West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Sports & Entertainment => Topic started by: Tha A on September 04, 2010, 05:12:57 PM
-
I was having a discussion with some friends about the best strating 5 ever and one was actually so confident about saying james is the better sf above larry. do people really think lebron is above bird? gimme a break, some of these youngsters need to watch some games and highlights of the best teams ever.
-
Luke Walton>>Larry>>>>>>>>>>>>>Mark Madsen>>>>>>>>>>Lebron James
(http://i51.tinypic.com/axek3c.jpg)
-
larry bird > lebron james > magic johnson :D
-
I was having a discussion with some friends about the best strating 5 ever and one was actually so confident about saying james is the better sf above larry. do people really think lebron is above bird? gimme a break, some of these youngsters need to watch some games and highlights of the best teams ever.
bird came in and lead his team to a title in his second year, labron went and got a boyfriend to get good, fucc individual stats,bird and magic could have easily put up more numbers but they wanted to make they team great and they did,labron want to play with his friends like a lil kid, he may have the greatest althletic talent but it's about more then that, bird got that,fucc living in the moment rate the truth bird got it yell
-
Luke Walton>>Larry>>>>>>>>>>>>>Mark Madsen>>>>>>>>>>Lebron James
luke walton is already a legend 8). I don't really care about lebron joining the heat, he does what he wants to do but I think that will tarnish his legacy
larry bird > lebron james > magic johnson :D
never that ;D... I got magic on my sig but I'm as much a fan of magic as I am of bird and I really can't say who's the best.
-
I was having a discussion with some friends about the best strating 5 ever and one was actually so confident about saying james is the better sf above larry. do people really think lebron is above bird? gimme a break, some of these youngsters need to watch some games and highlights of the best teams ever.
bird came in and lead his team to a title in his second year, labron went and got a boyfriend to get good, fucc individual stats,bird and magic could have easily put up more numbers but they wanted to make they team great and they did,labron want to play with his friends like a lil kid, he may have the greatest althletic talent but it's about more then that, bird got that,fucc living in the moment rate the truth bird got it yell
fo real. I don't really care about him joining the heat and all that but to say he's better than bird is just absurd, I mean he's a great player and just an out of this world athlete but he ain't toucing bird on a basketball court.
-
If LeBron James played in 1980, he would be considered the greatest thing to ever play a sport.
Same goes for Kobe before you absurd homosexuals start crying.
The game changed, people are more athletic. James's build is BEYOND what was thought possible back then.
Larry Bird is a legend, with "rings" & was caught up in a Laker/Celtic rivalry.
Put him on an insignificant team during the 80's & he wouldn't get such recognition.
Saying LeBron is better is a stretch because people are ignorant & can't put together that the game was completely different in terms of size. Nobody LeBron's build could dribble and pass like LeBron can.
So if you judge it "by the book", you can't even compare the two, it's Bird.
But if you have an open mind & think about it, James.
-
If LeBron James played in 1980, he would be considered the greatest thing to ever play a sport.
Same goes for Kobe before you absurd homosexuals start crying.
The game changed, people are more athletic. James's build is BEYOND what was thought possible back then.
Larry Bird is a legend, with "rings" & was caught up in a Laker/Celtic rivalry.
Put him on an insignificant team during the 80's & he wouldn't get such recognition.
Saying LeBron is better is a stretch because people are ignorant & can't put together that the game was completely different in terms of size. Nobody LeBron's build could dribble and pass like LeBron can.
So if you judge it "by the book", you can't even compare the two, it's Bird.
But if you have an open mind & think about it, James.
not at all, you gotta look at things from both sides, what if players from back then were playing now? back then they didn't pay much attention too nutrition or working hard in the gym like nowadays, now athletes are more prepared as we evolved and learned more. I agree that lebron is a freak of nature but look at the rules from the 80's, you didn't have no handchecking and back then basketball was hard so that takes a lot away from lebron because his biggest strenght is attacking the basket and stop acting like back then there were no strong athletics guys that could defend lebron to a certain extent.only thing lebron got on bird is athleticism and everything that comes with it, bird is a better shooter, better passer(not my much), better at the clutch... lebron only got him at rebounding(not by much), driving to the hoop and man-on-man defense even though bird was too smart and also could defend because of that. put bird on a insignificant team in the 80's? how about the celtics, they were nothing in the years before bird went there. what kobe even got to do with this? and have you ever seen bird play, celtics games or games from the 80's?
-
If LeBron James played in 1980, he would be considered the greatest thing to ever play a sport.
Same goes for Kobe before you absurd homosexuals start crying.
The game changed, people are more athletic. James's build is BEYOND what was thought possible back then.
Larry Bird is a legend, with "rings" & was caught up in a Laker/Celtic rivalry.
Put him on an insignificant team during the 80's & he wouldn't get such recognition.
Saying LeBron is better is a stretch because people are ignorant & can't put together that the game was completely different in terms of size. Nobody LeBron's build could dribble and pass like LeBron can.
So if you judge it "by the book", you can't even compare the two, it's Bird.
But if you have an open mind & think about it, James.
if you talked about the 50's/60's that argument would be plausible but not for the 80's. look at the people that bird faced, michael cooper, scottie pippen, dominique wilkins, julius erving, dennis rodman and so on... great defenders and athletic guys and bird came out on top most of the times. the 80's presented maybbe the hardest competition ever imo and on the court it wouldn't be just james against bird of course, the celtics had a great team like every great player who wants to succeed gotta have but bird also made them better like every great player does. now don't tell me that lebron due to his out of this world athleticism would be the best thing ever in the 80's, basketball was hard back then, unless he could develop his game a lot more his athleticism would not make him more than he is now, and with this I'm not saying he's not a great player and could go down as one of the greatest.
-
cham is right in the fact that Lebron back in the 1980s would be the best physical speciman in NBA history
but it all depends on team mates
Magic had KAREEM plus Worthy and several others
Bird had the Chief and Kevin McHale
MJ had Pippen, Rodman and great situation players like Steve Kerr
-
If LeBron James played in 1980, he would be considered the greatest thing to ever play a sport.
Same goes for Kobe before you absurd homosexuals start crying.
The game changed, people are more athletic. James's build is BEYOND what was thought possible back then.
Larry Bird is a legend, with "rings" & was caught up in a Laker/Celtic rivalry.
Put him on an insignificant team during the 80's & he wouldn't get such recognition.
Saying LeBron is better is a stretch because people are ignorant & can't put together that the game was completely different in terms of size. Nobody LeBron's build could dribble and pass like LeBron can.
So if you judge it "by the book", you can't even compare the two, it's Bird.
But if you have an open mind & think about it, James.
That's a crock of shit. Jordan wasn't any more athletic in the 90s than he was in the 80s and no one was calling him better than Bird and Magic in the 80s. And Jordan was never any less of a build than Kobe is now and Kobe s on top the league, just like Jordan would be if he played now. Whether it's Jordan 88 or Jordan 98. And if Larry Bird was on the Celts this and last year instead of Pierce, Kobe never would have gotten his 4th or 5th rings.
Larry was never the most athletic. He was the smartest. Yeah, I get it, LeBron has the build of an outside linebacker, but he wouldn't be any more dominant in the 80s than Jordan was.
-
If LeBron James played in 1980, he would be considered the greatest thing to ever play a sport.
Same goes for Kobe before you absurd homosexuals start crying.
The game changed, people are more athletic. James's build is BEYOND what was thought possible back then.
Larry Bird is a legend, with "rings" & was caught up in a Laker/Celtic rivalry.
Put him on an insignificant team during the 80's & he wouldn't get such recognition.
Saying LeBron is better is a stretch because people are ignorant & can't put together that the game was completely different in terms of size. Nobody LeBron's build could dribble and pass like LeBron can.
So if you judge it "by the book", you can't even compare the two, it's Bird.
But if you have an open mind & think about it, James.
That's a crock of shit. Jordan wasn't any more athletic in the 90s than he was in the 80s and no one was calling him better than Bird and Magic in the 80s. And Jordan was never any less of a build than Kobe is now and Kobe s on top the league, just like Jordan would be if he played now. Whether it's Jordan 88 or Jordan 98. And if Larry Bird was on the Celts this and last year instead of Pierce, Kobe never would have gotten his 4th or 5th rings.
Larry was never the most athletic. He was the smartest. Yeah, I get it, LeBron has the build of an outside linebacker, but he wouldn't be any more dominant in the 80s than Jordan was.
I disagree and will continue to because you cannot provide substancial evidence to prove me wrong. It's not possible to have any, it's a question of faith.
And anyway, this is a question of LeBron or Bird. Bird has shooting, no question at all. But every other category goes to LeBron; driving, passing, handeling, defense, on the break, etc.
& nobody said Jordan was better in the 80's because Jordan didn't have any rings. I don't know who came up with this ring argument, but it's driving me crazy lol. It's like people are completely blind to the thought, regardless if Magic & Bird were the best players, they EASILY had the best support in the entire league. Magic had two future HOFers; as did Bird lol.
You used it for Peyton, it applies here. Hypothetically speaking, lets say LeBron won last year. I think it's basically safe to say that it would have been one of the worst overall teams to win a Final ever.
I can't really speak for before the 90's besides the 80's Lakers/Celtics, but if they won last year they easily would have been the worst overall team to win a Final in the past twenty years lol.
People need to get past the rings & realize this guy is averaging like 30, 7 & 7 in his career; obviously one of the greatest players.
-
If LeBron James played in 1980, he would be considered the greatest thing to ever play a sport.
Same goes for Kobe before you absurd homosexuals start crying.
The game changed, people are more athletic. James's build is BEYOND what was thought possible back then.
Larry Bird is a legend, with "rings" & was caught up in a Laker/Celtic rivalry.
Put him on an insignificant team during the 80's & he wouldn't get such recognition.
Saying LeBron is better is a stretch because people are ignorant & can't put together that the game was completely different in terms of size. Nobody LeBron's build could dribble and pass like LeBron can.
So if you judge it "by the book", you can't even compare the two, it's Bird.
But if you have an open mind & think about it, James.
not at all, you gotta look at things from both sides, what if players from back then were playing now? back then they didn't pay much attention too nutrition or working hard in the gym like nowadays, now athletes are more prepared as we evolved and learned more. I agree that lebron is a freak of nature but look at the rules from the 80's, you didn't have no handchecking and back then basketball was hard so that takes a lot away from lebron because his biggest strenght is attacking the basket and stop acting like back then there were no strong athletics guys that could defend lebron to a certain extent.only thing lebron got on bird is athleticism and everything that comes with it, bird is a better shooter, better passer(not my much), better at the clutch... lebron only got him at rebounding(not by much), driving to the hoop and man-on-man defense even though bird was too smart and also could defend because of that. put bird on a insignificant team in the 80's? how about the celtics, they were nothing in the years before bird went there. what kobe even got to do with this? and have you ever seen bird play, celtics games or games from the 80's?
