<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/C7VaRHfIloU&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/C7VaRHfIloU&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
Sadly this ignorance is reflected in the thinking of many people outside of Houston. Many kids today don't really know who Hakeem Olajuwon is (believe it or not it's true) and even people who supposedly are NBA fans forget that Jordan was bounced out of the playoffs that year/or that somehow Houston's rings were tainted. What's weird about this article is how Hughes inserts that random shot at Houston and it has absolutely nothing to do with the article. He's talking about Barkley and Ewing not winning titles then then all of the sudden throws in Hakeem's name with a bunch of scrubs. It's like he's totally ignorant that Hakeem almost won a chip back in the 80s too... if he's going to talk about close calls and Hakeem Olajuwon, that 86 series is what he should be writing about. Seriously, this dude probably doesn't know that Houston was in the Finals in 86 or 81. You hear a lot about Lakers versus Celtics but if Houston had miraculously gotten to the Finals, I guarantee that 9/10 "reporters" on ESPN or SI would NOT know offhand that Houston also has tradition versus the Boston Celtics going back 30 years-- playing them in 2 brawling NBA Finals in 1981 and 1986. They call the 80s the "decade of the Lakers" and these scrub reporters can regurgitate that "between 1980 and 1989, the Celtics and/or the Lakers played in every NBA Finals"... but how many of them know that between 1980 and 1989, the Houston or the Lakers played in every NBA Finals? Reporters these days are seriously that ignorant. Totally ignorant yet proudly so and making stupid generalizations like the one about Houston not deserving those 2 rings in the 90s
Begrudgingly is putting it lightly but that's nothing compared to my contempt for SI disrespecting us as champs... the fact that it continues and even gets worse only makes me feel like I have been righteous in my contempt.
I guess we know who the queen can work for if the chronicle ever gives him the boot. He'd fit right in. .
I agree with others... it's too bad Jordan couldn't make it past the Magic .. dunno how they would have beat us considering we swept Orlando.
Anderson said at that time though that "No. 45 was not No. 23". The next season Jordan wore No. 23 again and the rest is history. On the SI article though, they should let it go. The Rockets have the two trophies and the rings and that should be left at that.
I've been watching hoops for along time. that was Michael Jordan. That was the Bulls. the reason they lost that series wasn't because of Mike. see front line of Bulls vs front line of Magic. the next season they got Dennis Rodman.
All else considered equal, which stat line reflects better overall performance? PPG - 30.7 RPG - 4.9 APG - 4.1 SPG - 1.8 BPG - 0.3 FG% - .459 3PT% - .403 FT% - .818 PPG - 31.5 RPG - 6.5 APG - 4.5 SPG - 2.3 BPG - 1.4 FG% - .484 3PT% - .367 FT% - .810
The reason Jordan didnt won is because he didnt have a great PF that year, thats the only reason why the bulls didnt win, its not because Jordan was "rusty" he played like any other year in the playoffs. the number you are wearing doesnt reflect how good you are! does kobe magically played better when he changed his number? no.
Keep the REAL TRUTH alive. because if people hear lies enough, they believe it to be the truth. I saw the same Jordan you saw, not what that other dude saw.
