lefty
11-15-2011, 11:25 AM
Dont get too excited, Laker fans
Jordan still shits on Kobe :lmao
Found this page and thought it was interesting; I don't agree on averything, but it's a good debate starter
Michael Jordan - NOT the best ever!!!
The sister page to the Exposers of jordon's Foolishness Page (http://airjudden2.tripod.com/ejf/index.htm)
http://fastcounter.bcentral.com/fastcounter?1691321+3382649 (http://member.bcentral.com/cgi-bin/fc/fastcounter-login?1691321)
FastCounter by bcentral (http://fastcounter.bcentral.com/fc-join)
Michael Jordan is one of the greatest basketball players in the history of the NBA. He is in the elite class of players who dominate the game. He had many great traits that I do not need to expound on.
However, with that said, he's not the best player in NBA history. Many media types, who are into hype and usually never seen anyone play from past eras, sing Jordan's praises and say he is the best ever - without question. If you do question it, I find that Jordan fanatics act like you've committed blaspheme.
I am here to step on toes, if need be. Jordan is not the best and this webpage explains why.
What I require from you is to explain what criteria you use for comparing two players. How do you compare Patrick Ewing vs. Hakeem Olajuwon? Isiah Thomas vs. John Stockton? Larry Bird vs. Magic Johnson? Wilt Chamberlain vs. Bill Russell? Allen Iverson vs. Vince Carter? Kevin Garnett vs. Shaq? If you have a consistent method for determining which 2 players are better, then I will prove to you that Jordan is not the best.
If you say, "Bill Russell is better than Wilt because he won more championships" then that means you believe Isiah Thomas is better than John Stockton (2 championships to none) . If you back peddle and say Stockton is better because he had better career numbers, then you have just exposed your duplicity. You have no method for comparing players. You just make up any excuse to pick a player you like, and your double-standard is a joke. I often find Celtics fans say Russell is better than Chamberlain because of championships, but at the same time, they will not admit Magic Johnson is better than Larry Bird, based on the same criteria. These people do not have educated opinions. They are just fans trying to hype their favorite players. If you are one of these people, go away. I only want to talk basketball with intelligent fans.
With that said, think about your criteria for comparing players. I list mine on this site. If you determine yours, you will see that Jordan is not the best. The only criteria that puts Jordan #1 is endorsements and popularity. If this is your criteria for comparing players, then please leave. I have no time to discuss basketball with Inside Stuff-watching fanboys.
This site is not a forum to argue about if Bill Russell is better than Magic Johnson or Oscar Robertson is better or worse than Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. I respect arguments comparing these guys. They are all elite players, on the same level of Jordan, and have a good argument for being the best player ever. What I DO know is that no player - not Wilt, Russell, Magic, Jordan, etc has an outright claim to being the best basketball player ever, and that is why this site serves only one purpose -- to prove that whatever you think about Michael Jordan's place in basketball history, it is NOT at the very top.
If you disagree, that is your choice, but please have a well-defined reason as to why Jordan is the best ever. As you will see, for Jordan, there is no standard. His claim to the best ever is based on popularity, media-hype, and endorsements, with a few weak arguments thrown in for good measure. This page will systematically tear down these popular weak arguments given for Jordan's supposed dominance, as well as expose the myths created by the media.
Did Jordan make those around him better?
To this, the answer is an emphatic "NO!"
One theory was that Jordan drew so much defensive attention that his teammates got to take wide open shots and benefited from Jordan. It sounds good on paper, but wasn't true in reality. Jordan played in 1993 and retired in 1994. Nine players played on these two teams, and these 9 players, as a whole, shot a higher percentage without Jordan than they did with Jordan, even though the defenses were focusing on them. This was not a fluke. this occurred over the course of 164 games. That is enough to determine a trend.
Furthermore, this was proven again in 2001, when Jordan joined Washington. Jordan missed a lot of games due to injury, and The Sporting News commented on their surprise that the Wizards shot better in games in which Jordan did not play. This is no surprise. This is a trend.
Why?
Guys like Oscar Robertson, Jason Kidd, Larry Bird, and Magic Johnson all wanted their team to take the best shot each time down the floor. They had no problems passing the ball to a teammate who had a better shot. That is why their teammates shot such a higher percentage when they played with these guys. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar once said that Magic Johnson knows where your best shot is, even if you do not, and Magic throws the ball in such a way that if you hustle, you will find the ball in your hands for an easy shot that you didn't know was there. That is called "setting up a teammate."
In Jordan's case, he did not have this mentality. Jordan once said, "I thought of myself first, the team second. I always wanted my teams to be successful. But I wanted to be the main cause." He wanted to be the center of the spotlight. He was selfish to the core. He only wanted to win if it brought praise to him. In his mind, HE had the best shot most of the times down the floor. One time, Bill Cartwright chastised Jordan for not giving up the ball while he was double-teamed. Jordan responded with "but one of the two players was Fred Roberts!" It didn't matter if there was an open teammate, because Jordan thought taking a shot over two guys was better than somebody else taking an uncontested shot.
Doug Collins tried to put Jordan at the point guard in 1989. The idea was that Jordan was such a tremendous penetrator, that he could break down a defense and hit the open man or score. Jordan responded with 11 triple doubles in his first 13 games. However, he was often found going to the scorers' table to check to see how many rebounds or assists he needed to get a triple-double. He played for stats. Doug Collins later said, "Do you know who's the biggest obstacle to us running? Michael Jordan, that's who. He won't let go of the ball."
This selfishness resulted in players standing around and watching Jordan, or Jordan not passing to the open guy with the best shot. Without Jordan, the teams flowed into their offense and found the open man. That is why they consistently shoot better when Jordan doesn't play. Jordan simply does not make his teammates better.
Furthermore, I issued this challenge on Usenet: Name one player whose career was enhanced by Jordan. I never received a serious challenge. Let’s look at some of the candidates.
Scottie Pippen – The press love to sing long songs about Jordan made Pippen. However, their songs are missing a few verses. For example. Why did Pippen have his finest seasons without Jordan? In 1994, Pippen averaged 22 ppg, 8.7 rpg, and 5.6 apg. In 1995, Pippen became only the second player in history (Dave Cowens was the first) to lead his team in points, rebounds, assists, blocks, and steals. How could he do this without Jordan to make him better?
Furthermore, when deciding to retire, Jordan said over and over that he would not play without Pippen. While recovering from foot
"Why did [Scottie] Pippen have his finest seasons when Jordan was playing baseball?" surgery in December of 1997, Pippen said that he was not going to play with the Bulls when he was fully recovered. Jordan said that if he had known this, he would not have come back. Why? If Jordan makes everyone so much better, why not fill in Scott Burrell into Pippen’s position (or Toni Kukoc, for that matter), and make another Pippen? Answer: Jordan didn’t make Pippen. Pippen made Pippen. Without Jordan, he is still the dominating defensive player, and he continues to be a complete player. The typical Jordan fan will respond with "how many championships did Pippen win without Jordan?" The answer is zero. Likewise, how many championships did Jordan win without Pippen? Zero. Comparing these two players apart from each is very unfavorable for Jordan. Pippen had a better career record and a better post-season record than Jordan. Pippen's only losing season was his final year in the NBA, when he missed much of the season due to injury and was in a veteran leadership role for the young re-building Bulls. That was the only time in Pippen's career he had a losing record and the only time he missed the playoffs. Jordan played 5 seasons without Pippen. Out of those 5 seasons, he posted 5 losing records, missed the playoffs twice, and was 1-9 in the playoffs.
Think about it: Jordan never had a winning record apart from Pippen. Pippen played on many playoff teams in Portland and Houston without Jordan.
It makes you wonder who made who a better ball player, or at least who was the most valuable player to the win-loss column.
Dennis Rodman – Rodman had established himself LONG before playing with Jordan. His defensive reputation was made in Detroit, where he was voted the Defensive Player of the Year in 1990 and 91. His rebounding ability was established in Detroit, also, where he won the first of his seven consecutive rebounding titles (4 without Jordan), and his reputation as a winner was established in Detroit, where he won two titles – both times defeating Jordan’s Bulls.
"Rodman established his rebounding and winning ways in Detroit, when he beat Jordan twice on the way to the championship."
"If 7 points and 5 rebounds per game is your shining example ofJordan making someone better, than Jordan sucked at improving those around him."
Luc Longley – Put simply, Longley was a bad player before he joined the Bulls. He was a bad player when he played with the Bulls, and he was a bad player after he left the Bulls. Nobody has questioned Jason Kidd’s ability to improve his teammates, and even he hasn’t been able to coax out respectable play from Longley. If seven points and 5 rebounds is what you want out of your center, then Longley is your man, but you don’t need Jordan to get this out of him. If 7 points and 5 rebounds per game is your shining example of Jordan making someone better, than Jordan sucked at improving those around him. He improved Longley from a laughable joke to a mildly amusing joke. Wow!
John Paxson – This is the guy that most Jordan fans bring up. Paxson was on the perfect team in Chicago (perhaps the only team he could get significant minutes with), but his career blossomed because of Scottie Pippen, not Jordan. Let me explain: Jordan could not play well with classic "drive-and-dish" style points. He disliked playing with Sam Vincent and Steve Colter for this very reason. The reason why was because they were in the lane too much, and Jordan wanted to be the one to drive to the basket. The logical choice would be to have Jordan play the point guard and have a spot-up shooter in the shooting guard slot. However, according to Phil Jackson, Jordan lacked the passing skills to play the point guard and he hogged the ball too much. No one really doubts Jackson's knowledge of the game.
