Was Hakeem Olajuwon's post-up game a little overrated?

[tsherkin]

He was 6'10'' max.

Jordan used to joke around and call him 6'8'' or 6'9''

Looked 6'10, 6'11 to me, sure. Which wasn't really undersized against anyone but Shaq. Long arms, hella athletic, strong as hell (both Moses and Shaq commented upon Hakeem's strength) and not skinny. So at some point, it didn't really matter. Size is relative. If half your height is neck and leg like Chris Bosh, your height means only so much, you know what I mean? Olajuwon had a solid base and long arms coupled to his athletic tools, so he never really found himself in a physical deficit... again, apart from Shaq. And it's not like Rik Smits was really beating the piss out of him with his height "advantage." I don't wanna piss on Smits, who was a good offensive player, but he wasn't taking Olajuwon to school. And Hakeem did just fine against Ewing, and Robinson, and Zo (who was also like 6'9, 6'10), etc.

[Anticon]

This is an interesting, polarizing thread.

Some of the examples OP gives would need be analysis to compare properly (Dantley, McHale). But it isn't controversial to say that there were more dominant post scorers than him.

Kareem is generally ranked as a better player overall and Shaq was more physically dominant in the post, though obviously a less talented shooter or scorer.

Jokic similar to Kareem is arguably a better player.

We are comparing not just hall of famers here but the top of the hall of fame. So I think the idea of overrated in that context and the odd focus ona aesthetics vs effectiveness is missing the point a bit. He was a dominant scorer just not as dominant as some others. Which is nothing controversial.

[tsherkin]

We are comparing not just hall of famers here but the top of the hall of fame. So I think the idea of overrated in that context and the odd focus ona aesthetics vs effectiveness is missing the point a bit. He was a dominant scorer just not as dominant as some others. Which is nothing controversial.

It's a specific response to a specific remark. It isn't missing the point at all, and has been qualified numerous times to acknowledge that Olajuwon was overall a very good scorer (and obviously also a very good post scorer). So that's a bit of a non-sensical remark.

[Anticon]

We are comparing not just hall of famers here but the top of the hall of fame. So I think the idea of overrated in that context and the odd focus ona aesthetics vs effectiveness is missing the point a bit. He was a dominant scorer just not as dominant as some others. Which is nothing controversial.

It's a specific response to a specific remark. It isn't missing the point at all, and has been qualified numerous times to acknowledge that Olajuwon was overall a very good scorer (and obviously also a very good post scorer). So that's a bit of a non-sensical remark.

I'm not sure if you're referring to my comment or something from the OP?

[tsherkin]

We are comparing not just hall of famers here but the top of the hall of fame. So I think the idea of overrated in that context and the odd focus ona aesthetics vs effectiveness is missing the point a bit. He was a dominant scorer just not as dominant as some others. Which is nothing controversial.

It's a specific response to a specific remark. It isn't missing the point at all, and has been qualified numerous times to acknowledge that Olajuwon was overall a very good scorer (and obviously also a very good post scorer). So that's a bit of a non-sensical remark.

I'm not sure if you're referring to my comment or something from the OP?

To your remark, yes. You said that you thought the idea of overrated is missing the point, and then specifically referenced aesthetic versus efficacy. But none of that missed the point, and the fact that he was a dominant scorer is irrelevant, because it has been acknowledged... as has the fact that he was an ATG post player. The whole point of the OP was to compare him to hella monstrous post scorers to note that Olajuwon's reputation outpaces his actual ability as a post scorer, again relative specifically to those ATGs.

It's not "Ah, boo, Hakeem wasn't a good post scorer."

It's "No, Hakeem is not clearly the best post scorer ever, and those who say he was are at least a little bit overrating his post play, primarily based on aesthetics."

[Anticon]

It's a specific response to a specific remark. It isn't missing the point at all, and has been qualified numerous times to acknowledge that Olajuwon was overall a very good scorer (and obviously also a very good post scorer). So that's a bit of a non-sensical remark.

I'm not sure if you're referring to my comment or something from the OP?

To your remark, yes. You said that you thought the idea of overrated is missing the point, and then specifically referenced aesthetic versus efficacy. But none of that missed the point, and the fact that he was a dominant scorer is irrelevant, because it has been acknowledged... as has the fact that he was an ATG post player. The whole point of the OP was to compare him to hella monstrous post scorers to note that Olajuwon's reputation outpaces his actual ability as a post scorer, again relative specifically to those ATGs.

