David Robinson or Shaquille O'Neal

[Cry Havoc]

Only looked like that because he was rebounding, pushing around, and dunking on a bunch of extremely unathletic white dudes who he dwarfed in height and size. I'd put money on it that Shaq in his prime could have a 100 point game if you stuck him in the 60s NBA.

Where as, David only scored 71 points in a game in the modern era. I guess that means he wouldn't have dominated back then at all.

Indeed. Only its sports we are talking about. Not gouging people's eyes out and running them over with trucks.

Fail, mother er.

You just compared grabbing someone's arm to completely running them over and removing them from the play. They are not equal, and my analogy was attempting to illustrate a similar difference between two aggressive acts. I'm sorry it was too difficult for you to relate the two. I'll make a simpler reference next time.

[Spurminator]

I'm a die-hard Spurs fan and think DRob is a great center, but he was never close to being as dominant as Shaq was in his prime. The fact that Shaq only won one MVP is a travesty. The guy dominated the league between 1993 and 2004.

The only thing that kept Shaq from being the most dominant player is league history was the fact that he is too lazy. Had he worked harder and cared more, the guy would have had 8 rings by now.

Shaq won only one MVP because of that laziness, so I don't see it as a travesty. In the late 90's he was constantly overweight and missed a lot of games. He finally got his act together in 2000 and had one of the best seasons for any player ever. But I can't think of one MVP that he was robbed of.

[resistanze]

Shaq won only one MVP because of that laziness, so I don't see it as a travesty. In the late 90's he was constantly overweight and missed a lot of games. He finally got his act together in 2000 and had one of the best seasons for any player ever. But I can't think of one MVP that he was robbed of.

Many people consider the Iverson MVP back in '01 robbery of Shaq (I don't really agree with that).

But I'll never fully be right with Steve Nash winning 2 MVPs (back-to-back for that matter) and Shaq having one.

[21_Blessings]

Only cuz he played in like a 10 team league full of unathletic white guys. And how many 7 footers did he have to combat? the biggest, baddest guy he had to face was Bill Russell, who was barely 6'9, and often times would give him the business. Wilt was a nice player, but would get murdered by guys like Hakeem, or Shaq.

Wilt is massively overrated by his inflated stats.

Most idiotic post of all time.

[stretch]

Where as, David only scored 71 points in a game in the modern era. I guess that means he wouldn't have dominated back then at all.

I never said anything about David Robinson not being able to dominate back then. My use of Shaq in the Wilt discussion had NOTHING to do with D-Rob, and I'm very sure Robinson could have scored a 100 point game as well, although lets be fair, his 71 point game came in a rather non-compe ive game. Kobe's 62 against the Mavs, or T-Mac's 60-something point game a few years back, Lebron's 48 against Detroit in game 5 last year, and Dirk/T-Mac's 53/48 point shootout were all FAR more impressive because they were earned in a different manner, and their teams needed those points to win their games. Robinson's game was meaningless, and at the end of the season, where teammates were just feeding him the ball to get that scoring le. Nice performance, but still a meaningless game.

You just compared grabbing someone's arm to completely running them over and removing them from the play. They are not equal, and my analogy was attempting to illustrate a similar difference between two aggressive acts. I'm sorry it was too difficult for you to relate the two. I'll make a simpler reference next time.

I'm sorry that you are too defensive of your little Spurs to realize that a foul is a foul, no matter how big or small. I'm sorry that you can't accept the concept that all players do little things that bend the rules, and even break them, but do them in such a smart, subtle manner that they can get away with it. I'm sorry that you get all butthurt over me not mentioning D-Rob when making a comparison between Wilt and Shaq, which had nothing to do with D-Rob in the first place.

Do us all a favor, and before the next time you talk basketball, kindly un yourself.

[stretch]

Most idiotic post of all time.

Most idiotic poster of all time. I can't wait to see your stupid ass get banned after the playoffs.

[stretch]

But I'll never fully be right with Steve Nash winning 2 MVPs (back-to-back for that matter) and Shaq having one.

I really don't see the problem with that. Nash absolutely deserved his first one. And the second one I think was very deserved too, the more i look at it. He lost Amare for the year, and still led the team to win their division, had even better stats than the year before, and people still looked at them as le contenders, despite not having Amare (their biggest scorer and Nash's #2 guy). They finished with the 3rd best record in the West as well. That's quite impressive for someone who lost his #2 option, as well as an extreme talent in Joe Johnson to free agency.

The only other guy that was in the discussion was Kobe. He had fantastic scoring stats. But he BARELY made the playoffs. And while people say this shouldn't factor into the MVP discussion, I think it should really just prove and solidify Nash's MVP, that he beat Kobe head to head in the playoffs. Besides, how often does the leader of a team that gets a #7 seed win MVP?

