Lifestyle > Sports & Entertainment
bird vs james
IFB Flood:
--- Quote from: tempo2 on September 07, 2010, 10:14:14 AM ---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
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: tempo2 on September 07, 2010, 10:15:16 AM ---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?
--- End quote ---
exactly
Chamillitary Click:
--- Quote from: NIKCC on September 07, 2010, 01:31:23 PM ---LOL...i can't believe people still debate with Cham on basketball related topics. :grumpy:
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: Chamillitary Click on September 07, 2010, 04:47:53 PM ---
--- Quote from: NIKCC on September 07, 2010, 01:31:23 PM ---LOL...i can't believe people still debate with Cham on basketball related topics. :grumpy:
--- End quote ---
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?
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: IFB Flood on September 07, 2010, 05:15:34 PM ---
--- Quote from: Chamillitary Click on September 07, 2010, 04:47:53 PM ---
--- Quote from: NIKCC on September 07, 2010, 01:31:23 PM ---LOL...i can't believe people still debate with Cham on basketball related topics. :grumpy:
--- End quote ---
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?
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: Chamillitary Click on September 07, 2010, 05:51:44 PM ---
--- Quote from: IFB Flood on September 07, 2010, 05:15:34 PM ---
--- Quote from: Chamillitary Click on September 07, 2010, 04:47:53 PM ---
--- Quote from: NIKCC on September 07, 2010, 01:31:23 PM ---LOL...i can't believe people still debate with Cham on basketball related topics. :grumpy:
--- End quote ---
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?
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version