Better passer? Sure Larry Bird was smart with the ball, but LeBron has already been touted as arguably the best passer ever lol. & he has "nothing else"? Like I said above, Bird easily has shooting & forever will. Clutch is just a intangible that cannot be proven; because people love to forget LeBron scored 29 or the final 30 points in Game 7 against Detroit in 2006. If I had a nickel for every time somebody told me LeBron isn't clutch & then when I bring up that game they say "well one game"...lmao.
Anyway LeBron has passing, rebounding, driving, dribbling, defense, better on the break offensively & defensively and anything else you can see & not just make up in these imaginary "clutch", "desire", "heart", "leadership" statistics lol.
I'd love to see a play where the Celtics turned it over, the other team was on the break & Larry Bird ran 100 feet down the court, came from behind, pinned the man on the break on the boards, took the rebound, and took it all the way back by himself, splitting defenders.
Speaking of these "clutch stats" I bet if you actually did the math behind it, Larry Bird (lets just say) was a 40% career 3pt shooter & I bet "in the clutch" he hit 40% of his 3pt shots. In the end, there is no "he stepped up", he just stay consistant.
& I'm saying, put Bird on a team that never won, making him ringless for his career & wasn't involved in the NBA's greatest rivalry & he wouldn't be as highly touted. & you say, they were insignificant before him; don't even front like those 80's Celtics teams, from starters to bench players weren't amazing. It wasn't "Larry carrying the load", it was a great team.
& finally, I only said Kobe because once you put LeBron on a pedistal like I just did here, it's only a matter of time before somebody catches feelings that Kobe isn't standing next to him. So I'm saying, Kobe & LeBron are interchangable in this vs. Bird debate.
-
If LeBron James played in 1980, he would be considered the greatest thing to ever play a sport.
Same goes for Kobe before you absurd homosexuals start crying.
The game changed, people are more athletic. James's build is BEYOND what was thought possible back then.
Larry Bird is a legend, with "rings" & was caught up in a Laker/Celtic rivalry.
Put him on an insignificant team during the 80's & he wouldn't get such recognition.
Saying LeBron is better is a stretch because people are ignorant & can't put together that the game was completely different in terms of size. Nobody LeBron's build could dribble and pass like LeBron can.
So if you judge it "by the book", you can't even compare the two, it's Bird.
But if you have an open mind & think about it, James.
not at all, you gotta look at things from both sides, what if players from back then were playing now? back then they didn't pay much attention too nutrition or working hard in the gym like nowadays, now athletes are more prepared as we evolved and learned more. I agree that lebron is a freak of nature but look at the rules from the 80's, you didn't have no handchecking and back then basketball was hard so that takes a lot away from lebron because his biggest strenght is attacking the basket and stop acting like back then there were no strong athletics guys that could defend lebron to a certain extent.only thing lebron got on bird is athleticism and everything that comes with it, bird is a better shooter, better passer(not my much), better at the clutch... lebron only got him at rebounding(not by much), driving to the hoop and man-on-man defense even though bird was too smart and also could defend because of that. put bird on a insignificant team in the 80's? how about the celtics, they were nothing in the years before bird went there. what kobe even got to do with this? and have you ever seen bird play, celtics games or games from the 80's?
Better passer? Sure Larry Bird was smart with the ball, but LeBron has already been touted as arguably the best passer ever lol. & he has "nothing else"? Like I said above, Bird easily has shooting & forever will. Clutch is just a intangible that cannot be proven; because people love to forget LeBron scored 29 or the final 30 points in Game 7 against Detroit in 2006. If I had a nickel for every time somebody told me LeBron isn't clutch & then when I bring up that game they say "well one game"...lmao.
Anyway LeBron has passing, rebounding, driving, dribbling, defense, better on the break offensively & defensively and anything else you can see & not just make up in these imaginary "clutch", "desire", "heart", "leadership" statistics lol.
I'd love to see a play where the Celtics turned it over, the other team was on the break & Larry Bird ran 100 feet down the court, came from behind, pinned the man on the break on the boards, took the rebound, and took it all the way back by himself, splitting defenders.
Speaking of these "clutch stats" I bet if you actually did the math behind it, Larry Bird (lets just say) was a 40% career 3pt shooter & I bet "in the clutch" he hit 40% of his 3pt shots. In the end, there is no "he stepped up", he just stay consistant.
& I'm saying, put Bird on a team that never won, making him ringless for his career & wasn't involved in the NBA's greatest rivalry & he wouldn't be as highly touted. & you say, they were insignificant before him; don't even front like those 80's Celtics teams, from starters to bench players weren't amazing. It wasn't "Larry carrying the load", it was a great team.
& finally, I only said Kobe because once you put LeBron on a pedistal like I just did here, it's only a matter of time before somebody catches feelings that Kobe isn't standing next to him. So I'm saying, Kobe & LeBron are interchangable in this vs. Bird debate.
best passer ever? are you kidding me right? have you ever seen bird passing abilities? he did not have the ball everytime like lebron does and still managed to get many assists and his passing abilities were just crazy. and have did I say lebron isn't clutch? he still got to prove himself but I never said that. and you just defined that larry is clutch, he staid consistant in those big moments, that's what clutch is, people just like to say stepped up. have you ever played any kind of sport? some people fold under pressure and cannot perform well, some people not, even I think it was larry who said once that he did that all the time, when asked how he did that shot on the last seconds. the 1979 celtics were 29–53, when bird arrived they went 61-21 without mchale or parish, and they were good/great players but with bird they became hall of famers something they would not do on their own. like I've said, have you ever seen bird play?
-
I'm always amazed how B-Ball fans are obssesed with comparing players ...
Did Bird and Bron play in the same era ? no , did they matchup against each other ? no ... end of discussion
-
If LeBron James played in 1980, he would be considered the greatest thing to ever play a sport.
Same goes for Kobe before you absurd homosexuals start crying.
The game changed, people are more athletic. James's build is BEYOND what was thought possible back then.
Larry Bird is a legend, with "rings" & was caught up in a Laker/Celtic rivalry.
Put him on an insignificant team during the 80's & he wouldn't get such recognition.
Saying LeBron is better is a stretch because people are ignorant & can't put together that the game was completely different in terms of size. Nobody LeBron's build could dribble and pass like LeBron can.
So if you judge it "by the book", you can't even compare the two, it's Bird.
But if you have an open mind & think about it, James.
That's a crock of shit. Jordan wasn't any more athletic in the 90s than he was in the 80s and no one was calling him better than Bird and Magic in the 80s. And Jordan was never any less of a build than Kobe is now and Kobe s on top the league, just like Jordan would be if he played now. Whether it's Jordan 88 or Jordan 98. And if Larry Bird was on the Celts this and last year instead of Pierce, Kobe never would have gotten his 4th or 5th rings.
Larry was never the most athletic. He was the smartest. Yeah, I get it, LeBron has the build of an outside linebacker, but he wouldn't be any more dominant in the 80s than Jordan was.
I disagree and will continue to because you cannot provide substancial evidence to prove me wrong. It's not possible to have any, it's a question of faith.
And anyway, this is a question of LeBron or Bird. Bird has shooting, no question at all. But every other category goes to LeBron; driving, passing, handeling, defense, on the break, etc.
& nobody said Jordan was better in the 80's because Jordan didn't have any rings. I don't know who came up with this ring argument, but it's driving me crazy lol. It's like people are completely blind to the thought, regardless if Magic & Bird were the best players, they EASILY had the best support in the entire league. Magic had two future HOFers; as did Bird lol.
You used it for Peyton, it applies here. Hypothetically speaking, lets say LeBron won last year. I think it's basically safe to say that it would have been one of the worst overall teams to win a Final ever.
I can't really speak for before the 90's besides the 80's Lakers/Celtics, but if they won last year they easily would have been the worst overall team to win a Final in the past twenty years lol.
People need to get past the rings & realize this guy is averaging like 30, 7 & 7 in his career; obviously one of the greatest players.
You're really helping me out with the Jordan argument, that I was making. Debate my point with my point. Good move. Jordan was as good in the mid 80s as he was in the mid 90s, and mid 90s Jordan is as good as current Kobe. Current Kobe runs the league, so if 90s Jordan could run the league, then so could 80s Jordan, and 80s Jordan was as good as Bird, not better. So by simple deductive mathematical logic, 80s Bird would run the league in today's game.
Is that too complicated for you?
The Celts that won rings were great teams. But the rookie year for Bird had a terrible Celtics team that was at the bottom of the league the year before he got there. As a rookie he lead them from 29 wins to 61 wins and from no playoffs for a few years to the Eastern Conference Finals. No Parrish, no McHale, no Ainge, no shit. As a fucking rookie.
And don't even bother comparing the NFL to the NBA. Peyton is only one small aspect of an NFL team. So much of an NFL win and loss has nothing to do with a QB. The leader of an NBA team is on the court for every crucial moment and everything goes through him. Cleveland had Boston and Lebron gave up. I don't know or care what was going on at home. They needed him to step up and take charge and he stepped back. Larry Bird and the Cavs win that series (even if Larry walked in on Shaq and Ilgauskas DPing his mom). There is something to be said for grit. And I was a huge Lebron over Kobe supporter until I saw Lebron quit.
I don't care about rings or what happens in the end. I watch people play. And I'm not saying it's an obvious choice or anything, but from what I've seen with my own eyes, The Legend trumps the self proclaimed King.
-
If LeBron James played in 1980, he would be considered the greatest thing to ever play a sport.
Same goes for Kobe before you absurd homosexuals start crying.
The game changed, people are more athletic. James's build is BEYOND what was thought possible back then.
Larry Bird is a legend, with "rings" & was caught up in a Laker/Celtic rivalry.
Put him on an insignificant team during the 80's & he wouldn't get such recognition.
Saying LeBron is better is a stretch because people are ignorant & can't put together that the game was completely different in terms of size. Nobody LeBron's build could dribble and pass like LeBron can.
So if you judge it "by the book", you can't even compare the two, it's Bird.
But if you have an open mind & think about it, James.
That's a crock of shit. Jordan wasn't any more athletic in the 90s than he was in the 80s and no one was calling him better than Bird and Magic in the 80s. And Jordan was never any less of a build than Kobe is now and Kobe s on top the league, just like Jordan would be if he played now. Whether it's Jordan 88 or Jordan 98. And if Larry Bird was on the Celts this and last year instead of Pierce, Kobe never would have gotten his 4th or 5th rings.
Larry was never the most athletic. He was the smartest. Yeah, I get it, LeBron has the build of an outside linebacker, but he wouldn't be any more dominant in the 80s than Jordan was.
I disagree and will continue to because you cannot provide substancial evidence to prove me wrong. It's not possible to have any, it's a question of faith.