"Jordan lacked the skills to play point guard and didn't like playing with guards who played the classic point guard role. That means in order for Jordan to play with a spot-up shooter, one of the forwards would have to play the point. Guess who that was?" Because Jordan cannot co-exist with a typical point guard and can't play it himself, that means somebody else has to bring up the ball and be the point man. Guess who that was? Scottie Pippen. Pippen was a rare breed in that he was a forward who could handle point duties. That short list consists of Larry Bird, Paul Pressey, Grant Hill, and Pippen. In his book "Sacred Hoops", Jackson lauds Pippen for his ability to run the offense and figure out who is hot and cold and how many shots a player needs and how frequently to stay in his rhythm. These were things that Jordan could not do, because he only cared about his own shots.
Because Pippen could play the point, that allowed Paxson to play alongside of Jordan, even though he lacked all point guard skills. This means that Jordan did not make Paxson a better player. Pippen did. If not for Pippen, Paxson couldn't have cracked the line-up.
Just incase you doubt me, and you think you know more than Phil Jackson, ask yourself: how come Chicago with Jordan was the only team at that time NOT to have a point guard? Think about it. When Jordan retired, B.J. Armstrong played a classic point guard role and made his only all-star appearance. When Jordan came back from retirement, the Bulls let Armstrong go in the expansion draft and replaced him with Ron Harper, another 2-guard. Who else teamed up with Jordan in the back court? Craig Hodges, Steve Kerr, Randy Brown, and Jud Buechler. None of these guys could be confused with a point guard.
Steve Kerr – See John Paxson. This is the exact same case, as Kerr was a Paxson-clone. In 1993, the year before Jordan retired, Kerr was the 12th man on draft lottery-bound Orlando. The next year, he joined the Jordan-less Bulls and had his finest season ever. How could he do this if Jordan made him better? Furthermore, Kerr had established himself as one the top 3 point shooter in history and set a record for best 3 point shooting percentage (from 23'9") in a season (1989-90). Considering this, and how he filled in for Mark Price when Price was injured in Cleveland, I ask: what did Jordan do differently for his career? Kerr's game was exactly the same before he joined Chicago. When he joined Chicago, he had his best year, while Jordan was playing baseball,
"Like Paxson, Kerr blossomed because of Pippen's ability to play the point, allowing the Bulls to play 2 non-point guards. That is why Kerr had his finest seasons in Chicago when Jordan was playing baseball." and like Paxson, Kerr got more minutes because of Pippen's ability to play the point role, since Kerr was not a true point guard.
Washington Wizards – Then, there are the Wizards... if Jordan made those around him better, why couldn't he do this with Larry Hughes, Jerry Stackhouse, and ESPECIALLY Kwame Brown? You should know the answer by now.
1994 and 1995
Jordan's Teammates prove their worth
As part of the Jordan legend, he supposedly "willed teams to victory" and took marginal players on his shoulders, and through his 4th quarter heroics, he would help these average players win championships. This is not legend, it is myth. Jordan did have a lot of 4th quarter heroics. That is indisputable. However, his teammates were very good and that is why the Bulls won titles. Wilt Chamberlain dominated far more than Jordan did, but Wilt proved that one man could not win a title. Only when he got teammates around him did he win titles. The same is true of Jordan, only more so, since Jordan wasn't as dominating as Chamberlain, he needed even MORE help in order to win a title.
1994 and 1995 are key years during the Jordan years. These two years are central in proving that Jordan was not as valuable to his team as the his peers in the elite class of basketball players were to their teams. If he is not as valuable, how can he be the greatest player of all-time? These two seasons will debunk a series of Jordan-based myths:
Jordan carried the team to 6 championships
Jordan made those around him better
Jordan was the most valuable player ever.
Jordan retired in October of 1993. The critics predicted gloom and doom for the Bulls. (I was one of these critics). Some even declared that without Jordan, the Bulls wouldn't even make the playoffs. After all, Jordan supposedly carried those stiffs to three titles, right? Because Jordan waited so late to retire, the Bulls were not able to pick up an adequate starter in free agency. They settled with Pete Myers from the CBA. They were set up to fail. Myers had a defensive reputation, but no where near that of Jordan, who had been named first-team all-defense 6 times and won the defensive player of the year award. Furthermore, Myeres hadn't even played in the NBA for the last two years, and he never averaged more than 5 points per game. How can you replace Jordan's 32 ppg and all-world defense with this guy? The Bulls were set up to fail. These predictions were also made - and all of them were reasonable assumptions, as you will see.
The Bulls would be a much worse team without Jordan. They would probably slip at least 15 games.
If Jordan would come back, the Bulls would automatically win the title.
Scottie Pippen and Horace Grant would probably score more points, but they would shoot much worse, as defenses focused on them.
The Bulls would shoot much worse without Jordan.
Assumption 1: The Bulls would be a much worse team without Jordan. They would probably slip at least 15 games.
The first assumption was declared by nearly everybody. Even Bulls coach Phil Jackson predicted a 15-game slip in his autobiography, Sacred Hoops. He based this upon the retirement of superstars from the past. Replacing Jordan with Myers should have been detrimental. However, the Bulls only slipped 2 games: from 57-25 with Jordan in 1993 to 55-27 in 1994. How could this be? They should have fallen apart. The answer is that Jordan simply wasn't as instrumental in taking the Bulls to another level as thought. I'm not saying they could win a title without him. He did make them marginally better, but not significantly better. Look at Jordan's elite peers: if you replace Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar or Bill Russell with a C.B.A. center, do you expect a 2-game drop? No way. If you replace Larry Bird, Oscar Robertson, or Magic Johnson with a C.B.A. player, do you expect a 2-game drop? Think again.
Why did Phil Jackson predict a 15-game drop? Because he knew the impact that elite players had on their teams. Look at the table below and ask yourself why Jordan's impact was so minimal?
Year before losing player Year after losing player Team Player Regular season Playoffs Regular Season Difference
(# of wins) Playoffs 1969 Celtics Bill Russell 48-34 Championship 34-48 -14 Missed playoffs 1973 Lakers Wilt
Chamberlain 60-22 NBA Finals 47-35 -13 Lost in first round
1-4 1974 Bucks Oscar
Robertson 59-23 NBA Finals 38-44 -21 Missed playoffs 1988 Celtics Larry Bird 57-25 Conference
Finals 42-40 -15 Lost in first round
0-3 1991 Lakers Magic
Johnson 58-24 NBA Finals 43-39 -15 Lost in first round
1-3 1993 Bulls Michael
Jordan 57-25 Championship 55-27 -2 Lost in 2nd round 3-4 To make matters worse, the Bulls lost in the 2nd round of the playoffs to the Knicks in 7 games. In Game 5, Scottie Pippen received one of the most unfavorable calls in playoff history by referee Hue Hollins when he was called for a foul on Knicks' rookie Hubert Davis, that allowed Davis to go to the line and win the game. If you are a real Bulls fan, you'll remember the call. I was cheering for the Knicks in that series, and even I admitted the Bulls got hosed. The Bulls should have won that series. I believe that would have defeated Indiana in the finals. They owned them in the regular season and the Knicks handled the Pacers. I don't think they had any chance of beating the Rockets in the finals without Jordan, but I do believe they could have got there without Jordan. It's all speculating, but it's not unreasonable speculation.
Assumption 2: If Jordan would come back, the Bulls would automatically win the title.
This assumption were declared by those in 1995 who said, "the Bulls didn't win the title in 1994, did they?" While Jordan fans claim that he and he alone was single-handedly responsible for the title, they conveniently neglect 1995. Jordan did come back that season. However, the Bulls didn't have Horace Grant (and Dennis Rodman would not join until the next season). Without Grant, their rebounding and interior defense deficiencies were exposed by the Orlando Magic (Horace Grant's team, ironically), and the Bulls lost in the second round 2-4. As you can see in the table above, the previous year, without Jordan, they lost 3-4 in the 2nd round. Now if Jordan were single-handedly responsible for those titles, why did they do even worse in the playoffs after he returned than they did the year before, when they didn't have him?
How was Orlando able to defeat the Bulls with Jordan in 1995? The answer lies with Horace Grant. He was the key to Johnny Bach's (Bulls assistant coach) "Doberman Defense", as it was called. The trapping defense the Bulls rode to three titles. Grant could trap a player and he was quick enough to fall back and get the rebound. When Jordan retired, the Bulls continued playing their defense and Myers filled in Jordan's role. In 1995, Grant left for Orlando and Chicago was left without a strong interior defender and rebounder. The trapping defense also gone. Bach moved onto Charlotte and the Bulls didn't have a power forward that could make it work. Dickey Simpkins and Corie Blount were not acceptable alternatives. They soft underbelly was exposed, and as anybody knows, you can't win without defense and rebounding. Phil Jackson was so desperate that he even tried Toni Kukoc there, hoping to stretch the defense with Kukoc's shooting, and increase ball movement on offense, but it wasn't enough to overcome their defense and rebounding woes. Jordan did not fill this weakness, and Shaquille O'Neal and Horace Grant were able to expose Chicago and defeat them in the playoffs, and disprove Jordan's "mythical ability to elevate his team to championships."
Jordan fanatics claim he had court rust. Whatever. Jordan played 17 games that season. In 1986, Jordan played 18 games, coming off of a foot surgery. In the 1986 playoffs Jordan scored a playoff-record 63 points. Why was Jordan able to shake the court rust in 1986 and not in 1995? Answer: he shook his court rust. He dropped in the "double-nickel" (55 point game) on the defending eastern champs that season. If Jordan had court rust, he wouldn't be putting in 55 on John Starks. His game wasn't up to 100%, but it wasn't so far off as to make a difference in a championship and a defeat in the 2nd round of the playoffs.
