PDA

View Full Version : Of Larry Bird, Michael Jordan, Lebron James and Steph Curry



joedaheights
04-16-2016, 12:22 AM
As I was watching Curry break the record the other day, I went back to years and years of guys coming along, the hype, the results, and I found this interesting.

Isn't it interesting that Larry Bird sticks out at you in any top ten all time list. Here's mine…

Michael Jordan
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Magic Johnson
Bill Russell
Larry Bird
Tim Duncan
Shaquille O'neal
Lebron James
Wilt Chamberlain
Kobe Bryant

You can debate lists all day, that's not the point, the point is.. in almost any sane person's list, Larry Bird will be there.. and I look at that list and say, "wait, isn't there just one guy who is almost laughably worse as an actual athlete than all the other guys???"

If you didn't know anything about basketball and had those ten guys do track and field stuff all day, you'd be laughing at Larry Bird. Definitely not an athlete, at all…

BUT, he showed what you could do as a complete non-athlete even, if you have WIZARDRY and great handling of the ball. Guy can't jump for **** and yet 3 rings, multiple MVPs top ten player..

Then, Michael comes along.. and ends up being as great as he was because here's a guy who is all of those things athletically, and yet is a wizard with the ball… can make the great pass, hit the big shot, handle the ball.

But he launched a terrible assumption…

"Hey, this must mean that EVERY guy who is 6'6" to 6'8" and jumps out the gym, will be as good WITH THE BALL as Michael. And that is not proportional to athleticism.. it's not correlated. Not every guy who is 6'6" and can jump will hit insane shots under pressure. Most won't.

So, then here comes Steph Curry. Not an athlete. Not unathletic to the almost laughable levels of Larry Bird, and a quick player, but not a thoroughbred. You don't look at him AT ALL and say, "his combination of size and explosiveness!"

But, he's SO GREAT with the ball, that he may end up a top ten player all time. He's got to survive two things..

1. If he plays a team or a group of teams who can make him be an athlete… I don't see that team right now.

2. If he and the Warriors can still do what they do when those not in the core leave and are not replaced with the same level player.

Look at what Steph Curry is doing with athleticism that is above average. That brings me to…

Lebron James

He has his two rings, but when we look at those "what happened" moments like the 2011 Finals, I think the answer to figuring out what has happened is..

well, one, going to the Cavs was a horrific mistake

But two

I think people have always assumed, "oh, even a scarier combo of size and explosiveness than Michael Jordan (mostly size)…

I mean obviously he's going to handle the ball the same way."

But he doesn't. He doesn't hit the huge shot with two guys in his face nearly often enough to be the GOAT. He doesn't have nearly enough F you moments. He isn't hit shot after shot as you feel the pressure he's putting on you take on almost a life of its own.

Go back and watch the third quarter of game 2 of the 1991 Finals. That doesn't exist for Lebron James.

To me, the gift of Steph Curry is that he shows us all how great you can be in this game if you can do great things with the ball.

And whether or not you can do great things with the ball says everything about how it is that we look at the unbelievable talent of Lebron James and wonder how the F, like Wilt Chamberlain, he only has two championships.

Scoots
04-16-2016, 02:01 PM
So, was that sort of a long way of saying LeBron isn't the best?

Jordan was the best athlete and he had the manic drive to be the best.

From another sport Jerry Rice is another Larry Bird type. Didn't have the measurables, he just worked his butt off and was driven to be great.

ewing
04-16-2016, 02:50 PM
Larry Bird was a great athlete.

Scoots
04-16-2016, 03:39 PM
Larry Bird was a great athlete.

