Quote:
Originally Posted by sygazelle
I don't think it's hard at all to bring up the ring argument. I was a kid in the 60s and a LA Lakers fan and I watched Bill Russell and the Celtics dominate the Lakers in the finals over and over again. The Lakers had great teams in the 60s. Bill Russell and the Celtics were just plain dominant and earned all their rings. The point of the sport is to win.
Bottom line: The rings are the ultimate victory. By that measure, James isn't even the conversation and never will be. All the self-promotion he can muster will not change that absolute fact.
|
I totally agree with you. I'm just saying that people say Jordan is better than Lebron, simply because of the rings. When in truth, Russell is better than Jordan by that logic. At the end of the day, a Championship is based on team effort. Not only by the product you put on the court, but by the scouts, trainers, coaches, everyone that makes the team run.
If we were to simply compare players, we may have to consider their position. How do you compare a true center to a PG? Their styles of play would be different and their stats would show this. Also, how do we compare players from different eras as well? We all know the game has transitioned through each generation. Some people have simplified it to be the person that can elevate the entire team.
I feel that it is much easier to compare Jordan to Kobe because of their styles and positions. If we were to consider Lebron a PF, then he would be competing with the likes of Duncan and we all know Duncan is better. As a center, Kareem, Olajiwan, Shaq etc would be better. A guard, well we all know Jordan wins that one.
So again, I'll defer to the NBA players. They say Kobe is better than Lebron, and Jordan is better than Kobe, so there you go.