ChenZhen, you constantly make the point that it is unfair to compare Russell and Olajuwon's basketball abilities, because there's no way Russell could be expected to do the things that Hakeem could do after a couple decades of basketball evolution. This is perfectly true. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but the rings still seem to be your biggest reason for saying Russell is ahead of Olajuwon. Is that correct? I say that, because that's what your arguments always seems to come back to. My question is...why can't I say that it is also unfair that Hakeem never got to prove how many championships he could win with teams that consisted of multiple hall-of-famers in their prime. To me, both comparisons are equally unfair, because there are circumstances the individual players had no control over. Russell has no control over what era he played in, just like Hakeem had no control over how many hall of famers were on his team. The era obviously effected the amount of skills and abilities Russell could gain (although, Wilt was in the same era and still seemed to have a lot more overall ability than Russell...hmmm). And even more obvious, the players that Hakeem was surrounded by definitely affected the number of championships he could win. And then you talk about "domination relative to eras." Well, relative to his era, Russell had more talent surrounding him throughout his entire career than Hakeem ever had in a single season. (And to codell, a past-their-prime Pippen and Barkley is nowhere near comparable to the players Russell was surrounded with.) I'm just not comfortable using team accomplishments to rate players. It would definitely be a portion of my argument, maybe even half, but not the bulk of it. And I still can't figure out why you insist there is absolutely NO room for subjectivity in this discussion. It's not like this is a scientific experiment that has measurable characteristics you can just review and come to some calculated answer. It's a lot more complicated than that. Being completely objective is simplifying things just as much as being subjective is complicating things, and it's not really doing the question any justice. I mean, doesn't an important sports question like this deserve more insight than just comparing accomplishments?
DavidS, Nice to meet the only person in the world without bias. All of these comparisons are subjective and include bias unless you can prove to me that the NBA has an objective measurement for the greatest NBA player at any position. People only have an opinion. Usually the opinion with the most measureable evidence his held by knowledgeable people. For example anyone who saw Michael Jordan play, dominate, win championship, change the game etc. have enough evidence to knowledgeably crown him the greatest. But there is no NBA criteria for saying Jordan was better than Wilt. It is just a majority opinion. This is subjective period. Because Russell won 11 championships and he was that team's dominate player people believe he was the best. No problem. Because Chamberlain's stats were unreal many people believe he was the best. No Problem. Because I think Hakeem edges out Russell in basketball ability I would prefer to have him on my team than Russell. It is just my opinion (I saw them both play). Not because I am loyal or a homer. What I meant by my Boston comment is that I understand why many writers and basketball people, especially on the east coast would see it Russell/Chamberlain hands down and Hakeem will always be on the outside looking in. Their frame of reference (bias) is different than mine. What I should have said is home town bias plays a factor when there are so many ways to interpret who is better. My input is based upon who I think is the better Basketball player regardless of era, religion, or special veteran status. In other words who would get the better of who if they could play against each other. You see it is easier for me to compare Russell and Chamberlain because they played against each other. It is easier to compare Robinson and Dream because they played against each other. When you compare players that didn't play against each other you either look at how they performed in their time or you find some criteria for comparison. Based upon my personal criteria for comparison-(my opinion of their) offensive skill, defensive skill, athleticism, dominance at position and winning I believe Hakeem was a better basketball center than Robinson. I believe Chamberlain was a better basketball center than Hakeem. It's my opinion and it is different than your opinion. But you have no objective evidence that proves any different. At best you only have the weight of a majority opinion. And I don't see why it is wrong to compare between era's dreaming about dream match-ups between the great players wondering who would have come out on top. Lighten up. College- told me the world came from nothing The king- (Bush) told me we should go to war I have yet to see any objective evidence that moves me to agreement with either. BTW- Do you have a reference documenting that Columbus actually said that? Happy Columbus day.
DC, I think the reason hes saying that there is no room for subjectivity is because of the whole "what would Hakeem done in the 60s and what would Russell have done in the 90s and how would they have matched up one on one" arguement. Its just too highly debatable and no one will ever agree on what they could or could not have done. We can agree on what they DID do. I think if you compare their accomplishments vs. other players in their own era, you will find very little subjectivity because all you have to do is look at the facts. The problem we are all arguing about is, whose accomplishments carry more weight when comparing Russell's to Hakeem's or Hakeem to Wilt? Thats where the highly subjective part comes in and I think thats why ChenZen, David and myself say you cant consider it because its just too debatable.
Yeah, and to say that people who pick Russell have no bias is silly. You really think sportwriters have given this discussion about Hakeem and Russell as much thought as you guys have? If so, you're kidding yourself. They're biased towards the past is so huge that they don't even consider taking the time to think that maybe...just maybe Hakeem belongs in the same class. So spare me the bias BS...it's actually kind of insulting.
Another thing about the whole subjectivity issue is, depending on how subjective one wants to be, that person can easily justify one player over another without looking at facts and dismissing accomplishments or not giving them any real weight. For example: If you go to a Lakers BBS, those people will have Shaq ranked ahead of all 3. And the way they will do that, is by lending more weight to subjective matter, than objective matter. Because thats the only way they can support their opinion. In reality, do any of us think Shaq is #1? Of course not.
You make a great point. As time passes and the sportswriters recall Hakeem the same way the do Russell in our current era, Hakeem may be held in a more favorable light than he is now. I think alot of folks outside this city, hold Hakeem in the same circle as they do the other 3.
Bum Phillips was once asked if Earl Campbell was one of the greatest running backs of all time. To which he replied " I don't know what group he's in but I know it doesn't take very long to call the roll". Chamberlain, Russell, Jabbar, Olajawon The fact that there is a question whether Olajawon belongs in the group says alot about his ability and respect as a NBA basketball player- Not many mentions of Bill Walton or David Robinson, or Patrick Ewing or Willis Reed or even Moses Malone in that group. Give Hakeem his due he was a phenom!
