Why is Bill Russell better than MJ?

[Moranis]

If Bill Russell were playing today, I would expect him to play a similar style of play as a Joakim Noah albeit a far more advanced version of Noah.

A 10-12ppg, 15-18rpg, 4-5apg, 4bpg type threat while being a very efficient scorer. Hands down the best rebounder and the best defensive player in the league in addition to being an elite passing big man similar to a Kevin Garnett or a Pau Gasol.

Bill Russell would be what he was in the 1960s = the best facilitator to ever play the game of basketball + the best player in the league today. 

Russell would have more like Ben Wallace numbers.  The league is so much slower today, I don't see him getting anywhere near 4.5 assists or even 11 points.  His offensive game was terrible and virtually any points he scored would have been on offensive rebound put backs.

[greg_kite]

I laugh at the assertion that players like Russell and especially Chamberlain couldn't have dominated in any era.  Can you imagine what somebody as fit as Chamberlain could have done in todays NBA with the modern training and nutrition?  Chamberlain would have been a chisled Shaq with twice the athletism and infinitely more offensive talent.  Russell with another 20-30lbs could have excelled at least at the level of today's stars athletically at any one of 3 positions.  With the same will to win that he had then...They would have been as great in this era as they were then...Maybe greater.

And neither would have needed help in order to be great.

I agree Chamberlain would have still been dominant.  He had good NBA size and strength but also had the post game to go along with it.
Russell would still be decent, but how could anyone think he would be more than a role player?  How could you go from shooting 44% against lesser athletes to a better percentage against bigger and better athletes?  How many MVP candidates have been such offsensive liabilities?  The closest was Ben Wallace a few years back, but the only reason his team was good was because there were four other scorers on his team and all he had to shoot was dunks or layups.

And whoever said that he could have learned to score in todays game is a crock.  If Wilt had post moves why didn't Russell?

Besides that, I don't think most people are arguing how good these guys would be today with the proper training, diet, etc.  It's who WAS the best ever. It was Jordan.  With Larry, Magic, Wilt and Shaq all in that bunch with him.  I see Russell nowhere near those guys.

One way I look at the Russell-Wilt matchup is the recent years with the Celtics and Magic.  Perk is a great matchup for Dwight Howard.  He slowed him down and the Celtics usually won.  Does that mean Perk was better than Howard?  NO!  The Celtics were better than the Magic.  I'm not saying Russ is as bad as Perk, I'm just showing that winning the game doesn't make player A better than player B.

[GreenFaith1819]

greatest of all time

and not just cuz he a Celtic.or a ball player..

it's more off the court..no matter what was thrown in his face he had a quest to be the best...played with brothas even tho the klan was strong in his town...


but thats anutha story


reading why who is best all yall make good points..defense rebounding and rings..

made me start looking at who the man was...and bird stood out for me..

search whos the greatest and for sure jordan and  russel  come up..but with a lil bit of bird sprinkled on top


and yeah im...

*drankin*

Can't argue with you much, there, about Larry.

I stated earlier that Bill Russell was the total package..I have always valued defense more than offense, even when playing pickup games.

I was always recognized and picked for my defense a lot more than anything else.

But Larry? He may not have had the post moves of Hakeem or McHale, but he was a very good post player if needed.

Outside shooting? Could shoot the lights out..among the best shooters ever to play the game, IMO.

Defense? Man won 3 second team defensive awards, in perhaps the NBA's most competitive years.

Leadership? Larry certainly had that, too.

Yeah Larry definitely ranks right up there among the best of all time....he was the reason why I became a Celtics fan back in 81.

I was not even a teenager yet, and I saw this guy on my TV set who looked a bit different than everyone else on the court....and he was dominating. I started watching more of his games, and he still dominated.

I'll never forget Spike Lee's "She's Gotta Have It", lol....the guys were on the court playing ball, and one of them was talking up Larry.

