bird vs james

[Shallow]

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.

[IFB Flood]

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.

[Chamillitary Click]

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.

[Shallow]

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.

[Sccit]

I'm glad that more and more people are finally starting to see what I meant about cham...

[IFB Flood]

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.

[Chamillitary Click]

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".

[Chamillitary Click]

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.

[Shallow]

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.

[Chamillitary Click]

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.

[IFB Flood]

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.

[Shallow]

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.