RGM GOAT Debate Thread (Part 2)

[ScrantonBulls]

Rust cohle melting down in real time due to Reaves giving credit to LeBron. Ya hate to see it.

[bledredwine]

The bigger disqualifier for MJ is him quitting TWICE while in his prime/as the best player in the league. That's too much missed time to be the GOAT. Plus it's just weak for the so called "ultimate competitor". LeBron's extended dominance over 20+ years trounces MJ's 15 years (13 years if you exclude his injured season and the 17 games when he returned in 1995).

LeBron has been a dominant force for so much longer than MJ. 21 seasons vs 13 seasons. If we subtract LeBron's rookie year and MJs mediocre Wizards years, 20 seasons vs 11 seasons. It's not even close.

It just shows how dominant Jordan was to accomplish much more than Lebron even while missing multiple years of his prime and potential championships, including two years and a rust year right in his prime. Lebron’s had eight more seasons, multiple teams to form and still hasn’t been able to do it.

And what Jordan did pales in comparison to what Bill Russell did. We need to factor in the era they played in though. Comparing today's era to Jordan's era is like comparing Jordan's era to Bill Russell's era. Bill Russell's era was so watered down compared to Jordan's era. Jordan's era is so watered down compared to LeBron'a era. Especially considering how diluted the league was due to expansion teams and the lack of international players.

Quite frankly, the 80s and 90s were a complete joke compared to LeBron's era. When you factor in the talent level of the league, LeBron has done more than MJ. Factor in that he has dominated for so much longer, and it's no contest. The next best SG during Jordan's era (Drexler) barely even dribbled with his left hand, lmao. That's how bad it was.

Now I know you're conditioned to think longevity is meaningless because you need to prop up your lord and savior MJ. Hopefully someday you can ditch your emotional attachment to this topic and think it through using straight logic.

Once again, longevity stats or excuses. Funny, because Kobe, KG and Ray all refer to the 90s as a tough era, and Kg had no problem with Lebron until he was over the hill. Even in this era, Steph was in the spotlight as Lebron continued to switch teams in search for championships.

And lebron played in the joke of an eastern conference. Jordan faced Shaq Penny Magic, Ewing’s knicks, Miller’s pacers, and Charlotte/Miami who were stacked as well.

Watered down is an excuse and cross era players beg to differ. It’s never been easier to be a point scorer.

I’m just so grateful that we have all of the Jordan footage because the majority of lebron fans realize that they can’t try and use the eye test, say Jordan didn’t have the skills or played in a weak era. Hell, see the bad boy pistons and what Jordan did to them, regardless of W L’s.
Lebron is the one who literally lost a championship and sometimes underperformed when he was expected to win. He was never GOAT material and wasn’t even considered the best until seven years into his career.

With Jordan, they were waiting for him to get get one championship before declaring him the greatest to do it. And when he did, Jordan’s teams were the juggernaut. Lebron’s never were. He’s just not an ATG ceiling raiser.

Besides, the only reason you try and call that era weak is because the Bulls were so damned good that a Malone Stockton jazz, Shaq Penny Magic etc couldn’t handle them.

The only weak thing is the joke of an eastern conference lebron got to play in. With the heatles, he had more franchise players on his team than the eastern conference playoff scene combined.

[ScrantonBulls]

It just shows how dominant Jordan was to accomplish much more than Lebron even while missing multiple years of his prime and potential championships, including two years and a rust year right in his prime. Lebron’s had eight more seasons, multiple teams to form and still hasn’t been able to do it.

And what Jordan did pales in comparison to what Bill Russell did. We need to factor in the era they played in though. Comparing today's era to Jordan's era is like comparing Jordan's era to Bill Russell's era. Bill Russell's era was so watered down compared to Jordan's era. Jordan's era is so watered down compared to LeBron'a era. Especially considering how diluted the league was due to expansion teams and the lack of international players.

Quite frankly, the 80s and 90s were a complete joke compared to LeBron's era. When you factor in the talent level of the league, LeBron has done more than MJ. Factor in that he has dominated for so much longer, and it's no contest. The next best SG during Jordan's era (Drexler) barely even dribbled with his left hand, lmao. That's how bad it was.

