lol YEAH RIGHT, the team he played in the Finals that year didn't even win the title, thus proving they weren't actually any good.

Funny, I think the inverse is true, the thread was dead after bron lost in the finals, again, putting him at 2-6 for a large sample size of having a 33% win percentage in the finals, then was reignited when his dominant performance last year resurrected the Stans who began puffing out their chest, as if that one finals win absolved him of his lifelong documented ways of being a loser.

It's be cute if it weren't so sad.

yeah roids had nothing to do with it...

It is called evolution.
In your logic if Chamberlain was entering this year in the draft pick no one would choose him because the way he played in the 60 , NBA sucked even more than the 80-90, and he would not been able to adapt to dominate because he had no talent...

There is something call relativity.

Of course you take anyone in any field 20-50 or 100 years ago and you put him in today era , anyone sucks.
Even Einstein, makes sense ?

There's a thread for Bonds. Same story, same types of people.

The thread got 240 posts in the week after the Finals ended. Stop lying.

Is it called evolution?

In your logic the frog-fish walker who was the quickest walker of his era is faster than an olympic athlete.

ho, i tough Jordan beat the pistons.
PS: dont tell me they were old ...
Thomas, Rodman 29
Dumars 27

This is all that needs to be said.

last time i checked, humans from the 60's are still composed of the same dna as humans from 2017.

but nice try with your illogical argument.

He scored the final 25 points to end a dynasty bro. You should watch it sometime, it's not with people who don't know how to shoot, defend or dribble though, and he doesn't have any amazing HOF teammates, so maybe it's not your kind of basketball.


LOL Mike Brown, but you gotta love him kissing Lebron at the end

ya so by losing to lebron, they obv werent all that great. so, its really no big deal that lebron beat a team that wasnt that great.

ofc, if they beat lebron, then lebron isnt that great bc he lost.

flawless argument then. lebron will never be the best.

except vs whom he lost ?
Yeah celtics suck big time and wernt champion by themlsef and lebron would of done much better, am i right...

Why dont you put them in your top 5 list of all time than...
If you really believe what you say and think they were bad in that period.
Your logic is flaw.

But we've learned and gotten better at basketball. It's typical that we've gotten better at sports that are constantly be analyzed and athletes have gotten better due to all the medical advancements and science that's been learned. Also there is a ton more money being spent on the sport than in the 60s so you're getting the best of the best in the NBA most of the time while in the past they might never have come to the NBA or never played basketball. Basketball is also a ton more popular now than it was then. Probably more fans in china than fans in the world combined in the 60s.

I never said that.
I said not because he beats the team with the best regular season wins means it is the best team in history that is what i am saying.
But i never discredit the accomplishment Lebron did by coming from behind like that.

Anyone coming in the final like he did is it a great win but it is still only 1 win and should not be counting like 2 or 3 wins.

He got himself in a bad spot and this time he pull it off, great.
About time for the goat if he want to be ..
But the road is not over

Yeah and it is amazing you think the players of today could evolve with the sport and the great from the past could not adapt them self when they just dominate like no one ever before jordan.

They could adapt, the point is the number of people or inputs is greater so the outputs should be better and the money going in is insanely higher. The 3 point line was invented a while ago, its only been a few years since this has truly been exploited. It took years for the league to truly understand the value of the 3 vs the long 2.

I dont think money has anything to do with it ( well it has a role but maybe noit as big as u think) it is more about the population increase and the pool of players gets bigger, producing a higher % chance of creating great player due to a larger pool.

And of course when you had worldwide players, with the population increased so much in the past 50 years, the elevation of the sport (skills wise) has to happen.

But to counterfeit a bit that argument, a lot less team were present in the 60 so (obviously) the quality of the team would of been better at that time, than it would of been if you increase the number of team at that era to what it is today.

I mean cut half the team in the NBA and the quality of play will simply go through the roof.

So in that mind frame, i think the players from the 60 need are respect.

100% agree! so there is this thing called relativity and context.

people on here arguing labron's side seem to leave this out or not comprehend it.

if you point is valid, what if we took the reverse position. what if labron was born in the 60's with none of the advantages you mentioned above. Would he still be the player he is today?

how do you compare the two eras without taking all that into context?

+1
finally.

I mean and i am very sorry to be out of context but yeah, Federer is amazing and all but Mcenroe and borg in tennis played with freaking tennis racquet half the size of today racquet and in wood!
I mean go back than and say well look the shot they make at that time they suck big time, Federer would just destroy them...
Without taking into context, the tools they were stuck with, the conditioning and the quality of training that was not required at that time,etc.

Same apply to any sport or any field.

If there wasn't money and a ton of it, look at the MLS, best players go elsewhere i.e. other leagues or sports. Players will also stick around for more cash long term while putting their body through hell.

Reading comprehension doesn't seem to be your strong suit. Let's try again

For some reason bron's bbiq is off the charts and his height would also be an asset. Maybe he wouldn't be as fast or strong but compared to that league he'd be insane like chamberlain was insane. It's still really hard to compare across eras, but the current era definitely has a ton more talent but it might be split more. There's no way a team will ever be as stacked to the rest of the league as the celtics in the 60s due to free agency and the draft. Also much easier to roll through the playoffs when the there are less teams and less playoff teams.

I think in any era LeBrons FT percentage in the playoffs would be an utter joke, and he still would do less with more games than Jordan as he has in this real timeline