Michael Jordan - How Quickly They Forget (MJ vs Lebron)

[kix4kix]

Michael Jordan is the best player to ever play the game. No stats needed, I watched him play. That's all I need.

 

[651akathepaul]

There will never be another Jordan. All others in comparison pale. There will, however, be the one and only Lebron James. And when all is said and done, he will never be a Michael Jordan.

 

[651akathepaul]

There will never be another Jordan. All others in comparison pale. There will, however, be the one and only Lebron James. And when all is said and done, he will never be a Michael Jordan.

 

[ballinsam23]

watching that in 1080p was 

 

[ballinsam23]

watching that in 1080p was 

 

[knightngale]

Originally Posted by OnionSlice

From a legacy standpoint, there's no competition at all. As just a pure performance standpoint, it's not completely outlandish or anything. It's still Jordan, but it's not ridiculous or anything.

I think of it like this. Right now LeBron is like '91 MJ. MJ was in his prime in the '91 playoffs and on his way to winning his first championship. He didn't have a ring yet, but he was at his best. Would anyone argue that '96 MJ was better than '91 MJ? He had the rings, the finals MVPs, the epic finals performances, but he wasn't a better player than '91 MJ.

Look at Kobe. He won his last 2 rings past his prime era. Would anybody argue that 2010 5 ring was better than 2005 3 ring Kobe?

I think LeBron will be at his absolute peak around 2012-2013. He may achieve more championships and MVP awards after that, but it won't mean that that is when he is at his best.

You can argue that MJ solidified his legacy with his 6th championship, but MJ winning rings #4, #5 & #6 was not the greatest player of all time. The MJ of the first 3-peat was the G.O.A.T.

think about what you just said and apologize to yourself

 

[knightngale]

Originally Posted by OnionSlice

From a legacy standpoint, there's no competition at all. As just a pure performance standpoint, it's not completely outlandish or anything. It's still Jordan, but it's not ridiculous or anything.

I think of it like this. Right now LeBron is like '91 MJ. MJ was in his prime in the '91 playoffs and on his way to winning his first championship. He didn't have a ring yet, but he was at his best. Would anyone argue that '96 MJ was better than '91 MJ? He had the rings, the finals MVPs, the epic finals performances, but he wasn't a better player than '91 MJ.

Look at Kobe. He won his last 2 rings past his prime era. Would anybody argue that 2010 5 ring was better than 2005 3 ring Kobe?

I think LeBron will be at his absolute peak around 2012-2013. He may achieve more championships and MVP awards after that, but it won't mean that that is when he is at his best.

You can argue that MJ solidified his legacy with his 6th championship, but MJ winning rings #4, #5 & #6 was not the greatest player of all time. The MJ of the first 3-peat was the G.O.A.T.

think about what you just said and apologize to yourself

 

[franchise 55]

Originally Posted by knightngale

Originally Posted by OnionSlice

From a legacy standpoint, there's no competition at all. As just a pure performance standpoint, it's not completely outlandish or anything. It's still Jordan, but it's not ridiculous or anything.

I think of it like this. Right now LeBron is like '91 MJ. MJ was in his prime in the '91 playoffs and on his way to winning his first championship. He didn't have a ring yet, but he was at his best. Would anyone argue that '96 MJ was better than '91 MJ? He had the rings, the finals MVPs, the epic finals performances, but he wasn't a better player than '91 MJ.

Look at Kobe. He won his last 2 rings past his prime era. Would anybody argue that 2010 5 ring was better than 2005 3 ring Kobe?

I think LeBron will be at his absolute peak around 2012-2013. He may achieve more championships and MVP awards after that, but it won't mean that that is when he is at his best.

You can argue that MJ solidified his legacy with his 6th championship, but MJ winning rings #4, #5 & #6 was not the greatest player of all time. The MJ of the first 3-peat was the G.O.A.T.

think about what you just said and apologize to yourself

You're not good with abstract ideas are you?

 

[franchise 55]

Originally Posted by knightngale

Originally Posted by OnionSlice

From a legacy standpoint, there's no competition at all. As just a pure performance standpoint, it's not completely outlandish or anything. It's still Jordan, but it's not ridiculous or anything.

