Vote: Better All-Time, Kobe Bryant or Larry Bird?

[PlayTheGame]

Can I assume that you would agree with these two comparisons then?

Mark Rypien > Dan Marino
Terrell Davis > Barry Sanders

No, and that is why I qualified my statement with the athlete in question "having to be a large part of said championship".

You could argue that without Rypien & Davis, their teams were either capable or just about capable of winning championships without them. As for the matter at hand, Kobe's 5 championship teams WOULD NOT have won titles without his presence.

If I hadn't qualified my statement, then one could idiotically argue that Luis Sojo (5 rings) is better than Ken Griffey Jr (0 rings), which obviously isn't true, as Sojo contributed little to nothing to those championship teams.

 

[GI Cake]

If you had to put up the two side by side and choose who you wanted on your pick-up basketball team. 10 times out of ten you would pick Larry Bird over Kobe Bryant any day of the week. Larry Bird absolutely defined the game with his ability. For his size, he had a killer 3 pointer, almost perfect jump shot. And to top it off he had the raw, athletic ability to attack the rim made him a force to be reckoned with in his hay day. Offense, or defense, Bird always played at the top of his game. Let's also not forget he was much more of a class act then Kobe could ever hope to be.

 

[PlayTheGame]

That's all a matter of preference. I'd pick Kobe in order to have an immediate team leader who's not afraid to speak his mind and take control of a game like few could.

Larry Bird's a dick- he took Lebron's lunch in that one commerical. Class act? More like thief.

 

[Big Sexy]

Shaq is better then anyone Bird ever played with but Bird played on teams that had more overall talent then Kobe had. Bird had three HOF teammates on each of the three Celtic teams that won championships in the 80's.

 

[Slyfox696]

I would argue that it is true

You would be wrong. Teams weren't devising strategies against Kobe, hedging their bets that Kobe going 50% from the line was still better than giving up two points. They DID do that with Shaq, with the reasoning being that Shaq making 1 FT out of 2 was still better than giving up a Shaq dunk.

Shaq was clearly the force on that Lakers team. Kobe was the sidekick...a damn good sidekick, but the sidekick nonetheless.

I don't think anyone could argue that he wasn't the biggest part of the latter 2 championships. He was clearly the #1 on those teams, with Pau the #2.

He was clearly #1 after Shaq left, no doubt.

As for the first 3, you say Shaq, but I'd disagree. If Shaq was more important to the Lakers, why did they keep Kobe and let Shaq go?

Because Shaq was a 32 year old 300+ pound center, and Kobe was a 26 year old guard coming into his prime. What an atrocious argument.

If Kobe was more important to the Lakers than Shaq, how come Shaq left for Miami and won a title before Kobe did with the Lakers? We can make flawed arguments back and forth all day, it won't change the truth of the situation in Los Angeles in the early 2000s.

The Lakers obviously viewed Kobe as more important to the team, so they made sure they retained him and not Shaq.

No, they viewed Kobe has being several years younger than Shaq, with a body less likely to break down.

Everyone automatically gives credit to the Shaq for those titles because he won the MVPs of the Finals

Well, that and because he was one of the most dominant players the NBA had ever seen.

but Kobe was just as important, if not more important, in those three years to the Lakers, getting them to the championships.

You obviously weren't watching basketball back then. As a Pacers fan at the time (mostly due to Reggie), I was very much into the NBA at the time (as long as the Knicks weren't playing). I can tell you without a doubt Kobe was second fiddle to Shaq. If you were watching at the time, you know it too.

I'd say that's a wash if anything. Without Kobe, Shaq got 1 more title. Without Shaq, Kobe got 2 more titles, and could get more.

Yes, and Kobe is roughly the same age now that Shaq was when he left, and Kobe's about 100 pounds lighter. Again, your argument is completely ridiculous. Kobe wasn't even in high school when Shaq played in his first NBA game.

As for your point that Bird lost out on the years that he was in college- that can't be brought into the argument.

Uhh, yes it can.

If we see who can make more free throws, and you get 5 chances to make free throws and I get 25 chances, are you telling me I'm not likely to make more than you?

That's like trying to argue that Kobe would have been a better college player than Bird was.

