Letting some Air out of Jordans legacy (article)

Letting some Air out of Jordan's legacy



By Travis Heath

Sept. 19, 2005



Michael Jordan is the best to have ever played the game.



I can’t recall how many times I have heard that statement from people all over the world. It has been programmed into our consciousness as sports fans. It has gotten to a point now where it is just accepted as fact -- and anyone who challenges it is immediately labeled an uniformed idiot.



Well, I have been called a lot worse, so here goes ...



Michael Jordan matured as an NBA player during the Golden Era of professional basketball. Coming into the league just a few years after Larry Bird and Magic Johnson, Jordan had the chance to shine as no star before him ever had. But Jordan's ability to shine was not solely a result of his brilliance. Instead,it was a combination of factors that came together with a perfect sense of timeliness.



Don't misunderstand. I’m not saying Jordan wasn’t a phenomenal basketball player. I’m simply saying there have been other phenomenal players who have played in other time periods -- players who didn’t benefit from some of the advantages that Jordan enjoyed.



• Exhibit No. 1: NBA commissioner David Stern and his aggressive marketing campaign, which had never before been seen in professional sports. Love him or hate him, Stern has taken the NBA to heights that few thought could ever be reached just two decades ago. During Stern's reign, the NBA has become more than just a game -- it has become a premier product that can be bought and sold on a global scale.



Upon being appointed commissioner in 1984, Stern vigorously looked for ways to get the game more exposure. The NBA revised its television deals and teamed up with large corporations. As a result, endorsement opportunities opened up for many of the league's elite. One could make the argument that the NBA is now over-marketed.



This marketing effort by Stern ultimately helped the game cater to the elite of society. There were more Benjamins to be had.



Jordan undoubtedly benefited from the aforementioned series of events. Now, I am not saying that Jordan was an innocent bystander who simply sat idly by and reaped the benefits. No, Jordan was a great player. He simply took advantage of the opportunities available to a great player of his time -- just as any sensible human being would.



But these opportunities helped turn Jordan into more than a basketball player. He also became an icon that could be bought and sold around the world (i.e. Nike). This helped Jordan achieve a status that no athlete -- or even person -- before him ever had.



At some level, this is kind of becomes a chicken-and-egg debate. The league's marketing ploys would not have been effective without a player such as Jordan. But, many players before Jordan simply weren't afforded the same type of global promotion he enjoyed.



I can’t help but wonder if things would have been different for greats of an earlier era had they played during the same era as Jordan. Greats such as Bob Cousy, Oscar Robertson, John Havlicek, Jerry West, Bill Sharman, Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, Earl Monroe, Walt Frazier, George Mikan, and Pete Maravich. Or what if Jordan had played in their era? Would he still widely be considered the greatest of all time?



• This is a perfect segway to my second point -- which is that it is very difficult to compare eras. As exemplified above with regard to marketing, there are so many variables that don’t transcend time when it comes to evaluating the performance of athletes. Yet we as sports fans constantly like to compare athletes from different periods.



I’m no different. I wish all the time that the great Celtics teams of the 1950s and '60s could battle the Bulls of the 1990s, and that the Lakers of the 1980s could compete against the modern-day Pistons. I daydream about Wilt Chamberlain posting up Shaquille O’Neal, and Magic Johnson dueling with Oscar Robertson.



The fact is, though, this is never going to happen. Which means we will never be able to get a definitive answer. We are basically engaging in the futile process of trying to turn something that is inherently subjective, into something that is objective. It also means that while this practice of comparing players from various eras in fun, it is also in many ways a colossal waste of time.



The bottom line is that it is impossible to use empirical data to support a definitive statement of who is the best player of all time. So, someone who tells you that so and so is the best player of all time is doing nothing more than stating his or her opinion. That is why it is so perplexing to me that a statement such as Jordan being the best of all time is so often accepted as fact -- and is so rarely challenged.



