Jordan dominated over a weak group also. Name other SGs in his era, with the exception of Drexler, who he only played twice a year and once in the playoffs, who are Hall of Famers. And in that, Im saying that if you discredit Wilt, etc. for playing in an era with weak players at their position (which is not true, look at the hall of fame big men they played against), then you have to penalize Jordan also. And Ive never seen anyone do so. Its a very fair arguement to make that Jordans competition at SG is comparable to what the Big 3 had at center. They all dominated in a manner that no one else at their positions ever did regardless of era. I did not respond to your tennis or football arguement because I know very little about either sport and cant give an opinion. However, Dan Marino's stats and abilities were superior to Joe Montana's, but Joe always won titles. How would you rank them? Are they in the same "group"? Yes, but you wont find many who rank Marino ahead of Montana when talking about the all time greatest at their positions.
How could almost every big man from the 60s be in the hall of fame? They were killing those unskilled 5'10" guys night in and night out. That means very little. I don't penalize Wilt for his size or dominance, I just don't believe that the 1965 Wilt would be able to do those same things in the 1995 NBA. Am I comparing eras? Yes. That's what ALL all-time lists do. Which brings us to the Montana/Marino thing. Most would rank Montana higher but they played in the same era with the same competition. Hell, they even played against one another in the Superbowl. Montana won. Terry Bradshaw won just as much as Montana but very few would dare say that he was better than Marino. Rings don't tell the full story. I hate to admit to this but Horry is not as good as Malone.
Codell/ChenZhen (and DCkid), I was trying to figure out what DCkid was using as his measurement for "greatest center" or what he meant by "ability." I finally figured it out... I'm going to assume that DCkid's definition of "ability" is a combination of offensive and defensive skills. And I'm also going to assume that he's NOT talking about athletic "ability" alone. NOTE: All this is really splitting hairs, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Now, we can also assume that DCkid is using a hypothetical situation. So for the sake of this example we should pretend that Hakeem never won a single championship. NOT ONE! Let's say we eliminate Sampson, Horry, Drexler, Cassell, Thorpe, and Smith. Just pretend that they never existed. Also, pretend that if those players never played for the Rockets, then we can assume that Hakeem's stats would have risen a little. Now, with those "realities" DCkid is saying, I think, that on a one-on-one "ability," (and yes, even if Hakeem never won a ring) his "ability" alone would have justified that he should be considered one of the top 4 (or 3; Equal to Russell). Now this I can understand this argument. Being from Houston, it makes it easier. This being said, it will not fly with the rest of the world because there are so many other values, measurements, and intangibles that give a player access to the "greatest ever list." Most people in the rest of the world will not sit tight while you dissect stats, abilities, and whatever in order to justify a players greatness into the "best ever list." Now, before you get MAD, keep reading... Most people will use the WHOLE of a player's career accomplishments as a measure of their greatness. That's why Jordan is considered "greater" than Wilts STATS, and "greater" than Russell's RINGS. It's the sum total of his accomplishment that will be remembered in history. Hakeem will be measured on the WHOLE of his career accomplishments, NOT on dissected ability, "what-ifs" and era comparisons. But DCkid, I do understand what you are trying to say. On "ability" ALONE, Hakeem ranks in that elite circle. It's when you start throwing around "greater" than this player, or "greater" than that player. I get defensive.
To that, I would say this, if Shaq was on a horrible team where he was the only legitimate offensive options and he was given 50 shots a game, he could score 50 because he is that much more dominant than any other player at his position. Now Im not saying its a given that he could do it. But no one can dismiss it as not being possible. Wilt scored 50 plus consistantly for a while because he was really the only offensive option on his team. Dennis Rodman averaged close to 18-20 rbs a game a few seasons. So we cant say that Wilt couldnt score 50 a game in this era or that Russell couldnt average 20 rbs. Thats why its hard to prove what a player could or could not do in any given era.
We are not saying that rings are all that matters. Its a combination of all accomplisments and abilities, including rings.
Malone = HOFer Russell = HOFer Horry = role player I sure hope you aren't trying to say that Horry contributions to the Rockets were the same as Russell's contributions to the Celtics. As I said before....Scotty Brooks!
I second that opinion. Very good post. I only disagree with a few points. But over-all. A well written objective post.
