Hakeem vs Duncan Part 2

[Lars]

Which 4 of those 6 (really 5) would those be?

87-88? Over Magic when they won 62 games and were favorites for the re-peat? I doubt it.
90-91? When he missed 36 games?
91-92? When the Rockets were one game over .500 despite Olajuwon playing 70 games?
95-96? As a 48 win team over Shawn Kemp with 64 wins and Shaq with 60?
97-98? When he missed half the season?

I was wrong, you are correct on this one.

[endrity]

As a career, Duncan > Hakeem. Hakeem had an incredibly high peak, and at that peak he arguably was the best big man ever. But that peak was very short lived, those two years when he won the rings. So if you take the whole body of work in consideration I will take Duncan, not only Mr.Fundamentals but also Mr.Consistency for over 10 years in the league.

[Double-Up]

As a career, Duncan > Hakeem. Hakeem had an incredibly high peak, and at that peak he arguably was the best big man ever. But that peak was very short lived, those two years when he won the rings. So if you take the whole body of work in consideration I will take Duncan, not only Mr.Fundamentals but also Mr.Consistency for over 10 years in the league.

Duncan's been more successful winning award/championships but as an individual talent to build a franchise around I'm picking Dream everytime. BTW I never though this thread would go 15 pages...

[Blake]

Yeah Blake, all people have offered so far is opinions dating back to '94 .

no they have also offered other lame opinions.

Nevermind the horrid shooting % of those other Rocket players, Vernon Maxwell being the 2nd leading scorer at 13 points off 32% shooting

agreed. nevermind teammates shooting %

nevermind him being better than Duncan in every statistical category,

check again, they are practically the same.

or being better than him at simply every aspect of basketball.

other than a few years, the rest is only your opinion. You've got nothing to back it up.

All you have is your weak "4 rings got" argument, the same Spur fans always fall back on as a crutch when they get upset or owned.

4 rings is only weak to penis envy fans like you whose team has zero rings no matter how much you cry about your fake 2006 le.

And it's not just 4 rings. Other than the short season, it's a 10 year streak of 50+ wins and finishing either 1st or 2nd in the division with totally different teammates than the ones he started with.

It's about winning 60 games and a le with no other all stars on the team.

It's about 2 MVPS while Hakeem has ONE.

Spur fans have been ridiculed so much for the very argument you're presenting that "4 rings got" has become a trademark spurstalk phrase.

because 4 rings got is good enough to put pussies like you in your place.

Offer something besides calling people idiots and saying 4>2 before you talk to us.

I have. I can't help you if you only read the part that says "you're an idiot."

If Robert Horry, the man who played along side both guys says it's true, then it's good enough for me.

good for you. After you get off of Horry's , maybe you can do some real research on the subject.

Look at the era of big men Hakeem played in and fast forward to today. Dwight Howard is the undisputed best center in the game, just because of raw athletic ability. He doesn't have a single post move, a shot, any ball handling skills, or really very many basketball skills for that matter.

People said the same things about Robinson too.

You can't just look at achievements ignoring the difference in era's, building you're entire argument upon "4>2."

yes you can because Duncan can't go back and play in the 80s and 90s.

There are plenty of big men in this era that Duncan has had to face that are just as good if not better than the centers of the 90s.

their stats are basically the same

2 MVPs>1MVP
4 Rings> 2Rings

Everything else is speculation.

Discuss a point that hasn't yet been brought up and I'll respond, until then kindly take my out of your mouth and off.

Make a decent point other than "Hakeem had sorrier teammates and played against better players" and maybe you get taken a little more serious.

[TDMVPDPOY]

As a career, Duncan > Hakeem. Hakeem had an incredibly high peak, and at that peak he arguably was the best big man ever. But that peak was very short lived, those two years when he won the rings. So if you take the whole body of work in consideration I will take Duncan, not only Mr.Fundamentals but also Mr.Consistency for over 10 years in the league.

bs, hakeems high peak was only those 2-3 years when jordan was out of the league, every other year was just the same....

[Blake]

I called you a for the way you react and respond to people not agreeing with you. You're always trying to turn things around just like a little kid.

because calling people a is real mature. Pot meet kettle. Why don't you open a new thread on me if youre this obsessed.

Stop crying like a 5 year old girl that had her candy stolen and start posting some real material in this thread.

nobody is forcing you to post here, you focking idiot.

[Blake]

370 replies and 3 or 4 days and the voting is still the same....I think it's time to close up shop, nobody's opinions are going to change.

great. see ya.

Duncan>Hakeem

[mavs>spurs2]

This guy makes MrChug seem smart and rational

[Blake]

This guy makes MrChug seem smart and rational

2006 Champions*, got!

you're an idiot.

[Thomas82]

great. See ya.

Duncan>hakeem

+1

[mavs>spurs2]

2006 Champions*, got!

you're an idiot.

Lol, your parents named you Blake

One ring, got

[Blake]

Lol, your parents named you Blake

One ring, got

lol, you named yourself mavs>spurs

One ring, got!

you are a focking idiot.

[Blake]

lol still waiting for someone to come to your aid



that was funny.

you are a focking idiot.

