Stillriledup
07-23-2014, 02:12 AM
Heard an interesting point of view on the radio today about Kobe and Michael and now those players are self motivators and didn't really need someone to "push" them to greatness. Those guys were chasing ghosts essentially. When Magic and Larry were in the league together, even though there were 3,000 miles apart and couldn't be more different in other ways, they "pushed" each other to greatness, there was a huge rivalry between the players and their teams at that time in history.
Would Kobe and Michael have been even greater if they were both in their prime together on rival teams and continued to push each other like Larry and Magic did?
Also, as far as "Greatness" goes, what criteria do you use...now, it seems that there is this thing in the NBA about comparing the amount of Titles....the more you have, the better you are...but there are other ways to rank greatness....points scored is something i consider as i don't really know what else, besides points scored and titles won, to consider.
What else besides points scored and titles won, do you use to rank all time greats?
People who want to say that a player like bird is better than Kobe Bryant aren't people who think points matter at all. In fact, in order to say Kobe is not as good as Bird, you have to say that points AND titles aren't factors. But, when people compare MJ to Kobe, the 1 extra title that MJ has seems to matter. So, sometimes titles matter and sometimes they don't? Sometimes points scored matter and sometimes a player like Bird can have 10,000 LESS points than Bryant and be considered better by plenty of people?
Would Kobe and Michael have been even greater if they were both in their prime together on rival teams and continued to push each other like Larry and Magic did?
Also, as far as "Greatness" goes, what criteria do you use...now, it seems that there is this thing in the NBA about comparing the amount of Titles....the more you have, the better you are...but there are other ways to rank greatness....points scored is something i consider as i don't really know what else, besides points scored and titles won, to consider.
What else besides points scored and titles won, do you use to rank all time greats?
People who want to say that a player like bird is better than Kobe Bryant aren't people who think points matter at all. In fact, in order to say Kobe is not as good as Bird, you have to say that points AND titles aren't factors. But, when people compare MJ to Kobe, the 1 extra title that MJ has seems to matter. So, sometimes titles matter and sometimes they don't? Sometimes points scored matter and sometimes a player like Bird can have 10,000 LESS points than Bryant and be considered better by plenty of people?