Reply With Quote
No. Hakeem is in no ones rear view mirror except Jordans. Tim Duncan is a nice player, top 20 all time, but please leave him out of the Jordan, Hakeem, Bird, Magic discussions.
the bulls were certainly good, and so where the lakers-- but neither team ever played the spurs did they (as for the the bulls they never played the rockets either.
It seems like everyone undervalues the spurs, but history will look at them differently
No. Hakeem is in no ones rear view mirror except Jordans. Tim Duncan is a nice player, top 20 all time, but please leave him out of the Jordan, Hakeem, Bird, Magic discussions.
I can agree that you can die comapring anyone to Jordan.
Maybe Bird and magic because of the fame
But Hakeem?
GMAB
Tim Duncan never missed a second round in the playoffs.
hakeem was taking seasons off
In what element of the basketball art Hakeem is so far infront of Duncan?
Esecially talking about the most important thing - winning.
IS Olajuwon out of question to be the best center in the history?
Cause you mentioned only 3 guys which lifted the NBA to the watchabale level in the 80s and 90s (for the fans). From a marketing point of view they are out of reach but basketball wise?
Was hakkem better indyvidual player then was Wilt?
Was Hakeem better team player then was Bill?
Was Hakeem simply better then 20 jabbar years?
Add some people to the disscussion man!
Yeah he's just a "nice player"
All the experts put Duncan in the Jordan, Hakeem, Bird and Magic discussions, so I will take their opinions over yours. Tim will be considered the best at his position of all time. And has won more than Hakeem. I don't know why you think that Duncan doesn't belong with Hakeem. But then again I guess you as a Mav fan think Dirk is just as great as Duncan, when really its an insult to Tim Duncan to be compared to that choker.
Well for one Tim might be the greatest PF of all time, if you want to consider him a PF at 7ft. But is he the greatest big man of all time? Not by a long shot. Who are these experts you speak of? Link?
All the experts put Duncan in the Jordan, Hakeem, Bird and Magic discussions, so I will take their opinions over yours. Tim will be considered the best at his position of all time. And has won more than Hakeem. I don't know why you think that Duncan doesn't belong with Hakeem. But then again I guess you as a Mav fan think Dirk is just as great as Duncan, when really its an insult to Tim Duncan to be compared to that choker.
The "who has won more" bull is tired and worn out. Hakeem won 2 rings in a much tougher era going up against the likes of Shaq, Robinson, Ewing, Kemp, and defensive greats like Mutumbo. He was defending players like those guys on a nightly basis and still scoring and putting up numbers at the other end. When was the last time you saw Duncan defending the other teams star low post player? I know Duncan doesn't defend Dirk because of fear of foul trouble. Hakeem put up more ppg, rpg, fg%, blocks, steals, just about every stat you can think of. He had more moves than Duncan, more athleticism, and even better defense, which is apparent by Duncan's inability to defend premier post players in this league although he is a great helpside defender. No one other than a Spurs homer would argue that Duncan>Hakeem. even Jordan isn't that much better than Hakeem. Hakeem was like a guard in a big mans body he was the most skilled, athletic big the league has ever seen.
Last edited by mavs>spurs2; 08-25-2007 at 10:55 AM.
Why are you bringing Bill Russell and Wilt into this conversation? They were the only 2 giants in a watered down league with fewer teams and even less talent. They would both be average big men at best in today's league.
Just like the poster after you, you want to bring winning into the discussion. Hakeem proved that he was a winner with his 2 rings. Don't penalize him for not having a front office that surrounds him with talent like the Spurs front office, or else he would have more rings. You put Olujuwon on the Spurs in place of Duncan and they would have 5-7 rings and have repeated by now.
Since I know you have never likely seen Olajuwon play, you probably ought to youtube him sometime and check him out. You might have to change up your opinion after actually watching the guy play.
Well I must consider if you are kidding me or what?
The first sentence you brought. This about Wilton Norman and Bill should force me to just quit and ignore you. But I'm so kind that I will try to explain some things which are bothering you.