[mavs>spurs2]

lol still waiting for someone to come to your aid



that was funny.

you are a focking idiot.

No, it wasn't funny. Stop laughing at your own jokes, you look lame

[Blake]

No, it wasn't funny. Stop laughing at your own jokes, you look lame

yes, it was funny.

you are a focking idiot.

Duncan>Hakeem

Ben Wallace on D>Hakeem on D

One ring, got!

[mavs>spurs2]

yes, it was funny.

you are a focking idiot.

Duncan>Hakeem

Ben Wallace on D>Hakeem on D

One ring, got!

exactly, one ring got

at you seriously trying to make a case for Ben Wallace over the greatest defender of all time on the basis of "Blake says so." If you're going to make such a bold claim, you better have some groundbreaking evidence to back you up. No one here will agree with you on this one

[Blake]

exactly, one ring got

lol One ring, got!

at you seriously trying to make a case for Ben Wallace over the greatest defender of all time on the basis of "Blake says so." If you're going to make such a bold claim, you better have some groundbreaking evidence to back you up. No one here will agree with you on this one

hakeem isn't the greatest defender of all time. Bill Russell is.

Ben might not be better than Hakeem, but he's in the same conversation.

Can you really not read? Ben won 4 DPOY awards in 5 years. That's more than enough evidence but I'm sure you'll dismiss it as usual and start talking about "different eras"

You are a focking idiot.

[mavs>spurs2]

hakeem isn't the greatest defender of all time. Bill Russell is.

You could make a good case for that, although it's very much up for grabs

Ben might not be better than Hakeem

Thanks

Ben won 4 DPOY awards in 5 years.

Ben was a great defender, but Nash is also a 2 time back to back MVP. Shouting out numbers and awards as you so often do isn't always all there is to it. Ben Wallace has looked like complete ever since leaving Detroit, and it's no coincidence. He was more a product of Larry Brown's system and the Piston's great team defense, they all covered eachother's asses but Ben got the majority of the credit since he was the anchor. You're really reaching if you're calling Ben the greatest defensive player of all time, because that's what you're saying when you say he > Hakeem since Hakeem and Russell are basically a wash.

[Blake]

Ben was a great defender, but Nash is also a 2 time back to back MVP. Shouting out numbers and awards as you so often do isn't always all there is to it.

apparently numbers and awards < your opinion.

Awards aren't given out simply on numbers. They are handed out based on supposedly unbiased opinions.

so when hakeem only finishes in the top 10 in MVP voting just SIX times in his long career, that should tell you something.......but I'm gonna bet it doesn't.

[mavs>spurs2]

apparently numbers and awards < your opinion.

Awards aren't given out simply on numbers. They are handed out based on supposedly unbiased opinions.

so when hakeem only finishes in the top 10 in MVP voting just SIX times in his long career, that should tell you something.......but I'm gonna bet it doesn't.

It tells you that Hakeem had the most dominant several year stretch in basketball of any big man in the modern era, while playing in a tough era. If you miss alot of games, as Hakeem did a couple of those seasons, you're automatically excluded from MVP talks no matter how good you are. Your numbers are an empty hollow argument and don't mean . You're nitpicking, Blake. Reaching and grasping at any straw you can find. Ben Wallace > Hakeem? I mean, cmon guy, I'm feeling sorry for you right about now.

[Blake]

If you miss alot of games, as Hakeem did a couple of those seasons, you're automatically excluded from MVP talks no matter how good you are.

If you miss a lot of games like Michael did in 94 and 95, you are automatically excluded from le talk.

Your numbers are an empty hollow argument and don't mean .

because you're an idiot that can't read.

You're nitpicking, Blake. Reaching and grasping at any straw you can find.

you mean like how duncan has 2 MVPs and Hakeem doesnt?

I don't think you know what nitpicking means.

Ben Wallace > Hakeem? I mean, cmon guy, I'm feeling sorry for you right about now.

you really can't read, can you.

I already said Ben might not be better, but belongs in the same conversation.

I feel sorry for illiterates.

[Bob Lanier]

I already said Ben might not be better, but belongs in the same conversation.

He doesn't.

He belongs in the same tier as Tim Duncan as the best defenders of this decade, but both are below Hakeem Olajuwon, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Bill Russell, and Wilt Chamberlain.

[mavs>spurs2]

You're the hardest kind of troll to deal with. Your entire gameplan consists of nitpicking, grasping at straws, throwing in some numbers when they suit your case, sprinkled with random insults. 16 Pages and we've accomplished that according to Blake I'm an idiot, 4>2, and 2 MVPs, got. Grats

[mavs>spurs2]

He doesn't.

Thanks

[ambchang]

Bob McAdoo > Charles Barkley because they have the same # of MVPs and McAdoo have two more rings.

so you think judging someone by the number of MVPs he has is stupid, but judging someone on the way you think he pouted is smart.
great.

But of course Hakeem pouting for the earlier part of his career, threatening a trade and almost destroyed the Rockets franchise was lost on you. This certainly is a better method that looking at awards and les with absolutely no understanding of how those awards came about.