He had the "IT" factor, just like Russell.

30 years later and I still bleed Green.

[dtrader]

dtrader - look right around the 3:00-3:05 point of the clip I posted....man it sure looks like to me that he is awfully close to 40"...I don't think that Bill needed to routinely jump out of the gym to prove he was a superior athlete.

..But anyway the great thing about this thread is the discussion, and points of view.

I dont know.  I watched the clip again, and came away feeling the same way.  Are you sure the player from 3:00-3:05 you were looking at was Russell?  In that sequence, whoever was driving against Russell had a much more impressive jump than Russell did. They glided a little bit, while he just went up and came down quickly.  Honestly...if you look at the distance between his feet and the floor, and from his head to the basket when he jumps, video footage seems to show that he really didnt jump that high...everyone else just couldnt jump at all.  If there's a video (or even picture) out there, that shows Russell to truly have an impressive vertical I haven't seen it.

[Moranis]

I know vertical leaps and high jumps are different things, but Bill was a world class high jumper.  In 1956 he was the 7th ranked high jumper in the world (3rd in the U.S.) and cleared 6'9.25" in a meet when he was at San Francisco.  He cleared 6'8" 3 separate times.  He supposedly once cleared 7 feet, but his ankle hit the bar on the way back down so it didn't count.

He couldn't play both basketball and high jump at the '56 Olympics, otherwise he might have done both.

[Finkelskyhook]

I laugh at the assertion that players like Russell and especially Chamberlain couldn't have dominated in any era.  Can you imagine what somebody as fit as Chamberlain could have done in todays NBA with the modern training and nutrition?  Chamberlain would have been a chisled Shaq with twice the athletism and infinitely more offensive talent.  Russell with another 20-30lbs could have excelled at least at the level of today's stars athletically at any one of 3 positions.  With the same will to win that he had then...They would have been as great in this era as they were then...Maybe greater.

And neither would have needed help in order to be great.

I agree Chamberlain would have still been dominant.  He had good NBA size and strength but also had the post game to go along with it.
Russell would still be decent, but how could anyone think he would be more than a role player?  How could you go from shooting 44% against lesser athletes to a better percentage against bigger and better athletes?  How many MVP candidates have been such offsensive liabilities?  The closest was Ben Wallace a few years back, but the only reason his team was good was because there were four other scorers on his team and all he had to shoot was dunks or layups.

And whoever said that he could have learned to score in todays game is a crock.  If Wilt had post moves why didn't Russell?

Besides that, I don't think most people are arguing how good these guys would be today with the proper training, diet, etc.  It's who WAS the best ever. It was Jordan.  With Larry, Magic, Wilt and Shaq all in that bunch with him.  I see Russell nowhere near those guys.

One way I look at the Russell-Wilt matchup is the recent years with the Celtics and Magic.  Perk is a great matchup for Dwight Howard.  He slowed him down and the Celtics usually won.  Does that mean Perk was better than Howard?  NO!  The Celtics were better than the Magic.  I'm not saying Russ is as bad as Perk, I'm just showing that winning the game doesn't make player A better than player B.

Russell a role player in any era?  Are you kidding?  You don't see how he changed the game on a few blurry youtube videos. 

Russell's will to win...And incredible talent overcame both opponents and obstacles Jordan never fathomed. Those two qualities transcend to any era.  Not to mention that  little officiating level playing field thing that Jordan sure as hell never had to deal with.

Jordan was coddled as soon as he became a star.  Officiated in a disgustingly overtly biased manner.  Jordan was a collossal talent with an unparalled will to win in his era. 

Russell would have been a star in any era.  And he wouldn't have needed to have a thing handed to him.

[greg_kite]

I laugh at the assertion that players like Russell and especially Chamberlain couldn't have dominated in any era.  Can you imagine what somebody as fit as Chamberlain could have done in todays NBA with the modern training and nutrition?  Chamberlain would have been a chisled Shaq with twice the athletism and infinitely more offensive talent.  Russell with another 20-30lbs could have excelled at least at the level of today's stars athletically at any one of 3 positions.  With the same will to win that he had then...They would have been as great in this era as they were then...Maybe greater.