1. Why I brough two best centers in the history to that conversation?
Simply because that if you consider (as you mentioned before) Bird Magic and Jordan AND HAKEEM to be out of Tims reach, I can cosider Wilt being out of reach for anyone who played in this leaguge (from the indyvidual point of view). They would be just average big men?
Put in your mind the whole invention process. The progressin in medicine in sportswear and in training, work out etc.
Search and get back to the 70s and take a look what kind of problems had this league and esp. players with injuries and how they lived. Compare them to the stars of today and get back to me.
I won't even mention the evolution in the game which is normal process.
I sad the game not players to be precise.
2. A winner.
have you read this whole thread or just want to bring few centssayin Hakeem was better without giving any arguments. The guys already brought them and that was enough as I assume they ended disscussion in a right time.
There was a part with the FO and the supporting cast. To me it's just impossible how could Tim won with the supporters he had. Amazing how Tony was still a youngster. Damn Tony was still not ready in 2004. And in 2003 he had 3 good first games of the Finals then he dissapeared. manu was just a rookie man of the bench nothing more, nothing special.
View this thread and then come back.
3. Youtube yourself.
I maybe a Spurs homer but last I checked, Duncan has been dominant way longer than Hakeem has and also my math knowledge tells me 4>2. Hakeem benefited from Jordan being gone. But I do think Hakeem was a great defender than Tim, but thats about it.
i love duncan he got more championship than hakeem, but don't disregard the fact that duncan had a better supporting cast for his whole career. i would say duncan=hakeem
English isn't your first language, am I correct?
Ill try to answer a couple of your questions anyway.
1. Russell and Chamberlain might have put up the best numbers ever, but they were playing in a league with much less talent and even less big men. A player with their skill set would be lucky to survive in today's league where they wouldn't tower above opposing players. Common sense will tell you that it is easier to win rings in a league with less teams, it really ups your odds. Russell was also coached by Auerbach, had Bob Cousy as a point guard, and Havlicek among others.
2. You can not base solely base your argument on rings. Just because 4 rings > 2, they were both still winners. Both players won championships, and there were different influences on why each player has won what they did. Olajuwon played in a much tougher era IMO and therefore won less rings. Nothing to be ashamed of, but a legitimate reason. You put Olajuwon on any championship Spurs team in place of Duncan and they still win the championship every time. The 4>2 arguement is weak and has so many flaws in it. According to your logic, Robert Horry>Jordan, and no one is buying that bull .
Even a dog can find a bone on a desert ...
2. Hmm where did I brought the 4>2 argument?Ill try to answer a couple of your questions anyway.
1. Russell and Chamberlain might have put up the best numbers ever, but they were playing in a league with much less talent and even less big men. A player with their skill set would be lucky to survive in today's league where they wouldn't tower above opposing players. Common sense will tell you that it is easier to win rings in a league with less teams, it really ups your odds. Russell was also coached by Auerbach, had Bob Cousy as a point guard, and Havlicek among others.
2. You can not base solely base your argument on rings. Just because 4 rings > 2, they were both still winners. Both players won championships, and there were different influences on why each player has won what they did. Olajuwon played in a much tougher era IMO and therefore won less rings. Nothing to be ashamed of, but a legitimate reason. You put Olajuwon on any championship Spurs team in place of Duncan and they still win the championship every time. The 4>2 arguement is weak and has so many flaws in it. According to your logic, Robert Horry>Jordan, and no one is buying that bull .
Although 4 is higher number then 2 so 4>2 is correct.
We can all base on ifs when it comes to comparing NBA superstar players. It's comes with taste and individual needs of a single person.
So there will always be argues.
I just want to mention those Duncans 10 years in the best pro team in the states. Was Hakeem near to that kind of achievement?
(1.)Taking about supporters: As I remember correctly Boston have never won a championship before Russell came to this city. There you had Cousy, Sharmann, Auerbach, McCaulley (all HOFs? ---- yup).
And don't you just transfer Bill or Wilt to the 00s - it's unfair to them, to the leauge (any age) and to times.
