Does Michael Jordan's name have the same impact as before?

[atlwarrior]

I really hate ESPN right now because they are screwing with these kids heads. Even the 90s kids from my generation seem to have forgotten the impact Michael Jordan had on the NBA and basketball. I talk to people from my era and younger daily and they seem to think a lot of these teams from this generation can beat Michael Jordan's championship Bulls teams including the 96 Bulls.

You even have people my age and younger saying LeBron is better. I do like LeBron and do respect what he has done for the league but let's be real 8 seasons scoring 30 ppg or more, 5 MVPs & a few years he got snubbed, man averaged over 30 ppg just about every year in the playoffs and he's 6-0 in the finals. His resume is too good and that's not even all of it. LeBron's does not even come close. A kid told me the 2001 Lakers will beat the 96 Bulls in a series and I was like c'mon Bruh! That Lakers team was historically good in the playoffs and will probably take the Bulls to 6 games but they are not better.

They always disrespect the OG's of the game saying things like "Oh players in the 80s & 90s weren't as quick and athletic as they are today." And in my mind I always tell myself that didn't stop Larry Bird from dominating Dominique Wilkins and Jordan in the 80s. Yeah Bird did play on better teams but if it weren't for his IQ of the game. They wouldn't have beat a lot of the teams they beat.

I hate to say but if we keep going at this rate, basketball will be dead in a few years and the younger generation will not even remember the great Michael Jordan.

[Andrew]

I don't think basketball will be dead in a few years, and I still think Michael Jordan's legacy will remain intact. There will always be debate about these things, which is fair enough. Fans who didn't grow up with him probably won't appreciate him or give him as much credit as they should, but that's always going to be the case with sports. In all fairness, those of us who grew up watching basketball in the 80s and 90s probably did the same to players from the 60s and 70s, at least to some extent.

Sometimes people have short memories, and get caught up in what's happening now. It's easy to call something you just saw the best and the greatest, because it's fresh in your mind. I think we're also painfully aware of the nostalgia filter these days, often to our detriment. Yes, some things aren't as good in retrospect, but that's not automatically so, and some things - athletes, movies, TV shows, video games - were genuinely that good, and should be remembered fondly. MJ was that good, and I think most people who are passionate about basketball do have an appreciation for that, even if they're not really fans of him.

[Sauru]

i argue all the time with people at the court about jordan and imo the bottom line is you cvannot convince anyone he was better than (insert whoever they are hyping up here). if someone walks up to you saying derrick rose was the best player the bulls ever had there is nothing at all you can do to convince him any different. does his name have the same impact? no way, but he is still the one sitting on the throne as the best

[Andrew]

And of course, Slam Magazine has published numerous interviews over the years with random streetballers who once beat Dr J or some such, all of whom claim something like "If I had a jumpshot, you wouldn't be talking about Michael Jordan."

[atlwarrior]

And of course, Slam Magazine has published numerous interviews over the years with random streetballers who once beat Dr J or some such, all of whom claim something like "If I had a jumpshot, you wouldn't be talking about Michael Jordan."

Lol streetballers lie all the time. Can you link me to these article. I'd love to get a good laugh

i argue all the time with people at the court about jordan and imo the bottom line is you cvannot convince anyone he was better than (insert whoever they are hyping up here). if someone walks up to you saying derrick rose was the best player the bulls ever had there is nothing at all you can do to convince him any different. does his name have the same impact? no way, but he is still the one sitting on the throne as the best

I do too Sauru. It's sad but I guess now I see what the guys who say Wilt and Oscar Robertson are the best feel like. It actually made me gain a new appreciation for player before my time. I find myself watching games from the 60s and 70s a lot now. Idk if it is because I'm bored with the NBA today or just searching for new moves to show off on the court that I can recycle. lol

[Andrew]

I don't have any links handy, but I remember they talked to Jackie Jackson years and years ago, and he made such an assertion. The thing is, some of those streetball legends probably did work out with teams or play some one-on-one with all-time NBA greats, and had impressive showings, but it was a one-time thing that has been exaggerated as the stories are told time and time again. Statements like "if I had a jumpshot" are the main takeaway for me. We can therefore ask the question, why didn't you have a jumpshot? I mean, I'm the same age as LeBron, plus a couple of months. I might as well say if I were 6'8" or 6'9" instead of 6'3.5", far more skilled, and I'd been dedicated to the dream of becoming a professional basketball player, they'd be talking about me instead of LeBron. In other words, "If I had the skills to be a successful professional basketball player, I'd be a successful professional basketball player."

