Janus
Advocatus Diaboli
- Sep 9, 2007
- 23,430
- 57,318
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Dallas Cowboys, Chicago Bulls
Comparison made for the age of 31.
So, essentially what you're doing here is, in both the case of LeBron and the Warriors, is comparing the fully realised and concluded legacy of Michael Jordan (and the Lakers/Celtics) to guys who still have many years left to go, ie not a reasonable comparison.
How would MJ, stack up to say, Bill Russell, if you were evaluating his career in 1995 (or much earlier in the case of Curry)?
That's why I say you don't start the conversation until after LeBron is retired. Jordan's record isn't going anywhere - why feel the need to compare at this stage of LeBron's career? Is it so this generation can finally lay claim to seeing something that is actually better than what went before them? I don't get it. No one was saying Jordan could be the greatest ever until he retired the first time and people looked back at what he actually managed to do in his career. Then he came back and did it again to basically prove that if he'd been there the whole time he would have had eight championships in a row instead of two threepeats. He turned 31 in between them.
"Michael Jordan, I think, is the best to have ever played anything. If you were to draw a conparison, maybe you could pick Jimmy Brown, Babe Ruth...certainly Jack Nicklaus. But I'm not sure anyone took the game to the level that Jordan did." - Bobby Knight, after Jordan's first retirement. He then goes on to tell the story where Jordan had 19 points, 12 rebounds and 9 assists in 11 minutes of the 1984 Olympic gold medal match against Spain.




