finalsY2K
01-03-2000, 05:26 PM
Greatest what? Dad? CEO? African American? No...ESPN voted him the greatest athlete of the century. This, by inference, makes him the greatest NBA player of the century.
I don't know if it is proper ettiquette to start a new thread on a similar subject, but I thought I would point something out about most of the posts I read. None of them discuss what may have been the criteria for judging greatest athlete.
It could not have been merely number of championships or Bill Russell or one of players on the dominant hockey teams. Carl Lewis might have the most gold medals. I don't know who has the most accolades of any sport, but the point is....that alone won't get you in. Still, when you look simply at that vital piece of the puzzle you see that Jordan was in the winnner's circle 6 times (7 if you count the NCAA tourney that he won with his clutch shot and 9 if you include his 2 Olympic golds). Chamberlain? He only won 3 times. Of course, he was always pitted against Russel and his Boston juggernaut, but still....all those years of dominance and no more hardware than that? Think about it. According to most posters on here, Jordan had a bunch of mediocre athletes to complement hi s game. Pippen was the best Bull besides Jordan, and everyone knows how Pippen just "rode Jordan's coattails" to the championships. This means that Jordan did more than any other player when we consider Magic had Kareem and James Worthy, etc. Bird had McHale, Parrish, and co. Chamberlain had ample opportunity to win more rings with a great Lakers team that included Jerry West of all people.
Anyway, that is only part of the story. When you look at the tremendous fame Jordan, wealth, and power Jordan ammassed, it is clear to see Jordan is on a completely different level than all other NBA'ers. You can talk about modern times, 24 hour cable, huge TV contracts, etc. but Babe Ruth, Muhammed Ali, and Jim Brown were household names before Jordan had picked up a basketball. Many of the top athletes changed the way the game was played, left an indelible mark on the world's consciousness, and were pure competitors and winners. Wilt Chamberlain lacked in a couple of key areas.
People talk of Ruthian endeavors--using people's knowledge of the athlete as an adjective to describe astounding performance. People talk of Jordan-like competiveness or the next Michael Jordan or a Jordanesque move, etc. Not many words like that are in our vocabulary to describe Wilt.
I don't want you to think I am disagreeing as regards Wilt's performance and dominance. He left a huge void when he passed on. I remember him being the first name I knew about the NBA with Dr. J following close behind. I don't even think a person has to like Jordan. There are a lot of traits and the fact that he played on a team you rooted against that a person might not like. Still, how can a person argue and use as their argument a narrow discussion such as stats?
The mere fact that the question is being asked shows that there is an even divide on people's feeling about whether or not he is. No doubt many of the top 50 athletes on the list got there because of their recent exploits as opposed to the athletes of other times, but Jordan would not fall into that category. In my mind, it had to be Jordan, Ruth, and Muhammed Ali in no particular order for the top 3.
I don't know if it is proper ettiquette to start a new thread on a similar subject, but I thought I would point something out about most of the posts I read. None of them discuss what may have been the criteria for judging greatest athlete.
It could not have been merely number of championships or Bill Russell or one of players on the dominant hockey teams. Carl Lewis might have the most gold medals. I don't know who has the most accolades of any sport, but the point is....that alone won't get you in. Still, when you look simply at that vital piece of the puzzle you see that Jordan was in the winnner's circle 6 times (7 if you count the NCAA tourney that he won with his clutch shot and 9 if you include his 2 Olympic golds). Chamberlain? He only won 3 times. Of course, he was always pitted against Russel and his Boston juggernaut, but still....all those years of dominance and no more hardware than that? Think about it. According to most posters on here, Jordan had a bunch of mediocre athletes to complement hi s game. Pippen was the best Bull besides Jordan, and everyone knows how Pippen just "rode Jordan's coattails" to the championships. This means that Jordan did more than any other player when we consider Magic had Kareem and James Worthy, etc. Bird had McHale, Parrish, and co. Chamberlain had ample opportunity to win more rings with a great Lakers team that included Jerry West of all people.
Anyway, that is only part of the story. When you look at the tremendous fame Jordan, wealth, and power Jordan ammassed, it is clear to see Jordan is on a completely different level than all other NBA'ers. You can talk about modern times, 24 hour cable, huge TV contracts, etc. but Babe Ruth, Muhammed Ali, and Jim Brown were household names before Jordan had picked up a basketball. Many of the top athletes changed the way the game was played, left an indelible mark on the world's consciousness, and were pure competitors and winners. Wilt Chamberlain lacked in a couple of key areas.
People talk of Ruthian endeavors--using people's knowledge of the athlete as an adjective to describe astounding performance. People talk of Jordan-like competiveness or the next Michael Jordan or a Jordanesque move, etc. Not many words like that are in our vocabulary to describe Wilt.
I don't want you to think I am disagreeing as regards Wilt's performance and dominance. He left a huge void when he passed on. I remember him being the first name I knew about the NBA with Dr. J following close behind. I don't even think a person has to like Jordan. There are a lot of traits and the fact that he played on a team you rooted against that a person might not like. Still, how can a person argue and use as their argument a narrow discussion such as stats?
The mere fact that the question is being asked shows that there is an even divide on people's feeling about whether or not he is. No doubt many of the top 50 athletes on the list got there because of their recent exploits as opposed to the athletes of other times, but Jordan would not fall into that category. In my mind, it had to be Jordan, Ruth, and Muhammed Ali in no particular order for the top 3.