And neither would have needed help in order to be great.

I agree Chamberlain would have still been dominant.  He had good NBA size and strength but also had the post game to go along with it.
Russell would still be decent, but how could anyone think he would be more than a role player?  How could you go from shooting 44% against lesser athletes to a better percentage against bigger and better athletes?  How many MVP candidates have been such offsensive liabilities?  The closest was Ben Wallace a few years back, but the only reason his team was good was because there were four other scorers on his team and all he had to shoot was dunks or layups.

And whoever said that he could have learned to score in todays game is a crock.  If Wilt had post moves why didn't Russell?

Besides that, I don't think most people are arguing how good these guys would be today with the proper training, diet, etc.  It's who WAS the best ever. It was Jordan.  With Larry, Magic, Wilt and Shaq all in that bunch with him.  I see Russell nowhere near those guys.

One way I look at the Russell-Wilt matchup is the recent years with the Celtics and Magic.  Perk is a great matchup for Dwight Howard.  He slowed him down and the Celtics usually won.  Does that mean Perk was better than Howard?  NO!  The Celtics were better than the Magic.  I'm not saying Russ is as bad as Perk, I'm just showing that winning the game doesn't make player A better than player B.

Russell a role player in any era?  Are you kidding?  You don't see how he changed the game on a few blurry youtube videos. 

Russell's will to win...And incredible talent overcame both opponents and obstacles Jordan never fathomed. Those two qualities transcend to any era.  Not to mention that  little officiating level playing field thing that Jordan sure as hell never had to deal with.

Jordan was coddled as soon as he became a star.  Officiated in a disgustingly overtly biased manner.  Jordan was a collossal talent with an unparalled will to win in his era. 

Russell would have been a star in any era.  And he wouldn't have needed to have a thing handed to him.

Alright, role player in the sense that he would not have been the typical "star" that we see today, where it's rare for an All Star to average less than 20 points a game.  He could still be an All Star, but more in the Dikembe Mutombo/Theo Ratliff/Ben Wallace mold.
And you keep pointing out the officiating and that Jordan had everything handed to him.  Did you ever see how the Pistons and Knicks manhandled him?  Hand checking was allowed and guys like Oakley and Mason hacked him every time he drove the lane.  If Jordan played today he would probably average another 5 points a game.
And I've also seen the  pace they placed back then too.  Scores were well into the hundreds and defense was almost a non issue.  Jordan wouldn't have needed the refs back then, nobody would be able to keep up with him.

[dtrader]

I laugh at the assertion that players like Russell and especially Chamberlain couldn't have dominated in any era.  Can you imagine what somebody as fit as Chamberlain could have done in todays NBA with the modern training and nutrition?  Chamberlain would have been a chisled Shaq with twice the athletism and infinitely more offensive talent.  Russell with another 20-30lbs could have excelled at least at the level of today's stars athletically at any one of 3 positions.  With the same will to win that he had then...They would have been as great in this era as they were then...Maybe greater.

And neither would have needed help in order to be great.

I agree Chamberlain would have still been dominant.  He had good NBA size and strength but also had the post game to go along with it.
Russell would still be decent, but how could anyone think he would be more than a role player?  How could you go from shooting 44% against lesser athletes to a better percentage against bigger and better athletes?  How many MVP candidates have been such offsensive liabilities?  The closest was Ben Wallace a few years back, but the only reason his team was good was because there were four other scorers on his team and all he had to shoot was dunks or layups.

And whoever said that he could have learned to score in todays game is a crock.  If Wilt had post moves why didn't Russell?