Now I know you're conditioned to think longevity is meaningless because you need to prop up your lord and savior MJ. Hopefully someday you can ditch your emotional attachment to this topic and think it through using straight logic.

Steph did better than Lebron. Watered down is an excuse and cross era players beg to differ. It’s never been easier to be a point scorer.

Keep telling yourself that. Clyde Drexler was able to be the 2nd best SG while not dribbling with his left hand, but it's easier to score now Remember when Jordan and the Bulls beat the Knicks in the 1995 conference finals? Lmao.

[MavsDirk41]

Funny how Jordan gets blasted by James fans for “quitting” while James bounced around the league creating superteams and colluding with other all star players. The hypocrisy is hilarious.

[ScrantonBulls]

Funny how Jordan gets blasted by James fans for “quitting” while James bounced around the league creating superteams and colluding with other all star players. The hypocrisy is hilarious.

I think you need to check what the definition of "quitting" is, son. I thought that was commonly known.

Why does it bother Jordan fans to admit that he quit twice during his prime? He did. It's not up for debate, lmao.

[MavsDirk41]

and neither is the fact that James created superteams and hopped around the league to create the situation most advantageous for him. It’s pretty much common knowledge. He has been called out for it numerous times.

[ScrantonBulls]

:lol: and neither is the fact that James created superteams and hopped around the league to create the situation most advantageous for him. It’s pretty much common knowledge. He has been called out for it numerous times.

I'm just trying to help you understand the definition of "quit". It appears you understand it now - or you already did understand it, but it was too painful to admit that you hero quit during his prime. We don't have to ignore facts, son.

[lessthanjake]

:lol: and neither is the fact that James created superteams and hopped around the league to create the situation most advantageous for him. It’s pretty much common knowledge. He has been called out for it numerous times.

I'm just trying to help you understand the definition of "quit". It appears you understand it now - or you already did understand it, but it was too painful to admit that you hero quit during his prime. We don't have to ignore facts, son.

This semantic debate seems really silly. Jordan left basketball to play baseball, then came back for a few years, and then left basketball again, only to come back several years later to play for the Wizards until retiring. We all know that. Does it matter whether the first two instances are defined as “quitting” in his prime? Whether the word “quitting” applies really just depends on whether we define the word “quit” as requiring permanence. Certain definitions of the word do require that. See here, for instance: https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/quit. The second definition—i.e. the one that addresses the word as it relates to “abandoning” something—says it means “to stop doing (something) permanently.” Jordan’s first two retirements were not permanent, since he eventually came back to basketball. So obviously he didn’t “quit” basketball in that sense. But he did “quit” in the sense of, for instance, the first definition at that link—i.e. “as in to leave” and “to give up (a job or office).” He did leave the NBA twice during his prime. But what do you think the force of that is in any discussion? You’re seemingly just trying to restate facts everyone knows in words that you think carry negative connotations (which it has in part because of the “to abandon” definition of the word that doesn’t really fit here).

[ScrantonBulls]

:lol: and neither is the fact that James created superteams and hopped around the league to create the situation most advantageous for him. It’s pretty much common knowledge. He has been called out for it numerous times.

I'm just trying to help you understand the definition of "quit". It appears you understand it now - or you already did understand it, but it was too painful to admit that you hero quit during his prime. We don't have to ignore facts, son.

This semantic debate seems really silly. Jordan left basketball to play baseball, then came back for a few years, and then left basketball again, only to come back several years later to play for the Wizards until retiring. We all know that. Does it matter whether the first two instances are defined as “quitting” in his prime? Whether the word “quitting” applies really just depends on whether we define the word “quit” as requiring permanence. Certain definitions of the word do require that. See here, for instance: https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/quit. The second definition—i.e. the one that addresses the word as it relates to “abandoning” something—says it means “to stop doing (something) permanently.” Jordan’s first two retirements were not permanent, since he eventually came back to basketball. So obviously he didn’t “quit” basketball in that sense. But he did “quit” in the sense of, for instance, the first definition at that link—i.e. “as in to leave” and “to give up (a job or office).” He did leave the NBA twice during his prime. But what do you think the force of that is in any discussion? You’re seemingly just trying to restate facts everyone knows in words that you think carry negative connotations (which it has in part because of the “to abandon” definition of the word that doesn’t really fit here).