Sheesh they had no internet in 70s, no cell phones no ipods. Why is that? Because every era got it's time. Period. That's the common sense.
And prove me that there was less talent in 70s ()
Plus Russell and Chamberlain met many more times. Not just 2 or 4 times in a year like in a todays NBA.
Btw. the players height through the ages haven't changed much so the argument about less big men is funny.
When I get home, when I get some time I might argue about the supporters hakeem had. And what kind of game he played and how many treys his weak supportes were hitting.
It's pretty obvious with your incoherent choppy sentences.
Your 2nd major point was that Duncan was a winner, and the only way he is more of a winner than Hakeem is if you are going with the lame 4>2 arguement. Nice try, you fail.
Last edited by mavs>spurs2; 08-25-2007 at 11:28 PM.
I'm incoherent no metter the language or the country which is Poland as everybody knows here.
Hmm - you didn't?
Umm winner is a guy who helps his team win more basketball games. Yup the most important is the number 4 which hakeem won't even smell but through all those years as you (not excactly you
Btw I will tell you when I fail okay?
I'm incoherent no metter the language or the country which is Poland as everybody knows here.
Hmm - you didn't?
Umm winner is a guy who helps his team win more basketball games. Yup the most important is the number 4 which hakeem won't even smell but through all those years as you (not excactly you
Btw I will tell you when I fail okay?wtf?
It's got to do with the evolution of a game as I was telling you.
You claim to be an NBA fan not knowing the history of the NBA?
Hmm there was not a blog fight in a long time here ...
Yes, the game changes and is played alot differently than it was when the league was first founded years ago. That still doesn't change any of my points. Wilt and Russel played in an era with fewer teams, less talent, and less big men. In those days a 7 footer was very rare to see and they were able to dominate their much smaller opponents. They would both be lucky to be role players in today's league.It's got to do with the evolution of a game as I was telling you.
You claim to be an NBA fan not knowing the history of the NBA?
Uhhh Wilt was 7-foot-1, 275 and athletic. He would have little trouble being more than just a role player in today's league.
And, I don't understand why you can hypothetically put them in today's game but fail to allow them today's advantages. You don't think Wilt and Russell would have also been into weight training? Don't think they'd also be in AAU from the age of 12 years old if they were born in the 80s? You can't just put them into today's game without allowing for them to have the same amenities in terms of strength and conditioning, training and year long basketball.
Let's put Wilt and Russell in today's game but they have 1960s medical technology and they don't get to train and condition all year round.
Makes a lot of sense ...
I thought I would have a valuable disscussion her, but as I can see that mavs fan is lacking of basketball knowledge so I won't even bother the response.
Thank you much
kissess to all
Learn to speak english before you try to have a basketball discussion.
The basketball disscussion is about having a knowledge in the mind.
I do not need to speak English or Slovenian or Chinise.
But somebody like you would not understand that kind of stuff mainly because you lack the most common knowledge, the ABC basketball knowledge and esp. NBA knowledge.
You even not worth of discussion.
Saying that there were few 7 footers when Wilt was playing and NBA had no bigmen is a lie.
Recognize
Not if the Sean Kemp Sonics allowed it.
Btw, Olajuwon against 01 shaq would have been double ed. Olajuwon wouldn't have beaten the LakerDynasty in this early part of the century. You're smokin somethin.
And btw, you can take the Shooting Guard trapped in a centers body, I'll take the 4 time champion and anchor of the one of the best statistical defensive squads in history in a Powerfowards body, in the age of the elite guards and small fowards nevertheless.
Btw, Duncan beat out a guy for best PF of all time who happened to have a Linebackers physique trapped in a PF's body.
And Btw, don't let the simple fact that afro's and 450 engines ruled the day in the Kareem and wilt days distract from the superathletic and competive day in this era.
Duncan won in the toughest era of the Western Conference, with Kevin Garnett, Dirk and Nash Mavs, The Lakers, Jazz, and the Sacramento Kings.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