Most people when talking about "athlete" are talking about running speed and jump height. They don't include the kind of endurance and fine motor control Bird had.

ewing
04-16-2016, 06:16 PM
Most people when talking about "athlete" are talking about running speed and jump height. They don't include the kind of endurance and fine motor control Bird had.

b/c they are dumb. He had great natural gifts. He was 6'10 strong enough to get 10 bounds a night, agile enough to lead the break, incredible eyes, amazing hands, natural touch, used both hands like they were his lead hand. Bird naturally had a leg up, that doesn't mean he would have been Larry Bird without a ton of work and drive but he wasn't all work. He was a great athlete

IBleedPurple
04-16-2016, 06:21 PM
b/c they are dumb. He had great natural gifts. He was 6'10 strong enough to get 10 bounds a night, agile enough to lead the break, incredible eyes, amazing hands, natural touch, used both hands like they were his lead hand. Bird naturally had a leg up, that doesn't mean he would have been Larry Bird without a ton of work and drive but he wasn't all work. He was a great athleteThis.

Many great "athletes" as many people say, were far from one of the best in their sport.

Scoots
04-16-2016, 06:37 PM
b/c they are dumb. He had great natural gifts. He was 6'10 strong enough to get 10 bounds a night, agile enough to lead the break, incredible eyes, amazing hands, natural touch, used both hands like they were his lead hand. Bird naturally had a leg up, that doesn't mean he would have been Larry Bird without a ton of work and drive but he wasn't all work. He was a great athlete

As usual it all comes down to definitions, and how can you debate the case if your definitions are different.

Curry is an incredible athlete too. So was Tiger Woods. But they can't run faster than everyone else or jump higher so they are not great athletes.

FlashBolt
04-16-2016, 10:10 PM
Being athletic is different from being a great athlete... just letting you know, Mr. Scoots. You seem to have trouble comprehending a very simple concept. Nate Robinson is a very athletic but in terms of being an athlete (which is an evaluation of their total skillset), he isn't great.

IBleedPurple
04-16-2016, 10:15 PM
As usual it all comes down to definitions, and how can you debate the case if your definitions are different.

Curry is an incredible athlete too. So was Tiger Woods. But they can't run faster than everyone else or jump higher so they are not great athletes.Tiger is a terrible comparison fwiw.

joedaheights
04-17-2016, 02:40 AM
b/c they are dumb. He had great natural gifts. He was 6'10 strong enough to get 10 bounds a night, agile enough to lead the break, incredible eyes, amazing hands, natural touch, used both hands like they were his lead hand. Bird naturally had a leg up, that doesn't mean he would have been Larry Bird without a ton of work and drive but he wasn't all work. He was a great athlete

You're not talking about athleticism lunchbox. You're talking about all of the other things involving coordination and skill that are the second half of what I'm talking about.

Larry Bird was no doubt a great player. I believe that more than almost anyone. You'd never measure combination of size and explosiveness as a leaper and in terms of foot speed between Bird and Michael Jordan and think you were on the same planet.

And someone can say, "a lot of guys who were athletic weren't great athletes." Um, when you look at the top 10 list all time, you're not comparing Larry Bird to Eddie Robinson. You're comparing him to guys who are great athletes AND can play.

I do think a non thoroughbred athlete can only go so far; probably about as far as Bird went. But, you win enough while putting up the numbers and you never know.

I do think all of the skill things you pointed out explain Lebron James. There's a certain point where his skill must come from coordination more than from being this insane specimen, and I don't see him possessing that sufficient to do the things he needs to do to be the best. And that is NOT me calling Lebron "not skilled." Just not particularly skilled relative to guys who were great in that regard.

Scoots
04-17-2016, 02:49 AM
Being athletic is different from being a great athlete... just letting you know, Mr. Scoots. You seem to have trouble comprehending a very simple concept. Nate Robinson is a very athletic but in terms of being an athlete (which is an evaluation of their total skillset), he isn't great.

I was talking about the different ways people talk about "athletic" ... just read this thread and you'll see there is no consensus.

Scoots
04-17-2016, 02:50 AM
Tiger is a terrible comparison fwiw.

