Who has more Rings?

[history2b]

How many more times do I have to tell you that I have no issue respecting their greatness and value to the game?

There is no question that players today learned from players in the past. But that doesn't mean they cannot become superior basketball players. Typically when you learn from the past, you learn ways to expand and exceed their successes. Just look at science and the way that over time it has expanded and humans keep accomplishing things that in the past were never thought possible. It's a result of past scientists paving the way, no question, but it doesnt change the fact that their ideas have been exceeded.

Basketball players in more modern eras have far exceeded most players from previous eras, just the same way the scientists today have exceeded previous scientists works and accomplishments.

At this point, I really can't tell if you are truly this stupid, or if you are actually pulling of a good troll job. I have a hard time believing the latter theory though, because a good troll job wouldn't consist of dumb like "you're a mavs fan so you know nothing about defense!!! LOL!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!!!1!!!" trolls here have far exceeded that kind of childplay.

The defensive comment that eludes you is that since you devalue Russell's impact as a player defensively insomuch that you'll rationalize that a slew of modern players could do what he did, then you don't understand defense.

I understand your position:

All the new players are better than the past players. Derrick Rose is better than Bob Cousy, Dwight better than Russell and Loul Deng must be better than Havlicek too. I just think you're an ignorant Mavericks fan for believing such things. That's not how comparisons or proper evaluations work.

[Fpoonsie]

>

[history2b]

Basketball is a compe ion not an invention. Conceptually separating the differences would help.

[Fpoonsie]

Basketball is a compe ion not an invention. Conceptually separating the differences would help.

So, too, would comprehending Phillip's point.

[z0sa]

Basketball is a compe ion not an invention.

So what exactly did the good doctor Naismith do for basketball, then?

[history2b]

So, too, would comprehending Phillip's point.

His point is understood, that does not mean it is accepted. It's flawed logic and disrespectful to the sport.

[history2b]

So what exactly did the good doctor Naismith do for basketball, then?

Concepts z0sa, concepts. Wrap your head around them first, then post.

[z0sa]

Concepts z0sa, concepts. Wrap your head around them first, then post.

You typed these words: "Basketball is a compe ion not an invention"

What did Naismith do originally in the 1890's involving the sport?

[history2b]

You typed these words: "Basketball is a compe ion not an invention"

What did Naismith do originally in the 1890's involving the sport?

Concepts z0sa. Try again. Get a dictionary if you like.

I know it is important to you to have something to say at every turn in order to battle "trolls" but you really need to sharpen up if you're going to continue to play.

[z0sa]

We all know avoiding questions is a concept you understand quite clearly.

[history2b]

btw z0sa still waiting....

who has more rings kobe or the spurs franchise?

[z0sa]

You are not familiar with the concept of rhetorical questions, however.

Perhaps you should take your advice and grab a dictionary.

[Phillip]

[history2b]

We all know avoiding questions is a concept you understand quite clearly.

Nope, I just don't answer questions that are twisted fallacies derived from a trolls misunderstanding of concepts.

[z0sa]

"Basketball is a compe ion not an invention" is a very clear statement.

You did type that statement, right?

[history2b]

Dirk > Pet

Chandler > Russell

Terry > Sam Jones


lol

[Fpoonsie]

Yeah, I prolly shouldn't have jumped in there, but I felt like posting oversized pics to make a point that wasn't mine.

[history2b]

"Basketball is a compe ion not an invention" is a very clear statement.

You did type that statement, right?

Sure did.

[history2b]

Still waiting for answers....

who has more rings kobe or the spurs franchise?

[ElNono]

How many rings does Kobe have?
Don't forget to count the big ring he bought his wife after Colorado...

And how many rings does the Spurs franchise owns?

Without answering these questions, your question is basically full of fail...

[z0sa]

Then you think Naismith did not invent the game of basketball.

It seems you are quite unfamiliar with the game.

[history2b]

Then you think Naismith did not invent the game of basketball.

It seems you are quite unfamiliar with the game.

Nope. Never said that.

Connect the dots fail.

[history2b]

still waiting z0sa

who has more rings kobe or the spurs franchise?

[Phillip]

Yeah, I prolly shouldn't have jumped in there, but I felt like posting oversized pics to make a point that wasn't mine.

history2b has quickly became one of the biggest dumbasses on the forum.

[z0sa]

Nope. Never said that.

Connect the dots fail.

If basketball is not invention, then there could never be an inventor.

Therefore, according to these "dots" of yours, Naismith did not create the game of basketball.

Having trouble connecting your own dots?