What the fuck are you talking about? Did this make sense in your head before you typed it? Because it didn't make sense at all on my computer monitor.

It didn't happen so it shouldn't even be argued, just like those early years for Bird didn't happen, and that was Bird's choice. For all we know, Bird could have floundered in the NBA in his early years. No way of knowing, so you can't play "what if". That can't be brought into the argument.

Well certainly it can, because I'm not playing "what if". I'm playing Kobe has won 5 titles in 16 chances, while Bird won 3 titles in only 13 chances. Bird also didn't have one of the most dominant players in NBA history on his team either.

As for the talent around both players, yes, Kobe had elite talent around him, but other than Shaq & Pau, there wasn't much else.

You're joking right? No, they didn't have Hall of Fame talent, but their starting five was still as solid as any teams 3-5 players. Kobe, Gasol, Odom, Bynum and Fisher? That's a damn good team. Kobe, Shaq, Fisher, Big Shot Bob, Horace Grant, Ron Harper...not only do you have good players, you also have a team loaded with championship experience.

Oh, and they also had arguably the greatest coach in NBA history.

Bird had his fair share of talent around him too like McHale, so it's not like he was carrying teams either.

No doubt the Celtics had good talent. But unlike Kobe, no one doubted who the leaders of the Celtics were. Nobody questioned who would get the ball in that last clutch situation. In the early 2000s, Kobe did not share that recognition.

As for your last comment, I'm certainly not saying Bird wasn't a winner

Then once you agree Bird was a winner, then comparing a gaudy number of championship rings of one guy to a gaudy number of championship rings of another is a worthless endeavor.

That was my point.

 

[Davi323]

No, and that is why I qualified my statement with the athlete in question "having to be a large part of said championship".

You could argue that without Rypien & Davis, their teams were either capable or just about capable of winning championships without them. As for the matter at hand, Kobe's 5 championship teams WOULD NOT have won titles without his presence.

If I hadn't qualified my statement, then one could idiotically argue that Luis Sojo (5 rings) is better than Ken Griffey Jr (0 rings), which obviously isn't true, as Sojo contributed little to nothing to those championship teams.

You clearly don't know what the hell you are talking about. I remember that 91 season that Rypien won the Super Bowl in. I ought to, not only did he destroy Detroit Lions in the regular season, but then he did it again in the NFC Championship game. The reasons the Redskins were so unstoppable in 1991 was because of Mark Rypien. He was EASILY the biggest reason they won the Super Bowl, and the reason he was the Super Bowl MVP. That entire season for the Redskins was all about Rypien. He had the season of his life in 1991, and was the NFC player of the year, and went to the Pro Bowl.

As for Terrell Davis, your ignorance on why the Denver Broncos won the two Super Bowls for Elway is appalling. In Super Bowl XXXII, Davis became the first RB in history to rush for 3 Super Bowl TDs, and he was the Super Bowl MVP, not Elway. In Super Bowl XXXIII, which was the year he rushed for over 2,000 yards, and was the NFL Offensive Player of the year. John Elway wasn't the primary reason he now has two Super Bowl rings, Terrell Davis is. Those Broncos teams were built to run, run, run and run more to showcase Davis's talent, not to pass and showcase Elway's.

Not only were both Rypien and Davis a large part of those championships, they were the main reason their teams won. The Redskins relied on Rypien's arm, the Broncos relied on Davis's legs.

So, now that you have a little more understanding, I ask the same question...

 

[Khalifa]

I thought of something else:

How about the quality of competition each player faced in the NBA Finals? The Pacers, 76ers, Nets, Magic, Pistons, and even the Celtics that Kobe faced would have been no match for the Rockets and Lakers teams that Bird faced in the NBA finals, they would have destroyed every team Kobe faced. The NBA was flat out tougher then than it is now. Kobe plays in an NBA that caters to superstars, calling fouls if you breath on one wrong. Bird played in an NBA where everyone got the crap beat out of them every night, and you earned all of your free throw attempts. In Bird's NBA, you almost had to mug the guy before the ref would blow the whistle. Kobe's Lakers would not have stood a chance in the NBA of the 80s.

IE, Bird's 3 NBA Championships were much harder to win than Kobe's 5.

