Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
While I dont think MJ was overrated, I would say that people have glossed over his actual history to paint this perfect image that they then use to bash Lebron, sometimes unfairly. It took MJ seven seasons to even make an NBA finals. He would win the scoring title, dunk contests etc and then get waxed in the playoffs. He too carried the stigma of "cant win when it counts". He never beat the Celtics in the playoffs, and lost to Detroit 3 years in a row. So all this talk about how Lebron is weak and soft because MJ would never do this or that just tells me that people either didnt actually watch him, or are choosing to ignore his flaws.
I actually disagree with this.
Everyone knows that all athletes lose. Tiger has lost 80% of the events he's played. Federer has lost 75% of the Grand Slams he's played. Ted Williams failed to get on base 66% of the time. Nobody wins them all and everyone knows this so I think the "Jordan lost a bunch of times" argument needs to be put to rest.
Lebron gets flak because he joined a super team and lost in the most spectacular fashion possible. There's been some attempt to revise the history but we all saw it. And it's something that will always come up in any Jordan-Lebron comparison since Jordan didn't have a series remotely comparable to Lebron's 2011 Finals. Jordan was never the primary cause of his team losing. Even in the Detroit and Boston series people bring up to knock him, he was the best player on the floor. The only time he was ever outscored in a playoff series was his rookie season.
Obviously some of these are troll posts, but the truth lies somewhere in the middle of all this. A few thoughts:
First things first: Jordan would have been just fine in this era. He would still be up there as one of the most athletic guys in the league along with Ant and Ja. Shooting wasnt his strongest skill but I think he would have worked on it to be a bigger part of his game. Depending on how good his teammates were, he would be a 25-30 ppg guy. He was always a great defender to being arguably the best two way player would mean that he's a top 5 guy in today's game.
Him playing against weaker comp in the 80s and 90s has some truth to it. I think of guys like Dale Davis, Rick Mahorn. They had long, productive careers in the NBA back then but I honestly think they would struggle to be bench guys in today's league. Back then, you could make the league as strictly a rebounder or enforcer, or defense only etc. Wouldnt work today, at least not for many players.
While I dont think MJ was overrated, I would say that people have glossed over his actual history to paint this perfect image that they then use to bash Lebron, sometimes unfairly. It took MJ seven seasons to even make an NBA finals. He would win the scoring title, dunk contests etc and then get waxed in the playoffs. He too carried the stigma of "cant win when it counts". He never beat the Celtics in the playoffs, and lost to Detroit 3 years in a row. So all this talk about how Lebron is weak and soft because MJ would never do this or that just tells me that people either didnt actually watch him, or are choosing to ignore his flaws.
That being said, when he finally broke through and won his first, he maximized his advantage and won 5 more. It's safe to say that he was definitely the greatest of his generation, beating all his peers like Barkley, Malone, Ewing etc. People get mad at the two year break, but to me that just makes him even greater. Show me another athlete who could take two years off completely and come back and still win it all.
The other question is whether he could have won without Pippen and Phil Jackson. Let's say he was drafted by the Hawks, and basically was swapped with Dominique Wilkins, another high scoring player who had a bunch of 30 ppg seasons and some would argue that he was a better dunker than MJ. He never made the Finals, and the highlight of his career was going toe to toe with Bird in one playoff series (still lost). For all the scoring and dunking he didnt even make the top 75 greatest list. Would that have been MJ's fate if he doesnt have the triangle and Pippen? I would say probably so. Now MJ was a better alround player than Wilkins (who didnt play defense at all), but it's safe to say that a high scoring player with no rings doesnt have all this adulation. So we have to say there was some luck that fell MJ's way. But of course, luck is only half the equation. He still had to work to achieve all that he eventually had.
Last thing; let's flip things and say Lebron goes back to 1984. I dont know if people are just numb to how much of a phenom Lebron is since he's been playing for over 2 decades. He basically has Karl Malone's body (close to same height and weight). I'm sure most of the younger folks on here probably didnt see much of Malone in his hey day. Malone was a muscular, physical forward who had a nice jumper, but wasnt the most athletic guy in the world, yet with all that was arguably the top forward in the game till Duncan. I can assure you that if Malone had Lebron's athletic ability, passing ability, could play (and defend) 1-4, he would be the best player in that year and decade, over MJ. Hands down.
And for those of you saying well Lebron's too soft, he would have adapted his game once he realized that the 80s refs werent going for all that. And for all his flaws, the book on him has never been to rough him up and get physical with him. That was young Dirk. The way to shut him down early in his career was to make him shoot the outside jumper. He's never been someone who could be bullied physically.
I am actually blown away by the part in bold here. I don't recall anyone every claiming Michael Jordan could not win when it counted. Everyone knew Jordan needed help, he had carried that team to as far as they could go. And that help came with Scotty, Grant and so many other players who were much better than the supporting case in Jordan's early days. Once that happened they were unstoppable. The reason Jordan is used to "bash" LeBron is MJ never shied away from the big shot where LeBron most definitely did early in his career. Jordan was taking and hitting shots that wins championships since he was a freshman.
I'm actually shocked to read of the ignorance of today's kids with regard to the greatness that was Michael Jordan. I never saw Jim Brown or Oscar Robertson play, Russell only at the very end. But I always knew how great they were.
All eras are relative. Many guys who play today will be called "chuckers' in the future because all they can do is shoot threes. The ability to play zone defenses, the lack of handchecks, de-emphasis on rebounding and shot blocking, and desire to have shooters of various sizes means these guys clog up rosters just like the "janitors of the 1980s" and "ruffians of the 1990s" did.
Throw guys like Chet back into a 1992 game, and he probably doesn't leave in one piece against a guy like Dale Davis. For every three he hits, he's going to get an elbow in the sternum giving up an offensive rebound. Kurt Rambis was an energy guy who ran the floor continually during an era when the game was played fast, and 1/2 court offenses featured fewer players. "No lay-ups" used to be the rule, now most of those fouls are called Flagrant 1. My point being, don't over hype today's role players at the expense of those in the past. Role players have always fit into the way the game is being played during that era.
As for MJ. Of course he dominates today. Who or what stops him from getting the rim at will? Who or what stops him from finishing? He played this aggressive style successfully in an era when much larger, and meaner, guys patrolled the rim and could smash anyone who tried to elevate. Pack the paint, and he drills 15-18 foot jumpers all day, MJ was arguably the best mid-range player of ALL-TIME. For his era, it wasn't even close. Check out the low conversation rate at the rim....THAT is what playing in the 1990s was like, today he would convert 65-70% like ANT does.
I have no question he could get his volume and % of 3-pointers up the league average. Your top 2 in MVP voting, Jokic and SGA, are not high volume 3-point shooters nor great marksmen, just good enough to compliment their other skills.
I saw them both play, old enough to remember prime Jordan. LeBron wants to be the maestro, MJ was the assassin. Different roles, different guys, both All-time greats. I'll take Jordan every time though because of the competitiveness and hatred of losing. LeBron never had that, he loves winning, but is okay with losing. Perhaps that is a sign of a well adjusted human being......but not as ideal a mentality for the GOAT.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
