I'm guessing mags took some acid and on a whim wondered how many time a thread would repeat the word transcended, transcendental, etc....and it worked! Got a few from me right here in the middle of transcendental posting in the lotus position. Jordan was way bigger across the world than Lebron or any player before or since. There's no competition. That's a fact. Go to China and say basketball and every little kid says Jordan.
It's still relative. LBJ is the only one I'll say that even compares to Jordan in terms of people watching that don't even care about basketball.
Television ratings don't describe transcendent. http://i.word.com/idictionary/transcendent Learn the word, then post....
You are describing "marketable". If you talk about "good", LBJ is as good or better than Jordan. As I already pointed out, LBJ had a higher per during his finals campaign.
Nope, they were transcendent to all the players in the game during the days they played. Sorry, you failed
It's not about marketable. It's about how Jordan was bigger than the game. Bigger than "marketable." LeBron and Chris Paul are "marketable." Jordan was much more.
Jordan is the best player of "all-time". No argument there. But transcendent players are in every generation.
Every generation has stars. Jordan was bigger than that. And still is, really. 12 years since, he's played and there is a Jordan Brand of shoe. More people know who Michael Jordan is than LeBron James. Jordan is on a whole other leveL. His game reached out of the league, out of his generation.
If there are transcendent players very generation, then it's just a usual thing and thus NOT transcendent. That's all ain't have to say on the matter.
And transcendent means exactly that. Thanks for proving it for me. We can agree that Jordan transcends all the transcendent players. Transcendent players are the dominant players of their generation. Now can we move on?