Debateable. The Western Conference was incredibly hard back then, so to make it through there to the NBA finals was a big accomplishment. You had great teams like Spurs, Kings, Portland, Dallas, Phoenix and even Denver. While these teams were no 80 Lakers, they are still very good teams. I think it's safe to say that the Spurs are one of the greatest teams of all time and the Detroit and Celtic teams played in the NBA finals were two of the best defensive teams in history. Kobe had to put up with a lot of teams that could of won a NBA championship.

Also Kobe has put up amazing numbers after playing his first three NBA seasons on the bench, something Bird never did. So for Kobe to still be classed where he is today is amazing.

 

[Big Sexy]

I thought of something else:

How about the quality of competition each player faced in the NBA Finals? The Pacers, 76ers, Nets, Magic, Pistons, and even the Celtics that Kobe faced would have been no match for the Rockets and Lakers teams that Bird faced in the NBA finals, they would have destroyed every team Kobe faced. The NBA was flat out tougher then than it is now. Kobe plays in an NBA that caters to superstars, calling fouls if you breath on one wrong. Bird played in an NBA where everyone got the crap beat out of them every night, and you earned all of your free throw attempts. In Bird's NBA, you almost had to mug the guy before the ref would blow the whistle. Kobe's Lakers would not have stood a chance in the NBA of the 80s.

IE, Bird's 3 NBA Championships were much harder to win than Kobe's 5.

The talent level and competition in the NBA is better this era then it was in the 80's. Basketball is a much more popular sport now then it was back then and the biggest difference is the international influence. In the 80's there were only a handful of players who were born and raised internationally and the only major star was Hakeem Olajuwon, and even he went to college in the US. Nowadays some of the top players in the league are international players.

In terms of NBA Finals competition, the Eastern Conference was very weak back in the early 2000's. The Lakers real accomplishment was winning the West Finals those three years. In 2000 they had to defeat a stacked Portland team with Sheed, Pippen, Damon Stoudamire, Steve Smith, and Sabonis. In 2001 they had to go through the Spurs led by Tim Duncan and David Robinson. In 2002 they had to take out one of the best teams to never win a championship. The Sacramento Kings that season had 7 players average double digits a game, C Webb, Peja, Bibby, Divac, Doug Christie, Hedo Turkoglu, and Bobby Jackson.

 

[PlayTheGame]

You clearly don't know what the hell you are talking about. I remember that 91 season that Rypien won the Super Bowl in. I ought to, not only did he destroy Detroit Lions in the regular season, but then he did it again in the NFC Championship game. The reasons the Redskins were so unstoppable in 1991 was because of Mark Rypien. He was EASILY the biggest reason they won the Super Bowl, and the reason he was the Super Bowl MVP. That entire season for the Redskins was all about Rypien. He had the season of his life in 1991, and was the NFC player of the year, and went to the Pro Bowl.

As for Terrell Davis, your ignorance on why the Denver Broncos won the two Super Bowls for Elway is appalling. In Super Bowl XXXII, Davis became the first RB in history to rush for 3 Super Bowl TDs, and he was the Super Bowl MVP, not Elway. In Super Bowl XXXIII, which was the year he rushed for over 2,000 yards, and was the NFL Offensive Player of the year. John Elway wasn't the primary reason he now has two Super Bowl rings, Terrell Davis is. Those Broncos teams were built to run, run, run and run more to showcase Davis's talent, not to pass and showcase Elway's.

Not only were both Rypien and Davis a large part of those championships, they were the main reason their teams won. The Redskins relied on Rypien's arm, the Broncos relied on Davis's legs.

So, now that you have a little more understanding, I ask the same question...

No need to get so upset or offended, although I disagree with your point. So, what's the point of your question then, since I don't know what I'm talking about and your bring up examples from 80's and 90's football players, very relevant.

 

[PlayTheGame]

You would be wrong. Teams weren't devising strategies against Kobe, hedging their bets that Kobe going 50% from the line was still better than giving up two points. They DID do that with Shaq, with the reasoning being that Shaq making 1 FT out of 2 was still better than giving up a Shaq dunk.

Shaq was clearly the force on that Lakers team. Kobe was the sidekick...a damn good sidekick, but the sidekick nonetheless.

He was clearly #1 after Shaq left, no doubt.