I think of it like this. Right now LeBron is like '91 MJ. MJ was in his prime in the '91 playoffs and on his way to winning his first championship. He didn't have a ring yet, but he was at his best. Would anyone argue that '96 MJ was better than '91 MJ? He had the rings, the finals MVPs, the epic finals performances, but he wasn't a better player than '91 MJ.

Look at Kobe. He won his last 2 rings past his prime era. Would anybody argue that 2010 5 ring was better than 2005 3 ring Kobe?

I think LeBron will be at his absolute peak around 2012-2013. He may achieve more championships and MVP awards after that, but it won't mean that that is when he is at his best.

You can argue that MJ solidified his legacy with his 6th championship, but MJ winning rings #4, #5 & #6 was not the greatest player of all time. The MJ of the first 3-peat was the G.O.A.T.

think about what you just said and apologize to yourself

You're not good with abstract ideas are you?

 

[knightngale]

Originally Posted by FRANCHISE 55

Originally Posted by knightngale

Originally Posted by OnionSlice

From a legacy standpoint, there's no competition at all. As just a pure performance standpoint, it's not completely outlandish or anything. It's still Jordan, but it's not ridiculous or anything.

I think of it like this. Right now LeBron is like '91 MJ. MJ was in his prime in the '91 playoffs and on his way to winning his first championship. He didn't have a ring yet, but he was at his best. Would anyone argue that '96 MJ was better than '91 MJ? He had the rings, the finals MVPs, the epic finals performances, but he wasn't a better player than '91 MJ.

Look at Kobe. He won his last 2 rings past his prime era. Would anybody argue that 2010 5 ring was better than 2005 3 ring Kobe?

I think LeBron will be at his absolute peak around 2012-2013. He may achieve more championships and MVP awards after that, but it won't mean that that is when he is at his best.

You can argue that MJ solidified his legacy with his 6th championship, but MJ winning rings #4, #5 & #6 was not the greatest player of all time. The MJ of the first 3-peat was the G.O.A.T.

think about what you just said and apologize to yourself

You're not good with abstract ideas are you?

What do you mean? He is saying that 1st 3 peat Jordan was better than 2nd 3 peat jordan. That 2005 kobe was better than 2010 kobe. That prime lebron is better than older lebron.

I don't see what that has to do with lebron being comparable to jordan on a "pure performance" standpoint. Lebron has not reached Jordan on pure performance.

@ calling some 9th grade level argument "abstract idea"

 

[knightngale]

Originally Posted by FRANCHISE 55

Originally Posted by knightngale

Originally Posted by OnionSlice

From a legacy standpoint, there's no competition at all. As just a pure performance standpoint, it's not completely outlandish or anything. It's still Jordan, but it's not ridiculous or anything.

I think of it like this. Right now LeBron is like '91 MJ. MJ was in his prime in the '91 playoffs and on his way to winning his first championship. He didn't have a ring yet, but he was at his best. Would anyone argue that '96 MJ was better than '91 MJ? He had the rings, the finals MVPs, the epic finals performances, but he wasn't a better player than '91 MJ.

Look at Kobe. He won his last 2 rings past his prime era. Would anybody argue that 2010 5 ring was better than 2005 3 ring Kobe?

I think LeBron will be at his absolute peak around 2012-2013. He may achieve more championships and MVP awards after that, but it won't mean that that is when he is at his best.

You can argue that MJ solidified his legacy with his 6th championship, but MJ winning rings #4, #5 & #6 was not the greatest player of all time. The MJ of the first 3-peat was the G.O.A.T.

think about what you just said and apologize to yourself

You're not good with abstract ideas are you?

What do you mean? He is saying that 1st 3 peat Jordan was better than 2nd 3 peat jordan. That 2005 kobe was better than 2010 kobe. That prime lebron is better than older lebron.

I don't see what that has to do with lebron being comparable to jordan on a "pure performance" standpoint. Lebron has not reached Jordan on pure performance.