I'll actually go back on saying he "quit" in 1998. He wasn't under contract, so he wasn't bound to the team or league. It's still a weak move from the so called "ultimate competitor" to retire during your prime (in 1998).

Im 1993, he 100% quit. He was still under contract with the Bulls and he decided to quit basketball. You can't tell me somebody is the ultimate competitor when he quits or retires twice during his prime. That's weak as hell and why he isn't the GOAT. He had so much to offer from a basketball standpoint that is gone because he didn't feel like playing. He obviously was physically and mentally burned out. That's something you just need to factor into his legacy. Dude didn't have what it took to keep going for an extended period of time without quitting/retiring/taking long breaks and to recover.

[lessthanjake]

I'm just trying to help you understand the definition of "quit". It appears you understand it now - or you already did understand it, but it was too painful to admit that you hero quit during his prime. We don't have to ignore facts, son.

This semantic debate seems really silly. Jordan left basketball to play baseball, then came back for a few years, and then left basketball again, only to come back several years later to play for the Wizards until retiring. We all know that. Does it matter whether the first two instances are defined as “quitting” in his prime? Whether the word “quitting” applies really just depends on whether we define the word “quit” as requiring permanence. Certain definitions of the word do require that. See here, for instance: https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/quit. The second definition—i.e. the one that addresses the word as it relates to “abandoning” something—says it means “to stop doing (something) permanently.” Jordan’s first two retirements were not permanent, since he eventually came back to basketball. So obviously he didn’t “quit” basketball in that sense. But he did “quit” in the sense of, for instance, the first definition at that link—i.e. “as in to leave” and “to give up (a job or office).” He did leave the NBA twice during his prime. But what do you think the force of that is in any discussion? You’re seemingly just trying to restate facts everyone knows in words that you think carry negative connotations (which it has in part because of the “to abandon” definition of the word that doesn’t really fit here).

I'll actually go back on saying he "quit" in 1998. He wasn't under contract, so he wasn't bound to the team or league. It's still a weak move from the so called "ultimate competitor" to retire during your prime (in 1998).

Im 1993, he 100% quit. He was still under contract with the Bulls and he decided to quit basketball. You can't tell me somebody is the ultimate competitor when he quits or retires twice during his prime. That's weak as hell and why he isn't the GOAT. He had so much to offer from a basketball standpoint that is gone because he didn't feel like playing. He obviously was physically and mentally burned out. That's something you just need to factor into his legacy. Dude didn't have what it took to keep going for an extended period of time without quitting/retiring/taking long breaks and to recover.

I think it’s inherently factored into his legacy, due to the fact that he did not achieve anything in the NBA during the time period in which he was retired for the first time. If he had not retired, then obviously that wouldn’t be the case. Maybe he’d have won more titles! Maybe he wouldn’t—obviously we don’t know. But it’s inherently priced into peoples’ assessment of him, because he is not getting credit for whatever achievements and stats he would’ve put up in those years if he hadn’t retired. The fact that he still has more titles than LeBron despite retiring in the middle of his prime (and retiring again in the twilight of his prime) is not a good fact for LeBron. The fact that Jordan retired once or twice in his prime just means that that gap could’ve potentially been even bigger. But it’s not, so Jordan doesn’t get credit for what might’ve been.