At his peak his fine control of all of his muscle groups were at the highest level, which was my point.

blahblahyoutoo
04-17-2016, 04:14 PM
jordan wasn't that great of a ball handler. he carried a lot and you could tell his dribbling skills weren't exceptional.
if curry is a 10 at ball handling, jordan is a 6.

JPS
04-17-2016, 05:02 PM
jordan wasn't that great of a ball handler. he carried a lot and you could tell his dribbling skills weren't exceptional.
if curry is a 10 at ball handling, jordan is a 6.

No

ewing
04-17-2016, 05:39 PM
this thread is full of dumb

joedaheights
04-18-2016, 11:05 PM
jordan wasn't that great of a ball handler. he carried a lot and you could tell his dribbling skills weren't exceptional.
if curry is a 10 at ball handling, jordan is a 6.

This says average like nothing else can…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDESGrXI8jE

So, I just want to make sure.. you're down for a straight up comparison of Michael and Steph Curry? You think he's that great? I want to know because what I want from you is the same thing I asked Kobe and Lebron fans for.. some of whom obliged. Just promise that when reality and the test of time catch up to Curry the same way it SHUT UP the mouths of Kobe and Lebron fans, you won't disappear only to be replaced your "cousin" shahshahyoutoo, who, ironically, seems to have all of your opinions, but claims that you'd never say such a ridiculous thing, and that that was someone else.

That's all I ask…

And, I guess your handles don't have to be all time (even though MJ's were), when you're 6'6" with an insane first step and the ability to jump out of the gym.

joedaheights
04-18-2016, 11:11 PM
this thread is full of dumb

Elaborate please

FlashBolt
04-18-2016, 11:15 PM
Jordan's ballhandling wasn't great. It was good enough for him because he had huge hands and thus, total control of the ball. The game back then didn't really require exceptional and flashy ballhandling. Whereas Kobe may have to dribble, between the legs, dribble, dribble, and more dribbling to catch the opponent offguard, the lack of zone defense really didn't give Jordan a reason to have to be an amazing ball handler.

t_money25
04-19-2016, 12:05 AM
Jordan was an above average ball handler. Was he a wizard with the ball? No. He didn't have to be and no one really was during that era. Allen Iverson was one of the first players during that era who even cared to put on a dribbling show.

blahblahyoutoo
04-19-2016, 08:23 PM
lol n-word plz. first highlight in your video, jordan takes one dribble. amazing stuff indeed.
look, no one is arguing that MJ had a quick first step, or great foot work, but he does not make the ball react like a yoyo like how curry does.

curry shows more dribbling skills in this highlight (not the one where he got chris paul to bite on a pump fake, but the 2nd one), than that MJ entire clip.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhHNRnNSS5k




This says average like nothing else can…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDESGrXI8jE

So, I just want to make sure.. you're down for a straight up comparison of Michael and Steph Curry? You think he's that great? I want to know because what I want from you is the same thing I asked Kobe and Lebron fans for.. some of whom obliged. Just promise that when reality and the test of time catch up to Curry the same way it SHUT UP the mouths of Kobe and Lebron fans, you won't disappear only to be replaced your "cousin" shahshahyoutoo, who, ironically, seems to have all of your opinions, but claims that you'd never say such a ridiculous thing, and that that was someone else.

That's all I ask…

And, I guess your handles don't have to be all time (even though MJ's were), when you're 6'6" with an insane first step and the ability to jump out of the gym.

ewing
04-19-2016, 10:36 PM
lol n-word plz. first highlight in your video, jordan takes one dribble. amazing stuff indeed.
look, no one is arguing that MJ had a quick first step, or great foot work, but he does not make the ball react like a yoyo like how curry does.

curry shows more dribbling skills in this highlight (not the one where he got chris paul to bite on a pump fake, but the 2nd one), than that MJ entire clip.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhHNRnNSS5k


its about the fundamentals.

joedaheights
04-23-2016, 12:02 AM
Jordan's ballhandling wasn't great. It was good enough for him because he had huge hands and thus, total control of the ball. The game back then didn't really require exceptional and flashy ballhandling. Whereas Kobe may have to dribble, between the legs, dribble, dribble, and more dribbling to catch the opponent offguard, the lack of zone defense really didn't give Jordan a reason to have to be an amazing ball handler.

