<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>You're comparing statistics when it is well known that the NBA back then was much less competetive and filled with un-athletecism. Rarely any audio or television clips of Wilt were ever played but if you're 2 feet taller than everyone else on the court it's obvious you're gonna dominate the game. Also the game back then was much more big-man oriented when now-a-days it focuses on guard play. The game is faster now...Btw, calm down about Wilt, you related to him or somn?</div>See? this is exactly the sh*t I'm sick of.Todays league is not faster, are you kidding me? every team back then averaged more than 110ppg, only 1 does it today.Yes the game was big-man oriented back then, it was very conjested in the paint and very physical. What Wilt did showed great strength and stamina.And for the last f*cking time, Wilt was not 2 feet taller than everybody else, he wasn't even the tallest player in the league. Get the facts straight.HOWEVER, lets not take over this thread. There is some great debate going on here about Jordan. Let's not lose that. If you want to create a "Why Michael Bryant Should Stop Worshipping Wilt Chamberlain" thread, I will be more than happy to participate.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Michael Bryant @ Mar 31 2007, 03:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>See? this is exactly the sh*t I'm sick of. Todays league is not faster, are you kidding me? every team back then averaged more than 110ppg, only 1 does it today. Yes the game was big-man oriented back then, it was very conjested in the paint and very physical. What Wilt did showed great strength and stamina. And for the last f*cking time, Wilt was not 2 feet taller than everybody else, he wasn't even the tallest player in the league. Get the facts straight.</div> Show me the facts about the 110 pts every team. It doesn't matter how tall he was compared to another center, in the league back then no one could matchup against him. Due to their strength or height it doesn't matter, if they could he wouldnt have scored 50 a game, plain and simple.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Show me the facts about the 110 pts every team.</div>Visit Basketball-Reference.com, it has all the season stats on teams. If you look you'll find ppg. Sorry for no link but that address should get you there, if not, try Database-basketball, they're the same thing.Players back then didn't have to match up, they litterally beat people up. That's how the game was, and they did it to Wilt, he got it so bad that he actually considered retiring after his rookie year.HOWEVER, lets not take over this thread. There is some great debate going on here about Jordan. Let's not lose that. If you want to create a "Why Michael Bryant Should Stop Worshipping Wilt Chamberlain" thread, I will be more than happy to participate.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Michael Bryant @ Mar 19 2007, 10:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Seriously, everybody acts as if he is some supreme being. He's not, and without his legendary coach and great teamates, he was nothing more than a great scorer. Why is it then, that he gets so blown up? Sure he was talented, clutch and dedicated, but he didn't change the game. The only thing he ever did was make the game popular. He doesn't hold that many records (only 4, compared to Wilt Chamberlain's 56), and he had a lot of help winning. This overreaction is very apparent when someone tries to compare him to Kobe (moreso than any other comparrison). Kobe is the best in the game and just about IDENTICAL to Jordan in just about every single facet of the game yet, people claim Kobe to be "nowhere near Jordan" and on top of that they say that Kobe or anybody else will ever come close to MJ. Why not? MJ was just a great 2 guard, the greatest player the game has ever seen was Chamberlain yet, people have no problem shooting down his accomplishments. My point is, that half of Jordans success is from all the media hype. So what if a player someday surpasses him, it's alright, things like that happen. Michael Jordan may quite possibly be the single most overrated human being to ever exist. I'm not saying he or his accomplishments weren't great, but I judge him with my eyes open.</div>Dear god, you have to be kidding me. He didn't change the game? Try Nike, do you know what Nike is? Nike was a dying product when Jordan picked it up. The only reason Jordan went to Nike was because Converse wouldn't take him (they already had Bird and Johnson). Nike decided to have the whole product revolve around Jordan. After a few shoes (shoes that revolutionized the basketball shoe business, yes, Jordan completely changed this part of basketball) Nike needed to do something different. The Jordan shoes were doing good, but not good enough. So they hired this new guy and the new guy did something no one had done before, he asked Jordan how Jordan wanted to make the shoe. They also decided to making a clothing line and whatever else they could smack Jordan on. Jordan made the brand so popular that they spun off a new company named, "Jordan." They started making anything and everything with the jumpan logo on it, it sold. Michael Jordan revolutionized marketing the pro basketball athlete.I could go on and on, Jordan did, like turning the "dunk contest" and dunks into more of an art form that it had ever been. Jordan didn't do anything to change the game, WTF?As for the rest of it, I am sure enough people tore apart this post that I don't have to say anything.
Yes, MJ changed the NBA's image and helped its popularity grow, but as a sport, basketball has remained pretty much the same.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Michael Bryant @ Mar 31 2007, 03:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Yes, MJ changed the NBA's image and helped its popularity grow, but as a sport, basketball has remained pretty much the same.</div> Jordan was the beggining to the new NBA, the NBA today that is more focused on guard play than big men. He changed the players relationship with coaches, gm's, and teams. Jordan changed everything that had to do with basketball.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Michael Bryant @ Mar 31 2007, 03:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Yes, MJ changed the NBA's image and helped its popularity grow, but as a sport, basketball has remained pretty much the same.</div>Now, I have nothing against you, it is just this statement I can't wrap my mind around. Michael Jordan didn't change the game of basketball? Would you try and tell me that Tiger Woods didn't change the game of golf? Very quickly I am going to tell you how easily Michael Jordan has changed the game of basketball by doing one simple thing (out of the many he has done) he was amazing. He was the best. What does that have to do with him changing the game? Younger generations watching him new it. They wanted to be like Jordan. They practiced his moves. They practiced trying to dunk like him. They stuck out their tounges when they drove to the hoop. They practiced switching the ball from their right hand to their left while in the air, just as Michael did to the Lakers. They practiced the cross-overs. They practiced pumping their arm after they made a "pretend buzzer beater." You know what that generation is doing now? Playing in the NBA. Now, if you have had a whole generation trying to emulate your moves, how you shoot, every aspect of your game, because they want to be like you, they want your success, how have you not changed the game of basketball?