[ScrantonBulls]

This semantic debate seems really silly. Jordan left basketball to play baseball, then came back for a few years, and then left basketball again, only to come back several years later to play for the Wizards until retiring. We all know that. Does it matter whether the first two instances are defined as “quitting” in his prime? Whether the word “quitting” applies really just depends on whether we define the word “quit” as requiring permanence. Certain definitions of the word do require that. See here, for instance: https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/quit. The second definition—i.e. the one that addresses the word as it relates to “abandoning” something—says it means “to stop doing (something) permanently.” Jordan’s first two retirements were not permanent, since he eventually came back to basketball. So obviously he didn’t “quit” basketball in that sense. But he did “quit” in the sense of, for instance, the first definition at that link—i.e. “as in to leave” and “to give up (a job or office).” He did leave the NBA twice during his prime. But what do you think the force of that is in any discussion? You’re seemingly just trying to restate facts everyone knows in words that you think carry negative connotations (which it has in part because of the “to abandon” definition of the word that doesn’t really fit here).

I'll actually go back on saying he "quit" in 1998. He wasn't under contract, so he wasn't bound to the team or league. It's still a weak move from the so called "ultimate competitor" to retire during your prime (in 1998).

Im 1993, he 100% quit. He was still under contract with the Bulls and he decided to quit basketball. You can't tell me somebody is the ultimate competitor when he quits or retires twice during his prime. That's weak as hell and why he isn't the GOAT. He had so much to offer from a basketball standpoint that is gone because he didn't feel like playing. He obviously was physically and mentally burned out. That's something you just need to factor into his legacy. Dude didn't have what it took to keep going for an extended period of time without quitting/retiring/taking long breaks and to recover.

I think it’s inherently factored into his legacy, due to the fact that he did not achieve anything in the NBA during the time period in which he was retired for the first time. If he had not retired, then obviously that wouldn’t be the case. Maybe he’d have won more titles! Maybe he wouldn’t—obviously we don’t know. But it’s inherently priced into peoples’ assessment of him, because he is not getting credit for whatever achievements and stats he would’ve put up in those years if he hadn’t retired. The fact that he still has more titles than LeBron despite retiring in the middle of his prime (and retiring again in the twilight of his prime) is not a good fact for LeBron. The fact that Jordan retired once or twice in his prime just means that that gap could’ve potentially been even bigger. But it’s not, so Jordan doesn’t get credit for what might’ve been.

If anything, him quitting showed that he had BY FAR the best supporting cast in the league. They won 55 games the year after he quit. That's insane. No other top star had even close to that help. Then when he returned he had an EVEN BETTER supporting cast.

You can't just blindly count the rings of MJ vs LeBron because MJ played in such a weaker and diluted league while having by far the best supporting cast during his championships. LeBron took down legendary teams to win his championships, like the dynasty Spurs, Durant-Harden-Westbrook Thunder, and the 73-9 Warriors. MJ took down teams like the geriatric Jazz squads. There's just no comparison.

[michaelm]

I'm just trying to help you understand the definition of "quit". It appears you understand it now - or you already did understand it, but it was too painful to admit that you hero quit during his prime. We don't have to ignore facts, son.

This semantic debate seems really silly. Jordan left basketball to play baseball, then came back for a few years, and then left basketball again, only to come back several years later to play for the Wizards until retiring. We all know that. Does it matter whether the first two instances are defined as “quitting” in his prime? Whether the word “quitting” applies really just depends on whether we define the word “quit” as requiring permanence. Certain definitions of the word do require that. See here, for instance: https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/quit. The second definition—i.e. the one that addresses the word as it relates to “abandoning” something—says it means “to stop doing (something) permanently.” Jordan’s first two retirements were not permanent, since he eventually came back to basketball. So obviously he didn’t “quit” basketball in that sense. But he did “quit” in the sense of, for instance, the first definition at that link—i.e. “as in to leave” and “to give up (a job or office).” He did leave the NBA twice during his prime. But what do you think the force of that is in any discussion? You’re seemingly just trying to restate facts everyone knows in words that you think carry negative connotations (which it has in part because of the “to abandon” definition of the word that doesn’t really fit here).

I'll actually go back on saying he "quit" in 1998. He wasn't under contract, so he wasn't bound to the team or league. It's still a weak move from the so called "ultimate competitor" to retire during your prime (in 1998).

