Did not having a rival help or hurt MJ

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from genaro008. Show genaro008's posts

    Did not having a rival help or hurt MJ

    Magic and Larry
    Russell and Wilt

    Did the fact MJ had no one close to his talent help or hurt his legacy. I know he is the greatest ever but was this due to the fact he was on top all alone with  no real debate as to who is number 1.

    He bloomed at the tail end of the Bird Magic era and his sunset was when Kobe, Grant Hill Shaq Garnett Carter Steve franchise all waiting to carry the tourch andf rule the NBA but durring his best years he was with out a rival?
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Red-16Russ-11. Show Red-16Russ-11's posts

    Re: Did not having a rival help or hurt MJ

    I think he would be peerless in any era.  Able to take over the game at either end of the floor, he revolutionalized the "2" spot in the same way Cal Jr did the shortstop position.   I don't think it hurt his legacy at all..........the fact, as you say, no one was close, speaks volumes in and of itself.  His only peer was himself!!
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from genaro008. Show genaro008's posts

    Re: Did not having a rival help or hurt MJ

    In Response to Re: Did not having a rival help or hurt MJ:
    [QUOTE]I think he would be peeless in any era.  Able to take over the game at either end of the floor, he revolutionalized the "2" spot in the same way Cal Jr did the shortstop position.   I don't think it hurt his legacy at all..........the fact, as you say, no one was close, speaks volumes in and of itself.  His only peer was himself!!
    Posted by Red-16Russ-11[/QUOTE]

    I wonder if his Bulls teams could have beat 80s Celtics lakers or Pistons in thier prime years.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Did not having a rival help or hurt MJ

    I'm guessing .....no   .....Bird's teams always beat Michael......just my opinion....
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from genaro008. Show genaro008's posts

    Re: Did not having a rival help or hurt MJ

    If it was Magic that came along the same years as MJ would he have been the greatest of all time? The 1st half of Bird's career he was thought to be the greatest ever. What if larry played late 80s to early 2000's 
     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from genaro008. Show genaro008's posts

    Re: Did not having a rival help or hurt MJ

    I hated the Knicks but Bernard King was awesome to watch. Imagine what that era would have been like if he had healthy legs. He was a beast and Bird really got up to play him. Bird was the opposite of Clyde he could care less when playing the clippers and Bullets back then he would look board.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from PierceIsTheTruth. Show PierceIsTheTruth's posts

    Re: Did not having a rival help or hurt MJ

    Len Bias might have been his rival. but we all know how that worked out.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from mem17. Show mem17's posts

    Re: Did not having a rival help or hurt MJ

    In Response to Re: Did not having a rival help or hurt MJ:
    [QUOTE]I hated the Knicks but Bernard King was awesome to watch. Imagine what that era would have been like if he had healthy legs. He was a beast and Bird really got up to play him. Bird was the opposite of Clyde he could care less when playing the clippers and Bullets back then he would look board.
    Posted by genaro008[/QUOTE]
       I was a Big fan of Bernard King. I became a fan of his during his years @ Golden State. I live in Northern CA.
       Bernard was unstoppable. He still scored just under 20,000 career points despite his chronic knee problems.  He played before the day of artho-scopic knee surgery and what other advancements knee surgery technique has made the past 25 to 30 years. 
       There have been other mentions of Bernard King's greatness on other recent threads. It's good to see him get the credit he deserves. I'd love to see him inducted in the hall of fame. I hope it happens.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from 17. Show 17's posts

    Re: Did not having a rival help or hurt MJ

    In Response to Did not having a rival help or hurt MJ:
    [QUOTE]Magic and Larry Russell and Wilt Did the fact MJ had no one close to his talent help or hurt his legacy. I know he is the greatest ever but was this due to the fact he was on top all alone with  no real debate as to who is number 1. He bloomed at the tail end of the Bird Magic era and his sunset was when Kobe, Grant Hill Shaq Garnett Carter Steve franchise all waiting to carry the tourch andf rule the NBA but durring his best years he was with out a rival?
    Posted by genaro008[/QUOTE]

    Of course, it helped Michael Jordan that he had no peer of the same stature during his prime.  I have doubts if he would have been the greatest of all time if he had Larry Bird and Magic Johnson playing against him at their primes.  This is because he wouldn't have won those six titles had his Bulls been competing against the Celtics and Lakers of the '80s, and a large part of his greatness rested on those double three-peats that Chicago scored.

