Indeed that probably was an immature note for me to mention, I shall correct this in the future I won't make such a statement again. I did not consider that accusation too offensive because I think everyone gets insecure once in a while, I suppose you took it more personally. I'll try to be more of a gentleman in my next discussion then, but I feel you have missed another point. Again I merely asked if you were insecure because it came off that way "I guess", review that phrase more carefully next time it was not a statement. :] The next statement says... "I'm not sure why you jumped to conclusions." I assumed you might have been a Bill fan, which insecurities about defending his legacy could easily arise. However notice I merely asked if this is the case, I considered it a possibility but how should I know? I recognized this in the comment itself. And if you were insecure, it is not like you would admit it, but I guess I also got upset that you were dissecting the hell out of my post when I wanted to be left alone. I made the comment to point out your needless focus on this petty line I made. But it was a distraction from my other points, and unnecessary as well as a bit inappropriate between two adults. Lastly I think a somewhat rude argument is inferring hyperboles from a little verbal flourish. If I say something is lame, and that I don't think Wilt is terrible, don't pester me about it. The entire era is lame to me, bringing up anyone else is a waste of time and I didn't make any contradictions in my previous one-liners. It wasn't a terribly illogical position for you to take, but my position is more nuanced than usual so I as well do not like to be boxed into some accusation.
I really don't feel like explaining too much in depth of what you can do if you want to be left alone lol. I generally only respond when being talked to lol. If there are no responses, the discussion ends. I actually just found the insecurities mention to be a funny statement, just because of the absurdity of the statement. I probably discuss 60s era basketball once a year lol. Same thing with 70s basketball. It's not the most common subject.
Certainly, I was explaining to you my feelings back then, not that they were logical because I was not that polite towards you. Again I will try to better retort your comment next time, I was just frustrated with the loss and not acting mature. It was a silly direction for me to take really, I was still bothered by the loss tonight.
The argument that it was easier to win championships with less teams is flawed, in my opinion. If anything, teams are much worse now, in comparison, because of how many teams there are, all with 15 guys on them. Imagine if the NBA suddenly went back to 10 teams and only the best 120 players were left in the league. Wouldn't you really have to be talented to dominate in that scenario?
I think someone like David Robinson would have dominated that league just as much if not more and he isn't the most popular center, he was dominant offensively and a great defensive player. Kareem, Hakeem, or Shaq as well, but they don't have 11 rings each do they? If that is the case then certainly Bill's 11 rings are not nearly as impressive. I think there is more incentive now to play in the NBA, there is a greater pool of talent and athleticism. Further Bill wasn't dominant enough offensively or defensively against Wilt himself to show he was clearly the better player. He seems like a cool guy though.