Because Shaq was a 32 year old 300+ pound center, and Kobe was a 26 year old guard coming into his prime. What an atrocious argument.

If Kobe was more important to the Lakers than Shaq, how come Shaq left for Miami and won a title before Kobe did with the Lakers? We can make flawed arguments back and forth all day, it won't change the truth of the situation in Los Angeles in the early 2000s.

No, they viewed Kobe has being several years younger than Shaq, with a body less likely to break down.

Well, that and because he was one of the most dominant players the NBA had ever seen.

You obviously weren't watching basketball back then. As a Pacers fan at the time (mostly due to Reggie), I was very much into the NBA at the time (as long as the Knicks weren't playing). I can tell you without a doubt Kobe was second fiddle to Shaq. If you were watching at the time, you know it too.

Yes, and Kobe is roughly the same age now that Shaq was when he left, and Kobe's about 100 pounds lighter. Again, your argument is completely ridiculous. Kobe wasn't even in high school when Shaq played in his first NBA game.

Uhh, yes it can.

If we see who can make more free throws, and you get 5 chances to make free throws and I get 25 chances, are you telling me I'm not likely to make more than you?

What the fuck are you talking about? Did this make sense in your head before you typed it? Because it didn't make sense at all on my computer monitor.

Well certainly it can, because I'm not playing "what if". I'm playing Kobe has won 5 titles in 16 chances, while Bird won 3 titles in only 13 chances. Bird also didn't have one of the most dominant players in NBA history on his team either.

You're joking right? No, they didn't have Hall of Fame talent, but their starting five was still as solid as any teams 3-5 players. Kobe, Gasol, Odom, Bynum and Fisher? That's a damn good team. Kobe, Shaq, Fisher, Big Shot Bob, Horace Grant, Ron Harper...not only do you have good players, you also have a team loaded with championship experience.

Oh, and they also had arguably the greatest coach in NBA history.

No doubt the Celtics had good talent. But unlike Kobe, no one doubted who the leaders of the Celtics were. Nobody questioned who would get the ball in that last clutch situation. In the early 2000s, Kobe did not share that recognition.

Then once you agree Bird was a winner, then comparing a gaudy number of championship rings of one guy to a gaudy number of championship rings of another is a worthless endeavor.

That was my point.

You can break down my points all you want, but that's my argument. You think my argument is flawed, I think yours is. You think Bird is the better player, I think Kobe is. You said it yourself- all this comes down to is how you spin these statistics, information, etc.

I'm confident kobe is the better player.

 

[Davi323]

No need to get so upset or offended, although I disagree with your point. So, what's the point of your question then, since I don't know what I'm talking about and your bring up examples from 80's and 90's football players, very relevant.

You claimed rings make athletes great not stats, and I showcased two athletes, who were a large part of their teams winning championships, thus qualifying under your own criteria, who would never be considered greater all time than two other athletes who played the same positions who never won any. By the way, two of those athletes are in the Pro Football Hall of Fame, wanna guess which two? The point was, your logic was easily defeated. The fact that they were football players is coincidental only, it could apply to just about any team sport. Sometimes the best athletes in the world never get the opportunity to win a championship because of the talent around them, and sometimes far less talented athletes win multiple titles because they happen to play for a great team. Using titles as your main criteria in a team sport is just stupid.

 

[Moon Knight]

The talent level and competition in the NBA is better this era then it was in the 80's. Basketball is a much more popular sport now then it was back then and the biggest difference is the international influence. In the 80's there were only a handful of players who were born and raised internationally and the only major star was Hakeem Olajuwon, and even he went to college in the US. Nowadays some of the top players in the league are international players.

This reminds me of something Michael Jordan said. When talking about today's game he said he could score 100 points a game. Dennis Rodman also said that the Bulls team of 1996 wouldn't have won 70 games against 80's teams. If today's talent is better than 80's talent is debateable, some people clearly have a very high opinion of that era. And the NBA is still US centric, there are more international players than before but the NBA is still dominated by American talent. And if any of them have gotten to the same level as Hakeem is not 100%, because I would still pick him over anybody playing the center position today.

