Basketball: Individusliam

Thanks for the enlightenment on that term. And yeah, just talk to some Utah Jazz fans and see what kind of empurpled prose comes flying back about what Jordan got away with. You can hardly blame them.

BHN

Yeah, I watched that Game 6 in 1998. Jordan definitely pushed off on that last shot.

As far as Eaton goes, he was a physical monstrosity, but I think that Wilt was in such great shpae, that he would have had the upper hand in that. I have read a lot about how physical Wilt was, so I would give him the edge there, as much as it break smy heart to type that.

And then you guys have to go and bring up that mother-f$@!$%ing shot!!! You know, a few years back, I decided to take a vacation by myself, went to visit some friends around New York City, spent some time in Lake Placid, and swung over to climb Mt. Washington. ON the way back, I wasn't sure where I wanted to stay, and I found myself in Springfield, Mass. Of course, I went to the Basketball HOF. What do you think was the very first display that they had right inside the main entrance? That's right, they tore up the section of the Delta center floor, and had a cardboard cutout of Jordan taking that mother-fI@#^%$ing shot. You could walk right up onto the floor. What a way to ruin two whole weeks for me...

I'm not a Jazz fan, but I was a Bulls hater. I detested those Bulls with a violent passion. Part of it was that I don't like players or teams being crowned as "the best ever" when there is not a consensus of opinion. I remember there was a "Who's #1" on ESPNClassic on the best single-season teams of all time. Whoever came up with that list had the 1995-96 Bulls (who went 72-10) as the best ever. At the end of the show, Mike Greenberg and Mike Golic voiced their displeasure at that choice. According to them (and I agree), the 1982-83 Sixers (my team), the 1985-86 Celtics, and the 1986-87 Lakers were all superior to that Bulls team.

John Stockton is one of my favorite players, though, so I was upset when he did not get a title ring.

I was offended when ESPN did that Top 50 Sports Figures of the 20th Century, and decided to rate Jordan at #1, ahead of Babe Ruth. I felt that if they just had to be p.c. and rate someone ahead of Ruth, it should have been Muhammad Ali. I think you can make a lot better case for him than for Jordan.

And yeah, I know little about hoops and even less about boxing, but Ali had SO many great periods over SUCH a long time, and he did it all alone. He didn't have role players out there helping him, and he didn't have a great small forward who was one blind/corrupt call from taking the team to the Finals WITHOUT him the year after his first "retirement."

Anyway, I'm sure all the young people who had no idea of Ruth's magnitude of greatness thought Jordan at #1 was real neat, but I thought it was very wrong. Ali at #1? I think that case could have been made, and very eloquently by a boxing fan.

Oh, by the way: No reactions yet to my Richie Ashburn answer?

BHN

That was pretty disgusting. About eight years ago, Sports Illustrated did a similar list and had Ali #1 and Jordan #2. I think Ali is a much better choice than Jordan, mainly because he did it alone and for such a long time. The main thing that disturbs me about Jordan's place in history is that the stage was set for him when he came into the league in 1984. Magic Johnson and Larry Bird had already revitalized the NBA and turned it into a popular sport. Jordan just continued what they started.

I would place Ruth #1, with Ali a close second. Jordan did have a huge impact on the NBA (some of it detrimental), but he deserves to be #3.