It's not "Ah, boo, Hakeem wasn't a good post scorer."

It's "No, Hakeem is not clearly the best post scorer ever, and those who say he was are at least a little bit overrating his post play, primarily based on aesthetics."

There's a lot of supposition in that around people's motivations. I've never heard it be a common view that he was the greatest post player of all time. Most creative or artistically pleasing, sure. But those are different things and people that followed his career from the start can appreciate how his play evolved. Perhaps some people who didn't watch his game or don't know comparable players feel that way; but Hakeem's overall ranking has never been above a number of other centres and post scoring is part of that.

I do think the concept of overrated when comparing a group do 3 or 4 players loses its meaning. And the introduction of aesthetics as a distinguishing factor is odd; he wasn't held back because of the artistic quality of his play, he was enabled by it. It's just that other players that weren't as pleasing to watch may have been better scorers.

In saying you're choosing effectiveness over aesthetics you're not actually choosing that. You're just choosing another player that happens to be better, for various reasons. Aesthetics is irrelevant to that distinction.

[RSP83]

People don't understand: once you have the low post figured out then there's no shot you can add to your game that won't reduce your FG% but you need those shots to climb the ranks of all time great post players. C's are always trying to add these lower FG% shots to their games as counter moves. To judge Hakeem on those things because his game was at an advanced level early in his career is ridiculous.

You can cut those moves out of his game and raise his FG% but then you would not have the two titles. You would know that if you watched the games. You're not outplaying Shaq and Robinson without the counter moves. Robinson and Shaq would have loved to take those lower FG% moves out of Hakeem's game - making him one dimensional.

This. Hakeem is about his counter moves.

[RSP83]

His shooting percentages (FG%, 2PT%, TS%) were never as high as Shaq's, Kareem's, Barkley's, Dantley's, Wilt's, Jokic's, and McHale's. And yet, he's often considered the best in the post. My personal opinion is that, while still one of the pivot greats, his post-up game was overrated due to its aesthetic appeal. No one has a prettier low-post highlight reel than The Dream.

IMO, what hurt his back-to-the-basket game was shot selection and, to a lesser degree, passing. He wasn't as good at getting the high-percentage looks, often settling for that tough baseline fadeaway jump shot. His touch in the paint was very good, but a level below Jokic, McHale, Dantley, and Kareem—the gold standards. He wasn't a huge foul drawer, and his FT% was below league average.

Actually watch him play and you will have your answer.

This is exactly why you can't just stat-watching. And the recent narrative of devaluing ring culture really take away from separating the good with the great. When you bring up Adrian Dantley in a Hakeem low-post game success conversation, something is wrong with that conversation. It's also about the level of success Hakeem was able to achieve with his low-post game. This is like T-Mac and Kobe conversation... Kobe said it that T-Mac is one of the most difficult player he had to guard mainly because T-Mac can do many things Kobe can but he's 6'9". But the level of success that Kobe was able to achieve with his offensive game is what sets him apart from his peers.

The only guy from that list who I feel is very underrated in terms of low-post game is Kevin McHale. But I would still put Hakeem above McHale. I think there's very few centers who wins 1-on-1 low post battle vs. Hakeem.

[M2J]

No because similar to Duncan their versatile face up game allowed them to be go to guys in key situations... Rather than work horses that relied on perimeter players to take over....and they had the counters to best doubles

[Mr B]

His shooting percentages (FG%, 2PT%, TS%) were never as high as Shaq's, Kareem's, Barkley's, Dantley's, Wilt's, Jokic's, and McHale's. And yet, he's often considered the best in the post. My personal opinion is that, while still one of the pivot greats, his post-up game was overrated due to its aesthetic appeal. No one has a prettier low-post highlight reel than The Dream.

IMO, what hurt his back-to-the-basket game was shot selection and, to a lesser degree, passing. He wasn't as good at getting the high-percentage looks, often settling for that tough baseline fadeaway jump shot. His touch in the paint was very good, but a level below Jokic, McHale, Dantley, and Kareem—the gold standards. He wasn't a huge foul drawer, and his FT% was below league average.

Actually watch him play and you will have your answer.