Besides that, I don't think most people are arguing how good these guys would be today with the proper training, diet, etc.  It's who WAS the best ever. It was Jordan.  With Larry, Magic, Wilt and Shaq all in that bunch with him.  I see Russell nowhere near those guys.

One way I look at the Russell-Wilt matchup is the recent years with the Celtics and Magic.  Perk is a great matchup for Dwight Howard.  He slowed him down and the Celtics usually won.  Does that mean Perk was better than Howard?  NO!  The Celtics were better than the Magic.  I'm not saying Russ is as bad as Perk, I'm just showing that winning the game doesn't make player A better than player B.

Russell a role player in any era?  Are you kidding?  You don't see how he changed the game on a few blurry youtube videos. 

Russell's will to win...And incredible talent overcame both opponents and obstacles Jordan never fathomed. Those two qualities transcend to any era.  Not to mention that  little officiating level playing field thing that Jordan sure as hell never had to deal with.

Jordan was coddled as soon as he became a star.  Officiated in a disgustingly overtly biased manner.  Jordan was a collossal talent with an unparalled will to win in his era. 

Russell would have been a star in any era.  And he wouldn't have needed to have a thing handed to him.

I dont understand the "level playing field" arguement.  Yes Jordan had his share of calls go his way (probably more than his fair share).  But on the other side of that, he played in the hand check era, and had defenders drapped all over him on every cut to the basket. When he posted up, defenders had their hands grabbing his shorts, and tugging at his jersey.  You look at the old videos from the 60's when Russell was playing, and it's like comparing a game of prison rules football to an intramural game of two hand touch. Aside from the occasional big men jockeying for position for a rebound, theres almost no physical play whatsoever.

[Finkelskyhook]

You look at the old videos from the 60's when Russell was playing, and it's like comparing a game of prison rules football to an intramural game of two hand touch. Aside from the occasional big men jockeying for position for a rebound, theres almost no physical play whatsoever.

You're saying the game was more physical when Jordan was playing...(When Stern already had years to pussify it?)  You might ask Lew Alcindor/Kareem about that almost no physical play whatsoever.

LOL....You're talking about the 60s and 70s, right?...When inside play was along the lines of a bar fight?  Youtube is not exactly wealthy with videos from back then.  I was at a dozen or so games during the Russell era and roughly a hundred thru 1976.  I can tell you that in those eras Jordan wouldn't have needed the officials...He'd have needed an ambulance if he'd have traveled the lane with his tongue out.  I laugh myself silly thinking about how players like Chamberlain, Russell, Bellamy, Thurmond, Jabbar, Cowens, Silas, Unseld, Washington, etc would have handled being shown up. 

[GreenFaith1819]

Finkle, ask Dave Cowens about "Inside Play" during his time, lol.....I bet he'd have some stories to tell, going up against Kareem, Nate Thurmond, etc...

[BballTim]

I laugh at the assertion that players like Russell and especially Chamberlain couldn't have dominated in any era.  Can you imagine what somebody as fit as Chamberlain could have done in todays NBA with the modern training and nutrition?  Chamberlain would have been a chisled Shaq with twice the athletism and infinitely more offensive talent.  Russell with another 20-30lbs could have excelled at least at the level of today's stars athletically at any one of 3 positions.  With the same will to win that he had then...They would have been as great in this era as they were then...Maybe greater.

And neither would have needed help in order to be great.

I agree Chamberlain would have still been dominant.  He had good NBA size and strength but also had the post game to go along with it.
Russell would still be decent, but how could anyone think he would be more than a role player?  How could you go from shooting 44% against lesser athletes to a better percentage against bigger and better athletes?  How many MVP candidates have been such offsensive liabilities?  The closest was Ben Wallace a few years back, but the only reason his team was good was because there were four other scorers on his team and all he had to shoot was dunks or layups.

And whoever said that he could have learned to score in todays game is a crock.  If Wilt had post moves why didn't Russell?