Furthermore, Jordan fanatics claim the next year, he shook his supposed court rust and led the Bulls to 72 wins. These people are basketball illiterate. If this were true, why weren't the Bulls winning 72 games in 1991, 92, and 93? Jordan didn't have any court rust then. The reason the Bulls improved was because they filled their weakness with the best player in the NBA FOR that weakness: Dennis Rodman. They lacked rebounding from the power forward spot, so they brought on the greatest rebounding forward in history. They lacked interior defense, so they brought in a 2-time defensive player of the year in Rodman. He was the perfect fit. Grant was a very good player, and he and Jordan's 1992 Bulls won 67 games. But Rodman is better than Grant. Connect the dots. The reason that team improved so much was because of Rodman. Without Grant or Rodman, Jordan simply could not win a championship, because Jordan could not provide interior defense and rebounding. After all, the team really didn't miss him that badly when he retired.
I have asked Jordan fans to explain over and over why the Bulls only slipped 2 games when they replaced Jordan with Pete Myers. To this day, not a SINGLE ONE, has been able to offer an explanation. The answer is obvious, they just don't want to admit it. Jordan was a great individual player, but he was not as valuable of a TEAM player as those peers of his in the elite category of basketball players.
Assumption 3: Scottie Pippen and Horace Grant would probably score more points, but they would shoot much worse, as defenses focused on them.
The third assumption was that Scottie Pippen and Horace Grant would probably score more points, but they would shoot much worse, as defenses focused on them. This appears to be a logical assumption. However, the logic is clearly seen when the hype is peeled away.
1992-93 (w/ Jordan) 1993-94 (w/o Jordan) Name PPG FG% PPG FG% Scottie Pippen 18.6 47.3 22.0 49.1 Horace Grant 13.2 50.8 15.1 52.4
Assumption 4: The Bulls would shoot much worse without Jordan.
The fourth assumption is that the Bulls would shoot much worse without Jordan than with him. That is because conventional wisdom says that a player of Jordan’s ability requires extra defensive attention, and that creates open shots for teammates.
In addition to this, the shooting percentage of the league has declined every year since 1989, so it is only logical to assume that even with Jordan, the shooting percentage of the team would decline, and without him it would greatly decline, correct? Not surprisingly, the Bulls' opponents shot worse (fg% and PPG) in 1994 (no Jordan) than in 1993 (with Jordan). I doubt that Pete Myers was a better defender than Jordan, so this fact only further proves the trend that I just mentioned - teams shot worse each season.
Well, the Bulls, as an entire team, DID shoot worse. That is because Jordan’s field goal percentage was taken out, and his position was replaced by CBA journeyman Pete Myers, who was known for defense (in other words, a terrible shooter). Furthermore, Toni Kukoc was a poor shooting rookie in 1994 (.431 from the floor and .271 from 3-point range).
When you factor this out, you find that there were nine players who played with Jordan in 1993 and without him 1994, you see that they actually shot BETTER without Jordan (48.6%) than they did with him (48.2%). As I showed previously, this was also true of the top 2 scorers (Pippen and Grant). In contrast, the 1992 Lakers and the 1989 Celtics saw nearly everyone on the team fall in fg% and ppg, due to the absence of Magic Johnson and Larry Bird, respectively. This difference may not seem like much, but remember, Jordan is SUPPOSED to make life easier for teammates, not harder. And the trend in the league was decreased fg% every year. How could this be?
The short answer is that players like Jordan (ballhogs) do not make those around them better. Jordan has always been more interested in scoring his points than in helping his team - he practically said so himself. If you wan want the long detailed answer, click here (http://airjudden2.tripod.com/jordan/supportingcast.htm).
Let's look at those 3 myths again:
Jordan carried the team to 6 championships - As I showed, the Bulls did not suffer greatly when he retired. When he returned, they didn't even make the conference finals, until they replaced their power forward. Compared to Jordan's peers (the short list of the elite players in NBA history), Jordan was the least valuable to his team out of all of them. His impact was felt the least.
Jordan made those around him better - I proved this collectively by showing that the players who played with him shot better without him.
Jordan was the most valuable player ever - He simply did not affect the W-L column, or the playoff performance as greatly as the other players that I showed above. This is indisputable. Yes, Jordan has 6 championships, because he played on a very good team...a team that was good enough to win 55 games and go deep into the playoffs without him. I list 7 players (Jordan included), as the "elite" players. Out of these 7 players, guess which player has the most losing seasons in his career? Jordan. Guess which team didn't felt the least loss when he sat out for a season? Jordan's.
Let me point this out: Jordan joined a losing team in 1984. His first year, they remained a losing team. The next year, they were a losing team. The third year, they posted their 3rd consecutive losing season. During Jordan's first three years, he was not able to make the Bulls into a contender. He couldn't even get them above .500. This man has a legendary "will to win", but can't win? Then, the Bulls add Horace Grant and Scottie Pippen, the next year, and the Bulls put up a winning record and advance another round of the playoffs. The Bulls keep adding players and they keep winning more and more until they win 3 titles. Jordan retires, and the Bulls only slip 2 games. He comes back the next year, and they do WORSE in the playoffs than they did the year before him. After the Bulls add Rodman and win 3 more titles, they disband the team. Two years later, Jordan joins a losing Wizards team. Under Jordan, they remain a losing team both years and fail to make the playoffs each year. He retires again, and the Wizards continue losing the next year.
Do you see the trend? Jordan joins teams and they don't turn into contenders. They don't even get above .500, even during his second year there. When he leaves, they stay the same. If they are a good team, they continue winning games and if they are a losing team with Jordan, they continue losing games. Jordan doesn't "will" teams to a new level. His impact to the win column is minimal. How, then, can he be the most valuable player ever? I pointed out that over and over in his career that his teams don't go to a new level because of him. If you can't see this, then you are simply ignoring facts.
There can only be one conclusion from all of this: If he is not the most valuable player ever, then Michael Jordan is NOT the greatest basketball player ever.
Jordan's overrated defense
First of all, I am going to clear this up: young Michael Jordan (1985-1993) was one of the greatest defensive guards in history. He in on the short list of greatest defensive guards, along with Walt Frazier, Sidney Moncrief, K.C. Jones, and Joe Dumars. Jordan's only weakness was being posted up. Magic Johnson exploited this in games 1 and 2 of the 1991 Finals. After putting 3 fouls on Jordan in the first half of game 2, Phil Jackson opted to move Pippen over to guard Magic and put Jordan on James Worthy. Fortunately for Jordan and Jackson, Worthy was playing on a sprained ankle, which eliminated his dominance (he had 3 inches on Jordan, and he was the guy who dropped 42 points on Dennis Rodman in Game 7 of the 1988 finals).
Young Jordan was an exceptional ball defender and he was the very best player of his era at roaming the passing lanes.
There, it's out. He was a very good defender. I don't have any problems with his 1988 defensive player of the year award and his 6 first-team all defense awards up that point.
However, after that, he was a very overrated defender. He got old and lost a step and it showed. It happens to everybody, but Jordan's fans couldn't accept it. Let me give examples.
In 1995 and 96, Clyde Drexler and Anfernee Hardaway continued giving Jordan problems when they posted up on him. That is undertandable as they were bigger than Jordan. However, Jordan's lost a step on his quickness and in 1996, Pooh Richardson lit up Jordan...Pooh Richardson. Damon Stoudamire had his way with Jordan that year (Stoudamire's rookie season). While Stoudamire was very quick, Phil Jackson's answer to him spoke volumes about Jordan: Phil put Scottie Pippen on Stoudamire. Jordan was so slow that a 6'7" 225 lb FORWARD was Jackson's answer to a guard. Phil began opting to put Ron Harper on the other team's better offensive guard. Jordan fanatics claim this was "resting" Jordan for offense. No, this is called "rationalizing." Young Jordan guarded the other team's best guard AND lit up his opponents for 32+ PPG. Old Jordan simply could not guard the best guards any more (remember when he got caught in the switch with Allen Iverson the next year and how bad Iverson made him look?) .
What was truly sad was that Jordan continued making first team all-defense, but Ron Harper did not. Jordan wasn't even the best defensive guard on his own team any more. He didn't deserve those accolades.
Sour Grapes? Dream on. Undeserving Accolades aren't uncommon to Jordan. Remember the 2002 All-Star game? The fans vote and they DON'T want to see old Jordan. They don't name him a starter. If Jordan deserved it, the coaches, who pick the reserves, would name him a reserve. Instead, they too, pass on Jordan. Then, the media starts crying for Vince Carter to give up his starting job to Jordan and apply pressure until Carter gives in. The fans didn't want to see Jordan and the coaches knew he wasn't good enough, but he still makes it, because the media wants to see him.
Jordan - overrated in college
In 1998, I saw ESPN’s website had a profile of great performances in the NCAA tournament. They had players like Bill Bradley (Who scored a record 56 points in a Final Four game), Bill Walton (21 of 22 shooting the NCAA Championship), Danny Manning (36 points, 19 rebounds in the 1988 championship), and such. Listed in these great performances was Michael Jordan in 1982. What was Jordan’s amazing performance? Well, he had a whopping 16 points. Wow. He hit the shot that put North Carolina ahead with 15 seconds left. Buzzer beater? Nope.
Who was the star of the 1982 tournament? James Worthy was. He was the first-team All-American. Jordan wasn’t even all-conference. Worthy led the team in scoring for the season, the tournament, and even the championship game (28 points). Worthy was also the tournament MVP, and the East Region's Most Outstanding Player. After Jordan’s shot, Worthy stole the ball from Georgetown's Fred Brown to seal the victory. Where was Worthy on ESPN’s site? He was nowhere to be found. Instead Jordan makes it for one shot. Where was Keith Smart? Where was Scottie Thurman? They were also one-shot wonders.
This was yet ANOTHER example of how the media hypes Jordan to no end. In every way possible, Worthy led that team to the title, yet the history revisionists have tried to credit it to Jordan.
Well, since Jordan supposedly "led" Carolina to the title, how did he do for his remaining two seasons, without Worthy? Let’s look. In 1981, the year before Jordan supposedly led Carolina to the title, Sam Perkins, Al Wood and James Worthy led the Tar Heels to the National Championship game, where they lost to Isiah Thomas and the Indiana Hoosiers. That means they played in two consecutive championship games. Surely Jordan would "will his team to victory" and carry on this streak of championship game appearances, right? Wrong.