And anyway, this is a question of LeBron or Bird. Bird has shooting, no question at all. But every other category goes to LeBron; driving, passing, handeling, defense, on the break, etc.
& nobody said Jordan was better in the 80's because Jordan didn't have any rings. I don't know who came up with this ring argument, but it's driving me crazy lol. It's like people are completely blind to the thought, regardless if Magic & Bird were the best players, they EASILY had the best support in the entire league. Magic had two future HOFers; as did Bird lol.
You used it for Peyton, it applies here. Hypothetically speaking, lets say LeBron won last year. I think it's basically safe to say that it would have been one of the worst overall teams to win a Final ever.
I can't really speak for before the 90's besides the 80's Lakers/Celtics, but if they won last year they easily would have been the worst overall team to win a Final in the past twenty years lol.
People need to get past the rings & realize this guy is averaging like 30, 7 & 7 in his career; obviously one of the greatest players.
You're really helping me out with the Jordan argument, that I was making. Debate my point with my point. Good move. Jordan was as good in the mid 80s as he was in the mid 90s, and mid 90s Jordan is as good as current Kobe. Current Kobe runs the league, so if 90s Jordan could run the league, then so could 80s Jordan, and 80s Jordan was as good as Bird, not better. So by simple deductive mathematical logic, 80s Bird would run the league in today's game.
Is that too complicated for you?
The Celts that won rings were great teams. But the rookie year for Bird had a terrible Celtics team that was at the bottom of the league the year before he got there. As a rookie he lead them from 29 wins to 61 wins and from no playoffs for a few years to the Eastern Conference Finals. No Parrish, no McHale, no Ainge, no shit. As a fucking rookie.
And don't even bother comparing the NFL to the NBA. Peyton is only one small aspect of an NFL team. So much of an NFL win and loss has nothing to do with a QB. The leader of an NBA team is on the court for every crucial moment and everything goes through him. Cleveland had Boston and Lebron gave up. I don't know or care what was going on at home. They needed him to step up and take charge and he stepped back. Larry Bird and the Cavs win that series (even if Larry walked in on Shaq and Ilgauskas DPing his mom). There is something to be said for grit. And I was a huge Lebron over Kobe supporter until I saw Lebron quit.
I don't care about rings or what happens in the end. I watch people play. And I'm not saying it's an obvious choice or anything, but from what I've seen with my own eyes, The Legend trumps the self proclaimed King.
on point
I ain't trying to start some shit with chamilitary click over this but people gotta stop acting like there weren't great athletes in 80's nba. bird faced some of the best perimeter defenders ever like rodman, scottie and cooper, and they had a really tough time guarding bird mostly due to his smartness and "shooting ability the only little insignificant thing he got over lebron". the league had great competition like the bad boys who played really hard ball and the rules could damage lebron's driving a lot. lebron IS the best physical specimen(with his mobility and ballhandling abilities) in the nba no matter what year he played and that don't mean he would've been the best thing ever if he played on the 80's, he would've been the same as now, not saying that's not great.
-
I'm always amazed how B-Ball fans are obssesed with comparing players ...
Did Bird and Bron play in the same era ? no , did they matchup against each other ? no ... end of discussion
try sports fans. but yeah it's always hard to compare players from different eras.
-
Yeah that is a tough comparison. The only player skill and build wise that even comes close to Lebron back then was Len Bias (R.I.P.) and he was not even close to being as good a passer as Lebron
-
If LeBron James played in 1980, he would be considered the greatest thing to ever play a sport.
Same goes for Kobe before you absurd homosexuals start crying.
The game changed, people are more athletic. James's build is BEYOND what was thought possible back then.
Larry Bird is a legend, with "rings" & was caught up in a Laker/Celtic rivalry.
Put him on an insignificant team during the 80's & he wouldn't get such recognition.
Saying LeBron is better is a stretch because people are ignorant & can't put together that the game was completely different in terms of size. Nobody LeBron's build could dribble and pass like LeBron can.
So if you judge it "by the book", you can't even compare the two, it's Bird.
But if you have an open mind & think about it, James.
That's a crock of shit. Jordan wasn't any more athletic in the 90s than he was in the 80s and no one was calling him better than Bird and Magic in the 80s. And Jordan was never any less of a build than Kobe is now and Kobe s on top the league, just like Jordan would be if he played now. Whether it's Jordan 88 or Jordan 98. And if Larry Bird was on the Celts this and last year instead of Pierce, Kobe never would have gotten his 4th or 5th rings.
Larry was never the most athletic. He was the smartest. Yeah, I get it, LeBron has the build of an outside linebacker, but he wouldn't be any more dominant in the 80s than Jordan was.
I disagree and will continue to because you cannot provide substancial evidence to prove me wrong. It's not possible to have any, it's a question of faith.
And anyway, this is a question of LeBron or Bird. Bird has shooting, no question at all. But every other category goes to LeBron; driving, passing, handeling, defense, on the break, etc.
& nobody said Jordan was better in the 80's because Jordan didn't have any rings. I don't know who came up with this ring argument, but it's driving me crazy lol. It's like people are completely blind to the thought, regardless if Magic & Bird were the best players, they EASILY had the best support in the entire league. Magic had two future HOFers; as did Bird lol.
You used it for Peyton, it applies here. Hypothetically speaking, lets say LeBron won last year. I think it's basically safe to say that it would have been one of the worst overall teams to win a Final ever.
I can't really speak for before the 90's besides the 80's Lakers/Celtics, but if they won last year they easily would have been the worst overall team to win a Final in the past twenty years lol.
People need to get past the rings & realize this guy is averaging like 30, 7 & 7 in his career; obviously one of the greatest players.
You're really helping me out with the Jordan argument, that I was making. Debate my point with my point. Good move. Jordan was as good in the mid 80s as he was in the mid 90s, and mid 90s Jordan is as good as current Kobe. Current Kobe runs the league, so if 90s Jordan could run the league, then so could 80s Jordan, and 80s Jordan was as good as Bird, not better. So by simple deductive mathematical logic, 80s Bird would run the league in today's game.
Is that too complicated for you?
The Celts that won rings were great teams. But the rookie year for Bird had a terrible Celtics team that was at the bottom of the league the year before he got there. As a rookie he lead them from 29 wins to 61 wins and from no playoffs for a few years to the Eastern Conference Finals. No Parrish, no McHale, no Ainge, no shit. As a fucking rookie.
And don't even bother comparing the NFL to the NBA. Peyton is only one small aspect of an NFL team. So much of an NFL win and loss has nothing to do with a QB. The leader of an NBA team is on the court for every crucial moment and everything goes through him. Cleveland had Boston and Lebron gave up. I don't know or care what was going on at home. They needed him to step up and take charge and he stepped back. Larry Bird and the Cavs win that series (even if Larry walked in on Shaq and Ilgauskas DPing his mom). There is something to be said for grit. And I was a huge Lebron over Kobe supporter until I saw Lebron quit.
I don't care about rings or what happens in the end. I watch people play. And I'm not saying it's an obvious choice or anything, but from what I've seen with my own eyes, The Legend trumps the self proclaimed King.
on point
I ain't trying to start some shit with chamilitary click over this but people gotta stop acting like there weren't great athletes in 80's nba. bird faced some of the best perimeter defenders ever like rodman, scottie and cooper, and they had a really tough time guarding bird mostly due to his smartness and "shooting ability the only little insignificant thing he got over lebron". the league had great competition like the bad boys who played really hard ball and the rules could damage lebron's driving a lot. lebron IS the best physical specimen(with his mobility and ballhandling abilities) in the nba no matter what year he played and that don't mean he would've been the best thing ever if he played on the 80's, he would've been the same as now, not saying that's not great.
Don't worry, fam. No disrespect at all, just a debate.
But the thing with Bird is that they were defending his shooting, they were probably hoping he pump faked & tried to drive. If you jump on a LeBron pump fake, you might as well just give him two points or at least call it a given he is going to the line.
Players are more atheltic today than they were in the 80's, it's basically a fact. Not saying there weren't any, but LeBron wouldn't have to face one every night; just occasionally.
-
If LeBron James played in 1980, he would be considered the greatest thing to ever play a sport.
Same goes for Kobe before you absurd homosexuals start crying.
The game changed, people are more athletic. James's build is BEYOND what was thought possible back then.
Larry Bird is a legend, with "rings" & was caught up in a Laker/Celtic rivalry.
Put him on an insignificant team during the 80's & he wouldn't get such recognition.
Saying LeBron is better is a stretch because people are ignorant & can't put together that the game was completely different in terms of size. Nobody LeBron's build could dribble and pass like LeBron can.
So if you judge it "by the book", you can't even compare the two, it's Bird.
But if you have an open mind & think about it, James.
That's a crock of shit. Jordan wasn't any more athletic in the 90s than he was in the 80s and no one was calling him better than Bird and Magic in the 80s. And Jordan was never any less of a build than Kobe is now and Kobe s on top the league, just like Jordan would be if he played now. Whether it's Jordan 88 or Jordan 98. And if Larry Bird was on the Celts this and last year instead of Pierce, Kobe never would have gotten his 4th or 5th rings.
Larry was never the most athletic. He was the smartest. Yeah, I get it, LeBron has the build of an outside linebacker, but he wouldn't be any more dominant in the 80s than Jordan was.
I disagree and will continue to because you cannot provide substancial evidence to prove me wrong. It's not possible to have any, it's a question of faith.
And anyway, this is a question of LeBron or Bird. Bird has shooting, no question at all. But every other category goes to LeBron; driving, passing, handeling, defense, on the break, etc.
& nobody said Jordan was better in the 80's because Jordan didn't have any rings. I don't know who came up with this ring argument, but it's driving me crazy lol. It's like people are completely blind to the thought, regardless if Magic & Bird were the best players, they EASILY had the best support in the entire league. Magic had two future HOFers; as did Bird lol.
You used it for Peyton, it applies here. Hypothetically speaking, lets say LeBron won last year. I think it's basically safe to say that it would have been one of the worst overall teams to win a Final ever.
I can't really speak for before the 90's besides the 80's Lakers/Celtics, but if they won last year they easily would have been the worst overall team to win a Final in the past twenty years lol.
People need to get past the rings & realize this guy is averaging like 30, 7 & 7 in his career; obviously one of the greatest players.
You're really helping me out with the Jordan argument, that I was making. Debate my point with my point. Good move. Jordan was as good in the mid 80s as he was in the mid 90s, and mid 90s Jordan is as good as current Kobe. Current Kobe runs the league, so if 90s Jordan could run the league, then so could 80s Jordan, and 80s Jordan was as good as Bird, not better. So by simple deductive mathematical logic, 80s Bird would run the league in today's game.
Is that too complicated for you?