Besides that, I don't think most people are arguing how good these guys would be today with the proper training, diet, etc.  It's who WAS the best ever. It was Jordan.  With Larry, Magic, Wilt and Shaq all in that bunch with him.  I see Russell nowhere near those guys.

One way I look at the Russell-Wilt matchup is the recent years with the Celtics and Magic.  Perk is a great matchup for Dwight Howard.  He slowed him down and the Celtics usually won.  Does that mean Perk was better than Howard?  NO!  The Celtics were better than the Magic.  I'm not saying Russ is as bad as Perk, I'm just showing that winning the game doesn't make player A better than player B.

Russell a role player in any era?  Are you kidding?  You don't see how he changed the game on a few blurry youtube videos. 

Russell's will to win...And incredible talent overcame both opponents and obstacles Jordan never fathomed. Those two qualities transcend to any era.  Not to mention that  little officiating level playing field thing that Jordan sure as hell never had to deal with.

Jordan was coddled as soon as he became a star.  Officiated in a disgustingly overtly biased manner.  Jordan was a collossal talent with an unparalled will to win in his era. 

Russell would have been a star in any era.  And he wouldn't have needed to have a thing handed to him.

I dont understand the "level playing field" arguement.  Yes Jordan had his share of calls go his way (probably more than his fair share).  But on the other side of that, he played in the hand check era, and had defenders drapped all over him on every cut to the basket. When he posted up, defenders had their hands grabbing his shorts, and tugging at his jersey.  You look at the old videos from the 60's when Russell was playing, and it's like comparing a game of prison rules football to an intramural game of two hand touch. Aside from the occasional big men jockeying for position for a rebound, theres almost no physical play whatsoever.

  Try dragging players like Lanier up and down the court for 48 minutes. It's not as easy as it looks.

[syfy9]

You look at the old videos from the 60's when Russell was playing, and it's like comparing a game of prison rules football to an intramural game of two hand touch. Aside from the occasional big men jockeying for position for a rebound, theres almost no physical play whatsoever.

You're saying the game was more physical when Jordan was playing...(When Stern already had years to pussify it?)  You might ask Lew Alcindor/Kareem about that almost no physical play whatsoever.

LOL....You're talking about the 60s and 70s, right?...When inside play was along the lines of a bar fight?  Youtube is not exactly wealthy with videos from back then.  I was at a dozen or so games during the Russell era and roughly a hundred thru 1976.  I can tell you that in those eras Jordan wouldn't have needed the officials...He'd have needed an ambulance if he'd have traveled the lane with his tongue out.  I laugh myself silly thinking about how players like Chamberlain, Russell, Bellamy, Thurmond, Jabbar, Cowens, Silas, Unseld, Washington, etc would have handled being shown up. 

Preach it man! TP!



If Jordan was born and played in the age of the 60s, he'd have horrible shooting too. His shot is a composition of those that went before him. He did not invent his smooth as silk jump shot - Just like Rome didn't invent what was taken from Greece.

[Jon]

You look at the old videos from the 60's when Russell was playing, and it's like comparing a game of prison rules football to an intramural game of two hand touch. Aside from the occasional big men jockeying for position for a rebound, theres almost no physical play whatsoever.

You're saying the game was more physical when Jordan was playing...(When Stern already had years to pussify it?)  You might ask Lew Alcindor/Kareem about that almost no physical play whatsoever.

LOL....You're talking about the 60s and 70s, right?...When inside play was along the lines of a bar fight?  Youtube is not exactly wealthy with videos from back then.  I was at a dozen or so games during the Russell era and roughly a hundred thru 1976.  I can tell you that in those eras Jordan wouldn't have needed the officials...He'd have needed an ambulance if he'd have traveled the lane with his tongue out.  I laugh myself silly thinking about how players like Chamberlain, Russell, Bellamy, Thurmond, Jabbar, Cowens, Silas, Unseld, Washington, etc would have handled being shown up. 

Preach it man! TP!