That's like saying "Shaq's footwork was not as smooth as Hakeem." Does it matter when three kings are trying to grab him around the neck and he's buggy whipping a dunk home?

The point appears to be "Jordan was such a dominant athlete that he got the result without dribble dancing."

Here's what I want you clowns to answer because I've been through this dance before with Kobe fans or lebron fans...

IS CURRY BETTER THAN JORDAN? Not on a deeper team, not better at two things... Better overall. So then, when the test of time pistol whips Curry the way that the 04,08 and 11 finals exposed lebron and Kobe, I won't have to hear, "who said he was better. I made a bunch of arguments that basically makes it so that is the only logical conclusion one could make assuming they agreed with me, but I never said those words."

joedaheights
04-23-2016, 12:12 AM
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TkO0b8S_lKY

20:50 - breaking news; man without handles splits defenders with behind the back dribble.

Hey guys, by the way, can curry dunk?

europagnpilgrim
04-23-2016, 12:53 AM
As I was watching Curry break the record the other day, I went back to years and years of guys coming along, the hype, the results, and I found this interesting.

Isn't it interesting that Larry Bird sticks out at you in any top ten all time list. Here's mine…

Michael Jordan
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Magic Johnson
Bill Russell
Larry Bird
Tim Duncan
Shaquille O'neal
Lebron James
Wilt Chamberlain
Kobe Bryant

You can debate lists all day, that's not the point, the point is.. in almost any sane person's list, Larry Bird will be there.. and I look at that list and say, "wait, isn't there just one guy who is almost laughably worse as an actual athlete than all the other guys???"

If you didn't know anything about basketball and had those ten guys do track and field stuff all day, you'd be laughing at Larry Bird. Definitely not an athlete, at all…

BUT, he showed what you could do as a complete non-athlete even, if you have WIZARDRY and great handling of the ball. Guy can't jump for **** and yet 3 rings, multiple MVPs top ten player..

Then, Michael comes along.. and ends up being as great as he was because here's a guy who is all of those things athletically, and yet is a wizard with the ball… can make the great pass, hit the big shot, handle the ball.

But he launched a terrible assumption…

"Hey, this must mean that EVERY guy who is 6'6" to 6'8" and jumps out the gym, will be as good WITH THE BALL as Michael. And that is not proportional to athleticism.. it's not correlated. Not every guy who is 6'6" and can jump will hit insane shots under pressure. Most won't.

So, then here comes Steph Curry. Not an athlete. Not unathletic to the almost laughable levels of Larry Bird, and a quick player, but not a thoroughbred. You don't look at him AT ALL and say, "his combination of size and explosiveness!"

But, he's SO GREAT with the ball, that he may end up a top ten player all time. He's got to survive two things..

1. If he plays a team or a group of teams who can make him be an athlete… I don't see that team right now.

2. If he and the Warriors can still do what they do when those not in the core leave and are not replaced with the same level player.

Look at what Steph Curry is doing with athleticism that is above average. That brings me to…

Lebron James

He has his two rings, but when we look at those "what happened" moments like the 2011 Finals, I think the answer to figuring out what has happened is..

well, one, going to the Cavs was a horrific mistake

But two

I think people have always assumed, "oh, even a scarier combo of size and explosiveness than Michael Jordan (mostly size)…

I mean obviously he's going to handle the ball the same way."

But he doesn't. He doesn't hit the huge shot with two guys in his face nearly often enough to be the GOAT. He doesn't have nearly enough F you moments. He isn't hit shot after shot as you feel the pressure he's putting on you take on almost a life of its own.