In 1982, after winning the title, James Worthy left for the NBA. Jordan would go on to win The Sporting News’ College Player of the Year during the next two seasons. His teams were very talented, as they boasted such players as Sam Perkins (#4 pick in the 1984 draft…right behind Jordan), Brad Daugherty (#1 in the 1986 draft) and Kenny Smith (#6 in the 1987 draft). The players were there and Jordan was there with his mythical "will to win". How many more championships did Carolina win during Jordan's career? None. How many final four appearances? None. Jordan choked, and when I say choke, I mean his teams failed to live up to their seed. Despite having a #1 and a #2 seed, Jordan's teams were defeated in the sweet 16 and the Elite Eight.
Some would argue that the NCAA tournament is upset-prone, but do upsets really apply to a talented team starring Michael Jordan? Jordan simply "refuses to lose". He "wills his team to victory" and all of the other hyped-up slogans the media attribute to Jordan. Where was it? Jordan left it in his other suit, I guess. Wilt Chamberlain was called a "loser" for losing to an undefeated team in the finals in triple-overtime, yet Jordan couldn't even lead a team to the Finals, let alone the Final Four -- and he's supposed to be the "best ever?" I think not. Funny how short Jordan comes up when you level the playing field and use the same standards to measure him that are used to measure everybody else.
Did Jordan have a great college career? Yes. Was he a winner? No. Did he have one of the all-time great NCAA tournament performances? Not even close! Is he one of the all-time great college players? No. Sports Illustrated wisely left Jordan off of their all-time college team. But then again, SI and Jordan haven’t been on speaking terms since 1995—so that makes them a little more truthful in their reporting.
This is just one of the many examples of how the media hype is exposed as a farce when the examined by the light of truth. Jordan was a good college player over-hyped by the revisionist media. He was an elite NBA player, falsely placed above all others by the same stupid media.
Jordan - the greatest athlete ever?
This one is a no-brainer. If he's not the greatest basketball player ever (as I have proven), then he sure as heck isn't the greatest athlete ever. ESPN claimed he was the greatest athlete of the twentieth century -- excuse me while I laugh -- but that just isn't the truth.
ESPN was as prone to hype and endorsements as most Jordan-supporters. After all, who supported Jordan's #1-ranked sports biography? Jordan's clothing company. Wow. Now, that's unbiased. I wonder how much money Nike pays them each year in advertising. ESPN's credibility has often been questioned, especially in college football, where they have been accused of slanting the public's view of strong teams or Heisman Trophy winners, in favor of players and games that their sister company, ABC, televises.
I've had folks write and claim these people are experts. Experts? Dick Schapp pointed out that around 1950, a vote was taken for the greatest athlete of the first 50 years. Jim Thorpe was voted #1. However, in 1999, Thorpe was voted behind Babe Ruth (Ruth - #2 and Thorpe - #6). How many of these "experts" in 1999 saw either Thorpe or Ruth play? How can they be "experts", when the writers 50 years ago saw them both play? Answer: the 1999 writers follow hype, myth, and "legend."
Why would Jordan be considered the greatest athlete? Let's look at some criteria:
Athleticism? Hardly! Jordan's not even possessing the most athleticism out of basketball players. He didn't compete in track (unlike Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain, who were champion track athletes, for instance). Carl Lewis, Jim Thorpe, Babe Didrickson-Zaharus, and Bo Jackson were all more athletic than Jordan.
Winning? Sorry. Put Rocky Marciano, Yogi Berra, and Bill Russell ahead of Jordan.
Dominated the most areas of his sport? Sorry. Try guys like Barry Bonds, Joe DiMaggio, Babe Ruth, Wilt Chamberlain, Jackie Joyner-Kersee, and Walter Payton ahead of Jordan.
Broke the most records? Wilt Chamberlain and Wayne Gretsky are far, far ahead of Jordan.
Impact on sport? Jackie Robinson. 'Nuff said.
What category puts Jordan at the top? Endorsement money. But in that case, Arnold Palmer, not Muhammad Ali, was #2. Furthermore, this proves ESPN list is hype-driven and would also prove Jordan isn't the greatest athlete, but rather that greatest advertising pitchman. Jordan didn't change the game of basketball. He didn't dominate the championships (6 in 8 years is chump change compared to Russell). I have challenged Jordan fans to give me a criteria for basing it. His combination of individual accomplishment, records, and championships are behind Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. So why is he #1? Because he is a pop-culture icon, not the greatest athlete. Just because ESPN says he's the best doesn't mean it, because nobody has yet to define why he's the best.
How about a comparison between Jordan and Babe Didrickson-Zaharus.
Track: Jordan has nothing to show, because Jordan's speed wasn't enough and his jumping ability was the product of Nike. Nike wants you to think different, but hype and commercials cannot stand up to the unbiased eye of a clock or a measuring tape, which is why he couldn't compete in the Olympic arena in these areas. I proved (http://airjudden2.tripod.com/jordan/hype.htm) that his dunk contest championship in 1988 was a joke, and simply the product of hype, much like his athleticism is, in general.
Babe entered 8 out of 10 events in the National AAU track meet. Of those 8, she won 5 of them outright and tied for first in a 6th event. She won 2 gold medals in the Olympics, and lost the 3rd on a technicality. Because she was a pro golfer afterward, she was not allowed to compete in any more Olympic games, or who knows how many more she would have won?
Advantage: Babe
Baseball: Jordan was a miserable failure in MINOR LEAGUE baseball. He flirted with the Mendoza line (that means he barely hit .200). Sports Illustrated wrote an article about his inability to play baseball and the cover said "Bag it, Michael." Jordan got into such a snit, that he never talked to the magazine again. The analysis from baseball scouts on Jordan was that he was a rag-armed, weak-hitter trying to play a position that generally requires both. Jordan was a decent high school pitcher, but there's a difference between the men and the boys. What about Babe?
Babe PITCHED in several MAJOR LEAGUE exhibition games. Babe pitched against the big boys. Jordan sucked against the little boys.
Advantage: Babe.
Golf: Jordan likes to brag about his golfing prowess, but we see that he's simply a weekend hacker. He has as much chance at getting his [PGA] tour card as you and I do. Yeah, he golfs with Tiger Woods (and loses), but hey -- if I play soccer and get my @ss kicked by Pele, does that mean I'm a great soccer player? Jordan talks a big talk about joining the tour...and well, if his competitive drive were as great as advertised (emphasis on ADVERTISED), then he'd already be on the tour. What about Babe?
Babe won 82 amateur and PROFESSIONAL tournaments, including majors. She came back after having been treated for cancer and WON another major. This dwarfs Jordan's little "flu game" in the 1997 NBA Finals (in which he never had the flu, but said he was "under the weather." That is, unless you believe that Jordan is such a modern miracle that he can completely conquer influenza in 2 days.)
Advantage: Do I need to say?
Basketball: OK, the Jordan fans are going to say that he's one of the all-time greats (though I've proven he's not the greatest). And he certainly would have an advantage here. But consider this: Babe was never able to prove herself on the professional ground, because the WNBA, nor the NBA, nor the NBL (National Basketball League), nor the BAA (Basketball Association of America - the latter 2 were predecessors to the NBA) existed when she played. We do have their college careers as a comparative measuring stick: Both played 3 years, and Jordan was a 2 time All-American, and Babe was a 3 time All-American. Perhaps she could have proven that she was the greatest woman basketball player ever if she had the stage to display it on.
Advantage: Jordan
Other sports: What does Jordan do? Nothing. What did Babe do? Babe won championships in billiards, cycling, shooting, speed skating, squash, swimming, and tennis.
Advantage: Babe.
Who is the greatest North American Athlete of the 20th century?
Advantage: Babe.
Whether or not you think she's #1, you have to admit that she's ahead of Jordan, yet ESPN only put her at #10. Probably because she didn't have her own brand of sneakers.
Jordan's unmerited hype, Dunk contest
Here is a shining example of Jordan using hype to achieve a goal that his abilities alone could not.
Note: this has nothing to do with Jordan's greatness. It only illustrates how people go out of their way to make him better than he was.
The 1988 dunk contest featured a classic duel between Michael Jordan (1985 winner) and Dominique Wilkins (1987 winner) in Chicago. On the last dunk, Jordan tried the free throw line dunk, but he stepped in front of the line. He received a "50" for this. Two years later, Scottie Pippen jumped from behind the free throw line and received a "46" for the same dunk. Surprised? You shouldn't be. What was the difference? Jordan is quite often given more credit than he deserves. You can say that I'm full of sour grapes, but consider the following analysis from fellow participant and 1986 winner, Anthony "Spud" Webb:
"...the finals came down to Jordan and 'Nique. Who won? Dominique won it by a mile. Who got the trophy? Michael Jordan, because the hometown judges were not about to give it to anybody else. 'Nique walked off the floor shaking his head, saying, 'Well this is Michael's town and his show. What are you gonna do?'" (Flying High by Spud Webb and Reid Slaughter, p. 204).
This style of hype is often used with Jordan. He is called the "best ever" by people who refuse to define their criteria, because Jordan will come up short. His awards are often called out, but when they are put into perspective (http://airjudden2.tripod.com/jordan/perspective.htm), it is easy to see that it is simple hype, because using a common comparison will make Jordan come up short.
Recently, ESPN named their 50 greatest athletes of North America. Guess who was #1? Jordan the greatest athlete? He was a one sport athlete, and as this site proves, he wasn't even the best at that. He was a terrible baseball player, and an amateur-caliber golfer. Best ever? They refused to define their criteria. Why? Because many athletes were better than Jordan. Click here (http://airjudden2.tripod.com/jordan/athlete.htm) to read more about it
Jordan still shits on Kobe :lmao
Found this page and thought it was interesting; I don't agree on averything, but it's a good debate starter
Michael Jordan - NOT the best ever!!!
