While Russell played, Chamberlain only won the championship once. Robertson and West never won.

MJ and Kobe had Phil Jackson as coach. LeBron had to play under lesser coaches.
When will the spelling of LeBron be corrected in the title of this thread?

This is the list of greatest players in NBA history. Jordan only tied for 10th, Lebron nowhere to be found. The biggest shame is that Satch Sanders had to wait until 2011 to be inducted into the Hall of Fame. The guy won 8 rangz and nearly averaged 10 ppg

And when he does, crown him. Not now

Lol Russell

He just got it done, almost every single year of his entire career. While Jordan was choking it away playing with HOFers in the second round of the playoffs, Russell came up big and absolutely refused to lose, on the biggest stage. Sure, maybe Jordan but up better numbers, but he cant hold a candle to Russell when it comes to just winning, in the biggest games. But you internet nerds wouldnt understand that, you've got the hot new thing Jordan to jizz in your pants over. Yawn.

I agree. Its just that, you realize its the Jordan posters itt arguing that Russell is the GOAT right? They just arent doing it intentionally.

God, the 6/6 argument tilts me more than anything. They act like Finals appearances are just gifted in a lottery or something, and MJ took advantage of those opportunities that just randomly showed up. Uh, guess what. It doesn't work that way. You have to earn your way there, and losing in the Finals is the second best accomplishment a team can achieve after winning a title.

Through their current age, LeBron won an average of one extra playoff series per year than Jordan did. A whole extra playoff series every year. But because Bron exerted superhuman skill at the age of 21 to lead a bunch of scrubs to the Finals at an age when Jordan couldn't get out of the first round, he's somehow "sullied" to the mouthbreathers since he can't be "6 for 6". I think it comes down to a casualfan mentality where some people don't even really watch every game of a series until the Finals so that's all that counts to them since it's all they see.

In reality, a Finals record is meaningless. Every season, you have a chance to win it all and you either do or you don't. Jordan's not 6/6, he's 6/15 with 0 second place finishes. Well, Bron's 1/9 with 2 second place finishes so far, but he started at a much younger age and he's only recently had good enough surrounding talent to win so there's still a pretty good chance he catches MJ in that regard, and even if he doesn't, he can still be the GOAT if he gets close since he plays in a tougher era, didn't get to play with the (at the time) GOAT coach, and so far has never gotten to play with 2 Top 30 all-time players like Jordan did as he was entering his decline.

But repeatedly losing in the 1st round is cool b/c he didn't lose on the biggest stage?

Imagine if Lebron who had a 28 PER in his 3rd year in the NBA, went to any decent college. Not sure he would have lost his last 2 years in college the way he was playing at the NBA level.

This is cool:

Year 0 (before he got there)-27-55
Year 1 38-44 (lost 3-1 to the bucks in R1)
Year 2 30-52 (Swept by the Celtics in R1, MJ hurt most of the year)
Year 3 40-42 (Swept by the Celtics in R1)
Year 4 50-32 (Lost to Detroit in R2)
Year 5 47-35 (Lost to Detroit in R3)
Year 6 55-27 (Lost to Detroit in R3)
Year 7 61-21 (Win Title)
Year 8 67-15 (Win Title)

Mark of a champion, losing 3 times straight in the first round, taking 7 years to reach the finals.

Tougher era? BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

I'm using that at my next gig.

Tougher era. Lol love it.

Why was the 80s and 90s so tough? I'm not saying this era is tougher, but people overrated the competition level of the 80s significantly. On insidecarolina, I was told that Lebron would have a ton of trouble with.........Worthy.... lol.

In the west, it was the Lakers and nobody else. In the East, you had 2 juggarnauts in Boston and Detroit but their successes don't overlap that well.

The 90s was actually a pretty weak era for the EC. You had the Bulls, the Knicks, and the Pacers and for some years the Cavs. The WC was decently strong but not that amazing. This era, you have a really great WC--and some good/great EC teams but nothing serious.