Im 1993, he 100% quit. He was still under contract with the Bulls and he decided to quit basketball. You can't tell me somebody is the ultimate competitor when he quits or retires twice during his prime. That's weak as hell and why he isn't the GOAT. He had so much to offer from a basketball standpoint that is gone because he didn't feel like playing. He obviously was physically and mentally burned out. That's something you just need to factor into his legacy. Dude didn't have what it took to keep going for an extended period of time without quitting/retiring/taking long breaks and to recover.

His father was murdered as you keep ignoring. He said himself later that the break may have helped, but he didn’t stop because of anything basketball related. If you want to constantly argue “circumstances” for LeBron as you do then circumstances very definitely apply to Jordan at that particular point in time.

[One Last Shot]

:lol: and neither is the fact that James created superteams and hopped around the league to create the situation most advantageous for him. It’s pretty much common knowledge. He has been called out for it numerous times.

How "super" are those teams really are when all of them can't even be above .500 when LeBron doesn't play?

Read on Twitter

[One Last Shot]

This semantic debate seems really silly. Jordan left basketball to play baseball, then came back for a few years, and then left basketball again, only to come back several years later to play for the Wizards until retiring. We all know that. Does it matter whether the first two instances are defined as “quitting” in his prime? Whether the word “quitting” applies really just depends on whether we define the word “quit” as requiring permanence. Certain definitions of the word do require that. See here, for instance: https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/quit. The second definition—i.e. the one that addresses the word as it relates to “abandoning” something—says it means “to stop doing (something) permanently.” Jordan’s first two retirements were not permanent, since he eventually came back to basketball. So obviously he didn’t “quit” basketball in that sense. But he did “quit” in the sense of, for instance, the first definition at that link—i.e. “as in to leave” and “to give up (a job or office).” He did leave the NBA twice during his prime. But what do you think the force of that is in any discussion? You’re seemingly just trying to restate facts everyone knows in words that you think carry negative connotations (which it has in part because of the “to abandon” definition of the word that doesn’t really fit here).

I'll actually go back on saying he "quit" in 1998. He wasn't under contract, so he wasn't bound to the team or league. It's still a weak move from the so called "ultimate competitor" to retire during your prime (in 1998).

Im 1993, he 100% quit. He was still under contract with the Bulls and he decided to quit basketball. You can't tell me somebody is the ultimate competitor when he quits or retires twice during his prime. That's weak as hell and why he isn't the GOAT. He had so much to offer from a basketball standpoint that is gone because he didn't feel like playing. He obviously was physically and mentally burned out. That's something you just need to factor into his legacy. Dude didn't have what it took to keep going for an extended period of time without quitting/retiring/taking long breaks and to recover.

His father was murdered as you keep ignoring. He said himself later that the break may have helped, but he didn’t stop because of anything basketball related. If you want to constantly argue “circumstances” for LeBron as you do then circumstances very definitely apply to Jordan at that particular point in time.

Jordan decided to retire in 1993 as he's drained physically and way past exhausted mentally and was already set on taking a break from the NBA regardless of his father’s demise. Not everyone got the mental fortitude and physical attributes to perform at very high level in consecutive years.

[ScrantonBulls]

I'll actually go back on saying he "quit" in 1998. He wasn't under contract, so he wasn't bound to the team or league. It's still a weak move from the so called "ultimate competitor" to retire during your prime (in 1998).

Im 1993, he 100% quit. He was still under contract with the Bulls and he decided to quit basketball. You can't tell me somebody is the ultimate competitor when he quits or retires twice during his prime. That's weak as hell and why he isn't the GOAT. He had so much to offer from a basketball standpoint that is gone because he didn't feel like playing. He obviously was physically and mentally burned out. That's something you just need to factor into his legacy. Dude didn't have what it took to keep going for an extended period of time without quitting/retiring/taking long breaks and to recover.

His father was murdered as you keep ignoring. He said himself later that the break may have helped, but he didn’t stop because of anything basketball related. If you want to constantly argue “circumstances” for LeBron as you do then circumstances very definitely apply to Jordan at that particular point in time.

Jordan decided to retire in 1993 as he's drained physically and way past exhausted mentally and was already set on taking a break from the NBA regardless of his father’s demise. Not everyone got the mental fortitude and physical attributes to perform at very high level in consecutive years.