Very true. In the mid and late 80s, Hakeem would just overpower people and dunk on them. He later become a finesse player with the dreamshake and turnaround jumper which made him that much more dangerous cause he could still beat you with strength if he had to. He had both styles at his disposal. Its very fair to say that Hakeems combination of finesse and strenght was unprecedented and without equal over history. I think thats why also, Hakeem has always said that Mark Eaton was a defender that he always had the most problems with. Mark was so big, Hakeem couldnt just overpower him with strength, Mark was so slow and non athletic that he wouldnt/was not able to bite on Hakeems fakes and just stood their while Dream spinned himself into a dizzy spell and would look up and Eaton was still there, and he couldnt beat him up and under cause of Eaton's height and long arms. I use to LOVE watching Hakeem play Eaton. Hakeem would usually end up with his in the end, but it was fun watching him find ways to try and score on Eaton and he usually did. I think the Jazz teams of the 80s were the only team that would consistantly guard Hakeem one on one. Can Eaton be considered one of the best all time one on one defenders at his position?
Codell, I was going to bring up Eaton earlier. But then I thought that most wouldn't remember him very much. So why bother. I mean, even with all the center discussions regarding Yao comparisons; or ANY center comparisons for that matter. We never hear about Eaton much. Everyone just talks about the real good ones, or the real bad ones.
Well again, it all goes back to accomplishments which proves the point that you and I were trying to make. Eaton had no offensive, passing skills, rings or longevity. I tell you though, I hated it when we had to play the Jazz, cause of the problems he caused for Hakeem. I think if Eaton had played longer and stayed healthy, he might have been remembered as one of the all time great defensive centers if he isnt already. Of course, as this thread proves, thats highly debatable. Wasnt his knickname "Man Mountain Mark"?
Not sure about his nickname. But that guy reminded me of "Jaws," from the James Bond series. Or Herman Munster!
David, I have to ask you this because it sounds like you have a great memory. Do you remember in the 95 playoffs when the Jazz played the Spurs? Towards the end of the game, Rodman took a cheap shot at Stockton (or it might have been someone else) and was ejected from the game and as he ran off the court, he taunted the Jazz bench until he came to the end of the bench where Eaton was sitting (he was injured and was in street clothes). Eaton then stood up and glared at Rodman and as soon as Dennis saw Mark and the look that Mark was giving to him, he quickly stopped his taunting and went on his way. I have a fond memory of that moment in history. Who wouldnt want to see Eaton grind Rodman into pulp? lol
I remember the tirade, but I don't recall the "look" from Eaton. Rodman didn't even want to chance it (taunt Eaton). Rodman might be dumb, but he's not stupid!
Oh man! Next that game is on ESPN classic or NBA TV, pay close attention. The look Eaton gave Rodhead was comparable to Don Vito Corleone's kiss of death. I dont remember if Hakeem and Eaton ever came to blows. I dont think anyone would want to mess with Mark. I know Hakeem came to blows with alot of people in his "angrier" days. I remember that Hakeem chased quite a few guys around the court trying to land haymakers (a la Billy Paultz). I am very fond of the time that Jim Peterson chased Roy Tarpley into the locker room also. Go Jim!
great post right here. people are still arguing against putting dream number 1 but no one is actually saying he's the best. thowever the facts show that hakeem should be considered as an equal to those 3 and shaq as well. as far as an argument as to why kareem shouldn't be in there, heypartner made a couple very good posts like 40 pages ago regarding that and changed my mind a little about his postion. to end this thread for myself atleast, my 5 is: 1.wilt (if i have to pick a best) 2.hakeem, russell, shaq 3. jabbar
Eaton was a really good one-on-one guy. He had no offense, and his rebounding wasn't even particularly good considering that he was 7'4", 300 pounds, but he could damn sure block your shot. He did win defensive player twice, and remains the only center the Jazz ever had. What I really would like to see is Eaton in his Prime guarding Shaq. I'm convinced he could have given Shaq problems. I don't remember that "look," but Eaton does look scary. He looks like an honest-to-god neanderthal, a caveman that will beat the *^#% out of you.
Mark wasnt a particularly great rebounder cause he never jumped. He would just hope that the ball would fall into his without anyone contesting it. Im not sure who has the better verticle leap. Thomas Hamilton or Mark Eaton. Tough call. Wow. Shaq vs. Eaton. You are onto something. I totally agree. I dont think Shaq would overpower him on a consistant basis. Im tellin ya. Next time that game is on, watch. Its quite a "look". Neanderthal? lol So true. Its like you expected him to walk onto the court wearing an animal hide and carrying a club. Its all about the protrusion under his brow.