@ calling some 9th grade level argument "abstract idea"

 

[Shanegerous]

Very nice vid

 

[Shanegerous]

Very nice vid

 

[hannsum]

Originally Posted by cornzilla

You can't compare the two, they are completely different players playing in different eras. Let's just stop this non-sense.

you can compare anybody. 2 players don't always have to be similar. worst analogy 

 

[hannsum]

Originally Posted by cornzilla

You can't compare the two, they are completely different players playing in different eras. Let's just stop this non-sense.

you can compare anybody. 2 players don't always have to be similar. worst analogy 

 

[franchise 55]

Originally Posted by knightngale

Originally Posted by FRANCHISE 55

Originally Posted by knightngale

think about what you just said and apologize to yourself

You're not good with abstract ideas are you?

What do you mean? He is saying that 1st 3 peat Jordan was better than 2nd 3 peat jordan. That 2005 kobe was better than 2010 kobe. That prime lebron is better than older lebron.

I don't see what that has to do with lebron being comparable to jordan on a "pure performance" standpoint. Lebron has not reached Jordan on pure performance.

@ calling some 9th grade level argument "abstract idea"

So what were you trying to say when you bolded those two sentences?

 

[franchise 55]

Originally Posted by knightngale

Originally Posted by FRANCHISE 55

Originally Posted by knightngale

think about what you just said and apologize to yourself

You're not good with abstract ideas are you?

What do you mean? He is saying that 1st 3 peat Jordan was better than 2nd 3 peat jordan. That 2005 kobe was better than 2010 kobe. That prime lebron is better than older lebron.

I don't see what that has to do with lebron being comparable to jordan on a "pure performance" standpoint. Lebron has not reached Jordan on pure performance.

@ calling some 9th grade level argument "abstract idea"

So what were you trying to say when you bolded those two sentences?

 

[knightngale]

Originally Posted by FRANCHISE 55

Originally Posted by knightngale

Originally Posted by FRANCHISE 55

You're not good with abstract ideas are you?

What do you mean? He is saying that 1st 3 peat Jordan was better than 2nd 3 peat jordan. That 2005 kobe was better than 2010 kobe. That prime lebron is better than older lebron.

I don't see what that has to do with lebron being comparable to jordan on a "pure performance" standpoint. Lebron has not reached Jordan on pure performance.

@ calling some 9th grade level argument "abstract idea"

So what were you trying to say when you bolded those two sentences?

he is contradicting himself with those statements
and he has not addressed  how lebron and jordan are comparable in "pure performance"

he just went on and on with obvious stuff like being better when you are 25 then when you are 30
comparing being young to old and not comparing lebron's "pure performance" to Michael's

the whole post is outlandish and barely makes sense

 

[knightngale]

Originally Posted by FRANCHISE 55

Originally Posted by knightngale

Originally Posted by FRANCHISE 55

You're not good with abstract ideas are you?

What do you mean? He is saying that 1st 3 peat Jordan was better than 2nd 3 peat jordan. That 2005 kobe was better than 2010 kobe. That prime lebron is better than older lebron.

I don't see what that has to do with lebron being comparable to jordan on a "pure performance" standpoint. Lebron has not reached Jordan on pure performance.

@ calling some 9th grade level argument "abstract idea"

So what were you trying to say when you bolded those two sentences?

he is contradicting himself with those statements
and he has not addressed  how lebron and jordan are comparable in "pure performance"

he just went on and on with obvious stuff like being better when you are 25 then when you are 30
comparing being young to old and not comparing lebron's "pure performance" to Michael's

the whole post is outlandish and barely makes sense

 

[onionslice]

Originally Posted by knightngale

Originally Posted by FRANCHISE 55

Originally Posted by knightngale

What do you mean? He is saying that 1st 3 peat Jordan was better than 2nd 3 peat jordan. That 2005 kobe was better than 2010 kobe. That prime lebron is better than older lebron.

I don't see what that has to do with lebron being comparable to jordan on a "pure performance" standpoint. Lebron has not reached Jordan on pure performance.

@ calling some 9th grade level argument "abstract idea"

So what were you trying to say when you bolded those two sentences?

he is contradicting himself with those statements
and he has not addressed  how lebron and jordan are comparable in "pure performance"

he just went on and on with obvious stuff like being better when you are 25 then when you are 30
comparing being young to old and not comparing lebron's "pure performance" to Michael's

the whole post is outlandish and barely makes sense

I guess you missed the sentence where I said MJ is still better. It's understandable. It was only right above the sentence you bolded.
If you were smarter than you are, you would understand from the context of my post that when I said "LeBron is like '91 MJ" it was a comparison of circumstances, not skill as a player. I clearly said '91 MJ was about to win his first title, as LeBron is now. See how that works? Makes sense right?