The sister page to the Exposers of jordon's Foolishness Page (http://airjudden2.tripod.com/ejf/index.htm)
http://fastcounter.bcentral.com/fastcounter?1691321+3382649 (http://member.bcentral.com/cgi-bin/fc/fastcounter-login?1691321)
FastCounter by bcentral (http://fastcounter.bcentral.com/fc-join)
Michael Jordan is one of the greatest basketball players in the history of the NBA. He is in the elite class of players who dominate the game. He had many great traits that I do not need to expound on.
However, with that said, he's not the best player in NBA history. Many media types, who are into hype and usually never seen anyone play from past eras, sing Jordan's praises and say he is the best ever - without question. If you do question it, I find that Jordan fanatics act like you've committed blaspheme.
I am here to step on toes, if need be. Jordan is not the best and this webpage explains why.
What I require from you is to explain what criteria you use for comparing two players. How do you compare Patrick Ewing vs. Hakeem Olajuwon? Isiah Thomas vs. John Stockton? Larry Bird vs. Magic Johnson? Wilt Chamberlain vs. Bill Russell? Allen Iverson vs. Vince Carter? Kevin Garnett vs. Shaq? If you have a consistent method for determining which 2 players are better, then I will prove to you that Jordan is not the best.
If you say, "Bill Russell is better than Wilt because he won more championships" then that means you believe Isiah Thomas is better than John Stockton (2 championships to none) . If you back peddle and say Stockton is better because he had better career numbers, then you have just exposed your duplicity. You have no method for comparing players. You just make up any excuse to pick a player you like, and your double-standard is a joke. I often find Celtics fans say Russell is better than Chamberlain because of championships, but at the same time, they will not admit Magic Johnson is better than Larry Bird, based on the same criteria. These people do not have educated opinions. They are just fans trying to hype their favorite players. If you are one of these people, go away. I only want to talk basketball with intelligent fans.
With that said, think about your criteria for comparing players. I list mine on this site. If you determine yours, you will see that Jordan is not the best. The only criteria that puts Jordan #1 is endorsements and popularity. If this is your criteria for comparing players, then please leave. I have no time to discuss basketball with Inside Stuff-watching fanboys.
This site is not a forum to argue about if Bill Russell is better than Magic Johnson or Oscar Robertson is better or worse than Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. I respect arguments comparing these guys. They are all elite players, on the same level of Jordan, and have a good argument for being the best player ever. What I DO know is that no player - not Wilt, Russell, Magic, Jordan, etc has an outright claim to being the best basketball player ever, and that is why this site serves only one purpose -- to prove that whatever you think about Michael Jordan's place in basketball history, it is NOT at the very top.
If you disagree, that is your choice, but please have a well-defined reason as to why Jordan is the best ever. As you will see, for Jordan, there is no standard. His claim to the best ever is based on popularity, media-hype, and endorsements, with a few weak arguments thrown in for good measure. This page will systematically tear down these popular weak arguments given for Jordan's supposed dominance, as well as expose the myths created by the media.
Did Jordan make those around him better?
To this, the answer is an emphatic "NO!"
One theory was that Jordan drew so much defensive attention that his teammates got to take wide open shots and benefited from Jordan. It sounds good on paper, but wasn't true in reality. Jordan played in 1993 and retired in 1994. Nine players played on these two teams, and these 9 players, as a whole, shot a higher percentage without Jordan than they did with Jordan, even though the defenses were focusing on them. This was not a fluke. this occurred over the course of 164 games. That is enough to determine a trend.
Furthermore, this was proven again in 2001, when Jordan joined Washington. Jordan missed a lot of games due to injury, and The Sporting News commented on their surprise that the Wizards shot better in games in which Jordan did not play. This is no surprise. This is a trend.
Why?
Guys like Oscar Robertson, Jason Kidd, Larry Bird, and Magic Johnson all wanted their team to take the best shot each time down the floor. They had no problems passing the ball to a teammate who had a better shot. That is why their teammates shot such a higher percentage when they played with these guys. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar once said that Magic Johnson knows where your best shot is, even if you do not, and Magic throws the ball in such a way that if you hustle, you will find the ball in your hands for an easy shot that you didn't know was there. That is called "setting up a teammate."
In Jordan's case, he did not have this mentality. Jordan once said, "I thought of myself first, the team second. I always wanted my teams to be successful. But I wanted to be the main cause." He wanted to be the center of the spotlight. He was selfish to the core. He only wanted to win if it brought praise to him. In his mind, HE had the best shot most of the times down the floor. One time, Bill Cartwright chastised Jordan for not giving up the ball while he was double-teamed. Jordan responded with "but one of the two players was Fred Roberts!" It didn't matter if there was an open teammate, because Jordan thought taking a shot over two guys was better than somebody else taking an uncontested shot.
Doug Collins tried to put Jordan at the point guard in 1989. The idea was that Jordan was such a tremendous penetrator, that he could break down a defense and hit the open man or score. Jordan responded with 11 triple doubles in his first 13 games. However, he was often found going to the scorers' table to check to see how many rebounds or assists he needed to get a triple-double. He played for stats. Doug Collins later said, "Do you know who's the biggest obstacle to us running? Michael Jordan, that's who. He won't let go of the ball."
This selfishness resulted in players standing around and watching Jordan, or Jordan not passing to the open guy with the best shot. Without Jordan, the teams flowed into their offense and found the open man. That is why they consistently shoot better when Jordan doesn't play. Jordan simply does not make his teammates better.
Furthermore, I issued this challenge on Usenet: Name one player whose career was enhanced by Jordan. I never received a serious challenge. Let’s look at some of the candidates.
Scottie Pippen – The press love to sing long songs about Jordan made Pippen. However, their songs are missing a few verses. For example. Why did Pippen have his finest seasons without Jordan? In 1994, Pippen averaged 22 ppg, 8.7 rpg, and 5.6 apg. In 1995, Pippen became only the second player in history (Dave Cowens was the first) to lead his team in points, rebounds, assists, blocks, and steals. How could he do this without Jordan to make him better?
Furthermore, when deciding to retire, Jordan said over and over that he would not play without Pippen. While recovering from foot
"Why did [Scottie] Pippen have his finest seasons when Jordan was playing baseball?" surgery in December of 1997, Pippen said that he was not going to play with the Bulls when he was fully recovered. Jordan said that if he had known this, he would not have come back. Why? If Jordan makes everyone so much better, why not fill in Scott Burrell into Pippen’s position (or Toni Kukoc, for that matter), and make another Pippen? Answer: Jordan didn’t make Pippen. Pippen made Pippen. Without Jordan, he is still the dominating defensive player, and he continues to be a complete player. The typical Jordan fan will respond with "how many championships did Pippen win without Jordan?" The answer is zero. Likewise, how many championships did Jordan win without Pippen? Zero. Comparing these two players apart from each is very unfavorable for Jordan. Pippen had a better career record and a better post-season record than Jordan. Pippen's only losing season was his final year in the NBA, when he missed much of the season due to injury and was in a veteran leadership role for the young re-building Bulls. That was the only time in Pippen's career he had a losing record and the only time he missed the playoffs. Jordan played 5 seasons without Pippen. Out of those 5 seasons, he posted 5 losing records, missed the playoffs twice, and was 1-9 in the playoffs.
Think about it: Jordan never had a winning record apart from Pippen. Pippen played on many playoff teams in Portland and Houston without Jordan.
It makes you wonder who made who a better ball player, or at least who was the most valuable player to the win-loss column.
Dennis Rodman – Rodman had established himself LONG before playing with Jordan. His defensive reputation was made in Detroit, where he was voted the Defensive Player of the Year in 1990 and 91. His rebounding ability was established in Detroit, also, where he won the first of his seven consecutive rebounding titles (4 without Jordan), and his reputation as a winner was established in Detroit, where he won two titles – both times defeating Jordan’s Bulls.
"Rodman established his rebounding and winning ways in Detroit, when he beat Jordan twice on the way to the championship."
"If 7 points and 5 rebounds per game is your shining example ofJordan making someone better, than Jordan sucked at improving those around him."
Luc Longley – Put simply, Longley was a bad player before he joined the Bulls. He was a bad player when he played with the Bulls, and he was a bad player after he left the Bulls. Nobody has questioned Jason Kidd’s ability to improve his teammates, and even he hasn’t been able to coax out respectable play from Longley. If seven points and 5 rebounds is what you want out of your center, then Longley is your man, but you don’t need Jordan to get this out of him. If 7 points and 5 rebounds per game is your shining example of Jordan making someone better, than Jordan sucked at improving those around him. He improved Longley from a laughable joke to a mildly amusing joke. Wow!
John Paxson – This is the guy that most Jordan fans bring up. Paxson was on the perfect team in Chicago (perhaps the only team he could get significant minutes with), but his career blossomed because of Scottie Pippen, not Jordan. Let me explain: Jordan could not play well with classic "drive-and-dish" style points. He disliked playing with Sam Vincent and Steve Colter for this very reason. The reason why was because they were in the lane too much, and Jordan wanted to be the one to drive to the basket. The logical choice would be to have Jordan play the point guard and have a spot-up shooter in the shooting guard slot. However, according to Phil Jackson, Jordan lacked the passing skills to play the point guard and he hogged the ball too much. No one really doubts Jackson's knowledge of the game.