The Celts that won rings were great teams. But the rookie year for Bird had a terrible Celtics team that was at the bottom of the league the year before he got there. As a rookie he lead them from 29 wins to 61 wins and from no playoffs for a few years to the Eastern Conference Finals. No Parrish, no McHale, no Ainge, no shit. As a fucking rookie.
And don't even bother comparing the NFL to the NBA. Peyton is only one small aspect of an NFL team. So much of an NFL win and loss has nothing to do with a QB. The leader of an NBA team is on the court for every crucial moment and everything goes through him. Cleveland had Boston and Lebron gave up. I don't know or care what was going on at home. They needed him to step up and take charge and he stepped back. Larry Bird and the Cavs win that series (even if Larry walked in on Shaq and Ilgauskas DPing his mom). There is something to be said for grit. And I was a huge Lebron over Kobe supporter until I saw Lebron quit.
I don't care about rings or what happens in the end. I watch people play. And I'm not saying it's an obvious choice or anything, but from what I've seen with my own eyes, The Legend trumps the self proclaimed King.
LOL, don't give me that "he led them to the ECF". LeBron was completely alone & got to the Finals & people discredit that because they fight this "you need a ring" argument. Take that out of the equation & you NOTHING to say about LeBron. I couldn't tell you who Bird had his rookie year, but I'm willing to make a bet that overall they were a MUCHHHH better team than LeBron had when he made it to the Finals with Daniel "Booby" Gibson as his major number two player.
& I don't know if you were just being a smartass or serious, but if you truly meant 80's Bird would run today's league, that's insane. I'd say he'd be worse in every single statistically category. Just like how if Shaq played in the 70's-80's, he would undoubtedly be considered the greatest ever.
I'd compare Larry Bird to Dirk, just a better passer; if Larry was playing today. Now if you had the choice of Dirk or LeBron, who would you take?
Players today hit the gym daily, spend hours upon hours practicing, have coaches fine tune their game & overall just stay in much better top physical shape than they did.
-
If LeBron James played in 1980, he would be considered the greatest thing to ever play a sport.
Same goes for Kobe before you absurd homosexuals start crying.
The game changed, people are more athletic. James's build is BEYOND what was thought possible back then.
Larry Bird is a legend, with "rings" & was caught up in a Laker/Celtic rivalry.
Put him on an insignificant team during the 80's & he wouldn't get such recognition.
Saying LeBron is better is a stretch because people are ignorant & can't put together that the game was completely different in terms of size. Nobody LeBron's build could dribble and pass like LeBron can.
So if you judge it "by the book", you can't even compare the two, it's Bird.
But if you have an open mind & think about it, James.
That's a crock of shit. Jordan wasn't any more athletic in the 90s than he was in the 80s and no one was calling him better than Bird and Magic in the 80s. And Jordan was never any less of a build than Kobe is now and Kobe s on top the league, just like Jordan would be if he played now. Whether it's Jordan 88 or Jordan 98. And if Larry Bird was on the Celts this and last year instead of Pierce, Kobe never would have gotten his 4th or 5th rings.
Larry was never the most athletic. He was the smartest. Yeah, I get it, LeBron has the build of an outside linebacker, but he wouldn't be any more dominant in the 80s than Jordan was.
I disagree and will continue to because you cannot provide substancial evidence to prove me wrong. It's not possible to have any, it's a question of faith.
And anyway, this is a question of LeBron or Bird. Bird has shooting, no question at all. But every other category goes to LeBron; driving, passing, handeling, defense, on the break, etc.
& nobody said Jordan was better in the 80's because Jordan didn't have any rings. I don't know who came up with this ring argument, but it's driving me crazy lol. It's like people are completely blind to the thought, regardless if Magic & Bird were the best players, they EASILY had the best support in the entire league. Magic had two future HOFers; as did Bird lol.
You used it for Peyton, it applies here. Hypothetically speaking, lets say LeBron won last year. I think it's basically safe to say that it would have been one of the worst overall teams to win a Final ever.
I can't really speak for before the 90's besides the 80's Lakers/Celtics, but if they won last year they easily would have been the worst overall team to win a Final in the past twenty years lol.
People need to get past the rings & realize this guy is averaging like 30, 7 & 7 in his career; obviously one of the greatest players.
You're really helping me out with the Jordan argument, that I was making. Debate my point with my point. Good move. Jordan was as good in the mid 80s as he was in the mid 90s, and mid 90s Jordan is as good as current Kobe. Current Kobe runs the league, so if 90s Jordan could run the league, then so could 80s Jordan, and 80s Jordan was as good as Bird, not better. So by simple deductive mathematical logic, 80s Bird would run the league in today's game.
Is that too complicated for you?
The Celts that won rings were great teams. But the rookie year for Bird had a terrible Celtics team that was at the bottom of the league the year before he got there. As a rookie he lead them from 29 wins to 61 wins and from no playoffs for a few years to the Eastern Conference Finals. No Parrish, no McHale, no Ainge, no shit. As a fucking rookie.
And don't even bother comparing the NFL to the NBA. Peyton is only one small aspect of an NFL team. So much of an NFL win and loss has nothing to do with a QB. The leader of an NBA team is on the court for every crucial moment and everything goes through him. Cleveland had Boston and Lebron gave up. I don't know or care what was going on at home. They needed him to step up and take charge and he stepped back. Larry Bird and the Cavs win that series (even if Larry walked in on Shaq and Ilgauskas DPing his mom). There is something to be said for grit. And I was a huge Lebron over Kobe supporter until I saw Lebron quit.
I don't care about rings or what happens in the end. I watch people play. And I'm not saying it's an obvious choice or anything, but from what I've seen with my own eyes, The Legend trumps the self proclaimed King.
on point
I ain't trying to start some shit with chamilitary click over this but people gotta stop acting like there weren't great athletes in 80's nba. bird faced some of the best perimeter defenders ever like rodman, scottie and cooper, and they had a really tough time guarding bird mostly due to his smartness and "shooting ability the only little insignificant thing he got over lebron". the league had great competition like the bad boys who played really hard ball and the rules could damage lebron's driving a lot. lebron IS the best physical specimen(with his mobility and ballhandling abilities) in the nba no matter what year he played and that don't mean he would've been the best thing ever if he played on the 80's, he would've been the same as now, not saying that's not great.
Don't worry, fam. No disrespect at all, just a debate.
But the thing with Bird is that they were defending his shooting, they were probably hoping he pump faked & tried to drive. If you jump on a LeBron pump fake, you might as well just give him two points or at least call it a given he is going to the line.
Players are more atheltic today than they were in the 80's, it's basically a fact. Not saying there weren't any, but LeBron wouldn't have to face one every night; just occasionally.
it's all good.
the thing is larry was so deadly shooting that he could fake and drive(which he can also do) or pass. now that's why defenders rather have lebron shooting than driving because he's a beast attacking the basket, once he develops his game(specifically his jumpshot) and proves himself leading a team, racking mvp trophies and titles, and remaining consistent, then I would say he passed bird but not right now, he already tarnished his legacy a bit by moving to miami but let's see what happens. right now he ain't touching bird imo. of course players are more athletic today, the game changes, we developed, we now know much more. lebron would faced much more competition in terms of teams, I'll tell that much.
-
If LeBron James played in 1980, he would be considered the greatest thing to ever play a sport.
Same goes for Kobe before you absurd homosexuals start crying.
The game changed, people are more athletic. James's build is BEYOND what was thought possible back then.
Larry Bird is a legend, with "rings" & was caught up in a Laker/Celtic rivalry.
Put him on an insignificant team during the 80's & he wouldn't get such recognition.
Saying LeBron is better is a stretch because people are ignorant & can't put together that the game was completely different in terms of size. Nobody LeBron's build could dribble and pass like LeBron can.
So if you judge it "by the book", you can't even compare the two, it's Bird.
But if you have an open mind & think about it, James.
That's a crock of shit. Jordan wasn't any more athletic in the 90s than he was in the 80s and no one was calling him better than Bird and Magic in the 80s. And Jordan was never any less of a build than Kobe is now and Kobe s on top the league, just like Jordan would be if he played now. Whether it's Jordan 88 or Jordan 98. And if Larry Bird was on the Celts this and last year instead of Pierce, Kobe never would have gotten his 4th or 5th rings.
Larry was never the most athletic. He was the smartest. Yeah, I get it, LeBron has the build of an outside linebacker, but he wouldn't be any more dominant in the 80s than Jordan was.
I disagree and will continue to because you cannot provide substancial evidence to prove me wrong. It's not possible to have any, it's a question of faith.
And anyway, this is a question of LeBron or Bird. Bird has shooting, no question at all. But every other category goes to LeBron; driving, passing, handeling, defense, on the break, etc.
& nobody said Jordan was better in the 80's because Jordan didn't have any rings. I don't know who came up with this ring argument, but it's driving me crazy lol. It's like people are completely blind to the thought, regardless if Magic & Bird were the best players, they EASILY had the best support in the entire league. Magic had two future HOFers; as did Bird lol.
You used it for Peyton, it applies here. Hypothetically speaking, lets say LeBron won last year. I think it's basically safe to say that it would have been one of the worst overall teams to win a Final ever.
I can't really speak for before the 90's besides the 80's Lakers/Celtics, but if they won last year they easily would have been the worst overall team to win a Final in the past twenty years lol.
People need to get past the rings & realize this guy is averaging like 30, 7 & 7 in his career; obviously one of the greatest players.
You're really helping me out with the Jordan argument, that I was making. Debate my point with my point. Good move. Jordan was as good in the mid 80s as he was in the mid 90s, and mid 90s Jordan is as good as current Kobe. Current Kobe runs the league, so if 90s Jordan could run the league, then so could 80s Jordan, and 80s Jordan was as good as Bird, not better. So by simple deductive mathematical logic, 80s Bird would run the league in today's game.
Is that too complicated for you?
The Celts that won rings were great teams. But the rookie year for Bird had a terrible Celtics team that was at the bottom of the league the year before he got there. As a rookie he lead them from 29 wins to 61 wins and from no playoffs for a few years to the Eastern Conference Finals. No Parrish, no McHale, no Ainge, no shit. As a fucking rookie.
And don't even bother comparing the NFL to the NBA. Peyton is only one small aspect of an NFL team. So much of an NFL win and loss has nothing to do with a QB. The leader of an NBA team is on the court for every crucial moment and everything goes through him. Cleveland had Boston and Lebron gave up. I don't know or care what was going on at home. They needed him to step up and take charge and he stepped back. Larry Bird and the Cavs win that series (even if Larry walked in on Shaq and Ilgauskas DPing his mom). There is something to be said for grit. And I was a huge Lebron over Kobe supporter until I saw Lebron quit.
I don't care about rings or what happens in the end. I watch people play. And I'm not saying it's an obvious choice or anything, but from what I've seen with my own eyes, The Legend trumps the self proclaimed King.
