Which Dynasty is better (Bill Russell's Celtics or Michael Jordan's Bulls)

Who's going to win if Russell's Celtics play against Michael Jordan's Bulls? Why?

I'm too young to watch any Celtics' game with Bill Russell. I have watched all of Michael Jordan's Bulls games, and I can say they're truly a dynasty.

After I read first chapter of "Russell Rules" (Bill Russell's book), I can't help but think whose team is better? To me, both Bill Russell & Michael Jordan are ultimate winners & leaders, they both elevate their teams. From what I read in Russell's book, the Celtics does have adantage because his teammates are all hall of famers, and in Bulls only MJ & Pippen's going to be hall of famers.

However, I don't know much about the era of Bill Russell's Celtics and would like the opinions of posters that actually have the knowledge of past Celtics era.

Here's some excerpt from the book that got me thinking:

(Russell's grandkid asked him), "Grandpa, were you as good as Michael Jordan?"...

(Russell said) "You've got the question backwards!" ....

My son explained to my grandson what I meant. But it was a reminder of what most sports fans believe these days. The Boston Celtics are a myth. They were some ancient team that played before the advent of color television. There are generations of young people, kids and others, who don't know anything about the greatest team in sports history and how they achieve what they did. They haven't heard about the principles of values that went into winning elevent NBA championships in thirteen years. They do not know that I won the NCAA championship, an Olympic gold medal, and the NBA Championship all in the same year...

Now, Michael Jordan is an incredible basketball player. I have never seen anyone better. But let me answer one question that many have asked me over the past decade: "Bill, how do you think the Celtics of your era would have done against Michael Jordan and the Chicago Bulls of the nineties?" The Celtics would have won in a walk. We won all those championships in part because we knew howto let other teams' stars do their thing and at the same time take that style of play and convert it to our advantage. My battles with Wilt; our series against the great Bob Petit; the games we played against "The Big O", Oscar Robertson, one of the greatest players ever; and, or course, our rivalry with the Lakers, led by Jerry West and Elgin Baylor, before and after Wilt got there -- all had to do with our knowing how to play our best and how to win against other teams. I'll come back to that, but as it relates to the Bulls, we would let Michael get his forty or fifty points and we would have beaten them decisively. Why? We had the more complete team. We had the matchups, we were far stronger off the bench, the vaunted defense of the Bulls would have been useless against us because of the kind of ball movement and shooting accuracy we regulary brought to our games. Sam Jones was great a shooter as our game has seen; it would not have been possible to stop him without seriously compromising the defense. Bob Cousy could not have been contained; K.C. Jones, Frank Ramsey, John Havlicek, Tommy Heinsohn -- all of them Hall of Famers -- would have been waiting like alligators in the shallows to take advantage of any overplaying or shifting by the Bulls. I sincerely believe there was an honest truth behind all those kind words about the Celtics and about me being the greatest of winners.