 

[Moon Knight]

You claimed rings make athletes great not stats, and I showcased two athletes, who were a large part of their teams winning championships, thus qualifying under your own criteria, who would never be considered greater all time than two other athletes who played the same positions who never won any. By the way, two of those athletes are in the Pro Football Hall of Fame, wanna guess which two? The point was, your logic was easily defeated. The fact that they were football players is coincidental only, it could apply to just about any team sport. Sometimes the best athletes in the world never get the opportunity to win a championship because of the talent around them, and sometimes far less talented athletes win multiple titles because they happen to play for a great team. Using titles as your main criteria in a team sport is just stupid.

I will say this and what I am about to say is 100% pure fact. These are team sports and winning a title is a team accomplishment, team accompishments should not be used to justify solo greatness. Winning a title doesn't make you great and not winning one doesn't mean you aren't.

 

[PlayTheGame]

You claimed rings make athletes great not stats, and I showcased two athletes, who were a large part of their teams winning championships, thus qualifying under your own criteria, who would never be considered greater all time than two other athletes who played the same positions who never won any. By the way, two of those athletes are in the Pro Football Hall of Fame, wanna guess which two? The point was, your logic was easily defeated. The fact that they were football players is coincidental only, it could apply to just about any team sport. Sometimes the best athletes in the world never get the opportunity to win a championship because of the talent around them, and sometimes far less talented athletes win multiple titles because they happen to play for a great team. Using titles as your main criteria in a team sport is just stupid.

I don't think it's stupid at all. Again, you ask any coach or athlete, and to them, it's by far and away the most important thing. If and when Kobe gets more ring(s), I wonder if you will still claim Bird's better. Because I'm confident that he'll get at least one more before he's done, because the Lakers won't stay in their current lackluster state for now- they're in a win-now mentality, and they'll do their best to do just that. If Kobe gets 6, I'd like to see if you'd still be confident when he has double the rings and very similar stats.

 

[GI Cake]

I don't think it's stupid at all. Again, you ask any coach or athlete, and to them, it's by far and away the most important thing. If and when Kobe gets more ring(s), I wonder if you will still claim Bird's better. Because I'm confident that he'll get at least one more before he's done, because the Lakers won't stay in their current lackluster state for now- they're in a win-now mentality, and they'll do their best to do just that. If Kobe gets 6, I'd like to see if you'd still be confident when he has double the rings and very similar stats.

Of course they will tell you winning is the most important thing. But titles don't make the player. Satch Sanders, who has played with the Boston Celtics back in the 50's when they were a Championship team every year. He won 8x NBA championships. Would that qualify him to be a better player over guys like LeBron James or Michael Jordan ? It means that he won a team championship in a team sport. When you want to measure two different players you want to start with their individual stats and how they played the game. Despite Larry not having as many rings as Satch Sanders, Bird is a legend in the NBA.

Kobe could get a 6th ring. He still has plenty of time to do that, but to say he that will make him better than Larry Bird is down right foolish.

 

[PlayTheGame]

Of course they will tell you winning is the most important thing. But titles don't make the player. Satch Sanders, who has played with the Boston Celtics back in the 50's when they were a Championship team every year. He won 8x NBA championships. Would that qualify him to be a better player over guys like LeBron James or Michael Jordan ? It means that he won a team championship in a team sport. When you want to measure two different players you want to start with their individual stats and how they played the game. Despite Larry not having as many rings as Satch Sanders, Bird is a legend in the NBA.

Kobe could get a 6th ring. He still has plenty of time to do that, but to say he that will make him better than Larry Bird is down right foolish.

I've already addressed this. Refer to my posts about this topic. As I said, a guy like Luis Sojo (5 titles) obviously isn't better than Griffey Jr (0 titles), just as your example (8 titles) isn't better than Kobe (5 titles), because there's a certain level of common sense that comes into play that tells you that those guys weren't essential to those title wins. Conversely, Kobe was absolutely essential to his 5 titles. So when you add that qualification in as I did, yes, my argument can be used.

 

[GI Cake]

I've already addressed this. Refer to my posts about this topic. As I said, a guy like Luis Sojo (5 titles) obviously isn't better than Griffey Jr (0 titles), just as your example (8 titles) isn't better than Kobe (5 titles), because there's a certain level of common sense that comes into play that tells you that those guys weren't essential to those title wins. Conversely, Kobe was absolutely essential to his 5 titles. So when you add that qualification in as I did, yes, my argument can be used.