[Sauru]

kicking ass in a pick up game is not the same as dominating the league for 10+ years

[Andrew]

Absolutely agree. But it feeds the legends and tall tales.

[atlwarrior]

its always good to have myths in a sport.

[Andrew]

I think the stories make sport more exciting and entertaining, and just a little bit more special, though you do have to keep them in context when it comes to comparing the all-time greats.

"What If?" is always going to be a popular question though, and it lends itself well to sporting myth and legend, because you can't really disprove it wouldn't happen. You can't prove that it would happen either, but that's often beside the point.

I don't want to sound insensitive, but I think the story of Len Bias has benefited from that over the years. He was obviously a great college player, and there was talk that he was better than Michael Jordan. Of course, he sadly never got an opportunity to actually prove that one way or another at the NBA level, and "better than Michael Jordan" has a different context in 1986 than it does in 2016, with MJ's career in the books and his accomplishments...accomplished. Those comparisons that were once made help fuel the "What If?", however, and it gives the tale an even more tragic spin.

In reality, you don't need to go out of your way to add more tragedy to Len Bias' story. A young man made a costly decision, and paid for it with his life. The basketball world never got to see him fulfil his potential at the professional level, but more importantly, his family lost him at the age of 22.

[NovU]

Problem exists on both ends. Too often people would defend their hero and attack others without proper reasoning. Many of thsee people would rather appeal to emotions than dealing with facts and constructive argument, hence attacking the messenger and failing to tackle the actual message.

In reality, a lot Jordan supporters act in a same manner as blind LBJ nut sack lovers. Trying to have rational discussion with such people is equal to being exposed to radiation, cause of cancer.

That said, LeBron does belong to class of Jordan. Topic is legit unlike Kobe vs whoever. Don't be afraid to mention their names in a single line if you can back it up. Don't scare them away even if you dont agree. Discussion is valid and should be encouraged. Yes, Queen James has come that far.

[Andrew]

That's true as well. But I doubt the people that atlwarrior is referring to are particularly interested in debate.

[NovU]

I just thought he did make quite a bold claim that LBJ does not come close at all with weak argument. Im honestly not sure if he really is different from those people he hates.

I personally look forward to discussion on where lbj really stands in comparison to MJ here in our forum. Gonna be a great discussion in depth.

[Andrew]

atlwarrior said that LeBron's resume doesn't come close to MJ's. In terms of trophies, if nothing else, there is still a difference.



Add another championship and Finals MVP to LeBron's collection, so it's now 22-13 in favour of Jordan. Tally up other records and "only player to achieve X" accomplishments, and I'd say MJ is still comfortably ahead. Of course, that's not the be-all, end-all. Bill Russell should have more than 17 trophies, but the Finals MVP wasn't a thing until the final year of his career, at which point it went to Jerry West despite Russell's Celtics defeating West's Lakers. MJ should probably have a couple more regular season MVP awards as well, for that matter.

Anyway, I don't want to presume to speak for atlwarrior, so I'll leave it to him to further clarify his position on the matter if he so desires. As for me, I think LeBron has to be right up there now. I wouldn't rank him ahead of Jordan, for reasons I'd certainly go into if we're going to have that full discussion, but I think he's top ten at least, at this point. Probably top eight.

[NovU]

I dont think he solely meant # of meaningless awards. It is a weak argument to convince lbj hardcore Fandom anyways.

It's probably for the better we leave this discussion for another time tho. There is a lot to explore on topic.


To be clear, I thought the topic and story here were lil too biased for MJ Fandom when in reality, they also make same blatant attacks on any era players including lbj.

[Andrew]

Well, yeah. The most fanatical are seldom the most rational. I think that's what atlwarrior is criticising, here. But again, I can't presume to speak for him.