LOL, don't give me that "he led them to the ECF". LeBron was completely alone & got to the Finals & people discredit that because they fight this "you need a ring" argument. Take that out of the equation & you NOTHING to say about LeBron. I couldn't tell you who Bird had his rookie year, but I'm willing to make a bet that overall they were a MUCHHHH better team than LeBron had when he made it to the Finals with Daniel "Booby" Gibson as his major number two player.
& I don't know if you were just being a smartass or serious, but if you truly meant 80's Bird would run today's league, that's insane. I'd say he'd be worse in every single statistically category. Just like how if Shaq played in the 70's-80's, he would undoubtedly be considered the greatest ever.
I'd compare Larry Bird to Dirk, just a better passer; if Larry was playing today. Now if you had the choice of Dirk or LeBron, who would you take?
Players today hit the gym daily, spend hours upon hours practicing, have coaches fine tune their game & overall just stay in much better top physical shape than they did.
taking all the rings and mvp trophies away, comparing them both as players until lebron develops his game more(if he can do that, I believed he's not in his prime yet) bird is better. like I've said that celtics team had one of the worst records before bird got there and teams faced greater competition than they do today. you also gotta take in consideration that when lebron came into the league he was not that physical specimen that he is today despite being a great player, he developed his body and if he played in the 80's he would have not been like what he is today(that's why it is difficult to compare players from different eras). bird could develop much more in this day and age but even if he didn't all that much he would still dominate today, he didn't need no athleticism, he was deadly and too smart, just go watch games from the 80's celtics. don't even compare him to dirk man, dirk is big and a great shooter, bird could shoot better, pass better, rebound better, better at going to the hoop, better facilitator and he wasn't your typical pure shooter like ray allen or such, he developed his shooting with time and he could create his own shot, also dirk folds too much under pressure, bird didn't. and I agree completely with your last sentence, that's why you can't say lebron would dominate the 80's(it's not the 50's/60's were basketball was made mostly by skinny white boys) and that bird wouldn't dominate today. all in all it's a tough discussion but right now as a player bird is better(you gotta see him play really), in the end lebron can be greater as a player and career wise(though more difficult due to his recent transaction), we just gotta wait in see what happens.
-
Different athletes in different eras, but it's obvious that LeBron is nowhere close to Bird in terms of achievements.
-
LOL!! No comparison here, Larry Bird shits all over Bron Bron.
-
http://www.youtube.com/v/ULvo7__wwBU?fs=1&hl=pt_PT
that's some sick shit and all I got say is you can't even see half of bird's greatness just by watching these highlights, I got some tapes from the lakers, celtics, pistons and 76's best games from the 80's and youtube also got some games, you really gotts watch him play just to see how great he was, just like magic, jordan, kareem, hakeem... all the great ones. now lebron is ballin like crazy right now but he ain't touching bird(at least yet).
-
Cham, shut up about the shooting. You really have no idea what kind of player Bird was. Before the knees started hurting he was an inside scrapper. It wasn't until later that he became Mr 3-point shot because his body was beaten down. You don't only last in the league ten years if you're just an outside shooter. His defense and boards were also incredible. To compare him to Dirk is a joke.
And all that garbage about training and fine tuning; Jordan had all that, and he was never any better than Bird when they played together. Explain that? Unless you think Jordan would be barely better than average in today's league.
Steve Nash was 2 time MVP in recent years and Bird shits over Nash. He beat you with his mind first. That's one thing Lebron can't compete with him. I'm not saying Lebron is stupid, he's just not Larry Bird smart.
And go look through that 1980 team. The only two recognizable names are Cowan and Maravich and both had limited roles as their careers were over by then. Cedric Maxwell was there too. It was the same team as the year before that won 29 games. Add a rookie Larry Bird.
The bottom line is Lebron James quit this year and the fucking asshole made me a Kobe fan. I'll never forgive him for that. If Peyton Manning left the game down by two scores with a minute to go I'd go back to cheering for Brady.
-
Before the knees started hurting he was an inside scrapper. It wasn't until later that he became Mr 3-point shot because his body was beaten down.
very true, lot of people don't know that.
Cham, shut up about the shooting. You really have no idea what kind of player Bird was. Before the knees started hurting he was an inside scrapper. It wasn't until later that he became Mr 3-point shot because his body was beaten down. You don't only last in the league ten years if you're just an outside shooter. His defense and boards were also incredible. To compare him to Dirk is a joke.
And all that garbage about training and fine tuning; Jordan had all that, and he was never any better than Bird when they played together. Explain that? Unless you think Jordan would be barely better than average in today's league.
Steve Nash was 2 time MVP in recent years and Bird shits over Nash. He beat you with his mind first. That's one thing Lebron can't compete with him. I'm not saying Lebron is stupid, he's just not Larry Bird smart.
And go look through that 1980 team. The only two recognizable names are Cowan and Maravich and both had limited roles as their careers were over by then. Cedric Maxwell was there too. It was the same team as the year before that won 29 games. Add a rookie Larry Bird.
The bottom line is Lebron James quit this year and the fucking asshole made me a Kobe fan. I'll never forgive him for that. If Peyton Manning left the game down by two scores with a minute to go I'd go back to cheering for Brady.
very well put. think I'll just rest my case about this discussion, already said what I wanted too, now everybody's entitled to their opinion no matter if it's right or wrong.
-
forget to point out one big aspect of bird's game also, trash talking, he talked shit and backed that up like telling xavier mcdaniel he would hit the game winning shot on his face, he hit the shot and told mcdaniel he didn't mean to leave 2 seconds on the clock. he also told reggie miller after reggie tried to fuck up larry's concentration on a free throw that he was the best shooter in the league and buried the free throw. before the three point shootout he walked into the locker room and said he was winning it and was just looking around to see who's finishing second, he won that. that's some real swag right there.
-
forget to point out one big aspect of bird's game also, trash talking, he talked shit and backed that up like telling xavier mcdaniel he would hit the game winning shot on his face, he hit the shot and told mcdaniel he didn't mean to leave 2 seconds on the clock. he also told reggie miller after reggie tried to fuck up larry's concentration on a free throw that he was the best shooter in the league and buried the free throw. before the three point shootout he walked into the locker room and said he was winning it and was just looking around to see who's finishing second, he won that. that's some real swag right there.
Yeah, I remember a Rodman interview where he was asked who had the foulest mouth he'd heard on the court and he said Bird. People laughed but Rodman wasn't joking.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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".
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
LOL...i can't believe people still debate with Cham on basketball related topics. :grumpy:
-
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
-
LOL...i can't believe people still debate with Cham on basketball related topics. :grumpy:
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?
-
LOL...i can't believe people still debate with Cham on basketball related topics. :grumpy:
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.
-
LOL...i can't believe people still debate with Cham on basketball related topics. :grumpy:
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.
-
LOL...i can't believe people still debate with Cham on basketball related topics. :grumpy:
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.
-
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.
For me Kobe passed Lebron this year because of how strong he stood during the playoffs, and Lebron more hurt himself than Kobe beat him. But I'm more than willing to give Lebron time.
In their first 5 or 6 years I wouldn't let Kobe or Lebron in the convo with Bird. In their first 5 years after their first 4 (Bird's college years) I wouldn't let them either, Lebron still has a couple years to change my mind on that. Of course what Larry did in college wit that bum team was remarkable on it's own.
In fact if Larry played today he may be the most protected player in the league. A tall American white guy who can play offense and defense, and lead a team, as good or better than the best. You wouldn't be able to touch him with out 5 fouls.
-
Also, I don't mean to come out swinging at Chamilitary but when you say you'd compare Bird to Dirk, I can see clearly you don't know what the fuck you're talking about my man. Your argument loses credibility after that.
-
Also, I don't mean to come out swinging at Chamilitary but when you say you'd compare Bird to Dirk, I can see clearly you don't know what the fuck you're talking about my man. Your argument loses credibility after that.
First off, I was saying IF Larry Bird played in 2010 he would be nothing more special than Dirk, besides a much better passer.
Career-wise Bird only averages two more PPG, 1 1/2 more Rebounds & 3 more assists (which is alot more); but considering there wasn't nearly as many fouls called, that means there are more missed shots meaning more opprotunity for rebounds in Bird's favor.
& also, don't get it twisted, I never said Dirk = Bird; I said IF (big "if", my man) Bird played in 2010 his numbers would be down.
But why does it seem so crazy to compare the two? Y'all trapped in this "legacy", "rings", "greatness" thing; it's "clearly not knowing what the fuck I'm talking about" because you see Larry Bird as an all-time great, who hit big shots & played against Magic & was in the Finals every year & lead his team; but statistically they are pretty similar. Dirk just has little to no success compared to Larry Bird's greatness.
So I don't know if my argument loses credibility as much as my argument is being proven to me that you guys cannot put this "WELL HE'S AN ALL-TIME GREAT, HE DID GREAT THINGS, HE WON TITLES" thing out of the picture when comparing people.
-
Also, I don't mean to come out swinging at Chamilitary but when you say you'd compare Bird to Dirk, I can see clearly you don't know what the fuck you're talking about my man. Your argument loses credibility after that.
First off, I was saying IF Larry Bird played in 2010 he would be nothing more special than Dirk, besides a much better passer.
Career-wise Bird only averages two more PPG, 1 1/2 more Rebounds & 3 more assists (which is alot more); but considering there wasn't nearly as many fouls called, that means there are more missed shots meaning more opprotunity for rebounds in Bird's favor.
& also, don't get it twisted, I never said Dirk = Bird; I said IF (big "if", my man) Bird played in 2010 his numbers would be down.
But why does it seem so crazy to compare the two? Y'all trapped in this "legacy", "rings", "greatness" thing; it's "clearly not knowing what the fuck I'm talking about" because you see Larry Bird as an all-time great, who hit big shots & played against Magic & was in the Finals every year & lead his team; but statistically they are pretty similar. Dirk just has little to no success compared to Larry Bird's greatness.
So I don't know if my argument loses credibility as much as my argument is being proven to me that you guys cannot put this "WELL HE'S AN ALL-TIME GREAT, HE DID GREAT THINGS, HE WON TITLES" thing out of the picture when comparing people.
Why are you always so hung up on stats? This isn't baseball. First it was with Brady and Manning and now with Bird and fucking Dirk. Last year according to the stats Kyle Orton won the game at the end of week 1 with an 80 yard pass to Stokely. That's what the stat sheet says and only those that saw the game will know different. No NFL-reference or NFL.com play by play will ever say Orton under throws ball to DB, DB can't catch it, and instead tips it up in the air where the unintended receiver from the middle of the field Brandon Stokely was standing, and Stokely caught the tip and ran 60 yards untouched.
FUCK STATS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I watch Larry play and I watch Dirk play. Not the same thing at all.
And fuck you and your stupid "big if". What big if? There's no "if" like there's a chance of it happening. Are you going to build the time machine to back to 1980, grab Larry and put him in today's game? Give me a fucking break.
