Can Magic said to be greater or atleast as great as Jordan w

[tsherkin]

Warspite raises an excellent point; at Jordan's peak, when his skills started to mesh with his peak athleticism from the first three-peat and the two preceding years...

Damn, I mean... whew! He was something else and it's been 15 years or so, so a lot of people don't remember it all that clearly. Jordan was definitely something very, very special.

[RJM]

Well people can say Magic went to more finals and as much as people have been looking for the next Jordan they have been looking for the next Magic.

Magic's skillset at 6'9 is much harder to duplicate than Jordan's at 6'6.

Magic backers can point to his Lakers beating greater teams than any that Jordan ever faced; Ervings Sixers, Birds Celtics. They were eventually champions. None of the teams Jordan faced ever won championships.


Jordan backers can easily point to the defensive differences. More MVP's, Finals MVP's and Jordan being more of the defined leader of the Bulls. Magic didn't become the leader of the Lakers until later in his career and KAJ got older.......

Because those teams NEVER beat him in the Playoffs. Why? Because he managed to beat them all. Keep in mind that no team in the West was guaranteed to come out, so the talent level remained relatively the same. Michael beat them all. He lost to the Pistons then swept them. Same with the Magic in 1995/1996. Retirement was the only thing to dethrone him.

IMO 6/6 is a better record than 5/9.

[Farm Raid]

^^I didn't see that. Of course some of the teams Magic beat in the Finals won championships- because sometimes he lost to them! I mean you use that as a positive so I can only imagine that if Magic had won his every Finals appearance you would somehow hold that against him. That would be worse?

Besides, Jordan did beat champion teams: The Pistons and Lakers. And the Trailblazers in '92? They only lost to those Pistons and Lakers!

How you can turn an obvious positive into a negative is impressive, but again, the flipside is that apparently it would be worse for Magic to have won all his Finals. That's just crazy.

[G35]

^^I didn't see that. Of course some of the teams Magic beat in the Finals won championships- because sometimes he lost to them! I mean you use that as a positive so I can only imagine that if Magic had won his every Finals appearance you would somehow hold that against him. That would be worse?

Besides, Jordan did beat champion teams: The Pistons and Lakers. And the Trailblazers in '92? They only lost to those Pistons and Lakers!

How you can turn an obvious positive into a negative is impressive, but again, the flipside is that apparently it would be worse for Magic to have won all his Finals. That's just crazy.

-= original quote snipped =-



Because those teams NEVER beat him in the Playoffs. Why? Because he managed to beat them all. Keep in mind that no team in the West was guaranteed to come out, so the talent level remained relatively the same. Michael beat them all. He lost to the Pistons then swept them. Same with the Magic in 1995/1996. Retirement was the only thing to dethrone him.

IMO 6/6 is a better record than 5/9.

Yes you do hold it against in this type of argument. Birds Celtics and Magics Lakers were equally talented. You could see they were the class of the NBA. Except the Celtics had much more competition from Dr. J's Sixers and the Bucks and Pistons. Does everyone remember that the Lakers lost back to back finals to the Sixers and Celtics from 82/83 and 83/84 getting swept by the Sixers.

The Celtics were never able to repeat and the Lakers repeated once. And to threepeat was unthinkable. That repeat the Lakers did put Magic over Bird and cemented the Lakers as the team of the 80's.

What the Bulls did in the 90's was be a dynasty but there wasn't any one team that they had to see besides the Utah Jazz. Barkleys Suns, Clydes Blazers, Payton/Kemps Sonics were all one and done in the finals. The Jazz were worthy competitors but I don't put them up as a team that was feared. They were missing that one player to go with Stockton and Malone.


Summarizing I would say that when Magic beat Bird or vice versa or even when the Sixers were in the finals was a greater achievement than when Jordan beat the Sonics, Jazz, Blazers, or Suns.

Magic was 6'9 and about 240 at his peak, with great rebounding ability and a post game that was pretty strong from day one.

If L.A. had asked him to play the 5 full-time, he could have done it.

Yeah Magic COULD have done it. You can do anything when you're told do it. But how WELL would he have done it. The Lakers wouldn't have been as successful with Magic facing Laimbeer, Parish, Hakeem or Moses/Dawkins. Even over a full season Magic would have been too beat up to run the break. Look at what KAJ said after battling in the post.

One point glossed over is that Magics greatest advantage was he was 6'9 240lbs playing PG. It's just like Jordan looks so great because he was one of the bigger SG's in the 80's and now look at Lebron he is one of the bigger SF's.

They have clear physical advantages over their competition....

[Farm Raid]

Yes you do hold it against in this type of argument. Birds Celtics and Magics Lakers were equally talented. You could see they were the class of the NBA. Except the Celtics had much more competition from Dr. J's Sixers and the Bucks and Pistons. Does everyone remember that the Lakers lost back to back finals to the Sixers and Celtics from 82/83 and 83/84 getting swept by the Sixers.

The Celtics were never able to repeat and the Lakers repeated once. And to threepeat was unthinkable. That repeat the Lakers did put Magic over Bird and cemented the Lakers as the team of the 80's.

