<div class="quote_poster">Quoting AIRTIGHT:</div><div class="quote_post"> durvasa .... I'm surprised you said something like that durvasa without coming back and explaining that comment. -- <font color=""Purple"">To acknowledge facts and quantify there relativness in favor of one player, yet ignore them when concerning another player</font>........ hmm If I didnt know, Id swear u were part of the ...</div> I gave Shaq the edge over Hakeem due to both his statistical dominance and also his team accomplishments (4 championships, almost perennially on championship contenders). David Robinson was statistically better than Hakeem in the regular season, but he never lifted his game in the playoffs the way Hakeem did. Olajuwon seemingly was at his best on the biggest stage ... while Robinson tended to diminish as the stakes got higher. Unfortunately, it's difficult to quantify that, but that was certainly my impression.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting TheFreshPrince:</div><div class="quote_post">D Rob has a ring. so i dont really see the difference.</div> Big difference.
Dont nobody start hating on Rob-- check this dudes numbers, his team's success/ his game was ridiculous. ~29 12 5 4blk 1.5stl outside of Nash, he'd be MVP the last 6 years in a row in this league -- and DPOY 5 out of those 6
IMO.. i think Hakeem is way better! I think people are scared shaq and let him dunk.. << thats where the points come from.He has no type of offensive game. no shots and no freethrows.maybe short hooks and dunks.. just because he averaged about 30 points doesnt make him good offensively. he didnt even have to work to get points. the other centers that defend him are scared and they just back up and shaq gets his easy dunk. and i also think shaq isn't a very good at blocking shots so that really doesnt make him a good defender. i think hakeem had to deal with better centers in his era. ex: david robinson, shaq, mutombo, and patewing. those guys were his rivals. i dont know how mutombo went against hakeem, but i know drob got schooled by hakeem in 1995 WCF.. and pat ewing in the series of 1994 got done up by hakeem and im not saying skooled.. done up to me means like a player doing better than the other better stat wise.. he also skooled shaq in finals of 1995.. and i mean SKOOLED!!! remember magics didnt win a single game that series in the finals! 4-0 for rockets!.. so that means shaq got schooled by hakeem!.. but i give shaq his props because of getting rings. i think that was shaq's prime. 1999-2003.. u see how shaq dominates against yao? thats the way hakeem was against shaq. shaq was young and yao is young.. so i think that yao is going to be better in the future.. meaning as good as shaq was in his prime years..not to get off the subject but my point is that hakeem competed with harder centers than shaq did. and the only reason shaq averagesd a lot of points was because he gets easy dunks.. not to forget.. hakeem was a better defender and a better FREE-THROW shooter than shaq will ever be... meaning rings really doesn't mean a lot to me unless you lead your team to it.. micheal doleac cant be like im better than yao ming because i won a championship and he didnt.. i agree that shaq did actually win 3 champions because he led his team.. but when it comes to hakeem.. he actually won 2 championships.. leading his team.. shaq really didnt lead his team with heat.. basically d-wade and the rest did. shaq didnt have a big part in it.. comapring hakeem's prime years against shaq's i'd say both are about equal, but hakeem is a little better. I think shaq is a big dominating monster that would just just slam it in your face. but against who? weak centers.. hakeem on the other hand.. competed and skooled great centers like drob,mutombo, shaq when young, and ewing.. dont say why are you comparing to shaq.. i am because people say shaq is way better than yao.. now think.. that is how hakeem was better than shaq.. the way shaw dominates yao.. thats the way hakeem dominated shaq.. so u cant really compare yao to shaq because yao is young.. the same way with shaq and hakeem. u cant really compare shaq (young years) to hakeem because shaq was young.. so i think that hakeem edges shaq by a little
To all those who say Hakeem embarrassed Shaq in the 95 finals. Go check the stats. It was really close, none of the 2 outplayed each other. The reason why Orlando got swept was Penny, who choked, and the big shots from Horry and Cassell.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> To all those who say Hakeem embarrassed Shaq in the 95 finals. Go check the stats </div> I haven't watched that entire series but stats don't tell anything. If we went by stats, people 11 years from now will be questioning as to why Nash won the MVP award when players like Kobe and Lebron had better stats. In a topic like this, I really believe stats are irrelevant. And for those saying Shaq had a young team; yes he did but if you reach the Finals with that same team, they must be somethin already. You don't get to the Finals without being an excellent team, and that';s what matters, age is thrown out the door. Hakeem had only been in the Finals once prior to that season. Yes, he was older then Shaq but this was on the Finals stage, and he was only a year ahead of Shaq in that department. I think Shaq is the superior post player, but Hakeem has a much more complete all-around game. Not only was he difficult to guard in the post, he could also stretch the D, play defense, pass and shot block as well. Furthemore, it was nice that he could hit his free-throws as well. Although it is not Shaq's fault he played in an era with less legendary centers, I still take Hakeem for the fact that he shone through in an era of atleast 3 other amzing, legendary centers, with those being: Shaq, Ewing and David Robinsion. Even with those centers being in the picture, Hakeem Olaujuwon is always mentioned first in terms of accomplishment in the 1990's cause when speaking in terms of winning and championships, he had 2 while Shaq, Ewing and Robinsion all had a grand total of zero. Furthermore, those saying Hakeem only won it cause Mike wasn't in the game....so what? You have no way to prove that first of all and second of all how is it Hakeem's fault? Just like you it wasn't Shaq's fault for not being triumphant as he later become in when facing weaker competition in terms of centers, the fact that Mike wasn't playing is not Hakeem's fault either. Once again, I think Shaq is undoubetly the most dominant post player of his era and perhaps in the history of the NBA. However, when speaking of the greatest centers, I'd put Hakeem first, and Shaq second...a very close second.