You highlight a sentence of me comparing LeBron's current circumstances to MJ in the '91 playoffs, then highlight another sentence of no correlation saying "the MJ of the first 3-peat was the G.O.A.T." as if I am comparing prime MJ and prime LeBron, even though I clearly state 2 sentences previously that IMO, LeBron hasn't reached his prime yet, and the comparison of the 2 was circumstantial.

The ONLY sentence where I compare them on a purely performance level is the first sentence. All I say is it's not a completely ridiculous comparison, BUT THAT JORDAN STILL WINS.

 

[onionslice]

Originally Posted by knightngale

Originally Posted by FRANCHISE 55

Originally Posted by knightngale

What do you mean? He is saying that 1st 3 peat Jordan was better than 2nd 3 peat jordan. That 2005 kobe was better than 2010 kobe. That prime lebron is better than older lebron.

I don't see what that has to do with lebron being comparable to jordan on a "pure performance" standpoint. Lebron has not reached Jordan on pure performance.

@ calling some 9th grade level argument "abstract idea"

So what were you trying to say when you bolded those two sentences?

he is contradicting himself with those statements
and he has not addressed  how lebron and jordan are comparable in "pure performance"

he just went on and on with obvious stuff like being better when you are 25 then when you are 30
comparing being young to old and not comparing lebron's "pure performance" to Michael's

the whole post is outlandish and barely makes sense

I guess you missed the sentence where I said MJ is still better. It's understandable. It was only right above the sentence you bolded.
If you were smarter than you are, you would understand from the context of my post that when I said "LeBron is like '91 MJ" it was a comparison of circumstances, not skill as a player. I clearly said '91 MJ was about to win his first title, as LeBron is now. See how that works? Makes sense right?

You highlight a sentence of me comparing LeBron's current circumstances to MJ in the '91 playoffs, then highlight another sentence of no correlation saying "the MJ of the first 3-peat was the G.O.A.T." as if I am comparing prime MJ and prime LeBron, even though I clearly state 2 sentences previously that IMO, LeBron hasn't reached his prime yet, and the comparison of the 2 was circumstantial.

The ONLY sentence where I compare them on a purely performance level is the first sentence. All I say is it's not a completely ridiculous comparison, BUT THAT JORDAN STILL WINS.

 

[tim teufel]

people need to understand how many hall of fame players did not win a ring in their prime just cause mj was doing his thing. im the biggest lebron hater but i can admit he is doing his thing in the playoffs this year and im happy for him.but never in his life will he ever be an mj type player. mjs competitive nature is a zillion higher than lebrons.you think mj would ever go to another mans team that has already won a ring without you? not a chance in hell

  even when wade was asked if lebron would have recruited him to play in cleveland he said hell no

  wade is by far the winner in lebron being a heat cause when they do win all those chips he will always have one more than lbj.

 

[tim teufel]

people need to understand how many hall of fame players did not win a ring in their prime just cause mj was doing his thing. im the biggest lebron hater but i can admit he is doing his thing in the playoffs this year and im happy for him.but never in his life will he ever be an mj type player. mjs competitive nature is a zillion higher than lebrons.you think mj would ever go to another mans team that has already won a ring without you? not a chance in hell

  even when wade was asked if lebron would have recruited him to play in cleveland he said hell no

  wade is by far the winner in lebron being a heat cause when they do win all those chips he will always have one more than lbj.

 

[ham city]

Originally Posted by soychulo

LO freaking L

MJ was great but Lebron is a different kind of player. He took those Cleveland scrubs to the finals with the quickness. MJ was content with scoring titles. I'd say they had very different goals. Lebron could have stayed with the Cavs and stacked up scoring titles and MVPs if he wanted.

 Did the sarcasm go over my head?

 

[ham city]

Originally Posted by soychulo

LO freaking L

MJ was great but Lebron is a different kind of player. He took those Cleveland scrubs to the finals with the quickness. MJ was content with scoring titles. I'd say they had very different goals. Lebron could have stayed with the Cavs and stacked up scoring titles and MVPs if he wanted.

 Did the sarcasm go over my head?