If Jordan was born and played in the age of the 60s, he'd have horrible shooting too. His shot is a composition of those that went before him. He did not invent his smooth as silk jump shot - Just like Rome didn't invent what was taken from Greece.

True.  And let's not forget that Kareem came into the league when Wilt was still playing and the year after Russell retired.  Kareem was a star right away; however, if the late '60s-early '70s were the cakewalk that some are making them out to be, the Kareem of his late 30s that many on this board saw in a Lakers uniform should've been getting his butt handed to him by the "modern" players of the '80s.  However, that didn't happen at all. 

If Kareem could dominate in the time of Russell and the time of Jordan, I see no reason why Russell couldn't dominate in Jordan's time too. 

[dtrader]

You look at the old videos from the 60's when Russell was playing, and it's like comparing a game of prison rules football to an intramural game of two hand touch. Aside from the occasional big men jockeying for position for a rebound, theres almost no physical play whatsoever.

You're saying the game was more physical when Jordan was playing...(When Stern already had years to pussify it?)  You might ask Lew Alcindor/Kareem about that almost no physical play whatsoever.

LOL....You're talking about the 60s and 70s, right?...When inside play was along the lines of a bar fight?  Youtube is not exactly wealthy with videos from back then.  I was at a dozen or so games during the Russell era and roughly a hundred thru 1976.  I can tell you that in those eras Jordan wouldn't have needed the officials...He'd have needed an ambulance if he'd have traveled the lane with his tongue out.  I laugh myself silly thinking about how players like Chamberlain, Russell, Bellamy, Thurmond, Jabbar, Cowens, Silas, Unseld, Washington, etc would have handled being shown up.  

No. I'm talking about the 60's...like I said. Russells time...Not Kareems. Not Thurmonds, Unselds, or Cowens. Russells.  The whole discussion is about Jordan versus Russell. A player from the 90s, versus one from the 60's.  I don't see any reason to extend the discussion into a decade when neither player was playing.  The 70s were when the NBA grew and developed the most.  By the mid 70's, the league was drastically different than it was when Russell was playing.  I do however agree, that there is not much footage from the 60s.  Thats a point I've made myself, as I think it may have a lot to do with the glorification of the players from that period.

We'll never really know what jordan would do in the 1960s, or what Russell would do in the 90s. Both are hypotheticals that could never be proven.  What we do know, is how each measured up to their peers during their era, and what the NBA landscape looked like during each time in regards to player size and athleticism.  Jordan was better than almost all of his peers, at almost everything.  Russell was better than his peers on defense, and was extremely limited on offense.


It doesn't make sense to blame Russells inablity to shoot on his era, or to say that Jordan wouldn't have a good jumper back then either, as there were plenty of other players playing then, that could shoot.  Just not Russell. 

 The NBA in the 1990s was a more physical game than it was in the 60s. Whether thats a consequence of it being dominated by less physically capable players, or a result of less allowed physicality I dont know.  I just know that it makes the "level playing field" arguement (as it relates to the 60s and 90s) a poor defense. However, I like how you (intentionally or not) alluded to the fact that if any of those players had played in jordans era, they would have been shown up.


Also (even though as I explained, it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand), Kareem didn't dominate during jordans era...he retired during Jordans era.

[Finkelskyhook]

You look at the old videos from the 60's when Russell was playing, and it's like comparing a game of prison rules football to an intramural game of two hand touch. Aside from the occasional big men jockeying for position for a rebound, theres almost no physical play whatsoever.

You're saying the game was more physical when Jordan was playing...(When Stern already had years to pussify it?)  You might ask Lew Alcindor/Kareem about that almost no physical play whatsoever.

