Well, by that argument Haslem is the best choice, since he did a great job on Dirk in '06. I don't think Dirk is the same player now, though. He's shooting out of his mind.
Clippy, I admire your zealous defense of your side of the debate, but after reading all of your posts you hark back to two main points which go hand in hand: the superior physicality of today's game and the superior defense of today's game as a result of superior physicality and coaching/scouting intricacies. There's no denying that today's game is much more physical in a sense of pure athleticism. You're right, you could not find a LeBron James type athlete in the previous generations of basketball due to evolution and technology. However, as a critique of your argument methods, why some people are so opposed to your opinion is because of the lack of integrity in your arguments. Specifically, your arguments are all based off circumstantial evidence, relying on your own interpretation, which may or may not be true. But, the fundamental rule of debating is presenting direct, hard evidence, not ones that require inference because inference is subjective. While others have posted quotes (i.e. factual evidence) from coaches and players who played against Jordan that state he would have a much easier time scoring under today's rules, you retort with statements such as, "the lack of handchecking is tempered by the superior physicality of today's defenders, thereby negating the advantages Jordan would have gained if he played under today's rules" and "today's big men are arguably not as bad as they seem to be in comparison with those of the 90s because of superior physical attributes" (i.e. circumstantial evidence). Sure, you might be on to something, but these statements are all up to one's interpretation, making them less powerful as factual evidence even if through inference it might be correct. In other words, you cannot come into court defending your client with circumstantial evidence and expect to win. All cases are won with the presentation of direct, factual evidence. And here's some of the factual evidence: Jordan has posted better playoff statistics than James. Jordan has 6 more rings than James. But, I'm sure you know all this already, which gives me reason to believe that you are grasping at straws to make your argument, a common diagnosis of a person who has to rely on circumstantial evidence to make his/her point. The unfortunate caveat of this problem is that, as this thread has shown, it is impossible to change someone's opinion when he/she is using subjectivity to make his/her's point because how can one deny/change another person's logic? As for your argument itself, I just want to point out one fundamental contradiction in your point about today's superior physicality. You say players now are more athletic, thus by your logic if they played in an earlier era they would dominate and vice versa for players from yesteryear. But, you're not taking into account relativity. Because surely, by your argument George Mikan or Jerry West should not be two of the greatest players of all time because they played in an era where players were shorter, slower, whiter (I'm kidding...sort of), and less athletic--meaning if they played today, they'd be average players. When people try to compare players from different generations, I find the best way to do it is to ask, "how great was player X in his era?" Hell, I don't disagree with the idea that if Yao was transported back to the 60s, he'd probably be remembered as the best center of all time. But, if he grew up in the 60s, with the relative lack of nutrition, health care, technology, training, etc. would Yao even have been able to play basketball at 7'6"? I'm not so sure about that seeing as people his size were mostly circus attractions. The same goes with James and Jordan. If James was playing in the 80's/born in the 60's, you cannot assume that he would possess all the physical traits and basketball skills that he does now due to the major differences in the external factors aforementioned. He might have been a completely different looking and different playing type of player. And if Jordan was playing in the 2000's/born in the 80's, he also might have been a different looking player given the changes in training, nutrition, coaching, etc. Give Jordan all the training, health care, scouting reports, coaching on how to play against today's defenses that LeBron has received today, and he'd be a very different player. You can't just analyze a player in a vacuum, transporting him to a different time period replete with all of the knowledge and skills he possesses now because it is an unequal method of comparison. If Player X played in the 70's he'd suffer all the relative disadvantages as all the other players did in that time period in comparison to the 2000's. You see what I'm getting at? Maybe, players nowadays are more athletic, but you know what they're all playing against players that are also more athletic. They all share the same advantages--it's an even playing field. That's why when you look at the core aspects of the game of basketball, there are commonalities that stretch over the landscape of time irregardless of the generation shifts: Games on average total from 160 - 200 points, players on average shoot 45% from the field, etc. This is all due to the simple reason of relativity. To put it simply, relying on everything factual that we know (statistics, accolades, quotes), not subjective, interpreted evidence, Jordan is a better player than LeBron up until this point. That's something that you cannot deny.
LMFAO @ Everybody in this thread getting trolled by clippy...smh Spoiler <a href="http://photobucket.com/images/troll" target="_blank"><img src="http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u214/ut755ln/2troll.jpg" border="0" alt="Troll Pictures, Images and Photos"/></a> Awesome video indeed.
You didn't have to write the novel above to reach this conclusion. I never argued otherwise. Certainly relative to their eras, Jordan is a better player than LeBron (although Wilt was a better player than Jordan by that metric). If you go back to your first post in your thread, you make that claim that Jordan would have averaged 40+ ppg in this era. That is what I was disputing. It is impossible to argue this either way with concrete evidence because there is none. All we can do is make assumptions. The reason I posted those videos is so that people could judge with their own eyes what the game was like when Jordan played vs. how it is now. I've presented far more "factual" evidence than anyone else in this thread.