The true, but it's also a FACT that Russell's team talent level was much greaters than Hakeem's relative to their respective eras. That's a very important fact that you guys seem to have no problem overlooking. You look at the factual accomplishments, but not the factual circumstances. You should take both into consideration. And yes, it won't give you the clear-cut answer you seek of which player is better. But that's the whole point! It can't be decided who's better!
Uh, the world doesn't live in Boston/East coast. Yet, he still gets non-biased votes from people on the west/north/south... Hmm....
Whether its a fact is again, subjective, but Ill concede to you on that. However, Hakeem won a ring without playing with a hall of famer. But then again, Hakeem didnt win when he played with 2. See what im sayin? Yes Russell did play with all those hall of famers, thats objective. But its subjective to say he wouldnt have won WITHOUT them. So you cant penalize him because he did. Thats a perfect example of the type of subjectivity thats not really fair to use. Just to clarify, Ive never said Wilt, Jabbar and Russell were better than Hakeem. Ive maintained my stance that they accomplished more and thats why I have him #4. Im only going by accomplishments.
We're going in circles here. You're saying I can't penalize Russell for never being able to prove he could win without the spectacular teammates, and I'm saying you can't penalize Hakeem for never proving he could win eleven in a row with the same relative talent level that BRuss had. ...and did I just call him BRuss? Damn, this has gone on too long.
The evidence is so overwhelming, so compelling, and one is able to grasp the essence of that player greatness. When defining greatness, they're gray areas. But, gray areas are open for debate (like this one about Hakeem), but others are so obvious are it would be silly to argue. Your saying that because you are subjective regarding Hakeem (biased), that this is the same thing as most of the world agreeing that Jordan is the greatest player that ever lived. Your position is based on mostly emotion and loyalty, the rest of the world is based on objective thinking (lack of emotion when non-natives vote for other players).
Beginnings..... Most people say Chamberlain, Russell, Jabbar are the 3 best centers of all time. OK- no problem, I don't agree that Jabbar was a better center than Olajawon. But that's my opinion. Don't leave out Shaq. I think these 5 should all be included in the best of all time: Russell, Chamberlain, Shaq, Hakeem, Jabbar My real problem is leaving Hakeem and Shaq second tier. I'm not saying it is wrong to do it either. I just think they are as good as the others at the center position. I am being subjective. As is everyone else. Until they play against each other and one dominates the other or they cancel out each other, then you have no objective criteria who is the better basketball center. Now if you change the question to "Of the great centers of all time who was the most valuable player or the you can even ask who was the greatest basketball player?" Now I am looking hard at championships, scoring titles, statistical records, longevity etc. Because one basketball player was the best at the position does not in my mind make him the greatest player. Case in point- Dr. J may have been the very best small forward to play the game, but Bird would get my vote as the greatest player between the two (same position) Why? Bird accomplished more, simple as that. I have been trying to say that Hakeem was an all time great at the center position as a basketball player. And belongs in that greatest center of all time group. Tony Dorsett was a great tailback, look at his rings and stats. So was Jim Brown. Who is greater and what objective criteria do you use? None whatever opinion you come up with it is just that a subjective, biased, opinion.
No. You can't do that. Why? Because one, it's speculation on era comparison. And two, basketball IQ was part of Russell's greatness which enabled him to mesh with his players as opposed to just "give me the ball and let me be the star!" That ability to understand the game, sacrifice your game for the better of the team, is a part of the game that Hakeem didn't learn until later in his career. This can be blamed on his teaching, or culture, of stubbornness (Hakeem was stubborn and prideful back in the early days). Nevertheless, no. I don't think you can say that Hakeem would have known how to work/win with better teammates early in his career. I think he would have inner-competitions with them and hurt the team. It's almost like the Rockets staff didn't want to get better players in the 80's for Hakeem because they knew that they would clash with him. Jealously. I saw it. He was like that early on.
I totally understand your view, but this would be categorized as "if, then, buts" argument. We can only argue what he DID or didn't do. Hakeem can control how his team plays, can't he? This is just an easy excuse...Its like saying, fat people are fat and can't eat healthy because they were born that way, yes maybe to a certain extent, but can they do something about it? Some people get determined and got healthy and break the habit, some people just b**** and complain of their problems and get fatter and fatter. YOU CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, it might be harder than some people, but you CAN. Greatness should not be judge purely on championships, even though it should be good part of it, it also should also be judge on how this player revolutionalized the game, how much he dominated the era, etc.
DavidS, there is clearly an underappreciation for Hakeem. It probably has something to do with playing on one of the smallest market basketball teams in the country and the fact that Hakeem was more of a private person than other NBA players. I've heard or seen sportswriters, sports announcers, public opinion polls that have the likes of David Robinson and Patrick Ewing mentioned before Hakeem Olajuwon. And there's even more who just don't bother making a distinction and just put them all in the same group. I know you don't agree with that. This should give you little insight into the credibility of "most of the world." You act like it actually means something that most people think Russell is better than Hakeem.
I'll buy that. The reason that Jordan got my vote was because of his freakish nature. It was his fundamentals, and dominating scoring and defense that swayed my vote. I mean, I couldn't believe it that a 6'6" guard could score 50 points for many nights in a row. It was almost like he was 7 foot tall, like a giant. Then, he defense was legendary. The Big O, was second on my list of guards. His stats were awesome! But Jordan edged him out.
Okay, I've said it before, but this time I mean it. I AM DONE! I have officially run out of things to say. Thank you all for the best discussion I ever participated in on this fine website! I've learned a lot.
