It's funny you should bring that up. I remember back in 92, when Robinson was the poster child for the new center. His name was being thrown around with the greats (NBC sports). He was on the "Dream Team 92" and Hakeem wasn't. Robinson was the All-American center. Dynamic, fast, run-and-gun, dunking, ESPN sports Center material. The American culture embraced him. Hakeem on the other hand was an "enigma." He started getting into his religion more and wasn't looking for the limelight. He wasn't about self-promotion. He was going through a change in his life. He was considered a good center, but not great. And he surly wasn't considered a winner or teammate that was easy to get along with. Later, when he learned to play this teammates, he began to get noticed. But in the back of my mind, I could always see that he was uncomfortable with stardom. He didn't want to be "the best." I remember, Roy Firestone interviewed him about that on ESPN. Hakeem said he didn't want to be the best because then everyone is shooting at you and you are the center of attention. He prefered to be the "underdog." When I heard that, I knew that "dynasty" was out of the question. Add the fact that he was in the later part of his carrer (not in his prime). I feel that this was part of his humbling. It was almost like once he reached the pentacle of the championship, he didn't want it anymore. He wanted the best of both worlds: Be the champ, yet, don't pay attention to me. His own worst enemy. P.S. When Barkley came on the team, Hakeem liked it because it directed attention away from him and onto Barkley.
Im not penalizing Hakeem at all for not winning 11 in a row with that kind of talent. But im definately not going to reward him by saying that he might have. Thats why Im going off what they DID accomplish. BRuss is what he would be called in the current NBA.
You make great points. BTW ...I dont think the basis for this whole thread was because we were leaving Hakeem out of the group of Wilt, Russell and Jabbar. It was because of how we were ranking him against the others and the basis for our rankings.
I think we can find common ground on the following statement: If anyone really thinks that Ewing should be placed ahead of Olajuwon, then they are being intellectually dishonest with themselves ........and they are idiots. Now that statement is subjective!
AMEN TO THAT!!!!! We should all make a pact not to come back no matter how tempting. Post your final thought (a la Jerry Springer) and lets put this thread to bed!
Bump. (awesome thread. great to see all the love for Hakeem, and Abdul-Jablunt and Russell getting put in their place. )
Codell, What's going to be interesting is as Hakeem's retirement comes closer and closer, the media (ESPN, FOX, NBATV) will start doing montages and features about Hakeem. A lot of the issues we talked about here will be brought up in the mainstream media for all to debate (whatifs, and speculations). The biggest question of course is not weather Hakeem was great. We know that! It will be, where does he stand in the history of big men (basically, the same thing we've been debating here). It's going to be fun listening to PTI (Kornheiser and Wilbon), BDSSP! (Fox Sports), and ESPN talk about this. Remember, the one (or two) key elements that will give Hakeem the nod over Ewing... Two rings, vs zero rings.
That right there supports my whole theory. Hakeems legend will grow with time. We all just have to be patient. I was actually thinking long and hard about what some of the guys were saying regarding Hakeem dominating the 50s because of his athletic abilities vs. the non athletic centers and came up with a great response. It comes back to our second favorite center, Mark Eaton. Now, this may be "subjective" on my part, but Mark Eaton might have been the least athletic player in this era (with all apologies to Thomas "Two Sandwiches" Hamilton"). As I stated before, when Hakeem played Mark, Olajuwon would dream shake himself into a dizzy spell and when he was done and ready to shoot, Mark would be standing there right where Dream left him with a look on his face like "uhhhhh ...Akeem ...I really do admire your dream shake and all ..but my shoes are full of cement and I might hurt myself trying to bite on one of your fakes, so ill just stand here and wait till youre done and block your shot anyway". While players back then didnt have the height Mark had, they certainly had comparable athletic ability (or lack thereof). So in the end, Dream could Dream shake himself to death and in the end, guys like Wilt and Russell wont bite on his fakes because they arent able to! Instead theyll just hope they can block his shot. Ill say this, if Hakeem DID play in the 50s and 60s, there would be alot more torn groins, thats for sure! Of course, what I said was just ludicrous. But it looks good on paper.
Originally posted by DavidS Two rings, vs zero rings. codell That right there supports my whole theory. No, because that could only apply to players from the same era. And even then, it's debatable. Take Worthy or 'Nique for example.
I have a rebuttal (surprise!!!) but I can't take it any longer. We're arguing apples, oranges, grapes, and bananas. The thing is that they're all fruits and they're all oh so goood. Thanx guys, now back to the Ming worshipping and Steve bashing. Good night thread.