Go back and watch the third quarter of game 2 of the 1991 Finals. That doesn't exist for Lebron James.

To me, the gift of Steph Curry is that he shows us all how great you can be in this game if you can do great things with the ball.

And whether or not you can do great things with the ball says everything about how it is that we look at the unbelievable talent of Lebron James and wonder how the F, like Wilt Chamberlain, he only has two championships.

Larry Bird is exactly what Dennis Rodman said in that actual factual quote back when they use to go at it, nothing more nor less

Lights out shooter who could trash talk with the best of'em, and competed hard, exactly like The Worm stated, couldn't have been said any better by any other player in history of the game

The Big Dipper went against the best most dominant dynasty in all of sports history, Celtics won 8 straight titles and he was the one to dethrone that team when he had better support, now imagine Dipper being drafted by the Celtics or Lakers right off top, he would own the NBA and probably be the actual nba logo

nobody was/is like the Big Dipper, not even close as a solo act

he dislocated the Lebron of his era(G Johnson) shoulder from blocking his shot, blocked 25 shots in multiple games and before Jordan/Curry had the most wins by a team 2x, 2 different teams

Russell has 11 rings so he trumps everybody as the GOAT if you want to dismiss Lebron/Dipper as only having 2, he damn near double Jordan ring total and mostly everyone and they mama and daddy got him ranked as the so called GOAT, so that ship criteria is very weak, ounce of water type weight

joedaheights
04-23-2016, 04:27 AM
Larry Bird is exactly what Dennis Rodman said in that actual factual quote back when they use to go at it, nothing more nor less

Lights out shooter who could trash talk with the best of'em, and competed hard, exactly like The Worm stated, couldn't have been said any better by any other player in history of the game

The Big Dipper went against the best most dominant dynasty in all of sports history, Celtics won 8 straight titles and he was the one to dethrone that team when he had better support, now imagine Dipper being drafted by the Celtics or Lakers right off top, he would own the NBA and probably be the actual nba logo

nobody was/is like the Big Dipper, not even close as a solo act

he dislocated the Lebron of his era(G Johnson) shoulder from blocking his shot, blocked 25 shots in multiple games and before Jordan/Curry had the most wins by a team 2x, 2 different teams

Russell has 11 rings so he trumps everybody as the GOAT if you want to dismiss Lebron/Dipper as only having 2, he damn near double Jordan ring total and mostly everyone and they mama and daddy got him ranked as the so called GOAT, so that ship criteria is very weak, ounce of water type weight

Russell won 11 rings in an era with far less talent. Only by the mid sixties were you seeing legit centers other than wilt or Russell. Try to keep in mind that in Russell's era the second biggest player on most starting lineups was not much bigger than Scottie pippen if that big.

Then keep this in mind ... Russell averaged 14 PPG on 44%... Not a statistical offensive juggernaut at all. You don't need to give Michael Jordan three top flight scorers. One other star, a bunch of guys who D up and hit open shots he creates, boom, that's it.

What guys like you have to face is the fact that is Jordan had 20 rings and only averaged 14 PPG on 44%, you'd be losing your damn mind ... Conversely, if he averaged 90 PPG on 99% FG and won only two rings... Again, you'd be having a seizure.

Russell has 11 rings and meh offensive stats. Wilt had the stats but 2 rings.

Jordan had the most of the best of both that you've ever seen in one guy, before or since.

As for your thoughts on wilt... It sounds great till you find out about the 69 and 70 finals
... Where, each time his team went in as heavy favorites only to lose

joedaheights
04-23-2016, 04:45 AM
"If you're wondering how Wilt was regarded around the league, here's the ultimate story: when San Fran shopped him in 65, the lakers were intrigued enough that owner Bob short asked his players to vote on whether or not he should purchase Chamberlain's contract. The results of the vote? Nine to two ... Against!"