LOL....You're talking about the 60s and 70s, right?...When inside play was along the lines of a bar fight?  Youtube is not exactly wealthy with videos from back then.  I was at a dozen or so games during the Russell era and roughly a hundred thru 1976.  I can tell you that in those eras Jordan wouldn't have needed the officials...He'd have needed an ambulance if he'd have traveled the lane with his tongue out.  I laugh myself silly thinking about how players like Chamberlain, Russell, Bellamy, Thurmond, Jabbar, Cowens, Silas, Unseld, Washington, etc would have handled being shown up.  

No. I'm talking about the 60's...like I said. Russells time...Not Kareems. Not Thurmonds, Unselds, or Cowens. Russells.  The whole discussion is about Jordan versus Russell. A player from the 90s, versus one from the 60's.  I don't see any reason to extend the discussion into a decade when neither player was playing.  The 70s were when the NBA grew and developed the most.  By the mid 70's, the league was drastically different than it was when Russell was playing.  I do however agree, that there is not much footage from the 60s.  Thats a point I've made myself, as I think it may have a lot to do with the glorification of the players from that period.

We'll never really know what jordan would do in the 1960s, or what Russell would do in the 90s. Both are hypotheticals that could never be proven.  What we do know, is how each measured up to their peers during their era, and what the NBA landscape looked like during each time in regards to player size and athleticism.  Jordan was better than almost all of his peers, at almost everything.  Russell was better than his peers on defense, and was extremely limited on offense.


It doesn't make sense to blame Russells inablity to shoot on his era, or to say that Jordan wouldn't have a good jumper back then either, as there were plenty of other players playing then, that could shoot.  Just not Russell.  

 The NBA in the 1990s was a more physical game than it was in the 60s. Whether thats a consequence of it being dominated by less physically capable players, or a result of less allowed physicality I dont know.  I just know that it makes the "level playing field" arguement (as it relates to the 60s and 90s) a poor defense. However, I like how you (intentionally or not) alluded to the fact that if any of those players had played in jordans era, they would have been shown up.


Also (even though as I explained, it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand), Kareem didn't dominate during jordans era...he retired during Jordans era.

The revisionist history about the physicality of the game in the 60s compared to the 90s....When Stern had pretty much allowed the game to be turned into more of an exhibition of entertainment and show...Is astounding to me.  The activity in the paint during Russell's era was infinitely more intense.  One of the big reasons for the low shooting percentage and high rebound numbers.  There was less in the way of chippiness (Which is what I think you're mistaking for physicality) because virtually every team had an enforcer and the players policed themselves.  Players like Chamberlain, Russell, Thurmond, Gus Johnson, Luke Jackson, Oscar, Baylor, and Bellamy could have starred in any era.  Among many others.  They would have been far from shown up in Jordan's era.  Frankly, Jordan would have won a lot less had he had players of that caliber as opponents.   Jordan would have been a superstar in Russell's era....And probably would have been greater than he was in his own era.  With his work ethic, he'd have worked harder to gain an edge and would have succeeded without the help of the officials.  But he wouldn't have won 7 championships in Russell's era...Unless Russell wasn't there.

The level playing field a poor defense?  That argument makes me wonder what era you watched....If any.  The Byron Russell incident was far from an aberration where Jordan was concerned.  It stands out a little more because of the magnitude of the game and the time on the clock.  But like Jordan's flagrant hack on Malone just previous to the Russell pushoff, both happened in plain sight of the officials and was ignored.  No player got preferential treatment at all in Russell's era.  The officials didn't get every call right...Trust me...Red let them know every single time they didn't.

Jordan was indisputably a great, great player.  But to say he didn't have freedoms on the court beyond the rulebook exclusive to him would be ignoring the obvious.  In addition to being arguably the hardest worker and most fierce competitor of his era...Jordan pretty much traveled at will.  Was allowed to hack at will defensively.  Got plenty of rest defensively playing a one man zone until he felt the need to lock down his man.  The greatest player of his era, Jordan was helped along by the league more than any player in NBA history short of the messiah.  Russell got no such help.  Russell dominated more.  Accomplished more.  Won more.