• While I am a fairly young buck, I am also an NBA historian of sorts. I have studied the history of the game in great depth, even writing history papers and book reports on the subject when permitted by teachers to do so during my formative years. I also had the good fortune of being coached by a gentleman named Pat Frink in high school, who just happened to play NBA basketball alongside Oscar Robertson for a brief time in Cincinnati. So, while I wasn’t alive to watch games from decades past, I have done everything in my power to become educated about what took place.



That said, I believe Jordan benefited from the way the games were refereed while he was playing. Again, I’m not trying to take away what Jordan did on the court. I’m just looking at some of the factors that I think played a role in him being recognized as the best ever.



From the information I have gathered over the years, the game was officiated differently before Jordan’s time. That’s not to say that the refs didn’t favor the stars, because I have been told that they did. But I have also deduced that Jordan seemed to enjoy more preferential treatment from the officials than anyone who came before him.



I have also been told that game was actually better when there were only two refs on the court. The premise of that argument was basically that there are only so many guys who are capable iof calling a game -- either at an average level or above. So by adding a third official, the league was essentially putting an extra incompetent ref on the floor every night. Sometimes, more is not always better.



Any way you slice it up though, Jordan most certainly got his way with the referees. Perhaps it was because he intimidated the refs, I don’t know. Whatever the reason, it became an almost impossible assignment to guard the guy, because defenders were constantly paranoid of being whistled for a foul. This, without question, helped to open up the floor for Jordan, both offensively and defensively.



I can also recall many instances when I became frustrated watching Jordan play, because it seemed as though every shot he missed was followed by a whistle. There were a few games were it was clear that the whistle was not blown until it was determined that the shot was not going to go in. This annoyed me, and quite frankly, I felt cheated. Mainly because Jordan was a great player, and I wanted to see him compete against the opposition the league had to offer -- not get bailed out by the referees.



The star treatment given by the referees in the NBA has always been a sour spot for me. Others before Jordan received such treatment, and others after him will receive it, too. But the treatment that Jordan got was such that I can’t recall another player who benefited more from officiating than he did.



I'm not bothered by fans thinking that Jordan is the best ever. He very well may be. As I said, I don’t think there is a right answer to the question of who is the best player of all time. However, if you do believe that Jordan is the best, ask yourself this: Are you basing your opinion on the evidence you have collected about the game and its history -- or are you just buying into the dominant message put out by the NBA, the media, and the corporate machine?

_______________________________________________________________


A-Friggin' Men! This has always been my argument in the GOAT debate. I'm not a boxing fan by any stretch, but i assume Ali was the greatst because thats what the commercials and magazine ads say. I think the same thing has happened with Jordan.

They took a phenomenal player, with a cool name, who wasn't the ugliest guy in the world and made him a what he is. I believe that his greatness has just as much to do with marketing as what he does on the court, and i can'
t stand people thinking i'm an idiot because i don't think he's the greatest of all time.

Don't think i am forgetting the rings and the buzzer beaters and MVP's. But i also don't forget the phantom calls, the constant travelling, the ball hogging, the cursing of a team mate should he make Jordan look bad.

His greatness should not be accepted as fact. I think Hakeem is (biased yes, but i have valid reasons as well) But he wasn't marketable, his name has too many syllables, he wasn't pretty, He couldn't rap or act (as far as i'm aware anyway) he spoke with an accent, and he wasn't american. The guy didn't sell, Jordan did.

I think people are blind if they can't see that the media has played a huge part in Jordan's legacy. I remember watching the top 10 plays of the week on NBA action, and there was always, ALWAYS at least two jordan plays, even if it wasn't something spectacular, they put him on screen, they got his name aired, then they'd cut to commercial-hey it's Mike again!!

My vote will always be for dream when it comes to G.O.A.T. but if someone doesn't think that, i don't call them stupid.....just unaware

 

sorry, forgot to put it,

www.probasketballnews.com

it should be on the main page

 

Scottie Pippen could give Jordan a run in the best perimeter D IMO. He routinely defended the oppositions best wing player, and yes i know part of the reason was so Jordan could have some more lungs for the offensive end-but he was a great outside defender and he was always there to get that charge or steal. Just my opinion.