Get over yourself. The human body doesn't evolve in 30 years, no matter how much you believe in evolution. Jesse Owens ran the 100M in ten flat. The average top level sprinter does the same today. The records aren't breaking because the training is better. It's because the surfaces, shoes, and clocks are better.
Danny fucking Hodge is a 1950s catch-wrestler. At 70 years old he was brought into a BJJ gym and he submitted the fuck out of everyone in there.
Dan Marino from 83 would have won the SB with last year's Vikings and had better numbers than Favre did.
It's not about legends being hailed, or old guys being better than young guys. Some people are just that fucking good, and when you're that fucking good. You're that fucking good. You pluck George Foreman out of 1972, give him a real corner, don't dope his water, and he cleans house in today's heavyweight division, with only Vitale being a real threat. And if today's boxers had to fight a 60s George Chuvalo with 1930s rules they'd all get killed.
And here's the thing; Lebron may end up being one of those guys, but he'll have to get his shit together mentally and not quit when there's still a chance. If he stayed on Cleveland and shit team after shit team meant he never won a ring but he fought like an animal to the end he'd be as good or better than Bird. But Larry Bird wins that fucking game, or dies trying. That's what makes him better right now.
-
I'm glad that more and more people are finally starting to see what I meant about cham...
-
Also, I don't mean to come out swinging at Chamilitary but when you say you'd compare Bird to Dirk, I can see clearly you don't know what the fuck you're talking about my man. Your argument loses credibility after that.
First off, I was saying IF Larry Bird played in 2010 he would be nothing more special than Dirk, besides a much better passer.
Career-wise Bird only averages two more PPG, 1 1/2 more Rebounds & 3 more assists (which is alot more); but considering there wasn't nearly as many fouls called, that means there are more missed shots meaning more opprotunity for rebounds in Bird's favor.
& also, don't get it twisted, I never said Dirk = Bird; I said IF (big "if", my man) Bird played in 2010 his numbers would be down.
But why does it seem so crazy to compare the two? Y'all trapped in this "legacy", "rings", "greatness" thing; it's "clearly not knowing what the fuck I'm talking about" because you see Larry Bird as an all-time great, who hit big shots & played against Magic & was in the Finals every year & lead his team; but statistically they are pretty similar. Dirk just has little to no success compared to Larry Bird's greatness.
So I don't know if my argument loses credibility as much as my argument is being proven to me that you guys cannot put this "WELL HE'S AN ALL-TIME GREAT, HE DID GREAT THINGS, HE WON TITLES" thing out of the picture when comparing people.
Please enlighten me with your great knowledge how would Bird stats be down if he played in 2010? Besides stats would only be valid uncontested points when comparing players if you always had them in the same exact situation (team, position, era they played on, rules, opposition and so on), of course you gotta have great stats, as well as achievements and victories if you want your name on top, but as I said before, and you still keep saying I'm trapped in that legacy thing, I'm judging them ability, player wise. The only thing Bird and Dirk have in common is that they both tall white men that can shoot, apart from that Nowitzki ain't seeing Bird.
I was saying you don't know what the fuck you're talking about because you're judging Bird by what you heard about him, and because that's what he had best you don't hear about the rest imho. You think they only talk about him because that legacy shit you keep talking about and think everybody mentions him because of that you don't even want to hear nothing about it, that's straight ignorant . You are the one caught up in those ESPN cliches and that shit about every white player that can shoot is the next Larry.
Like I've said I was comparing players taking achievements outta the picture. I'm done with this shit, I already gave my plausible arguments, I think I can judge it, I've seen them both play. You really look like one hard headed, one-sided motherfucker man. To make simple for you I just say that Bird was not an athlete he was a basketball player, a great one at that, and we're talking about basketball here. Go watch him play and then make your judgement, I'm sure that most of the people that know something about basketball and really care to watch players play before making claims, even LeBron fans (I consider myself as one too), will tell that Bro is below Bird player wise and career wise, he can surpass him on both though like I've said, it's hard but he definitely can. I don't know if your just a LeBron groupie, just an "I'm always right" type of guy, or if you think I'm one of those Kobe groupies always discrediting Bron, I don't care, I ain't even judging, but I think you should watch Bird play, you know always know both sides in a discussion, before you make quick judgments just because you think you know.
I'm not just here posting like shit people are disxrediting Bird/crediting Bron, I don't give a fuck, for all I care Bron could be thousand times better and could be yelling fuck Larry while fuckin Bird's wife, if he was better I would say it. I ain't saying this shit due to legacy or any hidden agenda, I'm saying it because I saw them both play and Bron right now is not touching Bird player wise, or career wise for that matter.
-
Also, I don't mean to come out swinging at Chamilitary but when you say you'd compare Bird to Dirk, I can see clearly you don't know what the fuck you're talking about my man. Your argument loses credibility after that.
First off, I was saying IF Larry Bird played in 2010 he would be nothing more special than Dirk, besides a much better passer.
Career-wise Bird only averages two more PPG, 1 1/2 more Rebounds & 3 more assists (which is alot more); but considering there wasn't nearly as many fouls called, that means there are more missed shots meaning more opprotunity for rebounds in Bird's favor.
& also, don't get it twisted, I never said Dirk = Bird; I said IF (big "if", my man) Bird played in 2010 his numbers would be down.
But why does it seem so crazy to compare the two? Y'all trapped in this "legacy", "rings", "greatness" thing; it's "clearly not knowing what the fuck I'm talking about" because you see Larry Bird as an all-time great, who hit big shots & played against Magic & was in the Finals every year & lead his team; but statistically they are pretty similar. Dirk just has little to no success compared to Larry Bird's greatness.
So I don't know if my argument loses credibility as much as my argument is being proven to me that you guys cannot put this "WELL HE'S AN ALL-TIME GREAT, HE DID GREAT THINGS, HE WON TITLES" thing out of the picture when comparing people.
Why are you always so hung up on stats? This isn't baseball. First it was with Brady and Manning and now with Bird and fucking Dirk. Last year according to the stats Kyle Orton won the game at the end of week 1 with an 80 yard pass to Stokely. That's what the stat sheet says and only those that saw the game will know different. No NFL-reference or NFL.com play by play will ever say Orton under throws ball to DB, DB can't catch it, and instead tips it up in the air where the unintended receiver from the middle of the field Brandon Stokely was standing, and Stokely caught the tip and ran 60 yards untouched.
FUCK STATS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I watch Larry play and I watch Dirk play. Not the same thing at all.
And fuck you and your stupid "big if". What big if? There's no "if" like there's a chance of it happening. Are you going to build the time machine to back to 1980, grab Larry and put him in today's game? Give me a fucking break.
Get over yourself. The human body doesn't evolve in 30 years, no matter how much you believe in evolution. Jesse Owens ran the 100M in ten flat. The average top level sprinter does the same today. The records aren't breaking because the training is better. It's because the surfaces, shoes, and clocks are better.
Danny fucking Hodge is a 1950s catch-wrestler. At 70 years old he was brought into a BJJ gym and he submitted the fuck out of everyone in there.
Dan Marino from 83 would have won the SB with last year's Vikings and had better numbers than Favre did.
It's not about legends being hailed, or old guys being better than young guys. Some people are just that fucking good, and when you're that fucking good. You're that fucking good. You pluck George Foreman out of 1972, give him a real corner, don't dope his water, and he cleans house in today's heavyweight division, with only Vitale being a real threat. And if today's boxers had to fight a 60s George Chuvalo with 1930s rules they'd all get killed.
And here's the thing; Lebron may end up being one of those guys, but he'll have to get his shit together mentally and not quit when there's still a chance. If he stayed on Cleveland and shit team after shit team meant he never won a ring but he fought like an animal to the end he'd be as good or better than Bird. But Larry Bird wins that fucking game, or dies trying. That's what makes him better right now.
LOL, then write a formal complaint to a MOD. No point to have a thread if you can't have two sides & then watch people catch genuine feelings when sides are opposed. Talk about "giving me a fucking break", Jesus lmfao.
& LISTEN to what you're saying. Again, GIVE ME THE BREAK LOL.
Be honest, be HONEST; how much better can LeBron James physically get? Maybe improve his jumper a little bit? Maybe make one or two less turnovers from experience; but REALLY, how much better can he get?
"LeBron may end up being one of those guys", PSSHHH; LeBron is one of those guys, without the rings. & he finally has a supporting cast worthy of "being one of those guys"; so I guess we'll see this year.
& humans "didn't evolve", that's not my claim, sport. But they take it more seriously now, starting at a younger age; that's a fact. You'd have to be completely ignorant to recognize that. Whose to say Larry Bird's skinny ass wouldn't get knocked around the court?
You shoot down my if argument, yet that's all you use to use in your Peyton arguments..lmfao, hypocrite & in this VERY thread you said "Larry Bird would probably get amazing treatment" for being white & what-not. I'd like to see you explain how that isn't "if" & "but". ::)
-
Also, I don't mean to come out swinging at Chamilitary but when you say you'd compare Bird to Dirk, I can see clearly you don't know what the fuck you're talking about my man. Your argument loses credibility after that.
First off, I was saying IF Larry Bird played in 2010 he would be nothing more special than Dirk, besides a much better passer.
Career-wise Bird only averages two more PPG, 1 1/2 more Rebounds & 3 more assists (which is alot more); but considering there wasn't nearly as many fouls called, that means there are more missed shots meaning more opprotunity for rebounds in Bird's favor.
& also, don't get it twisted, I never said Dirk = Bird; I said IF (big "if", my man) Bird played in 2010 his numbers would be down.
But why does it seem so crazy to compare the two? Y'all trapped in this "legacy", "rings", "greatness" thing; it's "clearly not knowing what the fuck I'm talking about" because you see Larry Bird as an all-time great, who hit big shots & played against Magic & was in the Finals every year & lead his team; but statistically they are pretty similar. Dirk just has little to no success compared to Larry Bird's greatness.
So I don't know if my argument loses credibility as much as my argument is being proven to me that you guys cannot put this "WELL HE'S AN ALL-TIME GREAT, HE DID GREAT THINGS, HE WON TITLES" thing out of the picture when comparing people.
Please enlighten me with your great knowledge how would Bird stats be down if he played in 2010? Besides stats would only be valid uncontested points when comparing players if you always had them in the same exact situation (team, position, era they played on, rules, opposition and so on), of course you gotta have great stats, as well as achievements and victories if you want your name on top, but as I said before, and you still keep saying I'm trapped in that legacy thing, I'm judging them ability, player wise. The only thing Bird and Dirk have in common is that they both tall white men that can shoot, apart from that Nowitzki ain't seeing Bird.