"Jordan lacked the skills to play point guard and didn't like playing with guards who played the classic point guard role. That means in order for Jordan to play with a spot-up shooter, one of the forwards would have to play the point. Guess who that was?" Because Jordan cannot co-exist with a typical point guard and can't play it himself, that means somebody else has to bring up the ball and be the point man. Guess who that was? Scottie Pippen. Pippen was a rare breed in that he was a forward who could handle point duties. That short list consists of Larry Bird, Paul Pressey, Grant Hill, and Pippen. In his book "Sacred Hoops", Jackson lauds Pippen for his ability to run the offense and figure out who is hot and cold and how many shots a player needs and how frequently to stay in his rhythm. These were things that Jordan could not do, because he only cared about his own shots.
Because Pippen could play the point, that allowed Paxson to play alongside of Jordan, even though he lacked all point guard skills. This means that Jordan did not make Paxson a better player. Pippen did. If not for Pippen, Paxson couldn't have cracked the line-up.
Just incase you doubt me, and you think you know more than Phil Jackson, ask yourself: how come Chicago with Jordan was the only team at that time NOT to have a point guard? Think about it. When Jordan retired, B.J. Armstrong played a classic point guard role and made his only all-star appearance. When Jordan came back from retirement, the Bulls let Armstrong go in the expansion draft and replaced him with Ron Harper, another 2-guard. Who else teamed up with Jordan in the back court? Craig Hodges, Steve Kerr, Randy Brown, and Jud Buechler. None of these guys could be confused with a point guard.
Steve Kerr – See John Paxson. This is the exact same case, as Kerr was a Paxson-clone. In 1993, the year before Jordan retired, Kerr was the 12th man on draft lottery-bound Orlando. The next year, he joined the Jordan-less Bulls and had his finest season ever. How could he do this if Jordan made him better? Furthermore, Kerr had established himself as one the top 3 point shooter in history and set a record for best 3 point shooting percentage (from 23'9") in a season (1989-90). Considering this, and how he filled in for Mark Price when Price was injured in Cleveland, I ask: what did Jordan do differently for his career? Kerr's game was exactly the same before he joined Chicago. When he joined Chicago, he had his best year, while Jordan was playing baseball,
"Like Paxson, Kerr blossomed because of Pippen's ability to play the point, allowing the Bulls to play 2 non-point guards. That is why Kerr had his finest seasons in Chicago when Jordan was playing baseball." and like Paxson, Kerr got more minutes because of Pippen's ability to play the point role, since Kerr was not a true point guard.
Washington Wizards – Then, there are the Wizards... if Jordan made those around him better, why couldn't he do this with Larry Hughes, Jerry Stackhouse, and ESPECIALLY Kwame Brown? You should know the answer by now.
1994 and 1995
Jordan's Teammates prove their worth
As part of the Jordan legend, he supposedly "willed teams to victory" and took marginal players on his shoulders, and through his 4th quarter heroics, he would help these average players win championships. This is not legend, it is myth. Jordan did have a lot of 4th quarter heroics. That is indisputable. However, his teammates were very good and that is why the Bulls won titles. Wilt Chamberlain dominated far more than Jordan did, but Wilt proved that one man could not win a title. Only when he got teammates around him did he win titles. The same is true of Jordan, only more so, since Jordan wasn't as dominating as Chamberlain, he needed even MORE help in order to win a title.
1994 and 1995 are key years during the Jordan years. These two years are central in proving that Jordan was not as valuable to his team as the his peers in the elite class of basketball players were to their teams. If he is not as valuable, how can he be the greatest player of all-time? These two seasons will debunk a series of Jordan-based myths:
Jordan carried the team to 6 championships
Jordan made those around him better
Jordan was the most valuable player ever.
Jordan retired in October of 1993. The critics predicted gloom and doom for the Bulls. (I was one of these critics). Some even declared that without Jordan, the Bulls wouldn't even make the playoffs. After all, Jordan supposedly carried those stiffs to three titles, right? Because Jordan waited so late to retire, the Bulls were not able to pick up an adequate starter in free agency. They settled with Pete Myers from the CBA. They were set up to fail. Myers had a defensive reputation, but no where near that of Jordan, who had been named first-team all-defense 6 times and won the defensive player of the year award. Furthermore, Myeres hadn't even played in the NBA for the last two years, and he never averaged more than 5 points per game. How can you replace Jordan's 32 ppg and all-world defense with this guy? The Bulls were set up to fail. These predictions were also made - and all of them were reasonable assumptions, as you will see.
The Bulls would be a much worse team without Jordan. They would probably slip at least 15 games.
If Jordan would come back, the Bulls would automatically win the title.
Scottie Pippen and Horace Grant would probably score more points, but they would shoot much worse, as defenses focused on them.
The Bulls would shoot much worse without Jordan.
Assumption 1: The Bulls would be a much worse team without Jordan. They would probably slip at least 15 games.
The first assumption was declared by nearly everybody. Even Bulls coach Phil Jackson predicted a 15-game slip in his autobiography, Sacred Hoops. He based this upon the retirement of superstars from the past. Replacing Jordan with Myers should have been detrimental. However, the Bulls only slipped 2 games: from 57-25 with Jordan in 1993 to 55-27 in 1994. How could this be? They should have fallen apart. The answer is that Jordan simply wasn't as instrumental in taking the Bulls to another level as thought. I'm not saying they could win a title without him. He did make them marginally better, but not significantly better. Look at Jordan's elite peers: if you replace Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar or Bill Russell with a C.B.A. center, do you expect a 2-game drop? No way. If you replace Larry Bird, Oscar Robertson, or Magic Johnson with a C.B.A. player, do you expect a 2-game drop? Think again.
Why did Phil Jackson predict a 15-game drop? Because he knew the impact that elite players had on their teams. Look at the table below and ask yourself why Jordan's impact was so minimal?
Year before losing player Year after losing player Team Player Regular season Playoffs Regular Season Difference
(# of wins) Playoffs 1969 Celtics Bill Russell 48-34 Championship 34-48 -14 Missed playoffs 1973 Lakers Wilt
Chamberlain 60-22 NBA Finals 47-35 -13 Lost in first round
1-4 1974 Bucks Oscar
Robertson 59-23 NBA Finals 38-44 -21 Missed playoffs 1988 Celtics Larry Bird 57-25 Conference
Finals 42-40 -15 Lost in first round
0-3 1991 Lakers Magic
Johnson 58-24 NBA Finals 43-39 -15 Lost in first round
1-3 1993 Bulls Michael
Jordan 57-25 Championship 55-27 -2 Lost in 2nd round 3-4 To make matters worse, the Bulls lost in the 2nd round of the playoffs to the Knicks in 7 games. In Game 5, Scottie Pippen received one of the most unfavorable calls in playoff history by referee Hue Hollins when he was called for a foul on Knicks' rookie Hubert Davis, that allowed Davis to go to the line and win the game. If you are a real Bulls fan, you'll remember the call. I was cheering for the Knicks in that series, and even I admitted the Bulls got hosed. The Bulls should have won that series. I believe that would have defeated Indiana in the finals. They owned them in the regular season and the Knicks handled the Pacers. I don't think they had any chance of beating the Rockets in the finals without Jordan, but I do believe they could have got there without Jordan. It's all speculating, but it's not unreasonable speculation.
Assumption 2: If Jordan would come back, the Bulls would automatically win the title.
This assumption were declared by those in 1995 who said, "the Bulls didn't win the title in 1994, did they?" While Jordan fans claim that he and he alone was single-handedly responsible for the title, they conveniently neglect 1995. Jordan did come back that season. However, the Bulls didn't have Horace Grant (and Dennis Rodman would not join until the next season). Without Grant, their rebounding and interior defense deficiencies were exposed by the Orlando Magic (Horace Grant's team, ironically), and the Bulls lost in the second round 2-4. As you can see in the table above, the previous year, without Jordan, they lost 3-4 in the 2nd round. Now if Jordan were single-handedly responsible for those titles, why did they do even worse in the playoffs after he returned than they did the year before, when they didn't have him?
How was Orlando able to defeat the Bulls with Jordan in 1995? The answer lies with Horace Grant. He was the key to Johnny Bach's (Bulls assistant coach) "Doberman Defense", as it was called. The trapping defense the Bulls rode to three titles. Grant could trap a player and he was quick enough to fall back and get the rebound. When Jordan retired, the Bulls continued playing their defense and Myers filled in Jordan's role. In 1995, Grant left for Orlando and Chicago was left without a strong interior defender and rebounder. The trapping defense also gone. Bach moved onto Charlotte and the Bulls didn't have a power forward that could make it work. Dickey Simpkins and Corie Blount were not acceptable alternatives. They soft underbelly was exposed, and as anybody knows, you can't win without defense and rebounding. Phil Jackson was so desperate that he even tried Toni Kukoc there, hoping to stretch the defense with Kukoc's shooting, and increase ball movement on offense, but it wasn't enough to overcome their defense and rebounding woes. Jordan did not fill this weakness, and Shaquille O'Neal and Horace Grant were able to expose Chicago and defeat them in the playoffs, and disprove Jordan's "mythical ability to elevate his team to championships."
Jordan fanatics claim he had court rust. Whatever. Jordan played 17 games that season. In 1986, Jordan played 18 games, coming off of a foot surgery. In the 1986 playoffs Jordan scored a playoff-record 63 points. Why was Jordan able to shake the court rust in 1986 and not in 1995? Answer: he shook his court rust. He dropped in the "double-nickel" (55 point game) on the defending eastern champs that season. If Jordan had court rust, he wouldn't be putting in 55 on John Starks. His game wasn't up to 100%, but it wasn't so far off as to make a difference in a championship and a defeat in the 2nd round of the playoffs.