This is exactly why you can't just stat-watching. And the recent narrative of devaluing ring culture really take away from separating the good with the great. When you bring up Adrian Dantley in a Hakeem low-post game success conversation, something is wrong with that conversation. It's also about the level of success Hakeem was able to achieve with his low-post game. This is like T-Mac and Kobe conversation... Kobe said it that T-Mac is one of the most difficult player he had to guard mainly because T-Mac can do many things Kobe can but he's 6'9". But the level of success that Kobe was able to achieve with his offensive game is what sets him apart from his peers.

The only guy from that list who I feel is very underrated in terms of low-post game is Kevin McHale. But I would still put Hakeem above McHale. I think there's very few centers who wins 1-on-1 low post battle vs. Hakeem.

Stats don’t account for how many times Dream shook a guy right out of his shoes with the Dream Shake. The stats only show he made the bucket. It’s how he does it that matters, not necessarily how many times he does it.

[Masigond]

Stats don’t account for how many times Dream shook a guy right out of his shoes with the Dream Shake. The stats only show he made the bucket. It’s how he does it that matters, not necessarily how many times he does it.

Right. But did Hakeem get more points for shaking opponents out of their shoes than Shaq for his dominance near the basket or Kareem for his unstoppable sky hook?
I get that Hakeem's game was (even) more spectacular and eye-pleasing. But that is actually the problem with the "Actually watch him play!" take: In the end one tends to overrate style over substance.
That said: I find the accusation annoying that users allegedly never saw Hakeem play. I for my part did of course miss his peak and prime as I haven't started watching the NBA before 1998 (due to lack of games shown in my country and due to the lack of internet before. But I've seen the 1992 Olympics. Didn't help me with rating Olajuwon as he was no member of the Dream Team 1. As I wasn't a teen anymore it made me quite immune to the stan hype around many players), but thanks to the internet I could catch up by seeing a lot of recorded games and whole series. So I can confirm: Yes, I have seen Hakeem play. A lot of games actually, and not only highlight reels. Nevertheless I think (as already said) that there are players who were a tad better as post up scorers. Not necessarily more eye-pleasing, but more effective and efficient, even in the playoffs. Now what? Still the argument that somehow versatility and skills are superior to unstoppable albeit simpler moves even when stats show that there were players who scored a bit better than Olajuwon?

And again: That's what it's about. The overrating is putting Hakeem on a pedestal and claiming that he is undoubtedly the very best of all. And how is it disrespectful to just point out that he is still one of the best, but just not alone at the very top of all? Noone here is saying that Olajuwon was bad. Noone is comparing him to players who can't hold a candle to him.

[dhsilv2]

He was 6'10'' max.

Jordan used to joke around and call him 6'8'' or 6'9''

Looked 6'10, 6'11 to me, sure. Which wasn't really undersized against anyone but Shaq. Long arms, hella athletic, strong as hell (both Moses and Shaq commented upon Hakeem's strength) and not skinny. So at some point, it didn't really matter. Size is relative. If half your height is neck and leg like Chris Bosh, your height means only so much, you know what I mean? Olajuwon had a solid base and long arms coupled to his athletic tools, so he never really found himself in a physical deficit... again, apart from Shaq. And it's not like Rik Smits was really beating the piss out of him with his height "advantage." I don't wanna piss on Smits, who was a good offensive player, but he wasn't taking Olajuwon to school. And Hakeem did just fine against Ewing, and Robinson, and Zo (who was also like 6'9, 6'10), etc.

I know my basketball cards from the 80's said 6'10 and then suddenly in the 90's he was 7'0 on them. Used to wonder....now I just get it..everyonein the league is 1-3 inches shorter than listed. Or at least in that era. But otherwise agree. Hakeem is kinda that goldilocks spot in terms of build. Long and lean enough to be agile while a low enough center of gravity for the post and thick enough to deal with power players...minus as you said Shaq.

[dhsilv2]

Actually watch him play and you will have your answer.

This is exactly why you can't just stat-watching. And the recent narrative of devaluing ring culture really take away from separating the good with the great. When you bring up Adrian Dantley in a Hakeem low-post game success conversation, something is wrong with that conversation. It's also about the level of success Hakeem was able to achieve with his low-post game. This is like T-Mac and Kobe conversation... Kobe said it that T-Mac is one of the most difficult player he had to guard mainly because T-Mac can do many things Kobe can but he's 6'9". But the level of success that Kobe was able to achieve with his offensive game is what sets him apart from his peers.

