MJ

[Celtics17]

Wilt wasn't as dominant as Shaq...he was far more dominant. Everyone seems to be under the impression that Shaq was just so physically imposing that Wilt couldnt have handled him when just the opposite is true.

Wilt was much stronger then Shaq ever thought about being. And as far as athletic ability goes, well when was the last time you saw Shaq take a couple of steps and dunk from the free throw line?

[D.o.s.]

So you had the pleasure of watching Wilt in person?

[BballTim]

Also, if you talk about how rules were changed and you really look close you would find the rules were changed to add to Jordans image. However, the rule changes made in Wilt's day were all aimed at slowing down his dominance!

Debating how players would play in different eras under different rules is kind of meaningless.

  He has a point. Even if you don't compare how players would play in different eras, but the fact that the league made rules to make Wilt less able to dominate speaks to how dominant a player he was.

As dominant as Shaq.

  If you look at MJ's best scoring year (37 ppg) he scored 28% more than the next highest scorer. If you look at Wilt's best season (50) he scored 56% more than the 2nd leading scorer. I don't think Shaq ever dominated to that level.

[freshinthehouse]

"That MJ was a great basketball player is beyond question."

Really?  lol

Russell, Bird, Robertson, Jabbar, Chamberlain, etc etc etc...Didn't have 3 officials on the court ignoring traveling, hacking, charging, and palming.

They, unlike Jordan and the modern-day messiah...Actually all played by the same rules.

I can't speak for the other player's listed, but I did see Bird play quite a bit, and he definitely got his share of superstar calls.

[D.o.s.]

Also, if you talk about how rules were changed and you really look close you would find the rules were changed to add to Jordans image. However, the rule changes made in Wilt's day were all aimed at slowing down his dominance!

Debating how players would play in different eras under different rules is kind of meaningless.

  He has a point. Even if you don't compare how players would play in different eras, but the fact that the league made rules to make Wilt less able to dominate speaks to how dominant a player he was.

As dominant as Shaq.

  If you look at MJ's best scoring year (37 ppg) he scored 28% more than the next highest scorer. If you look at Wilt's best season (50) he scored 56% more than the 2nd leading scorer. I don't think Shaq ever dominated to that level.

Probably not. Shaq's just the first guy I think of when I think of "dominant player that required a direct rule change"

[slamtheking]

Jordan was great but I have always felt that part of that greatness was what he got away with that others could not.  They're not called the 'Jordan Rules' for nothing.  That's where he takes the hit from my perspective--an uneven playing ground due to the hype (deserved) surrounding him.

He still lands in the top 5 players of all time but I honestly believe Russell, Wilt, Bird and Magic rank higher.  didn't see Rusell or Wilt play but Magic and especially Bird didn't get that kind of lopsided officiating in their favor.  I also see Russell, Bird and Magic as truly great players because they made everyone else around them better.  I don't see Jordan near that level.  He was great individually.  looking at him as an individual, I think Wilt was better.

What also drags Jordan down in my eyes is that his titles came at a very low point in the league in terms of overall talent.  Someone claimed earlier that the teams Jordan competed against could be today's teams.  I doubt that very much but I look more towards the 80's to see truly great teams and know that those Bull championship rosters would not have beaten any of the Celtics or Laker teams from 80-88 or the Sixer teams through 84.  I'm not so sure they could have beaten the Buck teams of the early 80's either.

just my 2 cents.  one of the best ever but IMHO, not THE best.

I really don't think the NBA was watered down at that point.  I believe there was more talent in the NBA in the early 90's than any other era.  He beat Magic's Lakers and beat Isiah's Pistons.  Also, beat future HOF Stockton and Malone, Gary Payton, Barkley etc...He was the most dominate at the height of the Dream Team in 92' which was the best collection of NBA talent in the history of the league.  IMO Jordan was the best, I put a lot of stock in what other greats say and they all seem to agree that Jordan was the king of the hill...

trust me, it was watered down.  very watery.  could have made soup with it. 

other greats are typically humble in those types of discussions.  I'd still put Jordan as my all-time SG but I'd still take Russell, Wilt, Bird and Magic over him.