I was saying you don't know what the fuck you're talking about because you're judging Bird by what you heard about him, and because that's what he had best you don't hear about the rest imho. You think they only talk about him because that legacy shit you keep talking about and think everybody mentions him because of that you don't even want to hear nothing about it, that's straight ignorant . You are the one caught up in those ESPN cliches and that shit about every white player that can shoot is the next Larry.
Like I've said I was comparing players taking achievements outta the picture. I'm done with this shit, I already gave my plausible arguments, I think I can judge it, I've seen them both play. You really look like one hard headed, one-sided motherfucker man. To make simple for you I just say that Bird was not an athlete he was a basketball player, a great one at that, and we're talking about basketball here. Go watch him play and then make your judgement, I'm sure that most of the people that know something about basketball and really care to watch players play before making claims, even LeBron fans (I consider myself as one too), will tell that Bro is below Bird player wise and career wise, he can surpass him on both though like I've said, it's hard but he definitely can. I don't know if your just a LeBron groupie, just an "I'm always right" type of guy, or if you think I'm one of those Kobe groupies always discrediting Bron, I don't care, I ain't even judging, but I think you should watch Bird play, you know always know both sides in a discussion, before you make quick judgments just because you think you know.
I'm not just here posting like shit people are disxrediting Bird/crediting Bron, I don't give a fuck, for all I care Bron could be thousand times better and could be yelling fuck Larry while fuckin Bird's wife, if he was better I would say it. I ain't saying this shit due to legacy or any hidden agenda, I'm saying it because I saw them both play and Bron right now is not touching Bird player wise, or career wise for that matter.
I said one thing about "IF" Larry Bird played in 2010 & now that's the argument you want to fight lol, alright brah.
Again, LeBron already has more impressive stats. He cannot get much better besides winning rings with inferior stats because he's finally playing with a cast that all NBA champions have had. Bottom line, the only way he can "surpass Bird" & YOU KNOW THIS, is if he wins rings in Miami. What else can he do? He's already proved to be a more dominate scorer, an amazing passer, an all-star defender, amazing with the ball (dribbling); HONESTLY, what else can he do besides win rings WITH WORSE STATS? He's basically given up his chances at averaging a triple-double so he can win.
So when he wins seven in a row (just exaggeration, before you start arguing that point) with inferior stats & honestly will be less credited for winning because with Wade & Bosh, he can't physically be as focal as he was to the Cavs success & then in 10 years you say he's better than Bird, I'm gunna know that it's because of the rings, the legacy & his "aura" of winning that is what's put him in that category.
----------------
Bottom line, get off the Bird/Dirk "IF" comparison & focus more on LeBron vs. Bird. Just explain to me what LeBron can do more to be put in Bird's class of being better? Because what I'm getting from you & Shallow is that he's going to be there, it's just like you two don't want to rush putting him there; which is ridiculous considering his stats & overall dominance can never reach what it was in Cleveland, just look at Kobe today. He was scoring 82 alone & being called the GOAT, now he's averaging less & getting even more shine because of winning rings.
It's rings & it always will be & personally, that's stupid considering it's a team sport.
-
LOL, then write a formal complaint to a MOD. No point to have a thread if you can't have two sides & then watch people catch genuine feelings when sides are opposed. Talk about "giving me a fucking break", Jesus lmfao.
& LISTEN to what you're saying. Again, GIVE ME THE BREAK LOL.
Be honest, be HONEST; how much better can LeBron James physically get? Maybe improve his jumper a little bit? Maybe make one or two less turnovers from experience; but REALLY, how much better can he get?
"LeBron may end up being one of those guys", PSSHHH; LeBron is one of those guys, without the rings. & he finally has a supporting cast worthy of "being one of those guys"; so I guess we'll see this year.
& humans "didn't evolve", that's not my claim, sport. But they take it more seriously now, starting at a younger age; that's a fact. You'd have to be completely ignorant to recognize that. Whose to say Larry Bird's skinny ass wouldn't get knocked around the court?
You shoot down my if argument, yet that's all you use to use in your Peyton arguments..lmfao, hypocrite & in this VERY thread you said "Larry Bird would probably get amazing treatment" for being white & what-not. I'd like to see you explain how that isn't "if" & "but". ::)
No MOD can do anything about the idea that you think it's possible to bring 1980 Larry to 2010.
Lebron can't and won't get physically better. He'll actually get physically worse because of age, but he'll get mentally better because of wisdom and somewhere along the way, the same way Kobe did, he'll hit his absolute peak.
He's not one of those guys yet. If Lebron and Miami don't win a ring and he retires the next year, in 50 years no one will put him in with the all time greats of sport. He still has to show something to the world. It doesn't have to be a ring. Marino never got one and he became one of those guys, but it took longer than year 7.
What grounds to you have to claim kids take it up younger? You're talking out of your ass. Or take it more seriously. The 80s weren't even that long ago. I never guessed your age before because I thought we were about the same age. But seriously, were you born in like 1990?
I said Bird would get big time treatment, based on speculation and common sense. I did not say, we won't know for sure until my Delorean is ready but I bet Bird would get better treatment.
-
LOL, then write a formal complaint to a MOD. No point to have a thread if you can't have two sides & then watch people catch genuine feelings when sides are opposed. Talk about "giving me a fucking break", Jesus lmfao.
& LISTEN to what you're saying. Again, GIVE ME THE BREAK LOL.
Be honest, be HONEST; how much better can LeBron James physically get? Maybe improve his jumper a little bit? Maybe make one or two less turnovers from experience; but REALLY, how much better can he get?
"LeBron may end up being one of those guys", PSSHHH; LeBron is one of those guys, without the rings. & he finally has a supporting cast worthy of "being one of those guys"; so I guess we'll see this year.
& humans "didn't evolve", that's not my claim, sport. But they take it more seriously now, starting at a younger age; that's a fact. You'd have to be completely ignorant to recognize that. Whose to say Larry Bird's skinny ass wouldn't get knocked around the court?
You shoot down my if argument, yet that's all you use to use in your Peyton arguments..lmfao, hypocrite & in this VERY thread you said "Larry Bird would probably get amazing treatment" for being white & what-not. I'd like to see you explain how that isn't "if" & "but". ::)
No MOD can do anything about the idea that you think it's possible to bring 1980 Larry to 2010.
Lebron can't and won't get physically better. He'll actually get physically worse because of age, but he'll get mentally better because of wisdom and somewhere along the way, the same way Kobe did, he'll hit his absolute peak.
He's not one of those guys yet. If Lebron and Miami don't win a ring and he retires the next year, in 50 years no one will put him in with the all time greats of sport. He still has to show something to the world. It doesn't have to be a ring. Marino never got one and he became one of those guys, but it took longer than year 7.
What grounds to you have to claim kids take it up younger? You're talking out of your ass. Or take it more seriously. The 80s weren't even that long ago. I never guessed your age before because I thought we were about the same age. But seriously, were you born in like 1990?
I said Bird would get big time treatment, based on speculation and common sense. I did not say, we won't know for sure until my Delorean is ready but I bet Bird would get better treatment.
Exactly, listen to what you said, he has to "show something to the world"; but bottom line, as far as being a basketball player goes, not a legend, just a straight up baller, he's one of the greats. One of the best players to ever touch a basketball.
& he won't retire next season if he doesn't win, but there is a chance he can go the next seven seasons in Miami without a ring too.
I think LeBron James should be proof enough that kids are more focused at a younger age. You said it yourself, built like a linebacker, 6'8'' & can dribble & pass & manuver in the paint like anybody else in the league.
Besides Magic, guys that tall were clumsy man.
& it's just another coincidence, nobody in the Majors (besides maybe David Price who was only drafted in 07) had hype like Stephen Strasburg at such a young age. Then magically Bryce Harper at the age of seventeen (I'm not going to lie, I'm eighteen, he's younger than me) is doing things that are unreal for a kid that age.
Look at Adrian Peterson, that has to be the greatest physical specimen for a running back, ever. Maybe not the best because of fumbling issues, but physically, I'd say nobody sees him.
& "you'd bet" that Larry Bird would get special treatment, well I'd "bet" that today's players are more developed at an earlier age & a top athlete today is more impressive physically than a top athlete of the 80's.
-
Also, I don't mean to come out swinging at Chamilitary but when you say you'd compare Bird to Dirk, I can see clearly you don't know what the fuck you're talking about my man. Your argument loses credibility after that.
First off, I was saying IF Larry Bird played in 2010 he would be nothing more special than Dirk, besides a much better passer.
Career-wise Bird only averages two more PPG, 1 1/2 more Rebounds & 3 more assists (which is alot more); but considering there wasn't nearly as many fouls called, that means there are more missed shots meaning more opprotunity for rebounds in Bird's favor.
& also, don't get it twisted, I never said Dirk = Bird; I said IF (big "if", my man) Bird played in 2010 his numbers would be down.
But why does it seem so crazy to compare the two? Y'all trapped in this "legacy", "rings", "greatness" thing; it's "clearly not knowing what the fuck I'm talking about" because you see Larry Bird as an all-time great, who hit big shots & played against Magic & was in the Finals every year & lead his team; but statistically they are pretty similar. Dirk just has little to no success compared to Larry Bird's greatness.
So I don't know if my argument loses credibility as much as my argument is being proven to me that you guys cannot put this "WELL HE'S AN ALL-TIME GREAT, HE DID GREAT THINGS, HE WON TITLES" thing out of the picture when comparing people.
Please enlighten me with your great knowledge how would Bird stats be down if he played in 2010? Besides stats would only be valid uncontested points when comparing players if you always had them in the same exact situation (team, position, era they played on, rules, opposition and so on), of course you gotta have great stats, as well as achievements and victories if you want your name on top, but as I said before, and you still keep saying I'm trapped in that legacy thing, I'm judging them ability, player wise. The only thing Bird and Dirk have in common is that they both tall white men that can shoot, apart from that Nowitzki ain't seeing Bird.
I was saying you don't know what the fuck you're talking about because you're judging Bird by what you heard about him, and because that's what he had best you don't hear about the rest imho. You think they only talk about him because that legacy shit you keep talking about and think everybody mentions him because of that you don't even want to hear nothing about it, that's straight ignorant . You are the one caught up in those ESPN cliches and that shit about every white player that can shoot is the next Larry.
Like I've said I was comparing players taking achievements outta the picture. I'm done with this shit, I already gave my plausible arguments, I think I can judge it, I've seen them both play. You really look like one hard headed, one-sided motherfucker man. To make simple for you I just say that Bird was not an athlete he was a basketball player, a great one at that, and we're talking about basketball here. Go watch him play and then make your judgement, I'm sure that most of the people that know something about basketball and really care to watch players play before making claims, even LeBron fans (I consider myself as one too), will tell that Bro is below Bird player wise and career wise, he can surpass him on both though like I've said, it's hard but he definitely can. I don't know if your just a LeBron groupie, just an "I'm always right" type of guy, or if you think I'm one of those Kobe groupies always discrediting Bron, I don't care, I ain't even judging, but I think you should watch Bird play, you know always know both sides in a discussion, before you make quick judgments just because you think you know.