Furthermore, Jordan fanatics claim the next year, he shook his supposed court rust and led the Bulls to 72 wins. These people are basketball illiterate. If this were true, why weren't the Bulls winning 72 games in 1991, 92, and 93? Jordan didn't have any court rust then. The reason the Bulls improved was because they filled their weakness with the best player in the NBA FOR that weakness: Dennis Rodman. They lacked rebounding from the power forward spot, so they brought on the greatest rebounding forward in history. They lacked interior defense, so they brought in a 2-time defensive player of the year in Rodman. He was the perfect fit. Grant was a very good player, and he and Jordan's 1992 Bulls won 67 games. But Rodman is better than Grant. Connect the dots. The reason that team improved so much was because of Rodman. Without Grant or Rodman, Jordan simply could not win a championship, because Jordan could not provide interior defense and rebounding. After all, the team really didn't miss him that badly when he retired.
I have asked Jordan fans to explain over and over why the Bulls only slipped 2 games when they replaced Jordan with Pete Myers. To this day, not a SINGLE ONE, has been able to offer an explanation. The answer is obvious, they just don't want to admit it. Jordan was a great individual player, but he was not as valuable of a TEAM player as those peers of his in the elite category of basketball players.
Assumption 3: Scottie Pippen and Horace Grant would probably score more points, but they would shoot much worse, as defenses focused on them.
The third assumption was that Scottie Pippen and Horace Grant would probably score more points, but they would shoot much worse, as defenses focused on them. This appears to be a logical assumption. However, the logic is clearly seen when the hype is peeled away.
1992-93 (w/ Jordan) 1993-94 (w/o Jordan) Name PPG FG% PPG FG% Scottie Pippen 18.6 47.3 22.0 49.1 Horace Grant 13.2 50.8 15.1 52.4
Assumption 4: The Bulls would shoot much worse without Jordan.
The fourth assumption is that the Bulls would shoot much worse without Jordan than with him. That is because conventional wisdom says that a player of Jordan’s ability requires extra defensive attention, and that creates open shots for teammates.
In addition to this, the shooting percentage of the league has declined every year since 1989, so it is only logical to assume that even with Jordan, the shooting percentage of the team would decline, and without him it would greatly decline, correct? Not surprisingly, the Bulls' opponents shot worse (fg% and PPG) in 1994 (no Jordan) than in 1993 (with Jordan). I doubt that Pete Myers was a better defender than Jordan, so this fact only further proves the trend that I just mentioned - teams shot worse each season.
Well, the Bulls, as an entire team, DID shoot worse. That is because Jordan’s field goal percentage was taken out, and his position was replaced by CBA journeyman Pete Myers, who was known for defense (in other words, a terrible shooter). Furthermore, Toni Kukoc was a poor shooting rookie in 1994 (.431 from the floor and .271 from 3-point range).
When you factor this out, you find that there were nine players who played with Jordan in 1993 and without him 1994, you see that they actually shot BETTER without Jordan (48.6%) than they did with him (48.2%). As I showed previously, this was also true of the top 2 scorers (Pippen and Grant). In contrast, the 1992 Lakers and the 1989 Celtics saw nearly everyone on the team fall in fg% and ppg, due to the absence of Magic Johnson and Larry Bird, respectively. This difference may not seem like much, but remember, Jordan is SUPPOSED to make life easier for teammates, not harder. And the trend in the league was decreased fg% every year. How could this be?
The short answer is that players like Jordan (ballhogs) do not make those around them better. Jordan has always been more interested in scoring his points than in helping his team - he practically said so himself. If you wan want the long detailed answer, click here (http://airjudden2.tripod.com/jordan/supportingcast.htm).
Let's look at those 3 myths again:
Jordan carried the team to 6 championships - As I showed, the Bulls did not suffer greatly when he retired. When he returned, they didn't even make the conference finals, until they replaced their power forward. Compared to Jordan's peers (the short list of the elite players in NBA history), Jordan was the least valuable to his team out of all of them. His impact was felt the least.
Jordan made those around him better - I proved this collectively by showing that the players who played with him shot better without him.
Jordan was the most valuable player ever - He simply did not affect the W-L column, or the playoff performance as greatly as the other players that I showed above. This is indisputable. Yes, Jordan has 6 championships, because he played on a very good team...a team that was good enough to win 55 games and go deep into the playoffs without him. I list 7 players (Jordan included), as the "elite" players. Out of these 7 players, guess which player has the most losing seasons in his career? Jordan. Guess which team didn't felt the least loss when he sat out for a season? Jordan's.
Let me point this out: Jordan joined a losing team in 1984. His first year, they remained a losing team. The next year, they were a losing team. The third year, they posted their 3rd consecutive losing season. During Jordan's first three years, he was not able to make the Bulls into a contender. He couldn't even get them above .500. This man has a legendary "will to win", but can't win? Then, the Bulls add Horace Grant and Scottie Pippen, the next year, and the Bulls put up a winning record and advance another round of the playoffs. The Bulls keep adding players and they keep winning more and more until they win 3 titles. Jordan retires, and the Bulls only slip 2 games. He comes back the next year, and they do WORSE in the playoffs than they did the year before him. After the Bulls add Rodman and win 3 more titles, they disband the team. Two years later, Jordan joins a losing Wizards team. Under Jordan, they remain a losing team both years and fail to make the playoffs each year. He retires again, and the Wizards continue losing the next year.
Do you see the trend? Jordan joins teams and they don't turn into contenders. They don't even get above .500, even during his second year there. When he leaves, they stay the same. If they are a good team, they continue winning games and if they are a losing team with Jordan, they continue losing games. Jordan doesn't "will" teams to a new level. His impact to the win column is minimal. How, then, can he be the most valuable player ever? I pointed out that over and over in his career that his teams don't go to a new level because of him. If you can't see this, then you are simply ignoring facts.
There can only be one conclusion from all of this: If he is not the most valuable player ever, then Michael Jordan is NOT the greatest basketball player ever.
Jordan's overrated defense
First of all, I am going to clear this up: young Michael Jordan (1985-1993) was one of the greatest defensive guards in history. He in on the short list of greatest defensive guards, along with Walt Frazier, Sidney Moncrief, K.C. Jones, and Joe Dumars. Jordan's only weakness was being posted up. Magic Johnson exploited this in games 1 and 2 of the 1991 Finals. After putting 3 fouls on Jordan in the first half of game 2, Phil Jackson opted to move Pippen over to guard Magic and put Jordan on James Worthy. Fortunately for Jordan and Jackson, Worthy was playing on a sprained ankle, which eliminated his dominance (he had 3 inches on Jordan, and he was the guy who dropped 42 points on Dennis Rodman in Game 7 of the 1988 finals).
Young Jordan was an exceptional ball defender and he was the very best player of his era at roaming the passing lanes.
There, it's out. He was a very good defender. I don't have any problems with his 1988 defensive player of the year award and his 6 first-team all defense awards up that point.
However, after that, he was a very overrated defender. He got old and lost a step and it showed. It happens to everybody, but Jordan's fans couldn't accept it. Let me give examples.
In 1995 and 96, Clyde Drexler and Anfernee Hardaway continued giving Jordan problems when they posted up on him. That is undertandable as they were bigger than Jordan. However, Jordan's lost a step on his quickness and in 1996, Pooh Richardson lit up Jordan...Pooh Richardson. Damon Stoudamire had his way with Jordan that year (Stoudamire's rookie season). While Stoudamire was very quick, Phil Jackson's answer to him spoke volumes about Jordan: Phil put Scottie Pippen on Stoudamire. Jordan was so slow that a 6'7" 225 lb FORWARD was Jackson's answer to a guard. Phil began opting to put Ron Harper on the other team's better offensive guard. Jordan fanatics claim this was "resting" Jordan for offense. No, this is called "rationalizing." Young Jordan guarded the other team's best guard AND lit up his opponents for 32+ PPG. Old Jordan simply could not guard the best guards any more (remember when he got caught in the switch with Allen Iverson the next year and how bad Iverson made him look?) .
What was truly sad was that Jordan continued making first team all-defense, but Ron Harper did not. Jordan wasn't even the best defensive guard on his own team any more. He didn't deserve those accolades.
Sour Grapes? Dream on. Undeserving Accolades aren't uncommon to Jordan. Remember the 2002 All-Star game? The fans vote and they DON'T want to see old Jordan. They don't name him a starter. If Jordan deserved it, the coaches, who pick the reserves, would name him a reserve. Instead, they too, pass on Jordan. Then, the media starts crying for Vince Carter to give up his starting job to Jordan and apply pressure until Carter gives in. The fans didn't want to see Jordan and the coaches knew he wasn't good enough, but he still makes it, because the media wants to see him.
Jordan - overrated in college
In 1998, I saw ESPN’s website had a profile of great performances in the NCAA tournament. They had players like Bill Bradley (Who scored a record 56 points in a Final Four game), Bill Walton (21 of 22 shooting the NCAA Championship), Danny Manning (36 points, 19 rebounds in the 1988 championship), and such. Listed in these great performances was Michael Jordan in 1982. What was Jordan’s amazing performance? Well, he had a whopping 16 points. Wow. He hit the shot that put North Carolina ahead with 15 seconds left. Buzzer beater? Nope.
Who was the star of the 1982 tournament? James Worthy was. He was the first-team All-American. Jordan wasn’t even all-conference. Worthy led the team in scoring for the season, the tournament, and even the championship game (28 points). Worthy was also the tournament MVP, and the East Region's Most Outstanding Player. After Jordan’s shot, Worthy stole the ball from Georgetown's Fred Brown to seal the victory. Where was Worthy on ESPN’s site? He was nowhere to be found. Instead Jordan makes it for one shot. Where was Keith Smart? Where was Scottie Thurman? They were also one-shot wonders.
This was yet ANOTHER example of how the media hypes Jordan to no end. In every way possible, Worthy led that team to the title, yet the history revisionists have tried to credit it to Jordan.
Well, since Jordan supposedly "led" Carolina to the title, how did he do for his remaining two seasons, without Worthy? Let’s look. In 1981, the year before Jordan supposedly led Carolina to the title, Sam Perkins, Al Wood and James Worthy led the Tar Heels to the National Championship game, where they lost to Isiah Thomas and the Indiana Hoosiers. That means they played in two consecutive championship games. Surely Jordan would "will his team to victory" and carry on this streak of championship game appearances, right? Wrong.