The only guy from that list who I feel is very underrated in terms of low-post game is Kevin McHale. But I would still put Hakeem above McHale. I think there's very few centers who wins 1-on-1 low post battle vs. Hakeem.

Stats don’t account for how many times Dream shook a guy right out of his shoes with the Dream Shake. The stats only show he made the bucket. It’s how he does it that matters, not necessarily how many times he does it.

In a dunk contest yes. In an nba game, 2 points is 2 points.

[OdomFan]

I'm not sure if you're referring to my comment or something from the OP?

To your remark, yes. You said that you thought the idea of overrated is missing the point, and then specifically referenced aesthetic versus efficacy. But none of that missed the point, and the fact that he was a dominant scorer is irrelevant, because it has been acknowledged... as has the fact that he was an ATG post player. The whole point of the OP was to compare him to hella monstrous post scorers to note that Olajuwon's reputation outpaces his actual ability as a post scorer, again relative specifically to those ATGs.

It's not "Ah, boo, Hakeem wasn't a good post scorer."

It's "No, Hakeem is not clearly the best post scorer ever, and those who say he was are at least a little bit overrating his post play, primarily based on aesthetics."

There's a lot of supposition in that around people's motivations. I've never heard it be a common view that he was the greatest post player of all time. Most creative or artistically pleasing, sure. But those are different things and people that followed his career from the start can appreciate how his play evolved. Perhaps some people who didn't watch his game or don't know comparable players feel that way; but Hakeem's overall ranking has never been above a number of other centres and post scoring is part of that.

I do think the concept of overrated when comparing a group do 3 or 4 players loses its meaning. And the introduction of aesthetics as a distinguishing factor is odd; he wasn't held back because of the artistic quality of his play, he was enabled by it. It's just that other players that weren't as pleasing to watch may have been better scorers.

In saying you're choosing effectiveness over aesthetics you're not actually choosing that. You're just choosing another player that happens to be better, for various reasons. Aesthetics is irrelevant to that distinction.

I think you raised a good/interesting point there. Someone else could have been a better shooter than Hakeem, but Hakeems foot work to create space for his shots was better, there for much more memorable. I don't think that's overrating him at all to agree with that.

[KrAzY3]

Hakeem is one of those guys whose legend grew after his playing days. When he was active he was completely overshadowed by players like Magic, Bird, and Jordan. He was basically lumped in with Robinson and Ewing.

I think some revisions are relevant, he certainly was better than Ewing for example, but in re-evaluating him I've seen some people place him atop a pedestal on which he doesn't belong in my opinion. Was he the heir to the big man throne? The bridge from Kareem to Shaq? Yes, he was. Did he have a legit case for the best player of his era or best big man of all time? No, he did not.

But... if you want to kind of downgrade his peers, you exaggerate how good he was. He was great, but nowhere near the greatest.

[RSP83]

This is exactly why you can't just stat-watching. And the recent narrative of devaluing ring culture really take away from separating the good with the great. When you bring up Adrian Dantley in a Hakeem low-post game success conversation, something is wrong with that conversation. It's also about the level of success Hakeem was able to achieve with his low-post game. This is like T-Mac and Kobe conversation... Kobe said it that T-Mac is one of the most difficult player he had to guard mainly because T-Mac can do many things Kobe can but he's 6'9". But the level of success that Kobe was able to achieve with his offensive game is what sets him apart from his peers.

The only guy from that list who I feel is very underrated in terms of low-post game is Kevin McHale. But I would still put Hakeem above McHale. I think there's very few centers who wins 1-on-1 low post battle vs. Hakeem.

Stats don’t account for how many times Dream shook a guy right out of his shoes with the Dream Shake. The stats only show he made the bucket. It’s how he does it that matters, not necessarily how many times he does it.

In a dunk contest yes. In an nba game, 2 points is 2 points.

I agree with this. It's not entirely how he got his 2 points either. It's how far his low-post game have taken him. Embiid is probably as good as Hakeem offensively, but it hasn't translate to as much success as Hakeem.

[dhsilv2]

Stats don’t account for how many times Dream shook a guy right out of his shoes with the Dream Shake. The stats only show he made the bucket. It’s how he does it that matters, not necessarily how many times he does it.