I'd take Shaq. When these two had their battles in the mid 90's Shaq was not the dominant force he was in L.A. If you take that Shaq against Hakeem you will see how dominant Shaq really was. Also, I don't understand why people say Hakeem killed Shaq in 95? The stats were extremely close and Shaq had Penny to choke for him and Nick Anderson shooting free throws like Shaq. Spawn, you saying that you believe Shaq and Hakeem are the two greatest ever? Over Russell and Wilt? I don't think so.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> Spawn, you saying that you believe Shaq and Hakeem are the two greatest ever? Over Russell and Wilt? I don't think so. </div> My mistake, I meant to say in the group of the greatest centers, I would pick Hakeem over Shaq, not necessairily Hakeem being first on the entire list and Shaq coming second but Shaq would always be after Hakeem I believe. I can't really say much about Rusell and Wilt because they're from a totally different era and you never know how they would have fared in today's game. I do believe they would have dominanted but not to the extent that they were known for...for example, Wilt averaging 50 and 25 (or somehting like that) in one season would have never happened in today's league.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I'd take Shaq. When these two had their battles in the mid 90's Shaq was not the dominant force he was in L.A. If you take that Shaq against Hakeem you will see how dominant Shaq really was. Also, I don't understand why people say Hakeem killed Shaq in 95? The stats were extremely close and Shaq had Penny to choke for him and Nick Anderson shooting free throws like Shaq. </div> uhhhh Shaq was a dominant force, dude avg. 30 ppg the year him and Hakeem met in the finals....and Penny Hardaway actually played pretty good, it was Dennis Scott and Nick Anderson who dissapeared after game 1.........that Shaq and that Magic team that the Rockets beat was a good ass team....they had Horace Grant who was a veteran at the 4 spot and had B. Shaw coming off the bench......the rockets swept them, but all of the games (with the exception of game 2) were actually pretty close games that could've went either way down the stretch.....and I'm so tired of hearing the Jordan argument.........Mike was back that 2nd year, and he actually played pretty damn good in the playoffs (31 ppg if I remember correctly)......that 95 Rockets teams had one of the most amazing playoff runs in NBA history....in all my years of watching basketball, I've never seen one team who didn't have homecourt advantage in any of their series beat so many great teams...not only did we have the hall of fame duo of Hakeem and Clyde, but we had Horry, Cassell, Smith, and Elie to go along with them......I'm going off topic, but I would like those 95 Rockets chances against any of those Bulls teams in a 7 game series
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting THE DREAM:</div><div class="quote_post">that 95 Rockets teams had one of the most amazing playoff runs in NBA history....in all my years of watching basketball, I've never seen one team who didn't have homecourt advantage in any of their series beat so many great teams...not only did we have the hall of fame duo of Hakeem and Clyde, but we had Horry, Cassell, Smith, and Elie to go along with them......I'm going off topic, but I would like those 95 Rockets chances against any of those Bulls teams in a 7 game series</div> I would love that playoff run as a dvd set. The drama in all those series was just unbelievable.
I was actually watching the championship tape a couple of days ago, that Phoenix series was just gut wrenching....there are so many times where we could've lost game 5....I mean you had Barkley missing clutch FT's that could've iced the game and our season, you had Person rimming out a game winning 3 pointer......that just proves you have to be good and lucky to win titles.
