http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJu0iCZGunw

I was tuned into WGN every game just to see what he would do next. He was what greatness is all about!

Eh. He was alright

http://youtu.be/TsSIy5zTk0o

No doubt he's the best ever.

32 second mark is just sick. MJ was and still is the greatest of all time. Lebron can't hold his jock strap.

Ah, back in the day when gatorade came in a can or a glass bottle...

Dr., like you, I remember tuning in to WGN just to watch Jordan play. Those Bulls teams are the only non-dfw teams I've ever rooted for.

Takes me back.

Best ever and not really all that close for 2nd place.

Anytime I hear this I think of nothing else but MJ.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UooitEU6AtE&feature=related

Damn I miss being a 90s kid.

That clip is one of the many reasons NBC was far superior to ESPN/ABC in broadcasting the NBA.

The mid-air hand switch against the Lakers and the baseline dunk over Ewing are two of the most incredible plays in the history of sports.

He was great - too bad he only ever had to beat one championship caliber team in the Finals ('93 Phoenix)

You don't think the '91 Lakers were championship caliber? The '96 Seattle team that won 64 games? The '97 and '98 Jazz teams that won 62 and 64 games?

By your logic, none of the teams the Spurs or Rockets beat in the Finals were "championship caliber" considering every team the Bulls beat was better than the teams they ebat save maybe Portland.

I remember just watching his games in awe as a kid. How could you not be a fan? GOAT without question

The mid-air hand switch against the Lakers, while neat looking, was completely unnessary.

Of course I was rooting for the Lakers in that one, so you can take my opinion with a very large grain of salt.

quote:

---

94chem
posted 11:30a, 06/16/11


Hi, I have no clue. THX

---

FIFY

I didn't really care what the records were. I just missed seeing the classic match-ups like there were in the 80's. During Michael's run, there was no rival in the Western Conference. The Lakers had gotten too old, and there was no other champ for them to go against. Phoenix came the closest, but we never got to see that match-up between 2 teams who had won the title, both still in their prime.

Most people probably don't even remember that MJ didn't take 2 full seasons off. It would have been great in '95 if Orlando hadn't eliminated MJ, to see the defending champs playing the Bulls. Or if Houston hadn't faltered in '96, we could have gotten that match-up.

To this day, people state it as a matter of fact that the only reason the Rockets won was because MJ took 2 years(*) off. Of course, we'll never know the answer to this debate, but it's the most disappointing thing about the NBA in the 90's - we never got to see that Federer/Nadal, Magic/Larry, Manning/Brady battle.

I like his 40 point game at 40 years old...

and when he pinned the ball on a fast break at 40.

The best ever. Remember those days like they were yesterday.

quote:

---

He was great - too bad he only ever had to beat one championship caliber team in the Finals ('93 Phoenix)

---

LOLwut?

There were plenty of teams who were title worthy back then. The Bulls won so many titles because Jordan and company were just THAT GOOD.

quote:

---

in the 90's - we never got to see that Federer/Nadal, Magic/Larry, Manning/Brady battle.

---

Dude Manning/Brady was the sane conference too. I get what you're saying though. A Bulls/Rockets matchup in the late 90s would have been epic, especially after Barkley arrived

Since the 80s we've only had 2 champs playing each other in the Finals - Spurs/Pistons 05 and Lakers/Celtics 10.

But it only happened 3 times in the 80s - all 3 Lakers/Celtics series

Most of us who watched the NBA during Jordan's dominance knew that all of those teams they met in the Finals were pretty severely over-matched. Sure, we watched because it was the Finals, but there was little doubt about what was about to happen. The '93 Phoenix team was the one exception. That Phoenix team was as good as Chicago. They had home court, LOST the first 2 games at home, then managed to take 2 of 3 on the road to get back to Phoenix. That series was just seconds from an epic game 7 when Kerr(?) hit the 3. Sure, the '98 Utah team was close to a game 7 too, but those guys just weren't in the same class at that Phoenix squad.

We as fans got cheated by never getting to see a Dream/Drexler-Chicago series or a Dream/Drexler/Barkley Chicago series.

All I'm saying is that there were many great teams back then, but Jordan/Bulls were just THAT good. The mismatches were a testament to the greatness of Jordan/Bulls and not because there were no other good teams.

I know - but it made the 80's better to know that Magic, Worthy, and Kareem had a worthy challenger awaiting them. The Celtics weren't as good as the Lakers, just like Evert wasn't as good as Navratilova. But you knew it was a fair fight.

chem

There is a reason why the Jordan Bulls will go down as maybe the greatest team of all time. It's because they were THAT GOOD.

