I'd pick Jordan. Both were able to dominate, but Jordan sustained his drive for a longer period and was much more polished on the mental side of the game imo. Plus, Jordan rules > Shaq rules.
So Shaq was not a "takeover" center when the Bulls beat them in 95/96? I'm not saying he isn't any good because he didn't face any true centers. I'm just saying how can one of your points be that Jordan never faced a "takeover" center when two of the centers he went through to win his titles (Ewing and Shaq...hell, even Rik Smits) were better than any center Shaq went through to win his? What center did Shaq face during the 3-peat that was better than any of those 3? A washed up Robinson? A washed up Mutombo? The centers Shaq beat (to win the titles) were worse than the ones Mike beat. What teams did LA beat during the 3-peat that were better than the Knicks, Pacers or Pistons teams that the Bulls beat during their title runs? What teamd did they beat they were better than the Sonics, Jazz, Blazers and Suns teams that the Bulls beat during their title runs? You can't assume LA would dominate based on Shaq because Shaq and Hakeem are totally different players. Hakeem can score away from the basket. Hakeem can dominate a game defensively. Hakeem can hit free throws and game winning shots. Hakeem had a greater will to win than Shaq did (IMO). I believe he was more of a competitor. He won his titles by dusting the best at his position (Ewing, Robinson and Shaq) in a 12 month span. Shaq won his when he was the last center standing. Please don't compare the two.
Naw I'm saying Shaq's physical ability alone is reason enough to choose him over MJ. There have been many players in the game that fit the prototypical shooting guard role before Jordan came in the league, and there are still some even after. There's never been a physical specimen like Shaq, EVER. And I say this because I think maybe with the exception of the Lakers first championship where Shaq was probably in the best shape of his career and actually played hard defense, he's gotten away with being the most dominant in the game playing almost half assed through the majority of his career. Well maybe not half assed, but definitely not at his best every season. Jordan could of never gotten away with that. That's what I'm saying. Were Shaq to possess even half the heart MJ had towards winning, Shaq might already of matched MJ in rings by now. And as much as people love to criticize Shaq's lack of rivals at the Center position, really who did Jordan have that was of note? Joe Dumars? I'd normally pop in with Clyde but they were never in the same conference, and Drexler never had a second star to run with til he went to the Rockets. And aside from Maxwell who gave Jordan fits but isn't worth mentioning, Jordan had no rival at his position, so that argument is moot. Anyhow that's why I'd take Shaq over Jordan. Also I'm no Jordan hater. The man has done an enormous amount towards attracting fans to the NBA, and with good reason too. I'll never look at him as the greatest in the game as the media loves to call him, but I understand why people say he is.
This is to easy.... Who created life as we know it... GOD...aka Michael Jeffrey Jordan...the greatest player ever... NO ONE ever dominated a game like God did...
Okay, so Shaq is better because he was a better physical speciman, even though he never used that advantage to be more successful than Jordan? Isn’t spending a good chunk of your career playing half assed a disadvantage in this argument? I’m not the biggest Jordan fan, but I can’t think of too many nights where he didn’t bring 100%. Dumars and Drexler are hall of famers at their position, along with Reggie Miller (who the Bulls also beat during title runs).