I'm not just here posting like shit people are disxrediting Bird/crediting Bron, I don't give a fuck, for all I care Bron could be thousand times better and could be yelling fuck Larry while fuckin Bird's wife, if he was better I would say it. I ain't saying this shit due to legacy or any hidden agenda, I'm saying it because I saw them both play and Bron right now is not touching Bird player wise, or career wise for that matter.
I said one thing about "IF" Larry Bird played in 2010 & now that's the argument you want to fight lol, alright brah.
Again, LeBron already has more impressive stats. He cannot get much better besides winning rings with inferior stats because he's finally playing with a cast that all NBA champions have had. Bottom line, the only way he can "surpass Bird" & YOU KNOW THIS, is if he wins rings in Miami. What else can he do? He's already proved to be a more dominate scorer, an amazing passer, an all-star defender, amazing with the ball (dribbling); HONESTLY, what else can he do besides win rings WITH WORSE STATS? He's basically given up his chances at averaging a triple-double so he can win.
So when he wins seven in a row (just exaggeration, before you start arguing that point) with inferior stats & honestly will be less credited for winning because with Wade & Bosh, he can't physically be as focal as he was to the Cavs success & then in 10 years you say he's better than Bird, I'm gunna know that it's because of the rings, the legacy & his "aura" of winning that is what's put him in that category.
----------------
Bottom line, get off the Bird/Dirk "IF" comparison & focus more on LeBron vs. Bird. Just explain to me what LeBron can do more to be put in Bird's class of being better? Because what I'm getting from you & Shallow is that he's going to be there, it's just like you two don't want to rush putting him there; which is ridiculous considering his stats & overall dominance can never reach what it was in Cleveland, just look at Kobe today. He was scoring 82 alone & being called the GOAT, now he's averaging less & getting even more shine because of winning rings.
It's rings & it always will be & personally, that's stupid considering it's a team sport.
The argument I wanna fight? I just asked a question about it I didn't even mention it again.
Again there you go with the stats, I never said LeBron's stats weren't impressive. He's playing with a cast that all NBA champions have had? Don't make me laugh seriously, we never saw them play and we don't know how they gonna play together but that's a team with two of the top three players in the NBA right now together with another one on the top ten and a good supporting cast. Again, I'm not saying that's the best team ever, never saw them play but that's something that's never been done before. Bird never had that, imagine if he joined Magic and Kareem at the Lakers, the 80's would belong to them till they began to decline due to injuries and age, and I'm sure no one would look at the 1996 Bulls as the best team ever, as they do now almost all the time.
Like Shallow said Bird never quit, Bron was like fuck it I can go to whatever team I want to. Jordan was putting up out of this world stats, playing like a beast and he wasn't winning, did he said fuck it I'll just go and join Bird or Magic? But fuck that, Bron can win a ring next year, I'm sure he will, only the Lakers can stop that, I won't put him above Bird. First of all he needed Wade and Bosh for that, I'm not talking about having a good supporting cast and making them better, I'm talking having one player that already proved himself as top three in the league and another at top ten, add that with a good supporting cast. Second put a guy with half the talent Bird had on that situation and he's winning rings to.
Of course he'll be less credited for winning because he's playing with Wade and Bosh, but just to make it clear right now to what I'm about to say, fuck that. Let me just say athleticism don't last forever no matter how athletic you are, skills do, ask Jordan and ask Kobe, Bron needs to develop no question about it. He'll lose some of that someday and he's lucky that he don't play in the 80's, he would be all banged up by now, he would need to develop his game even faster. Don't even tell me that Bron proved he's a more dominant scorer than Bird, they both can score like crazy but if Bron don't develop before he loses athleticism he will lose that, Bron is one of the best at driving to the basket ever and Bird could shoot when he wanted too and drive also, Bron is a amazing passer no doubt, Bird was a better one, Bron is a good on ball defender and his athleticism also makes him a great shot blocker and rebounder, Bird had greater b-ball IQ, smartness and anticipation on the court, now don't tell Bird was not good with the ball too, Bird was great off the pressure and under pressure, was there when the team needed him most, Bron has weak low post, mid range game, Bird hustled till he was almost dead, Bird talked trashed and backed it up, Bird had more opposition, he had a better cast too but also made them better, Bron is no doubt a freak of nature... I could go on, but if you don't really watch them both play don't be talking shit.
You were the one who brought up Dirk when he don't even deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence a Bird. I never said Kobe was the GOAT when he was dropping 80, but Kobe developed his game a lot, he didn't quit the Lakers to join one of the best in the league, they gave him a great cast an he won, maybe Bron could have done that also, he had a average cast no doubt, but he was just like fuck it now, I'll join Wade and Bosh. But man, I don't even want to turn this to a Kobe vs. LeBron thing like people always do.
This discussion is getting tiring, let me wrap it up by telling you this, if Bron can develop his game which I'm sure he can (like shooting, posting up and so on), also to continue to be dominant without all the athleticism that he will lose eventually, if he can have longevity that only comes with that, if he can be the true leader of the Heat outshining Bosh and Wade (hard to do, people will always look at that as Wade's team, but he can do it), being there taking shots when the team needs him under pressure, leading them to titles, racking up MVP's, continue to have great stats (don't have to be as good as when he was on the Cavs, he's now playing with top players, but gotta continue to be great), if everybody see that he does what he has to do for the team to win, that don't mean necessarily to score all the points, that way he can surpass Bird. We'll see.
Like I've said, Bird was not an athlete, he was a basketball player.
-
LOL, then write a formal complaint to a MOD. No point to have a thread if you can't have two sides & then watch people catch genuine feelings when sides are opposed. Talk about "giving me a fucking break", Jesus lmfao.
& LISTEN to what you're saying. Again, GIVE ME THE BREAK LOL.
Be honest, be HONEST; how much better can LeBron James physically get? Maybe improve his jumper a little bit? Maybe make one or two less turnovers from experience; but REALLY, how much better can he get?
"LeBron may end up being one of those guys", PSSHHH; LeBron is one of those guys, without the rings. & he finally has a supporting cast worthy of "being one of those guys"; so I guess we'll see this year.
& humans "didn't evolve", that's not my claim, sport. But they take it more seriously now, starting at a younger age; that's a fact. You'd have to be completely ignorant to recognize that. Whose to say Larry Bird's skinny ass wouldn't get knocked around the court?
You shoot down my if argument, yet that's all you use to use in your Peyton arguments..lmfao, hypocrite & in this VERY thread you said "Larry Bird would probably get amazing treatment" for being white & what-not. I'd like to see you explain how that isn't "if" & "but". ::)
No MOD can do anything about the idea that you think it's possible to bring 1980 Larry to 2010.
Lebron can't and won't get physically better. He'll actually get physically worse because of age, but he'll get mentally better because of wisdom and somewhere along the way, the same way Kobe did, he'll hit his absolute peak.
He's not one of those guys yet. If Lebron and Miami don't win a ring and he retires the next year, in 50 years no one will put him in with the all time greats of sport. He still has to show something to the world. It doesn't have to be a ring. Marino never got one and he became one of those guys, but it took longer than year 7.
What grounds to you have to claim kids take it up younger? You're talking out of your ass. Or take it more seriously. The 80s weren't even that long ago. I never guessed your age before because I thought we were about the same age. But seriously, were you born in like 1990?
I said Bird would get big time treatment, based on speculation and common sense. I did not say, we won't know for sure until my Delorean is ready but I bet Bird would get better treatment.
Exactly, listen to what you said, he has to "show something to the world"; but bottom line, as far as being a basketball player goes, not a legend, just a straight up baller, he's one of the greats. One of the best players to ever touch a basketball.
& he won't retire next season if he doesn't win, but there is a chance he can go the next seven seasons in Miami without a ring too.
I think LeBron James should be proof enough that kids are more focused at a younger age. You said it yourself, built like a linebacker, 6'8'' & can dribble & pass & manuver in the paint like anybody else in the league.
Besides Magic, guys that tall were clumsy man.
& it's just another coincidence, nobody in the Majors (besides maybe David Price who was only drafted in 07) had hype like Stephen Strasburg at such a young age. Then magically Bryce Harper at the age of seventeen (I'm not going to lie, I'm eighteen, he's younger than me) is doing things that are unreal for a kid that age.
Look at Adrian Peterson, that has to be the greatest physical specimen for a running back, ever. Maybe not the best because of fumbling issues, but physically, I'd say nobody sees him.
& "you'd bet" that Larry Bird would get special treatment, well I'd "bet" that today's players are more developed at an earlier age & a top athlete today is more impressive physically than a top athlete of the 80's.
Yeah, show something mentally. Rob Johnson could outperform Doug Flutie in every aspect of what it takes to be a QB, on paper, but come game time, Flutie was smarter. So much smarter it made up for his lack of physical ability. That's what currently makes prime-Larry better than Lebron. His mind. This isn't shot-put or sprinting. Basketball takes a lot of head games to win too, and that's what's kept Lebron from winning. If he was smarter, and emotionally tougher, and more mature the Cavs would have won at least one ring by now. It's not the same with QBs because the NFL is a lot more complicated and more coach based than the NBA, and a QB is only in charge of one aspect of a 3 aspect game. The captain of an NBA team is in charge of 90% of the game while it's being played.
Besides Magic? How about Julius Irving? Dominique Wilkins? Larry Bird was taller than Lebron is and he's not clumsey. I never heard anyone call Wilt clumsey. Clyde Drexler? Who are you kidding? Yeah, Lebron is a bit thicker than most of them. So what? That's just because of genetics. Go read up on Honus Wagner. It's hard to tell under the baggy clothes of the day, but dude was a tank. 100 years ago
And so what if AP is cut? Go watch Jim brown in action from 50 years ago. No way is AP a better athlete.
And the only reason you see the hype in the NBA for high-schoolers is because it's recent for kids to go pro out of high-school. The NBA has gone with it very strongly as of late. How many Football stars are being heralded in the public eye at 16 years old? Not many, because they get their limelight in college, where NBA players used (and still do). But here in Canada we have a sport called Hockey, and NHL stars come out of high-school more than they do from college. Every hockey fan knew the name Gretzky before he ever played an NHL game. Bobby Orr was a star as a teen in this country. Because the world wants to see who the next big star will be just before he becomes it. If we had a star University league in Canada and all the NHLers came through that then we wouldn't hear of them at 14. Star 17 year olds have been talked about every year in the NHL for the last 40 years. To think that NBA players in the 80s just started playing ball later in life and made it to the league is among the stupidest things ever said on this forum. But I was 18 once too. I forgive you.
And enough of this bet thing. I was just making fun of the fact that you spoke of time travel like it was probable. I'm sorry.