    In the same manner, I wonder if Bird or Magic would have been perceived as greater players had they not been clashing against each other for those championships in the '80s.  One can certainly make a case that Magic would have won more than five had Bird's Celtics not been there to provide his Lakers competition, and the same can be said of Larry himself, who won "only" three titles partly because they lost twice to LA in the NBA finals.

    And what about Len Bias?  Certainly the guy who mentioned Lenny as providing Jordan the foil, no, make that real competition, that he needed in the '90s was very perceptive as Bias, I submit, would have made the road tougher for Jordan's Bulls for two reasons: His talent was other-wordly, and he would have extended the careers of Bird and Kevin McHale to likewise prolong the Celtics' days as a championship team.

    All in all, Jordan would have played as well and as passionately as he did without a real peer - Charles Barkley and Karl Malone sadly don't cut it - but he wouldn't have been as dominant to make himself the greatest of all time in most people's minds.

    Bert A. Ramirez a.k.a. 17 
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from genaro008. Show genaro008's posts

    Re: Did not having a rival help or hurt MJ

    In Response to Re: Did not having a rival help or hurt MJ:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Did not having a rival help or hurt MJ : Of course, it helped Michael Jordan that he had no peer of the same stature during his prime.  I have doubts if he would have been the greatest of all time if he had Larry Bird and Magic Johnson playing against him at their primes.  This is because he wouldn't have won those six titles had his Bulls been competing against the Celtics and Lakers of the '80s, and a large part of his greatness rested on those double three-peats that Chicago scored. In the same manner, I wonder if Bird or Magic would have been perceived as greater players had they not been clashing against each other for those championships in the '80s.  One can certainly make a case that Magic would have won more than five had Bird's Celtics not been there to provide his Lakers competition, and the same can be said of Larry himself, who won "only" three titles partly because they lost twice to LA in the NBA finals. And what about Len Bias?  Certainly the guy who mentioned Lenny as providing Jordan the foil, no, make that real competition, that he needed in the '90s was very perceptive as Bias, I submit, would have made the road tougher for Jordan's Bulls for two reasons: His talent was other-wordly, and he would have extended the careers of Bird and Kevin McHale to likewise prolong the Celtics' days as a championship team. All in all, Jordan would have played as well and as passionately as he did without a real peer - Charles Barkley and Karl Malone sadly don't cut it - but he wouldn't have been as dominant to make himself the greatest of all time in most people's minds. Bert A. Ramirez a.k.a. 17 
    Posted by 17[/QUOTE]

    You read my mind to a T
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from kyceltic. Show kyceltic's posts

    Re: Did not having a rival help or hurt MJ

    In Response to Re: Did not having a rival help or hurt MJ:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Did not having a rival help or hurt MJ : We all know what happened to Magic Johnson after Kareem left. Larry Bird was always THE man and will always be THE man no matter what era. 
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]

     This may just be your greatest post ever!!  I agree with you 1000%

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from tompenny. Show tompenny's posts

    Re: Did not having a rival help or hurt MJ

    When your legacy is basically the greatest ever or always in the conversation I don't know how much he can really gain or lose.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from SeemsToMe. Show SeemsToMe's posts

    Re: Did not having a rival help or hurt MJ

      Since the question is asked in a Celtic forum, you can expect to a certain degree, a Celtic bias. Asked in a Bulls forum,a bias towards the Bulls could be expected. Perhaps a poll in a neutral city would be more meaningfull.
    Seems
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from calvinator. Show calvinator's posts

    Re: Did not having a rival help or hurt MJ

    Charles Barkley was asked this question once. His responce was that both the Celtics and Lakers would have dispatched of the Bulls easily. Ironically he thought the Celtics were better than the Lakers. This was a little suprirsing being that the Lakers had a 2-1 advantage in the finals.  That would be an opinion from a neutral observer.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from SeemsToMe. Show SeemsToMe's posts

    Re: Did not having a rival help or hurt MJ

    In Response to Re: Did not having a rival help or hurt MJ:
    [QUOTE]Charles Barkley was asked this question once. His responce was that both the Celtics and Lakers would have dispatched of the Bulls easily. Ironically he thought the Celtics were better than the Lakers. This was a little suprirsing being that the Lakers had a 2-1 advantage in the finals.  That would be an opinion from a neutral observer.
    Posted by calvinator[/QUOTE]
    Barkley's response has nothing to do with the question.

     Seems
     

Share