It is almost as if you forgot the points Harthan made about Kobe being the sidekick to Shaq for three of his titles. Kobe Bryant might be a staple in the Lakers. But in no way, shape, or form is Kobe better than Bird. For his entire career, Bird was the man in Boston. He was the number one guy. Everyone else hoped to play up to his ability to be his side-kick. For the majority of Kobe's rings, he played second fiddle to Shaq. Which is no small feat in any meaning of the word.

Without Bird, Boston would be 3 rings short. Without Bryant, the Lakers would still have three rings. Although, it is undeniable that Kobe was the number one guy for the two titles the Lakers won without Shaq.

 

[PlayTheGame]

It is almost as if you forgot the points Harthan made about Kobe being the sidekick to Shaq for three of his titles. Kobe Bryant might be a staple in the Lakers. But in no way, shape, or form is Kobe better than Bird. For his entire career, Bird was the man in Boston. He was the number one guy. Everyone else hoped to play up to his ability to be his side-kick. For the majority of Kobe's rings, he played second fiddle to Shaq. Which is no small feat in any meaning of the word.

Without Bird, Boston would be 3 rings short. Without Bryant, the Lakers would still have three rings. Although, it is undeniable that Kobe was the number one guy for the two titles the Lakers won without Shaq.

I didn't forget, just saw no merit in. To call Kobe a "sidekick" to anyone is a joke. It's almost as if you're unaware of him in the world of basketball. He was no "sidekick". If anything, it was a 1A - 1B scenario. Not a Batman & Robin thing. For some reason in this argument, the Kobe supporters are willing to give Bird a lot of credit and call him the face of Boston during his era, but the Bird supporters are trying to paint Kobe as some incapable sidekick who got lucky in his first years of the NBA to have Shaq, lucking into his titles, grossly underrating him in the process.

In terms of being better than Bird, there's been many cases- better defender, faster, more explosive, longevity, certain statistical categories, and, of course, more NBA titles- an argument everyone's been SO dimissive of because it doesn't work for them. The point of the NBA is to win titles. Plain and simple. Kobe is a great player who has won 5, and has been a huge part of them, and is not done. Bird is a great player who has won 3, and has been a huge part of them, and is done. That's a big difference in my opinion.

To call Bird "the man" of Boston, sure, that's fine. But Bryant's been "the man" of L.A. now for almost a decade uncontested, and will probably surpass Bird's 13 years soon. So not sure where your argument is going there.

And to say that Shaq would have definitely won those titles regardless without Kobe is terribly, terribly wrong. To win in the NBA, you need multiple guys, and its been that way for some time. Shaq ABSOLUTELY needed Kobe in those 3 championships, and if you don't believe that, then you obviously didn't watch those 3 Finals or know that much about them. Both guys were crucial for those 3 rings, Shaq would not have won them without Kobe Bryant on the team, that I can assure you. I don't think any other person in this thread would state that, not Harthan, Sly, or anyone.

 

[Davi323]

I don't think it's stupid at all. Again, you ask any coach or athlete, and to them, it's by far and away the most important thing. If and when Kobe gets more ring(s), I wonder if you will still claim Bird's better. Because I'm confident that he'll get at least one more before he's done, because the Lakers won't stay in their current lackluster state for now- they're in a win-now mentality, and they'll do their best to do just that. If Kobe gets 6, I'd like to see if you'd still be confident when he has double the rings and very similar stats.

You are confusing personal goals and greatness. Of course players want to win championships. You play the game to win them...but in a team sport, that's not how you judge whether an individual player is considered great or not. You refuse to acknowledge that, because you are too stubborn to admit you are 100% wrong. You KNOW that players like Dan Marino are all time greats, as are Patrick Ewing, Charles Barkley, John Stockton, Elgin Baylor, Barry Sanders, Ted Williams, Ty Cobb, Curtis Joseph, Ken Griffey Jr, Tony Gwynn, Warren Moon, and others are great players despite their combined zero championships. According to your asinine logic, just about every single member of the 1960s Celtics team would be better than either Kobe or Bird...and if you believe Michael Jordan is the greatest NBA player of all time, then you are a hypocrite. Robert Horry has 7 NBA titles to Jordan's 6, and last I checked, 7 is better than Jordan's 6, and better than Kobe's 5. Not to mention Derek Fisher not only has 5 rings, but he has the exact same 5 that Kobe does. Does Fisher = Bryant? Of course not...