[atlwarrior]

I dont think he solely meant # of meaningless awards. It is a weak argument to convince lbj hardcore Fandom anyways.

It's probably for the better we leave this discussion for another time tho. There is a lot to explore on topic.


To be clear, I thought the topic and story here were lil too biased for MJ Fandom when in reality, they also make same blatant attacks on any era players including lbj.

It is. I have showed people videos, talked to these people about the difference in skill sets, shown them advanced stats but these people are not interested in all of that. ESPN does not help because they appeal more to the casual sports fans that only pay attention to basic stats and not the ones that really tell the truth. It is not only difficult to explain Jordan's greatness to "LeBronotrons" because it's even like this with hardcore Curry, Durant, Westbrook and Kobe fans. Why is this?? Well ESPN always seems to make Jordan comparisons to all these players. They should stop doing that because although these players are great, it makes their greatness seem greater than what it actually is. If a person who likes NBA sees that and ESPN is their only source of information for sports, then that is what they are going to believe. It will not matter that you have hardcore proof from websites like BKREF, Synergy, and the advanced stats from nba.com because ESPN does not show all of that. ESPN even has advanced stats on their website themselves but it cannot be viewed by most of the public because you have to be a member of the ESPN Insider.

Well, yeah. The most fanatical are seldom the most rational. I think that's what atlwarrior is criticising, here. But again, I can't presume to speak for him.

Yes that is exactly what I am criticising.

[Andrew]

I feel one of the main problems is that ESPN and a lot of other sports media outlets have adopted this idea that anyone who sticks up for the previous eras and argues in their favour must be a bitter hater who refuses to give the newer generations any credit whatsoever. To be fair, that's probably true for some people, but it's not necessarily the case, and it doesn't automatically invalidate/disprove the arguments in favour of the players/teams from yesteryear.

As Charles Barkley said a couple of months ago, you can't even argue that the Warriors aren't necessarily the best team ever (regular season record aside, which they obviously set the all-time best mark for), or that Curry isn't unquestionably top ten all-time/on equal footing with Michael Jordan and the other greats, without being labelled a "hater".

[atlwarrior]

I feel one of the main problems is that ESPN and a lot of other sports media outlets have adopted this idea that anyone who sticks up for the previous eras and argues in their favour must be a bitter hater who refuses to give the newer generations any credit whatsoever. To be fair, that's probably true for some people, but it's not necessarily the case, and it doesn't automatically invalidate/disprove the arguments in favour of the players/teams from yesteryear.

As Charles Barkley said a couple of months ago, you can't even argue that the Warriors aren't necessarily the best team ever (regular season record aside, which they obviously set the all-time best mark for), or that Curry isn't unquestionably top ten all-time/on equal footing with Michael Jordan and the other greats, without being labelled a "hater".

Exactly! I always get labeled as a "bitter old hater" and that's not fair because I actually do like a lot of the players today and will even admit things like the 2014 Spurs had a better playoff run than my 96 Bulls. They might even beat them.

I don't always agree with the things Charles Barkley says but he was spot on about that issue. The 2016 Warriors was probably the worst of them all. I appreciated what they were doing for the game but the fandom was ridiculous. It was almost like you can never say anything to challenge how great they were because people put them on this pedestal like they were gods. I have never seen a team get this kind of treatment before actually winning a championship.

[Andrew]

I must admit though, seeing the way some fans were acting, I do understand why some people used to write in to the basketball magazines to trash the Bulls and the fanbase, and express joy at their slow start in the 1998 season, all those years ago.

[atlwarrior]

I must admit though, seeing the way some fans were acting, I do understand why some people used to write in to the basketball magazines to trash the Bulls and the fanbase, and express joy at their slow start in the 1998 season, all those years ago.

I am not justifying the Bulls fans actions but we were only chasing our sixth championship and it didn't seem like anyone was a threat to stand in our way. Well in the end, we still got the last laugh because we won it all that year as well but yes a lot of our fans were obnoxious. They even ridiculed Laker fans in the years in 2000-2002. I guess fans of other teams would love to share that experience but that does not justify how they praised the Warrior fans when they were doing the exact same thing. lol

[Andrew]

Sports: Serious Business.