Reply With Quote
the knicks still lost...
How was it a dunk on an open lane? Ben Wallace was there in the lane, jumping to contest the dunk by Ariza. Not an open lane dunk. Duncan's dunk was with Ben Wallace back-pedalling and in a position where he couldn't jump, at least not fully jump to his capabilities. I acknowledge that it still wasn't easy for Duncan and that it was a sick dunk nonetheless. But, explain how that is an ESPN highlight influenced opinion. That's an incredible opinion.
How is it easier to dunk on a guy who is flat footed and on his heels and didn't jump (Duncan on Ben) than to dunk on a guy who jumped as high as he could and tried to block it (Ariza on Ben)?
the knicks still lost...
Ariza initially had a lane to give him a running start. There are at least 40 guys in the NBA who, given a running start like that, can do what Ariza did (including Malik Rose, who did it to Dikembe in the 2003 Finals). Sure some times it'll get blocked, but that requires greatness on the part of the defender to stop it.
There are a handful who have the skill to do what Duncan did against an All-First team defender.
That doesn't explain how my opinion was a result of ESPN highlight influence.
And, it was stated already how Tim Duncan beat Ben Wallace on that play.
"There are a handful who have the skill to do what Duncan did against an All-First team defender."
I disagree. Once a defender gets beat and is on his heels, it's not very difficult for a any half-way athletic 7-footer to dunk on that defender. Sean Marks could have dunked on Ben if he got Ben on his heels. The impressive part of what Duncan did was his move TO THE BASKET in getting Ben on his heels. The actual dunk was not the hard or impressive part. Duncan was able to juke and dribble past Ben, and that was impressive. The actual dunk was hardly contested and Ben was back-pedalling. Since we were talking about the ACTUAL SLAM DUNKS as a comparative analysis, Ariza's dunk was more impressive because it took more athleticism to get up and over a FULLY JUMPING Ben Wallace. Tim Duncan's dunk was more impressive because he beat Ben Wallace off the dribble to put Ben in a poor position to contest it.
Once a defender is beat, and is trying to recover, back-pedalling, and unable to really jump to contest a dunk attempt, is that really more impressive than a guy outjumping Ben Wallace?
Now you're playing semantics. Saying the impressive part about Duncan's was his move to the basket is like saying the impressive part about Ariza's was his getting up in the air. Sean Marks could have dunked on Ben if he got that head of steam that high in the air.
The fact is that a lot fewer people can do what Duncan did start to finish than what Ariza did start to finish.
when in the game is it? cause i just got home and there is a replay of the game on theres like 3 mins left in the 3rd quarter.
so have i missed it?
never mind, its a replay of boston @ ny
Call it semantics. Your argument is the same. It's a matter of opinion.
If someone thinks the sheer athleticism of Ariza to out-jump Ben Wallace and dunk on him is more impressive than the skill of Tim Duncan to beat Wallace off the dribble in a face-up move to the basket and then end it with a emphatic dunk, then that is what it is.
You're the one who is making it appear less impressive just because Ariza's dunk was based on athleticism. But, if a person is more impressed with the athleticism, then how can you argue?
Not only that, but Duncan is a 7-footer, basically.
Ariza is 6'8".
Ben Wallace is 6'8", too.
It was a nice dunk, but like I said, every team in the NBA probably has two guys who could have done that.
It was just a dunk, two points, same as a layup. , it wasn't even a three pointer!
(Waiting for the anti-Rasho, anti-international, pro-dunks-balla-AND1-squad attack)
That is not that great.
Ben Wallace being 6-8 would make the Tim Duncan much less impressive too then, wouldn't it, especially considering Tim is almost 7-feet?
I would say that what's impressive is a guy almost 7-feet with that kind of footwork.
You never mentioned footwork or the actual drive Tim made on Ben.
You said the dunk being on someone guarding the player straight up was the impressive part ... not the footwork, not the dribble-drive, not the face-up move. The dunk. You rhapsodized over the ACTUAL DUNK.
Semantics or not, that was your point. And, that was the point of this entire discussion: the impressiveness of the SLAM DUNKS. Not the moves that led to the dunks.
You can alter and amend your argument now, but I will still contend that a flying slam dunk over a jumping Ben Wallace is more impressive than a slam dunk over a back-pedalling Ben Wallace who didn't really gather himself enough to jump fully.
Whatever makes you feel good.
I stand by what I originally said exactly as written.
I feel fine. That's good you standby what you said and yet still need to amend it with an addition about "footwork." Whatever makes you feel better.
I amend nothing. You're the one who thinks that dunking is just jumping up in the air.
FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT!
I have 2500 vbookie on Shoogarbear!
9.9 times out of 10, that doesn't fly in front of Ben Wallace's face, especially with such force.
That is why I started this thread.
ShoogarBear,
You first described Tim dunking on Ben merely as Ben guarding Tim straight up. You add later how impressive the footwork was preluding the dunk. That, sir, is an amendment to your original argument.
Even thus, if you are so enamored and impressed by the footwork rather than the actual slam dunk, by reason and logic right there, the Trevor Ariza "DUNK" was more impressive. You are impressed by the move that led to the dunk, not the dunk.
The discussion was about which slam dunk was more impressive.
Semantics shmemanatics ... yet you want to continue with your own semantical argument.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