 

[Slyfox696]

You can break down my points all you want, but that's my argument. You think my argument is flawed, I think yours is.

My argument that Shaq was the force behind the Lakers in the early 2000s is flawed? Again, you obviously weren't watching basketball then because you'd know how silly that sounds. Shaq was obviously the #1 guy in Los Angeles, everyone knew that (except for Kobe, he never really got that).

I'm confident kobe is the better player.

And I think if I were building a team, I'd rather have Bird.

The talent level and competition in the NBA is better this era then it was in the 80's.

This reminds me of something Michael Jordan said. When talking about today's game he said he could score 100 points a game. Dennis Rodman also said that the Bulls team of 1996 wouldn't have won 70 games against 80's teams. If today's talent is better than 80's talent is debateable, some people clearly have a very high opinion of that era.

I think the raw athleticism and potential is far greater now than it was in the 80s. But I think the pure skill and knowledge of how to play the game was far greater in the 80s than now. Too many guys in the NBA today don't have good fundamentals nor even a good understanding of how to play basketball, but they're able to cover it up with pure athleticism. The guys in the 80s were much better basketball players, but today's group are much better athletes.

However, I can't think of a single person who wouldn't like to see a game between the best of the 80s and the best of today. Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan, Larry Bird, Moses Malone, and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar vs. Dwayne Wade, Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, Kevin Durant and Dwight Howard? Sign me up.

I didn't forget, just saw no merit in. To call Kobe a "sidekick" to anyone is a joke.

No it isn't, it's just the truth.

Seriously, were you watching basketball back then?

For some reason in this argument, the Kobe supporters are willing to give Bird a lot of credit and call him the face of Boston during his era, but the Bird supporters are trying to paint Kobe as some incapable sidekick who got lucky in his first years of the NBA to have Shaq, lucking into his titles, grossly underrating him in the process.

We haven't said that, but what we HAVE said is that Shaq was more important to the Lakers winning those titles than Kobe was. Which is a fact. What's also a fact is that NO ONE was more important to the Celtics winning their three titles than Bird.

In terms of being better than Bird, there's been many cases- better defender

Agreed.

faster

Agreed

more explosive

Not really. You're probably talking from a pure athletic standpoint, but when you're talking about basketball explosiveness, Kobe wasn't really more explosive than Bird.

longevity

Not yet. Not until Kobe plays past the age of 35. You don't get credit for coming in early, when the cultures on high school players entering the draft was much different when Kobe came along than when Bird did.

more NBA titles- an argument everyone's been SO dimissive of because it doesn't work for them.

Not because it doesn't work for us, but because it's a bullshit argument.

The whole point in using titles as an argument is as a judge as to whether someone is a winner or not. Both guys are winners, both guys are champions, so there's no advantage to be gained there. Scottie Pippen won 6 NBA titles but there's no way Scottie Pippen, who was Jordan's sidekick like Kobe was Shaq's, was a better basketball player than Wilt Chamberlain who only won 2.

It's a ridiculous argument. Since both guys have won multiple championships, there's no reason to compare anymore.

That's a big difference in my opinion.

Put Shaquille O'Neal from the early 2000s on the Celtics in the 80s and they would have won 3 more.

To call Bird "the man" of Boston, sure, that's fine. But Bryant's been "the man" of L.A. now for almost a decade uncontested

No, Bryant has only been "the man" of LA since Shaq left. And they've only won TWO titles since then.

And to say that Shaq would have definitely won those titles regardless without Kobe is terribly, terribly wrong.

It's not wrong as much as it is conjecture. Without Kobe, the Lakers still would have been a damn good team.