[slamtheking]

Jordan was great but I have always felt that part of that greatness was what he got away with that others could not.  They're not called the 'Jordan Rules' for nothing.  That's where he takes the hit from my perspective--an uneven playing ground due to the hype (deserved) surrounding him.

You do know what the Jordan rules were, right? It was basically a defensive strategy devised by Chuck Daly to be very physical (illegal in today's NBA) in order to keep Jordan in check.

Later a book was written and the Jordan rules also became thought of as a different standard that applied to MJ but not everyone else. I think the original Jordan rules actually show how great Jordan was that he was able to overcome essentially hard, physical, sometimes illegal play by leading his team, playing together and taking over games when it mattered.

Jordan Rules were/are the extra leeway given to star players, beginning with Jordan

[Celtics17]

I saw Jordan play in 89 and they played the Utah Jazz who had Mark Eaton playing center. Eaton was a mountain of a man and was also 7 feet 4 inches tall. As dominant as MJ was he didnt dunk in the halfcourt game that night. It makes me question what he might or might not have been able to do against Russ or Wilt?

Oh and by the way, I never had the pleasure of watching Wilt or Russ play, I was too young. I have however read a ton about Wilt and also worked with a couple of gentleman who did go to K.U. back when Wilt played. They did say that he could indeed dunk from the free throw line with only a couple of steps.

[slamtheking]

Also, if you talk about how rules were changed and you really look close you would find the rules were changed to add to Jordans image. However, the rule changes made in Wilt's day were all aimed at slowing down his dominance!

Debating how players would play in different eras under different rules is kind of meaningless.

  He has a point. Even if you don't compare how players would play in different eras, but the fact that the league made rules to make Wilt less able to dominate speaks to how dominant a player he was.

As dominant as Shaq.

  If you look at MJ's best scoring year (37 ppg) he scored 28% more than the next highest scorer. If you look at Wilt's best season (50) he scored 56% more than the 2nd leading scorer. I don't think Shaq ever dominated to that level.

Probably not. Shaq's just the first guy I think of when I think of "dominant player that required a direct rule change"

Shaq got away with bloody murder on the court.  he was anointed the new face of the NBA when Jordan first retired and was given a cakewalk of a time on the court.  To Jordan's credit (for lack of a better term), he actually had to win something to really have the accolades roll in.  Shaq was getting them from the day he drafted practically.

Used to royally tick me off every I saw him bulldoze through defenders on obvious charges yet get a defensive foul called, travelled with his shuffling feet, and pushed off on rebounding (not to mention just bulldozing over/through people on rebounds).
most egregious preferential officiating I've seen since Lebron's special treatment.

[ImShakHeIsShaq]

Also, if you talk about how rules were changed and you really look close you would find the rules were changed to add to Jordans image. However, the rule changes made in Wilt's day were all aimed at slowing down his dominance!

Debating how players would play in different eras under different rules is kind of meaningless.

  He has a point. Even if you don't compare how players would play in different eras, but the fact that the league made rules to make Wilt less able to dominate speaks to how dominant a player he was.

As dominant as Shaq.

  If you look at MJ's best scoring year (37 ppg) he scored 28% more than the next highest scorer. If you look at Wilt's best season (50) he scored 56% more than the 2nd leading scorer. I don't think Shaq ever dominated to that level.

Probably not. Shaq's just the first guy I think of when I think of "dominant player that required a direct rule change"

Shaq got away with bloody murder on the court.  he was anointed the new face of the NBA when Jordan first retired and was given a cakewalk of a time on the court.  To Jordan's credit (for lack of a better term), he actually had to win something to really have the accolades roll in.  Shaq was getting them from the day he drafted practically.

Used to royally tick me off every I saw him bulldoze through defenders on obvious charges yet get a defensive foul called, travelled with his shuffling feet, and pushed off on rebounding (not to mention just bulldozing over/through people on rebounds).
most egregious preferential officiating I've seen since Lebron's special treatment.