Hakeem is better than Shaq. Now Shaq has some advantages. He puts more pressure on opposing defenders because he get's to the line and draws double digit FT's, while Hakeem career was was at 6-7. He also has a superior power post game. Hakeem didn't have as long a peak, but though their careers he was a better rebounder, defender, shot blocker, and overall player. Also I don't get why people think Shaq wasn't good in that series. First of all, this was 3rd year Shaq agaisnt a much more experienced player. If it was 1999-2000 Shaq, the matchup could've been a lot different. Secondly, Shaq was still dominant, both guys were geting double teams. Shaq put up 28-13-6 in the series, yes Hakeem beat him, but people have a misconception the he sucked or something.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting playmaker15:</div><div class="quote_post">Spawn, you saying that you believe Shaq and Hakeem are the two greatest ever? Over Russell and Wilt? I don't think so.</div> I think so. They say Shaq played against lesser talented teams in his era, but Wilt never really played against anybody his size. All he had to do was jump over his opponents & outpower them. I honestly think Russell winning 9rings is a bigger accomplisment then averging 50 against the slower white men who dominated the league in the 60's. Shaq wasn't near Hakeem talentwise but Shaq's size and power makes up for what he lacked in talent. I'm from Houston, I love Hakeem. But if you put it in perspective, Shaq has 4 rings now. He could very well win another 2 or 3. Wilt wasn't willin to sacrifice his game like Shaq, he's not the greatest. Shaq Kareem Hakeem Russell Wilt
shaq is selfish, and the way you described how wilt played, is actually the exact way shaq plays. i am pretty sure that russell has 11 rings, and what does being white have to do with anything?
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting TheFreshPrince:</div><div class="quote_post">shaq is selfish, and the way you described how wilt played, is actually the exact way shaq plays. i am pretty sure that russell has 11 rings, and what does being white have to do with anything?</div> I was saying Wilt was one of very few athletes at center in his era......go figure BTW........Shaq selfish? is this a personal vendetta u have or something. It isn't about who's the most popular or who you like the most. It's about who's a better basketball player. How can you make that blanket statement without providing any facts? Wilt openly said he was all about getting his stats, yet you call Shaq selfish? 4 rings, 2 different teams, MVP's etc.........I don't get it
Why did the lakers team have such bad chemistry and fall apart? shaq was being very selfish. and please stop saying shaq has 4 rings on two different teams, mvps. wilt has 2 rings, on two different teams. he also played partly during the celtic era, so titles were pretty much impossible to get. and wilt is a selfish person by your facts, not basketball player. shaq isnt even better, on or off the court.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1sS_wiIfL4...keem%20olajuwon This is all you need to see. Have you ever seen a guy so skilled? That's why he's my all time fav. player...The Dream.
Umair15 <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">just because he averaged about 30 points doesnt make him good offensively. he didnt even have to work to get points</div> ....You gotta love a guy who really knows his basketball. After watching this year, I'd have to likely be in favor of Shaq as the greatest center ever. You're talking about the 60's and all the great things they did, I have to give credit to Russell for winning yet take even that as a skeptic; and with the idea that MORE THAN A FEW crazy feats have been accomplished during the early years of a sport's existence I dunno how much value we can really put on his 11 belts today. )Ie; boxers going 80+ wins before a loss were common back in the early 1900's, Old college records in football from 1910 still stand today. <font color=""Blue"">Are some of you suggesting that a man playing Football as part of the first class of athletes to participate in a structured environment___>> is better and will always be better skilled better trained and have more ability for the game than someone playing 90 years later with all the advancements in athletics and football strategy in itself having taken place during that time?</font> A man averaging 45 pts and 25 rebs, or a 6'5 small forward averaging 34 and 17 are not relative to today's game. You guys want to argue that for whatever reason people were just much better individually at the begining of a sports emergence, and that the early group of people playing were already better than anybody would ever be? >>> You guys ever notice that all of these athletic achievements and records that stand from early sports are all comparitive and relative achievements? You do not hear of someone benching 2000lb's back then or accomplishing something that would be invariable and constant nomatter when it happened---
I think Hakeem gets less props because he joined the Raptors. He retired from the league, leaving a sour taste in his fan's mouth. If he left while he was still productive, fans would always be reminded of the man that did this and that. Now he's just "the dude who joined the Raptors and sucked"
