it. I wouldn't say Robert Horry > Karl Malone because of greater success in the playoffs & more clutch shots in the Finals.

Bottom line, winning doesn't have anything to do with being the best. If you're surrounded by the best, you'll win. I'm not trying to discredit Larry Bird to be on a "Robert Horry" level; but it's an example that "greatness" & "legacy" have NOTHING to do with whose the better pure basketball player.

You guys need to think outside of the box & think if you were at the park with your freinds, who would you pick?

[IFB Flood]

LOL...i can't believe people still debate with Cham on basketball related topics.

At least they give a response & don't give some generic ass "you don't know what you're talking about, I'm the God of basketball knowledge. I even have a Kobe tatoo on my left ass cheek" bullshit.

----------

Anyway, most people are missing the point. I keep hearing the words "rings" & "greatness" thrown into an argument. Karl Malone >>> 99% of all Power Fowards, no ring to show for it. I wouldn't say Robert Horry > Karl Malone because of greater success in the playoffs & more clutch shots in the Finals.

Bottom line, winning doesn't have anything to do with being the best. If you're surrounded by the best, you'll win. I'm not trying to discredit Larry Bird to be on a "Robert Horry" level; but it's an example that "greatness" & "legacy" have NOTHING to do with whose the better pure basketball player.

You guys need to think outside of the box & think if you were at the park with your freinds, who would you pick?

Have you completely ignored my last few posts? I was comparing them both as players putting aside accomplishments. And there's a big difference between role players and key players no matter how many rings they've won.

If I was at the park (where there are no refs, you don't get called for traveling, you can do whatever the fuck you want and athleticism may count the most, where real defense doesn't counts, there are almost no rules and strategy) with my friends I would def pick LeBron. If I wanted to win some rings in the NBA I would pick Bird.

[Chamillitary Click]

LOL...i can't believe people still debate with Cham on basketball related topics.

At least they give a response & don't give some generic ass "you don't know what you're talking about, I'm the God of basketball knowledge. I even have a Kobe tatoo on my left ass cheek" bullshit.

----------

Anyway, most people are missing the point. I keep hearing the words "rings" & "greatness" thrown into an argument. Karl Malone >>> 99% of all Power Fowards, no ring to show for it. I wouldn't say Robert Horry > Karl Malone because of greater success in the playoffs & more clutch shots in the Finals.

Bottom line, winning doesn't have anything to do with being the best. If you're surrounded by the best, you'll win. I'm not trying to discredit Larry Bird to be on a "Robert Horry" level; but it's an example that "greatness" & "legacy" have NOTHING to do with whose the better pure basketball player.

You guys need to think outside of the box & think if you were at the park with your freinds, who would you pick?

Have you completely ignored my last few posts? I was comparing them both as players putting aside accomplishments. And there's a big difference between role players and key players no matter how many rings they've won.

If I was at the park (where there are no refs, you don't get called for traveling, you can do whatever the fuck you want and athleticism may count the most, where real defense doesn't counts, there are almost no rules and strategy) with my friends I would def pick LeBron. If I wanted to win some rings in the NBA I would pick Bird.

I read what you wrote, you just went on about Bird's strengths & how LeBron can't play in the 80's; unfortunatley it's 2010.

& it's hard to take any claim serious because I know for a fact if LeBron had that help that every other champion in the history of the NBA has gotten (I think the Cavs finished with under 30 wins this season will back my point there) & had three rings in his first seven years that this wouldn't even be an argument. But he's ringless, switched teams, has a bad image & you're all looking at an image & not a product on the basketball court.

I get it, Larry Bird is like the Tupac of the NBA. He's like generically at the top of everyone's list & if you compare his "work" to anyone elses it gets shot down because "nigga it's Tupac!". He's a sacred name that will forever be up there. Ask NIK who he thinks is better, Bird or Kobe. Why is Kobe allowed in that conversation? Because of rings. How did he win those rings? The most dominate big man in the history of the game & then a few years later a stacked ass squad at every position to even the bench.

[IFB Flood]

LOL...i can't believe people still debate with Cham on basketball related topics.

At least they give a response & don't give some generic ass "you don't know what you're talking about, I'm the God of basketball knowledge. I even have a Kobe tatoo on my left ass cheek" bullshit.

----------

Anyway, most people are missing the point. I keep hearing the words "rings" & "greatness" thrown into an argument. Karl Malone >>> 99% of all Power Fowards, no ring to show for it. I wouldn't say Robert Horry > Karl Malone because of greater success in the playoffs & more clutch shots in the Finals.

Bottom line, winning doesn't have anything to do with being the best. If you're surrounded by the best, you'll win. I'm not trying to discredit Larry Bird to be on a "Robert Horry" level; but it's an example that "greatness" & "legacy" have NOTHING to do with whose the better pure basketball player.

You guys need to think outside of the box & think if you were at the park with your freinds, who would you pick?

Have you completely ignored my last few posts? I was comparing them both as players putting aside accomplishments. And there's a big difference between role players and key players no matter how many rings they've won.

If I was at the park (where there are no refs, you don't get called for traveling, you can do whatever the fuck you want and athleticism may count the most, where real defense doesn't counts, there are almost no rules and strategy) with my friends I would def pick LeBron. If I wanted to win some rings in the NBA I would pick Bird.

I read what you wrote, you just went on about Bird's strengths & how LeBron can't play in the 80's; unfortunatley it's 2010.

& it's hard to take any claim serious because I know for a fact if LeBron had that help that every other champion in the history of the NBA has gotten (I think the Cavs finished with under 30 wins this season will back my point there) & had three rings in his first seven years that this wouldn't even be an argument. But he's ringless, switched teams, has a bad image & you're all looking at an image & not a product on the basketball court.

I get it, Larry Bird is like the Tupac of the NBA. He's like generically at the top of everyone's list & if you compare his "work" to anyone elses it gets shot down because "nigga it's Tupac!". He's a sacred name that will forever be up there. Ask NIK who he thinks is better, Bird or Kobe. Why is Kobe allowed in that conversation? Because of rings. How did he win those rings? The most dominate big man in the history of the game & then a few years later a stacked ass squad at every position to even the bench.

I can talk about LeBron's strengths too easily, and I never said he couldn't have played in the 80's, but he wouldn't be the best thing that ever happened to the NBA like you've claimed, he would've been a great player with a long way too go like he is now, like I've said he still has to develop his game and prove himself, he has room to grow and can surpass Bird, only the future will tell. I think if Bron had a better cast in the past maybe he would've gotten a ring by now and even if he did, right now, as players Bird is still the better one.

Now if Bird played right now he would've been as dominant as before, not better also, and if Bron played in the 80's he wouldn't be better than he his right now imho but he would've need to develop his game at some point just like Jordan did, the only thing that differs the rules of course and the 80's had better competition, we are stacked with great players, we got great teams today but also very weak ones, the 80's was stacked with great teams. I'm looking at both as basketball players not at their achievements, of course you gotta have achievements to be up there at the top but I'm comparing both as players, Bron can be better but right now he's not.

I don't give a fuck if he's a sacred name or not, I'm not talking about his achievements right now, I don't even think he would make top 3/5 in my list of best players ever, it's difficult to judge players that played at different positions though, but he's the best SF ever and better than Bron, of course this could change in the future.

Now don't tell me that to be a legend you don't need to have achievements or to prove yourself, also. I ain't specifically talking about rings but it's not about what you could've done but what you did and do. You don't need that to compare two names just as players but you need that to be named with the best ever.