In a dunk contest yes. In an nba game, 2 points is 2 points.

I agree with this. It's not entirely how he got his 2 points either. It's how far his low-post game have taken him. Embiid is probably as good as Hakeem offensively, but it hasn't translate to as much success as Hakeem.

Embiid should be better. He's actually got the moves and the power. But...he clearly doesn't have the endurance and just overall fitness for the playoffs. Add in...be it a lack of counters, coaching or just low BBIQ but Embiid seems to be someone you can address in ways Hakeem couldn't in the playoffs. And thus why I think we'd all take the regular season stats and say...that's nice. But nah, Hakeem was the better scorer when it mattered.

But against the Kareem's and Shaq's of the world...that's a different story.

[web123888]

Hakeem didn't have the physical tools Shaq or Wilt did, and he wasn't 7-foot a billion like Kareem. He was quite quick and very strong, and extremely adept at drawing fouls (particularly as a younger guy).

It's worth remembering that he hit the league shooting like 61% from the FT line and had limited range. Then, like Karl Malone, he developed his jumper. He developed his handle to enable his face-up attack, and he had a wonderful array of countermoves. His footwork was fantastic.

I think the mistake people are making here is correlating "post game" with "scoring efficiency."

Shaq had very good footwork, timing and off-ball movement (which a lot people don't like acknowledging), but he was always a 7'1, 300-pound (or more) physical monster with explosive leaping and quickness. You can be quite deft in the post and (shy of being Jokic), you're not going to match his scoring efficiency at volume, right? Same same with Wilt. Same same with the 7'3 guy wheeling to deal a skyhook you can't block. Kareem's post game was relatively simplistic... but it was quite effective.

Olajuwon didn't have the same kind of mass advantage as Shaq or mid/late Wilt, nor did he have Kareem's height. But he had quickness, balance and handles, so he could attack and create for himself. And he had a good array of spins, drop steps, up-and-unders and the like. But as others have mentioned, he gamed a lot for contested shots. He wasn't a great passer, and partly that led to him GOING for the shot regardless. So he grew accustomed to dealing those wheeling fadeaways into the lane, and the baseline fades and such.

But if you actually watch his footwork and action in the mid and low post, it's fantastic. He had a great set of sequences he could go to. Very... I'll borrow from the John Danaher and say "Enter the System." He had you on his back and you were giving up a spin, a fadeaway in one direction or the other, a hook in the lane or some kind of lean-in or up-and-under situation. That's just what it was. Unless you were able to hard double, he was getting something he was comfortable taking.

So the actual proficiency of his game was there in terms of the variety. Was it the most effective? No, of course not. Variety is often overstated. Hakeem did well, and he was quite resilient into the playoffs, but the other guys mentioned here are all monsters of a greater magnitude. And winning bias/nostalgia has changed the perception of how people approach Hakeem's game.

Dantley was a much better scorer. His run from 80-85 is insane, especially since he was 6'5. Insane deep seals, great up fakes, lots of face-up drives and short jumpers, but mostly off-ball action ahead of a simple fake and/or hook. And he shot Shaq-like FG% while drawing tons and tons of fouls and shooting well at the line. Kareem was obviously a better scorer. Shaq, Wilt. Chuck, though Barkley did a lot more than just attack in the post. Jokic is a much better scorer. McHale was a better scorer largely because he was a better shooter (and he had a shot diet not dissimilar to Olajuwon). You can talk some about how the Celtics roster had such talent around him that it was challenging to guard him effectively and that's fine, but he was still north of 60% TS in 89 and 90, and Bird played 6 games in 89.

So yeah, I think Hakeem's a BIT overrated. He had a lot of moving parts to put together, developing his shot, developing the handle, being more than just a mobile athlete with a motor like he was when he first hit the league (although some of the rudiments were there). And even at his peak, he wasn't quite as effective as some of his positional peers across the eras. He won a lot with defense and roleplayer contribution, which people don't like to discuss as much as his whirling dervish style. But it WAS effective, and he WAS something like a +2% rTS guy for a dozen years or so, with a peak at 108 and 107 TS+ when he started to have some better spacing and a better offensive system to work with. Carrying that kind of volume, attacking effectively out of the face-up with range and live-dribble dynamism more like a small forward or shooting guard, that was pretty big for what it enabled him to do.