Imagine if the recent Spurs dynasty was playing in the Jordan Bulls era. Do you think they would have been competition for the Bulls? Sure, they would have been in the finals many times, but they wouldn't have beaten the Bulls. And those Spurs teams were some of the all-time greats.

When he jumped, he just seemed to keep going up.

What the video doesn't show is just how automatic he was with the midrange jumper. The guy would score 30 points with ease, and it's not like he was shooting 70 times like Iverson.

>>Best ever and not really all that close for 2nd place.<<

Actually, there's plenty of debate about the top few best ever. Wilt and Russell for one. I think MJ comes out ahead of Bird and Magic, but keep in mind that Magic had about as many titles, Wilt had the same scoring average (without the 3 point shot) and tons more rebounds, and Russell had about twice the titles.

There's no doubt a great case can be made for him being the best ever (I would probably agree), but it IS a very good debate, and there IS a VERY close second.

Frankly, with all due respect to guys like Kobe and Wade, they won't be mentioned with any of these guys. Second tier, at best.

quote:

---

Wilt had the same scoring average (without the 3 point shot) and tons more rebounds

---

No doubt Wilt was the best of his time, but a bad team back then could put up 115 points a game and the rebounding opportunities were endless.

Chamberlain, Jim Brown, and Babe Ruth give us little frame of reference for evaluating their greatness. In the case of Brown and Chamberlain, they were so superior athletically to the competition, it was a case of men among boys. A player as dominant as Wilt should have won more titles.

In the case of MJ, he played in an era when there were many (almost) equally gifted athletes, and he still dominated. For example, Vince Carter could do stuff that MJ couldn't even dream about. Yet, Vince never even played in a single Finals. MJ managed to win going against other great players.

The argument can't be settled deinitively, but it's this debate:

a) The Bulls were so great that they never lost. OR
b) We never got to see just how great they were because they never lost.

There is a strange way in which losing validates a champion. Seeing the Lakers come back after losing in '84, or the Cowboys come back after losing in '95, helps fans frame their accomplishments. They were great because they beat the greatest. It's why - although we appreciated Tiger's greatness - we wanted, just once, for somebody to bow up and take him down, to see how he would handle a legitimate rival.

but look at some of the teams they had to beat just to get to the finals. defending champion bad boy pistons in 91, the solid knicks teams with ewing and company, etc. yes, we had some great championships in the 80s with the lakers and celtics, but whose to say their paths were harder.

quote:

---

In the case of Brown and Chamberlain, they were so superior athletically to the competition, it was a case of men among boys. A player as dominant as Wilt should have won more titles.

---

I disagree:
There were a lot fewer teams to spread the talent around. Wilt Chamberlain played against one of the best of all time. Height during Wilt's time was very similar to today's rosters if not taller (see a recent thread that looked at all heights of teams in those days).

Found it (noticed the other threads I bumped due to interest):

quote:

---

Stolen from the internet:

quote:Let's take a random season of the 60's: 1964.

The data of the heights for all NBA teams is the following, starting from the bottom ones:

-New York had 2 players listed at Russell's height and also occasionally used a 3rd player of the same height and a 4th player who was taller. Also, only 1 player of the Knicks was listed below 6-2 barefoot.

-Detroit had 2 players taller than Russell and a third one at the same height. Also, only 2 of their players were listed below 6-3.

-Baltimore had 1 player taller than Russell. 2 more players at Russell's height played for few games. No player below 6-2.

-Philadelphia had 2 players at Russell's height.

-Lakers had 2 players taller than Russell and a third one equal. No-one listed below 6-2 (that was Jerry West).

-St.Louis had 2 players as tall as Russell and for a few games used a taller one.

-Cincinnati (possibly the shortest team in the league) had no players as tall as Russell, but they did have 4 players who were 1 inch shorter.

-San Francisco had 2 players taller than Russell and a third one just as tall.

-Boston had Russell and Clyde Lovelette, who was as tall and heavier than Russell. Surprisingly, the Celtics were also a short team (bottom 2 that season, probably), but that didn't stop them from posting the best record in the league by far (59-21) and winning the playoffs with an equal ease.

---

PS
Russell would probably be listed at 6'11 or so in today's game. Look at recent pics of him next to today's players listed at 6'11+.


[This message has been edited by BBDP (edited 6/22/2011 11:47a).]

Could any of those other tall guys do these things:

http://ezinearticles.com/?Wilt-Chamberlain---Track-and-Field-at-the-University-of-Kansas-(KU)-In-Addition-to-Basketball&id=4113288