If the refs really officiated right against Shaq, teams would have fouled out and plenty of the players would be ejected with the fouls they took on Shaq had he been smaller. You're asking for them to call the fouls on Shaq but no mention of the fouls he had to take that weren't called because he was much bigger/stronger than everyone else. Yes, Shaq got superstar calls but he also didn't get the calls when fouled that he should have. It's a wash. No one can tell me that Shaq didn't take a beating out there, I'm sure other players in history have been hit similarly but the way they went in on Shaq, I'd have to see the tapes to compare it... b/c I have never seen anything like it. Good thing Shaq let it roll off his shoulders most of the time but if it was me, I would have bust some heads... of course, I wouldn't be in the NBA anymore LOL.

[Ogaju]

that's why you are shak and he is shaq... lol

How are you guys doing in chat, I cannot get in there anymore.

[ImShakHeIsShaq]

that's why you are shak and he is shaq... lol

How are you guys doing in chat, I cannot get in there anymore.

We get about a handful of people every game LOL... sometimes we get 10 or so (woot a party). It's really been hard for people to get in because of Java security settings (others still have problems even when they fix that), hopefully soon the people who want in but can't get in will find a way. It's only a handful but we still manage to enjoy ourselves... the talk livens up the better we play though, some people are a little fed up with the losing. If you can get in, come on back, there is always room and someone in there. 

[gift]

Jordan was great but I have always felt that part of that greatness was what he got away with that others could not.  They're not called the 'Jordan Rules' for nothing.  That's where he takes the hit from my perspective--an uneven playing ground due to the hype (deserved) surrounding him.

You do know what the Jordan rules were, right? It was basically a defensive strategy devised by Chuck Daly to be very physical (illegal in today's NBA) in order to keep Jordan in check.

Later a book was written and the Jordan rules also became thought of as a different standard that applied to MJ but not everyone else. I think the original Jordan rules actually show how great Jordan was that he was able to overcome essentially hard, physical, sometimes illegal play by leading his team, playing together and taking over games when it mattered.

Jordan Rules were/are the extra leeway given to star players, beginning with Jordan

Who uses the Jordan rules in this context? The only time the Jordan rules was really adapted outside of the original context (the defense meant to rough Jordan up), was in the book. Even there the emphasis is mostly on how rules applied differently than to his own teammates, with maybe a minor nod to the notion of superstar calls in games.

If a younger generation is now misunderstanding what the Jordan rules were, that's no validation that Jordan was somehow a lesser player if not for superstar treatment. All superstars get that treatment. Jordan only benefited from more foul calls because he drew more than most.

[Jon]

Let me start with this: in the time period in which he played, Michael Jordan was about as dominant as anyone has ever been.

That said, through no fault of his own, I think the time period he played in should call into question whether he's the all time greatest player or not. 

Why?

Of the very greatest players of all time, none were in their prime during Jordan's era. 

Just ask anyone to rattle of their top 10 players of all time.  You'll probably get something like Russell, Chamberlain, Robertson, Jabbar, Magic, Bird, Jordan, Shaq, Kobe, and Duncan. 

The issue is this: none were in their prime when Jordan was winning championships.  MJ caught Bird and Magic on their way out and Shaq hadn't matured into the dominant figure he'd become until MJ hung them up (well, the second time). 

So what does it all mean?  Well, how many titles would Bird have won if he had played in the '90s and didn't have to contend with Magic's Lakers?  How many titles would Jordan have won, had he had to go toe to toe with Bird just to get out of the Eastern Conference (as Dr. J. had to each year)? 

I'm sure Jordan would have done quite well in any era he played in and he may indeed be the greatest ever.  But I think that if had been forced to play in an era with another historical great he would have not stood out quite as much as he did and the debate wouldn't be quite as black and white as many people see it. 

[Vox_Populi]

I'm sure Jordan would have done quite well in any era he played in and he may indeed be the greatest ever.  But I think that if had been forced to play in an era with another historical great he would have not stood out quite as much as he did and the debate wouldn't be quite as black and white as many people see it.

That's probably an argument that will be made against James then.