But yeah, strictly from the POV of who was the best post scorer, it's not him.

Well, no, this isn’t entirely accurate. A post game involves much more than back to the basket backing down defenders and scoring. When it comes to drop step, up and under, fadeaway at the block among others, Olajuwon was a clearly superior player to Abdul-Jabbar and arguably even Shaq. He was much better with regards to face up jumpers as well, which is part of a rounded post game. In addition, most of the offensive advanced metrics including VTTROP, EFFFG%, TS%, FREQ% and PROM suggest Olajuwon was at least one of the top 5 post players in the league’s history.

Only players I would say have a case over him are peak Shaq, peak Jokic, peak Wilt, peak Kareem and peak Duncan. However none of those are particularly inarguable or obvious.

[RSP83]

Hakeem is one of those guys whose legend grew after his playing days. When he was active he was completely overshadowed by players like Magic, Bird, and Jordan. He was basically lumped in with Robinson and Ewing.

I think some revisions are relevant, he certainly was better than Ewing for example, but in re-evaluating him I've seen some people place him atop a pedestal on which he doesn't belong in my opinion. Was he the heir to the big man throne? The bridge from Kareem to Shaq? Yes, he was. Did he have a legit case for the best player of his era or best big man of all time? No, he did not.

But... if you want to kind of downgrade his peers, you exaggerate how good he was. He was great, but nowhere near the greatest.

I was actually curious about this as well. The way I remember it Hakeem's career was like a "U" shape. He was very successful early (in college and in his first 3 years 84-87, 1 Finals appearance) and later (2 Championships in 94 & 95).

What happened in between was pretty meh: knocked out of the first round from 88 to 91, missed the playoff in 92. But turns out the Rockets was a 40 win team during that stretch. They kept running into the prime Showtime Lakers team, Seattle Supersonics team with Dale Ellis, Tom Chambers, and Xavier McDaniels, and a one hit wonder Mavs teams with Blackman, Harper, Tarpley, Aguirre, Perkins. But during those times Hakeem consistently lead the team in win share.

I think Hakeem kinda fade a bit in the 80s after a successful early career campaign due to tougher Western conference competition. But I disagree with the statement that says his legend grew after his playing days. Because Hakeem's game actually reached next level while he's still playing later in his career. He averaged the most points of his career between the age of 30 to 34, in which he consistently top 3-4 in the league in points per game. Yes, during those times David Robinson and Shaq finished higher than him in points per game. But the fact that neither can stop him and he managed to win 2 championships during that stretch is why he deserves to be in the greatest center conversation.

[tsherkin]

Well, no, this isn’t entirely accurate. A post game involves much more than back to the basket backing down defenders and scoring.

At exactly no point in this thread have I reduced it to such, so that isn't salient to my post

Olajuwon was at least one of the top 5 post players in the league’s history.

I'd agree that he's at absolute lowest, a top 10 post player all time. Honestly, I think top 5 makes plenty of sense. This is why I articulated earlier that the point is that he's a shade overrated when he's being called the greatest post player of all time and no one is accepting any other possible outcome, but that he was still incredible and an ATG.

It's not that Hakeem was bad, he wasn't. He was amazing, one of the best, particularly at his peak. The problem was more that he had pieces of his game which were weaker than others, or guys who were more effective but with less engaging aesthetic.

There's a lot of supposition in that around people's motivations. I've never heard it be a common view that he was the greatest post player of all time.

You can see it in this very thread.

I do think the concept of overrated when comparing a group do 3 or 4 players loses its meaning.

I don't. It's a very specific remark about how he's being discussed, and how people don't want to accept even the possibility that he couldn't be the best ever at the given skill, but while still acknowledging his proficiency.

And the introduction of aesthetics as a distinguishing factor is odd; he wasn't held back because of the artistic quality of his play, he was enabled by it. It's just that other players that weren't as pleasing to watch may have been better scorers.

I never said he was held back by his artistry. I said people overrate him to some degree because they enjoy watching him play. The same thing happens with Melo and Kobe, to one extent or another.

In saying you're choosing effectiveness over aesthetics you're not actually choosing that. You're just choosing another player that happens to be better, for various reasons. Aesthetics is irrelevant to that distinction.

It isn't irrelevant at all, you just took the argument in a different direction than was intended, despite me having explained this already elsewhere in the thread.