In 1982, after winning the title, James Worthy left for the NBA. Jordan would go on to win The Sporting News’ College Player of the Year during the next two seasons. His teams were very talented, as they boasted such players as Sam Perkins (#4 pick in the 1984 draft…right behind Jordan), Brad Daugherty (#1 in the 1986 draft) and Kenny Smith (#6 in the 1987 draft). The players were there and Jordan was there with his mythical "will to win". How many more championships did Carolina win during Jordan's career? None. How many final four appearances? None. Jordan choked, and when I say choke, I mean his teams failed to live up to their seed. Despite having a #1 and a #2 seed, Jordan's teams were defeated in the sweet 16 and the Elite Eight.
Some would argue that the NCAA tournament is upset-prone, but do upsets really apply to a talented team starring Michael Jordan? Jordan simply "refuses to lose". He "wills his team to victory" and all of the other hyped-up slogans the media attribute to Jordan. Where was it? Jordan left it in his other suit, I guess. Wilt Chamberlain was called a "loser" for losing to an undefeated team in the finals in triple-overtime, yet Jordan couldn't even lead a team to the Finals, let alone the Final Four -- and he's supposed to be the "best ever?" I think not. Funny how short Jordan comes up when you level the playing field and use the same standards to measure him that are used to measure everybody else.
Did Jordan have a great college career? Yes. Was he a winner? No. Did he have one of the all-time great NCAA tournament performances? Not even close! Is he one of the all-time great college players? No. Sports Illustrated wisely left Jordan off of their all-time college team. But then again, SI and Jordan haven’t been on speaking terms since 1995—so that makes them a little more truthful in their reporting.
This is just one of the many examples of how the media hype is exposed as a farce when the examined by the light of truth. Jordan was a good college player over-hyped by the revisionist media. He was an elite NBA player, falsely placed above all others by the same stupid media.
Jordan - the greatest athlete ever?
This one is a no-brainer. If he's not the greatest basketball player ever (as I have proven), then he sure as heck isn't the greatest athlete ever. ESPN claimed he was the greatest athlete of the twentieth century -- excuse me while I laugh -- but that just isn't the truth.
ESPN was as prone to hype and endorsements as most Jordan-supporters. After all, who supported Jordan's #1-ranked sports biography? Jordan's clothing company. Wow. Now, that's unbiased. I wonder how much money Nike pays them each year in advertising. ESPN's credibility has often been questioned, especially in college football, where they have been accused of slanting the public's view of strong teams or Heisman Trophy winners, in favor of players and games that their sister company, ABC, televises.
I've had folks write and claim these people are experts. Experts? Dick Schapp pointed out that around 1950, a vote was taken for the greatest athlete of the first 50 years. Jim Thorpe was voted #1. However, in 1999, Thorpe was voted behind Babe Ruth (Ruth - #2 and Thorpe - #6). How many of these "experts" in 1999 saw either Thorpe or Ruth play? How can they be "experts", when the writers 50 years ago saw them both play? Answer: the 1999 writers follow hype, myth, and "legend."
Why would Jordan be considered the greatest athlete? Let's look at some criteria:
Athleticism? Hardly! Jordan's not even possessing the most athleticism out of basketball players. He didn't compete in track (unlike Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain, who were champion track athletes, for instance). Carl Lewis, Jim Thorpe, Babe Didrickson-Zaharus, and Bo Jackson were all more athletic than Jordan.
Winning? Sorry. Put Rocky Marciano, Yogi Berra, and Bill Russell ahead of Jordan.
Dominated the most areas of his sport? Sorry. Try guys like Barry Bonds, Joe DiMaggio, Babe Ruth, Wilt Chamberlain, Jackie Joyner-Kersee, and Walter Payton ahead of Jordan.
Broke the most records? Wilt Chamberlain and Wayne Gretsky are far, far ahead of Jordan.
Impact on sport? Jackie Robinson. 'Nuff said.
What category puts Jordan at the top? Endorsement money. But in that case, Arnold Palmer, not Muhammad Ali, was #2. Furthermore, this proves ESPN list is hype-driven and would also prove Jordan isn't the greatest athlete, but rather that greatest advertising pitchman. Jordan didn't change the game of basketball. He didn't dominate the championships (6 in 8 years is chump change compared to Russell). I have challenged Jordan fans to give me a criteria for basing it. His combination of individual accomplishment, records, and championships are behind Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. So why is he #1? Because he is a pop-culture icon, not the greatest athlete. Just because ESPN says he's the best doesn't mean it, because nobody has yet to define why he's the best.
How about a comparison between Jordan and Babe Didrickson-Zaharus.
Track: Jordan has nothing to show, because Jordan's speed wasn't enough and his jumping ability was the product of Nike. Nike wants you to think different, but hype and commercials cannot stand up to the unbiased eye of a clock or a measuring tape, which is why he couldn't compete in the Olympic arena in these areas. I proved (http://airjudden2.tripod.com/jordan/hype.htm) that his dunk contest championship in 1988 was a joke, and simply the product of hype, much like his athleticism is, in general.
Babe entered 8 out of 10 events in the National AAU track meet. Of those 8, she won 5 of them outright and tied for first in a 6th event. She won 2 gold medals in the Olympics, and lost the 3rd on a technicality. Because she was a pro golfer afterward, she was not allowed to compete in any more Olympic games, or who knows how many more she would have won?
Advantage: Babe
Baseball: Jordan was a miserable failure in MINOR LEAGUE baseball. He flirted with the Mendoza line (that means he barely hit .200). Sports Illustrated wrote an article about his inability to play baseball and the cover said "Bag it, Michael." Jordan got into such a snit, that he never talked to the magazine again. The analysis from baseball scouts on Jordan was that he was a rag-armed, weak-hitter trying to play a position that generally requires both. Jordan was a decent high school pitcher, but there's a difference between the men and the boys. What about Babe?
Babe PITCHED in several MAJOR LEAGUE exhibition games. Babe pitched against the big boys. Jordan sucked against the little boys.
Advantage: Babe.
Golf: Jordan likes to brag about his golfing prowess, but we see that he's simply a weekend hacker. He has as much chance at getting his [PGA] tour card as you and I do. Yeah, he golfs with Tiger Woods (and loses), but hey -- if I play soccer and get my @ss kicked by Pele, does that mean I'm a great soccer player? Jordan talks a big talk about joining the tour...and well, if his competitive drive were as great as advertised (emphasis on ADVERTISED), then he'd already be on the tour. What about Babe?
Babe won 82 amateur and PROFESSIONAL tournaments, including majors. She came back after having been treated for cancer and WON another major. This dwarfs Jordan's little "flu game" in the 1997 NBA Finals (in which he never had the flu, but said he was "under the weather." That is, unless you believe that Jordan is such a modern miracle that he can completely conquer influenza in 2 days.)
Advantage: Do I need to say?
Basketball: OK, the Jordan fans are going to say that he's one of the all-time greats (though I've proven he's not the greatest). And he certainly would have an advantage here. But consider this: Babe was never able to prove herself on the professional ground, because the WNBA, nor the NBA, nor the NBL (National Basketball League), nor the BAA (Basketball Association of America - the latter 2 were predecessors to the NBA) existed when she played. We do have their college careers as a comparative measuring stick: Both played 3 years, and Jordan was a 2 time All-American, and Babe was a 3 time All-American. Perhaps she could have proven that she was the greatest woman basketball player ever if she had the stage to display it on.
Advantage: Jordan
Other sports: What does Jordan do? Nothing. What did Babe do? Babe won championships in billiards, cycling, shooting, speed skating, squash, swimming, and tennis.
Advantage: Babe.
Who is the greatest North American Athlete of the 20th century?
Advantage: Babe.
Whether or not you think she's #1, you have to admit that she's ahead of Jordan, yet ESPN only put her at #10. Probably because she didn't have her own brand of sneakers.
Jordan's unmerited hype, Dunk contest
Here is a shining example of Jordan using hype to achieve a goal that his abilities alone could not.
Note: this has nothing to do with Jordan's greatness. It only illustrates how people go out of their way to make him better than he was.
The 1988 dunk contest featured a classic duel between Michael Jordan (1985 winner) and Dominique Wilkins (1987 winner) in Chicago. On the last dunk, Jordan tried the free throw line dunk, but he stepped in front of the line. He received a "50" for this. Two years later, Scottie Pippen jumped from behind the free throw line and received a "46" for the same dunk. Surprised? You shouldn't be. What was the difference? Jordan is quite often given more credit than he deserves. You can say that I'm full of sour grapes, but consider the following analysis from fellow participant and 1986 winner, Anthony "Spud" Webb:
"...the finals came down to Jordan and 'Nique. Who won? Dominique won it by a mile. Who got the trophy? Michael Jordan, because the hometown judges were not about to give it to anybody else. 'Nique walked off the floor shaking his head, saying, 'Well this is Michael's town and his show. What are you gonna do?'" (Flying High by Spud Webb and Reid Slaughter, p. 204).
This style of hype is often used with Jordan. He is called the "best ever" by people who refuse to define their criteria, because Jordan will come up short. His awards are often called out, but when they are put into perspective (http://airjudden2.tripod.com/jordan/perspective.htm), it is easy to see that it is simple hype, because using a common comparison will make Jordan come up short.
Recently, ESPN named their 50 greatest athletes of North America. Guess who was #1? Jordan the greatest athlete? He was a one sport athlete, and as this site proves, he wasn't even the best at that. He was a terrible baseball player, and an amateur-caliber golfer. Best ever? They refused to define their criteria. Why? Because many athletes were better than Jordan. Click here (http://airjudden2.tripod.com/jordan/athlete.htm) to read more about it