 

[Big Sexy]

http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showthread.php?t=206802

 

[PlayTheGame]

You are confusing personal goals and greatness. Of course players want to win championships. You play the game to win them...but in a team sport, that's not how you judge whether an individual player is considered great or not. You refuse to acknowledge that, because you are too stubborn to admit you are 100% wrong. You KNOW that players like Dan Marino are all time greats, as are Patrick Ewing, Charles Barkley, John Stockton, Elgin Baylor, Barry Sanders, Ted Williams, Ty Cobb, Curtis Joseph, Ken Griffey Jr, Tony Gwynn, Warren Moon, and others are great players despite their combined zero championships. According to your asinine logic, just about every single member of the 1960s Celtics team would be better than either Kobe or Bird...and if you believe Michael Jordan is the greatest NBA player of all time, then you are a hypocrite. Robert Horry has 7 NBA titles to Jordan's 6, and last I checked, 7 is better than Jordan's 6, and better than Kobe's 5. Not to mention Derek Fisher not only has 5 rings, but he has the exact same 5 that Kobe does. Does Fisher = Bryant? Of course not...

I don't understand why you can't comprehend my point, so I'll state it again clear and simple. A player's role has to be factored into said championship wins. Fisher has 5 rings, but obviously wasn't intergral in those wins. Kobe was. I've qualified and clarified this numerous times now and it makes perfect sense to me. I don't know why you aren't understanding.

 

[PlayTheGame]

Yes, I was watching basketball back then Sly. I invite you to take a look at Kobe's stats those 3 seasons they won the titles, and I'd like to see if you think Kobe was just merely a sidekick to Shaq. I think that's a gross understatement. It was more of a 1A 1B scenario. Shaq was certainly dominant, but he fell off the mountain quickly in his career. Without each other, Shaq won one title. Kobe won two and is still active. Kobe's been no one's sidekick, and it's undeniable that they would NOT have won those 3 titles without Kobe, just as they would not have won them without Shaq. To argue that is ridiculous.

 

[Davi323]

I don't understand why you can't comprehend my point, so I'll state it again clear and simple. A player's role has to be factored into said championship wins. Fisher has 5 rings, but obviously wasn't intergral in those wins. Kobe was. I've qualified and clarified this numerous times now and it makes perfect sense to me. I don't know why you aren't understanding.

Except for the fact that you are flat out lying, because you damn well know that my Mark Rypien/Terrell Davis example completely proved your theory wrong. You claim that you would dispute their importance...okay hotshot...dispute it. Go research the 1991, 1997 and 1998 seasons, and bring some evidence that either player was not incredibly important to their team's championships...then you have to argue why they should be considered better than Dan Marino and Barry Sanders because they won titles...

Because here is the thing...you know that you can't do it. You know that both players were very important to their team's championships, so you can't hide behind that bullshit excuse. You also know that neither player would ever be considered to be in the same league as Marino and Sanders. But to admit that would require you to admit that your theory is complete rubbish, so you refuse to answer the challenge directly.

Tell me Mark Rypien was a better QB than Dan Marino and Terrell Davis was a better RB than Barry Sanders because they won championships or shut the fuck up and admit you are full of shit.

 

[Slyfox696]

Yes, I was watching basketball back then Sly.

Then you should know how silly you sound.

I invite you to take a look at Kobe's stats those 3 seasons they won the titles, and I'd like to see if you think Kobe was just merely a sidekick to Shaq.

I could say the same thing about Scottie Pippen's stats. Doesn't change the fact neither he nor Bryant weren't the most important player on their team.

You obviously weren't watching basketball back then, or didn't understand the game.

It was more of a 1A 1B scenario.

No, it was Shaq 1 and Kobe 2. Anything you say otherwise is false.

Shaq was certainly dominant, but he fell off the mountain quickly in his career.

What the fuck does that have to do with anything? He was one of the greatest players in NBA history when he was a Laker, that's all that matters.

Without each other, Shaq won one title. Kobe won two and is still active.

You can't be serious. Seriously, this is the stupidest thing you've said in this thread.

By the way, what was the Lakers' record in Shaq's last year in Los Angeles and their record the next year when Shaq was in Miami? I'm afraid I don't remember.

Kobe's been no one's sidekick

If you truly believe that, then you're either stupid or ignorant.

and it's undeniable that they would NOT have won those 3 titles without Kobe, just as they would not have won them without Shaq. To argue that is ridiculous.

That's not my argument. My argument is that Kobe was second fiddle to Shaq in Los Angeles. And I'm right. Completely right, as anyone who watched the NBA back then knows.