What the Bulls did in the 90's was be a dynasty but there wasn't any one team that they had to see besides the Utah Jazz. Barkleys Suns, Clydes Blazers, Payton/Kemps Sonics were all one and done in the finals. The Jazz were worthy competitors but I don't put them up as a team that was feared. They were missing that one player to go with Stockton and Malone.

That's a valid argument but the whole concept that the Celtics were unable to repeat and the Lakers were unable to threepeat because of competition can be inserted into the 90s West, too. I mean, maybe the Rockets, Sonics, or Suns couldn't continuously reach the Finals because there were constantly beating up on each other. If not winning 6 titles in 8 years doesn't mean the Celtics or Lakers aren't as good as the Bulls, doesn't failing to make 4 Finals appearances in the 90s also not neccesarily mean the Suns weren't a great team?

I understand that's kinda verbose right there, but you can't say "There were lots of competitive teams in the 80s so they all kept each other from winning alot" but refuse to extend that exact same logic to the 90s West. The very same things that kept the Celtics or Lakers or Sixers from winning 6 championships (competition) could have very well kept the Suns or Blazers or Rockets from winning the West 6 times, ya know?

If they would've would that then mean the Bulls played 'worthy' comeptition? No. The Bulls played some great teams- but teams that were beat up by other great teams in previous and subsequent years, that's all.

That doesn't mean the 90s West was as good as the cream of the 80s- not at all. Simply that your argument does hold much weight.

Looking at the East, if not for the Bulls it's very possible that the Knicks make three straight Finals appearances. In 92 they took the Bulls to 7 games. In 93 they won the first two games before being beaten in 6. And in 94 they actually did make the Finals. If those teams were able to beat the Bulls, then would you say there was some great competition in the East? But...then the Bulls wouldn't have beaten them... Do you kinda see what's happening here? Again, you can't blame the Bulls for making sure there were no other teams seen as dominant in that time- they were too dominant for such a team to arise!!

You can say the same for the Magic. They go to the Finals in 95, they win 60 something games in 96 and have two All-NBA first teamers. But they get dismantled by the greatest team in NBA history so Shaq runs off to LA. If they don't lose to the Bulls, maybe they beat the Sonics and a new dynasty is formed. But the Bulls dominating kept that from happening.

You can't use the Bulls' success against them. Again, by your logic, Magic and the 80s Lakers should be held lower if they constantly won championships, but since they lost, they had competition and so their titles were harder to get, so they were better than the Bulls? That just makes no sense.

Finally- and most importantly- the Lakers lost to a sub .500 team in the playoffs. Don't try to use competition when that happens. For 11 straight years the Bulls only lost in the playoffs to teams that made it to the Finals, and the Lakers lose to a 40 win team? Ooookay.

[ice9]

What the Bulls did in the 90's was be a dynasty but there wasn't any one team that they had to see besides the Utah Jazz. Barkleys Suns, Clydes Blazers, Payton/Kemps Sonics were all one and done in the finals. The Jazz were worthy competitors but I don't put them up as a team that was feared. They were missing that one player to go with Stockton and Malone.

Magic's Lakers made the finals a bunch, they weren't one and done.
Clyde's Blazers made the finals in 90 and 92, and lost to LA in the WCF in 91 (the year they had the league's best record).
They swept the two time defending champs (Pistons) in 91.
The Knicks made the finals in 94 and 99, both being seasons immediately following an MJ retirement.
The young Shaq/Penny/Grant/Anderson/Scott Orlando team made the finals in 95.

So, recap:
91: 8-1 against Pistons and LA (7 rings between the two during the 80s, both perennial contenders). Beat Barkley and Ewing in the first 2 rounds.
92: beat NY, Cle, and Por, all 50 win teams.
93: Beat CLE (54 wins), NY (60 wins, best record in East, made finals next year), and PHX (62 wins, best record in league)
96: Beat Zo, Timmy, Riley in round 1, stomped NY again in round 2, beat the Magic (60 wins, 2nd best record in East, reigning conference champs), and then Seattle (64 wins, 2nd best record in league)
97: Beat Dekes Hawks, Zo and co. (61 wins, 2nd best record in East), and Jazz (64 wins, 2nd best record in the league)
98: Pacers and Jazz (58 and 62) were the main 2 opponents.

Don't underrate that competition. MJ beat Ewing , Barkley, Malone, Stockton, Payton, Kemp, Zo, Tim Hardaway, Penny, Shaq, Glen Rice, Drexler, Magic, Zeke, Deke, and Reggie Miller. He faced 5 60 win teams during the second three peat. He beat 3 teams in the East that made the finals within a year of that time. 4 (out of 5) Western foes made the finals more than once.

[Jordan23Forever]

-= original quote snipped =-


It's just like Jordan looks so great because he was one of the bigger SG's in the 80's and now look at Lebron he is one of the bigger SF's.

They have clear physical advantages over their competition....

Yeah, I'm sure that's why Jordan looked so great.

[Harmless]

In 92 the Dream Team was on the bus and the conversation turned to who was the GOAT player there. the argument came down to MJ and Magic. Bird came up and said to Magic "What we were he is now but hes better." The argument was settled there. Now understand this is after MJs 2nd title.


Rick Riley told that story and he has it written in a book somewhere.

Not that I disagree with what you're trying to say warspite, but, another STORY???