Please don't make me read walls of text explaining why you want bron inside you. He's failed in the finals where Jordan hasn't, cut and dried. He will never be the greatest

This is the second most tilting argument for me behind the 6/6 thing. That somehow in the 80s/early 90s, coming off an era where baseball was >>> basketball popularity-wise in US high schools, where basketball players made significantly less salary relative to other pro sports than they do now, when the international penetration of the NBA was virtually non-existent, and when strategy was still in its infancy, that the NBA was somehow tougher than it is now. This complete defies any logic, but is just repeatedly asserted as fact regardless.

I'm not sure how you are using the word "negated", but no that was nowhere near being close to what I said in my post. What I said is that getting to the Finals and losing should be seen as better than not making it to the Finals. In other words, merely listing a player's NBA Finals record is a poor way to measure things because it pretends to value not making the finals over losing in the finals.

Why are you calling my a "bron sympathiser"? I agree with you completely in the overall argument: I just think that you and others arguing for your side have done an absurdly bad job of presenting a good argument.

Iggy-

But who is going to beat the Celtics or the Lakers in this era?? That's normally the crux of the argument. A bunch of old timers hate watching the NBA today because it's so much weaker than it was "back in the day." When you ask them why? Their answers are normally so bad.

While those teams are very good, they are typically insanely overrated.

Yes, the moment it was sealed that LeBron was never going to be as good as Jordan was when he scored 26 straight points in the 4th quarter and OT to beat Detroit in the Eastern Conference Finals with a terrible team since that squad obviously wasn't good enough to beat the 3-time champion Spurs. If only he'd gotten swept in the first round like the great one, he coulda been the GOAT.

The Heat and the Spurs obviously. The Thunder woulda been there too before the Westbrook injury. If you could go back and give the 80s players modern training and coaching through their whole careers, it would be a lot closer, but I'd still give the edge to this year's squads.

Thread is AIDS. Both players are awesome. Who cares anymore

I think the Bron supporters will happily concede that MJ's the greatest for now if the Jordan supporters just concede that the NBA has grown and developed significantly over the last 20 years, and that taking a bunch of scrubs to the Finals as a 21-year old is a great achievement, and not a black mark against your record.

sounds good, lock it up

also ban shark sandwich for starting this thread

Meh, I think the thread is a good idea, if only because it (should) help to keep this bull**** out of the game thread.

its just frustrating that jordan guys are so close-minded and fall back on such silly arguments like 'CLUTCH' '6/6 finals'. no one reasonable thinks lebron has close to the resume thus far as jordan. hell even iggy concedes that. yet things like rangz are still used in an argument as to who had the higher peak. its just dumb.

LOL at ppl responded to troll. in his world lebrons game 5 vs detroit is a black mark on his record, if he had only lost to them rather than carried scrubs to the finals he wouldnt have lost in the finals!

I agree with you that its frustrating, and its pretty obvious that those close minded pro-Jordan guys in this argument are putting forth horrendous arguments. But I think that overcoming this close-mindedness that exists in popular opinion is kinda a requirement of becoming the true GOAT. Jordan totally went through this.

Imagine the internet being around in the late 80s- casual fans would be 100% convinced that Bird/Magic > MJ because they played better team basketball and knew how to win games. And how pissed off would the stat guys gets when causal fans started saying that Isiah Thomas > MJ after his team won 2 titles while dominating the Bulls along the way? MJ overcame this and convinced everyone that he was the GOAT.

Welcome to the internet.

In all seriousness, I think a lot of peoples opinions are formed b/c of personality; rightfully or wrongfully. Both of them seem like massive douche bags, but jordan more so in an alpha way juxtaposed to lebrons insecure beta-douche schtick.

Lebron will host the decision, or choke in the finals vrs dallas and talk about how ****ty other peoples lives are and how they are waking up so said ****ty lives--which was he points out and/or implys, doesn't bother him at all. Jordans never been in a position like that, but I imagine he would give the other team no credit whatsoever in the presser, go get drunk, bang some prostitutes, and bet 100k a hand in blackjack. Despite being a bad husband and morally bankrupt at times, Jordan's alpha mystique on and off the court is something that cant be touched by lebron.

Not saying this goes into my decision of who is the GOAT. Like many others, I think MJ is the clear GOAT right now but bron has non-negligible equity. Like i mentioned earlier however, I think its human nature for some people to judge these guys based on their personality traits.