[resistanze]

I really don't see the problem with that. Nash absolutely deserved his first one. And the second one I think was very deserved too, the more i look at it. He lost Amare for the year, and still led the team to win their division, had even better stats than the year before, and people still looked at them as le contenders, despite not having Amare (their biggest scorer and Nash's #2 guy). They finished with the 3rd best record in the West as well. That's quite impressive for someone who lost his #2 option, as well as an extreme talent in Joe Johnson to free agency.

The only other guy that was in the discussion was Kobe. He had fantastic scoring stats. But he BARELY made the playoffs. And while people say this shouldn't factor into the MVP discussion, I think it should really just prove and solidify Nash's MVP, that he beat Kobe head to head in the playoffs. Besides, how often does the leader of a team that gets a #7 seed win MVP?

The first MVP I had no problem with, since to me it was between Nash and Shaq, even though Nash's impact of their turnaround was exaggerated.

The reasoning for the second MVP makes no sense to me and isn't consistent with past awards. In his first MVP, Nash is responsible for making all his teammates better, and was basically given all the credit for the performances of his teammates, including Amare. All of a sudden Amare goes down and Nash is credited for succeeding despite Amare? In the first case he won because they had a big turnaround, the second case they gave it to him because "well...you didn't do as bad as we expected, you only lost 8 more games than last year" which is a weak reason to give an MVP, especially for a back-to-back. In that case, Pippen should've destroyed Hakeem and D-Rob in MVP voting when Jordan retired.

There were several people in the 2006 MVP debate; Nash, Kobe, Dirk, Billups, and LeBron - who should've won. Leading the Cavs to a 50-win season averaging something like 32/7/7; if that can't get you an MVP, I don't know what can. Ironically, people said this year he couldn't win MVP unless his team got to 50 wins. , I would've picked Dirk over Nash in that year, he was better than he was in the year he actually won MVP.

[101A]

If you could transplant David Robinson's brain and put it in Shaq's freakish body Shaq would've been the undisputed best big man to ever play the game. His Lack professionalism and dedication to his craft prevented him from being the greatest center of all time! He still managed to win 4 rings. Scary thought of what could've been!

David's body was as freakish as Shaq's - just different. What he could do in a frame that long was unbelievable. Shaq had Hurcule's body; David had God's.

Neither David or Shaq, IMO, lived up to their PHYSICAL potential. Put Manu's, or Avery's mind in either of those bodies, and you have THE GOAT.

[101A]

Shaq won only one MVP because of that laziness, so I don't see it as a travesty. In the late 90's he was constantly overweight and missed a lot of games. He finally got his act together in 2000 and had one of the best seasons for any player ever. But I can't think of one MVP that he was robbed of.

Compare David's '93 season to Shaq's '00; the numbers are almost identical.

[O-Factor]

Robinson...I hate Shaq too much.

Plus Robinson could of won with the casts in LA and Miami.

[mavs>spurs2]

Somewhere Shaq is reading this thread and getting pissed. Didn't he used to hate David Robinson?

[O-Factor]

Somewhere Shaq is reading this thread and getting pissed. Didn't he used to hate David Robinson?

yeah, apparently David didn't give him an autograph when Shaq was a little big fat kid or something and that pissed him off for life.

[MateoNeygro]

With the ball in his hands in a halfcourt set, yes, I don't think that's an unfair comparison. He didn't have Dirk's range or his mental toughness. He was substantially quicker and got more points in transition, though.

Dave didn't have Dirk's range but he was definently more mentally tough than in Dirk, Dirk was up 0-2 on Miami and didn't have enough to beat them. So thats bull , and Dirk played with Steve Nash and Michael Finley in his prime. People comparing Dirk and Dave are way off Dave played outstanding defense.

[JamStone]

David Robinson had a freakish upper body. He was light in the thighs and legs. Shaq has thickness and strength in his lower core. This allowed David Robinson to be great at running up and down the court for a big man, but didn't allow him to be a force down low. He was light in the ass.

I don't think David Robinson and Shaquille O'Neal had similar physiques at all.

Shaq was the better center because he was dominant scoring in the post. Robinson was definitely a better defender. But, Shaq's defense isn't as bad as David Robinson's low post offense.

Shaq was the better center.

[MateoNeygro]

I never said anything about David Robinson not being able to dominate back then. My use of Shaq in the Wilt discussion had NOTHING to do with D-Rob, and I'm very sure Robinson could have scored a 100 point game as well, although lets be fair, his 71 point game came in a rather non-compe ive game. Kobe's 62 against the Mavs, or T-Mac's 60-something point game a few years back, Lebron's 48 against Detroit in game 5 last year, and Dirk/T-Mac's 53/48 point shootout were all FAR more impressive because they were earned in a different manner, and their teams needed those points to win their games. Robinson's game was meaningless, and at the end of the season, where teammates were just feeding him the ball to get that scoring le. Nice performance, but still a meaningless game.


yourself.

THATS SOME MADE UP BIASED BULL - I BET YOU COULDN'T EVEN NAME THE TEAM HE DID IT AGAINST... JACKASS