He didn't have the mental, physical or testicular fortitude to keep going without some breaks.

[ballzboyee]

Troll thread with having Shaq, Oscar, Kareem, and Hakeem on poll over Magic, lulz. Magic has a better case for GOAT than anybody on that list sans Lebron and Jordan. Final MVP as a rookie and 9 finals in 11 years. Jordan 6 finals in 15. Lebron 10 finals in 21. Forced to retire while still the second best player in the league and near his prime. Magic is the best pure all-around offensive basketball player ever from a playmaking, versatility, and ball IQ perspective.

[michaelm]

I'll actually go back on saying he "quit" in 1998. He wasn't under contract, so he wasn't bound to the team or league. It's still a weak move from the so called "ultimate competitor" to retire during your prime (in 1998).

Im 1993, he 100% quit. He was still under contract with the Bulls and he decided to quit basketball. You can't tell me somebody is the ultimate competitor when he quits or retires twice during his prime. That's weak as hell and why he isn't the GOAT. He had so much to offer from a basketball standpoint that is gone because he didn't feel like playing. He obviously was physically and mentally burned out. That's something you just need to factor into his legacy. Dude didn't have what it took to keep going for an extended period of time without quitting/retiring/taking long breaks and to recover.

His father was murdered as you keep ignoring. He said himself later that the break may have helped, but he didn’t stop because of anything basketball related. If you want to constantly argue “circumstances” for LeBron as you do then circumstances very definitely apply to Jordan at that particular point in time.

Jordan decided to retire in 1993 as he's drained physically and way past exhausted mentally and was already set on taking a break from the NBA regardless of his father’s demise. Not everyone got the mental fortitude and physical attributes to perform at very high level in consecutive years.

So when did LeBron win 3 titles in a row once, let alone twice ?.

[RRR3]

His father was murdered as you keep ignoring. He said himself later that the break may have helped, but he didn’t stop because of anything basketball related. If you want to constantly argue “circumstances” for LeBron as you do then circumstances very definitely apply to Jordan at that particular point in time.

Jordan decided to retire in 1993 as he's drained physically and way past exhausted mentally and was already set on taking a break from the NBA regardless of his father’s demise. Not everyone got the mental fortitude and physical attributes to perform at very high level in consecutive years.

So when did LeBron win 3 titles in a row once, let alone twice ?.

Rangzzzzzz

[ScrantonBulls]

His father was murdered as you keep ignoring. He said himself later that the break may have helped, but he didn’t stop because of anything basketball related. If you want to constantly argue “circumstances” for LeBron as you do then circumstances very definitely apply to Jordan at that particular point in time.

Jordan decided to retire in 1993 as he's drained physically and way past exhausted mentally and was already set on taking a break from the NBA regardless of his father’s demise. Not everyone got the mental fortitude and physical attributes to perform at very high level in consecutive years.

So when did LeBron win 3 titles in a row once, let alone twice ?.

He was facing all time great teams while frequently having inferior teams. Just lol at looking at titles as an individual achievement. Hard to take that seriously. I thought you knew enough to apply context and actually look at the teams involved and the supporting casts. I guess I thought wrong.

[One Last Shot]

His father was murdered as you keep ignoring. He said himself later that the break may have helped, but he didn’t stop because of anything basketball related. If you want to constantly argue “circumstances” for LeBron as you do then circumstances very definitely apply to Jordan at that particular point in time.

Jordan decided to retire in 1993 as he's drained physically and way past exhausted mentally and was already set on taking a break from the NBA regardless of his father’s demise. Not everyone got the mental fortitude and physical attributes to perform at very high level in consecutive years.

So when did LeBron win 3 titles in a row once, let alone twice ?.

I didn't even mention LeBron so why are you asking me that question? I'm just correcting misinformation, Jordan decided to retire in 1993 because he's drained physically and mentally not because his father got murdered. Like I said, it's fine as not everyone got the mental and physical fortitude to perform at very high level in consecutive years.