Lifestyle > Sports & Entertainment
Your Top 10 SGs Of The 2000s
Chamillitary Click:
I'm not even getting involved in this tangent. That's what NIK does when he's wrong.
Anyway, NIK. You had no point. You wanted to say "Hahahaha, Oscar > Lebron, the numbers prove it". Not only does that mean I could say LeBron > Kobe, the numbers prove it lol, but then you tried to tell me I was a psycho for thinking the 60's was worse competition. Hack comes in says "LOL, THE 60S HAD GOOD COMPETITION" & you were like "obviously not as good competition", but at the same time you're telling me that the competition was great lmao.
Well if you can admit that the 60's was worse competition, obviously that's why you don't have big men (Wilt) scoring 60-100 points every few games & don't have Oscar putting up better than James numbers. & if you're really sticking behind that the 60's was the best of the best, then Russell obviously had the greatest career of all-time. Pick one, dumbass. Fairly simple.
Hack Wilson - real:
on point
Sccit:
--- Quote from: Chamillitary Click; #TeamBox on February 04, 2012, 03:30:54 PM ---I'm not even getting involved in this tangent. That's what NIK does when he's wrong.
Anyway, NIK. You had no point. You wanted to say "Hahahaha, Oscar > Lebron, the numbers prove it". Not only does that mean I could say LeBron > Kobe, the numbers prove it lol, but then you tried to tell me I was a psycho for thinking the 60's was worse competition. Hack comes in says "LOL, THE 60S HAD GOOD COMPETITION" & you were like "obviously not as good competition", but at the same time you're telling me that the competition was great lmao.
Well if you can admit that the 60's was worse competition, obviously that's why you don't have big men (Wilt) scoring 60-100 points every few games & don't have Oscar putting up better than James numbers. & if you're really sticking behind that the 60's was the best of the best, then Russell obviously had the greatest career of all-time. Pick one, dumbass. Fairly simple.
--- End quote ---
not my fault that u missed the point, due to lack of common sense, young biebs....point was that if ur going by numbers, which is what YOU'RE known for doing (not me), then u'd have to say Robertson>LeBron. ur so insecure that u don't read whats right in front of ur face, u simply take shit out of context and put words in peoples mouths like some paranoid closet-homo. never once did i say anything about Robertson being better than LeBron due to having better numbers, thats just what u ASSUMED. all that was implied was that if YOU want to go off of numbers, u'd have to acknowledge Robertson as greater than LeBron, as well as many other greats who have played in the league...so slow ur roll, homochild, and quit getting ahead of urself like the anxious ass lil faggot that u are. see, i never once compared the 60's competition to todays competition and i never said anything relatively close to ur made up quote of mine, "(60s) obviously wasnt as good competition (as today)". that is all in ur homoass paranoid mind. so when u learn to argue whats in front of u, instead of fabricating a bunch of lies (like u do in EVERY SINGLE back-n-forth we've ever had), then u might approach my level...as of now, u aint even close.
and lol@crack saying "on point"...like, who didnt see that one cumming?? smh@the board buttbuddies
Hack Wilson - real:
damn CHAM u r a dumb nigga according to nik
Chamillitary Click:
That was a bunch of bullshit "you're an idiot, you're gay" mixed in with zero substance. You said absolutely nothing relative & completely got away from the discussion.
BOTTOM LINE, YOU FUCKING IDIOT, we're both acknowledging that the 60's was a much weaker time to play than now. People dominated the game then like they simply cannot today. So Oscar's stats, like Wilt's aren't real. It's like in Baseball, when random guys from 1892 hold records. Sure, we acknowledge it, but we all know Pujols is simply better. He puts up ridiculous stats, better than anyone in a league where the game is far more developed. THEREFORE, Oscar's numbers are better, but the fact he played in a weak state of the NBA & average impossible numbers takes away from it. A lot away from it.
I don't see the difficulty in what you fail to grasp.
1. YOU SAID, "Oscar's numbers are better, therefore he's better than LeBron."
2. I SAID, "That would be true if Oscar didn't play in the 60's when the competition was weak."
3. YOU named fifteen players to say, "Cham, you're an idiot. Some of the greatest players of all-time played then & there was TONS of competition." (You really going to deny that?)
--- Quote from: NIKCC on February 04, 2012, 01:11:14 PM ---gayboy, my point was that robertson didn't play against "weak" competition...........robertson's era was competitive, obviously, based on the players i listed alone.
--- End quote ---
LOL, son. What does that mean? You're defending the 60's to solidify your claim that Oscar played in a competitive league & it's totally fair to make a comparison between the two eras.
4. HACK laughed at you.
5. YOU defended against your original statement & said the 60's "obviously" wasn't as competitive. ADMITTING that CLEARLY the
6. YOU are here right now trying to fight both points. One to me that the 60's WAS competitive enough to make a clear cut comparison between a guy who could be LeBron James's grandfather. Then you're making the point to Hack, "obviously the 60's wasn't as competitive" & you're trying to hide behind your COMPLETE contradiction by saying, "All I'm saying is that stats don't show anything"...yeah, not between today & 40 years ago. But today against today it's where it's at. Kobe just has inferior stats, so you have nothing to say but "it's about rings". WELL, if it's about rings & you're telling me we can compare LeBron & Oscars stats, obviously we can compare Kobe & Russell's rings.
Just wave the white flag when you're ready.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version