Barkley or Amare

[The Main Event]

Who do you like? Amare has the height advantage but Sir Charles outweighs him quite a bit. Very similar styles of play, Charles having the better handle and Amare having the bettter shot. How do you think they would have matched up against eachother?

[magicman1978]

I'd go with Barkley because he's the better rebounder and passer.

[rsavaj]

How is this even close? Barkley is one of the greatest PFs of all time!

[penbeast0]

And Barkley had a much better offensive post game. Someday Amare might reach Barkley's level (or even surpass it if he works on defense) but he isn't there yet.

[Malinhion]

Charles was by far and away a better shooter than Amare.

I pretty much take Charles at everything. He played bigger than he was. He was better at running the fast break himself, and equally proficient at finishing. He could make plays. He was a much better rebounder despite his size. A top-5 rebounder in his prime despite being 6'6", and one of the best offensive rebounders in history. Charles was a more dynamic player in every facet, while doing the things that Amare excels at just as well.

Sir Charles had an MVP in 1993, which Amare will never get. He was top-6 in MVP voting seven different times. Charles was on more All-NBA first teams than Amare will ever take, and he made 11 straight all-star games. He led the league for four years in TS%, from 1986-1990. He was top-5 in PER for a 7-year stretch between 1986-1993. He had another seven seasons where he was top-5 in win shares. And in spite of all this, he was never a top-5 usage player in the NBA.

How do you even compare the two?

[JordansBulls]

How is this even close? Barkley is one of the greatest PFs of all time!

[The Main Event]

Im talking matchup, one versus one. I think that it would make for a good matchup.

[The Main Event]

And how many rings does Barkley have? When it all boils down and 30 years from now we are looking back at the NBA, the players who were on championship teams will stand at the forefront. If Amare wins a championship i think that he will be regarded as one of the great PF's as well.

[5DOM]

Im talking matchup, one versus one. I think that it would make for a good matchup.

one on one? lol

[The Main Event]

Im talking matchup, one versus one. I think that it would make for a good matchup.

one on one? lol

Yes, man to man matchups incinuate one on one.
Is 5DOM a new brand of condom or something? How does it taste?

[Malinhion]

Im talking matchup, one versus one. I think that it would make for a good matchup.

one on one? lol

Yes, man to man matchups incinuate one on one.
Is 5DOM a new brand of condom or something? How does it taste?

You might want to learn to spell insinuate before you go around using it in the improper context and belittling other posters for no reason.

Back on topic, Barkley kills Amare one-on-one because Amare has no ballhandling skills. If we're talking about a matuchup in a team environment, Amare will get his points because Barkley was at best an ok defender. But Amare is an atrocious defender and would have problems covering Barkley all over the floor. Barkley would brun him outside, in the post, and with playmaking.

We can talk about Amare's rings when the time comes. As it stands he's gone as far as the conference finals as the third best player on his team. Not impressive.

[MaNs1]

I really don't see a comparison between the two...
Barkley was better than Amare even in scoring ,which is the best attribute of Amare...

Then if you factor rebounding,passing,the domination factor etC the comparison gets out of hand.
Amare hasn't even distinguished himself as a top3 PF in the league yet FFS.

[The Main Event]

You might want to learn to spell insinuate before you go around using it in the improper context and belittling other posters for no reason.

Back on topic, Barkley kills Amare one-on-one because Amare has no ballhandling skills. If we're talking about a matuchup in a team environment, Amare will get his points because Barkley was at best an ok defender. But Amare is an atrocious defender and would have problems covering Barkley all over the floor. Barkley would brun him outside, in the post, and with playmaking.

We can talk about Amare's rings when the time comes. As it stands he's gone as far as the conference finals as the third best player on his team. Not impressive.[/quote]

Im not sure if you're trying to spell the word 'burn' or are saying brown in french. Maybe you should spell check your posts before mocking other peoples spelling.

Honestly, i made this comparison simply because they both resemble eachother in the way that they attack the basket and finish with authority. Are you sure that Barkley was the better shooter? I don't have any stats to back it up but empirical evidence appears to highlight Amare as the better shooter.

[The Main Event]

I really don't see a comparison between the two...
Barkley was better than Amare even in scoring ,which is the best attribute of Amare...

Then if you factor rebounding,passing,the domination factor etC the comparison gets out of hand.
Amare hasn't even distinguished himself as a top3 PF in the league yet FFS.

Show me the rings then buddy.

[Realm_G]

Barkley won an MVP while Jordan was still playing (near the top of his game). Not even close.

Even in a one-on-one, Barkley would demolish Amare down low. He was pudgy, but he was a fairly decent defender unlike Amare.

Amare has height, jumping ability and Nash and thats about it.

[Collie]

Show me the rings then buddy.

Both have none?

[shawngoat23]

Barkley is a better volume scorer and more efficient, which is Amare's biggest advantage. He was a much better rebounder and playmaker. And in terms of leadership and clutch ability, it's not even close.

Barkley's main disadvantage was his defense, but it's not like Amare has anything in the regard, other than his much improved shotblocking last year. Amare routinely gets abused worse than I ever remember watching Chuck get owned by his man.

[Malinhion]

Im not sure if you're trying to spell the word 'burn' or are saying brown in french. Maybe you should spell check your posts before mocking other peoples spelling.

Maybe this went over your head, but I was insinuating that you're using a word that's too big for you. It wasn't just the spelling, it was in the completely wrong context. Text doesn't insinuate anything, people do. Text can have implications, which I think was the word you're looking for. I had to call you out on it because your post was devoid of substance and you were trying to ream the other guy by looking smart. A typo in the middle of a basketball-related post is fine. At least I'm not trying to sound smarter than I am just to fluff my e-peen.

Honestly, i made this comparison simply because they both resemble eachother in the way that they attack the basket and finish with authority.

It's easy. Barkley is better than Amare in every department in which Amare excels. Amare's greatest deficiency (defense) is similarly Barkley's weakness, but he was still better in that regard. And then Charles does everything else that Amare doesn't.

Are you sure that Barkley was the better shooter? I don't have any stats to back it up but empirical evidence appears to highlight Amare as the better shooter

Well, the "empirical evidence" in my previous post that Barkley led the league in TS% for four straight seasons would seem to indicate that I'm right.

Or were you too busy looking for a spelling error?

[The Main Event]

Im not sure if you're trying to spell the word 'burn' or are saying brown in french. Maybe you should spell check your posts before mocking other peoples spelling.

Maybe this went over your head, but I was insinuating that you're using a word that's too big for you. It wasn't just the spelling, it was in the completely wrong context. Text doesn't insinuate anything, people do. Text can have implications, which I think was the word you're looking for. I had to call you out on it because your post was devoid of substance and you were trying to ream the other guy by looking smart. A typo in the middle of a basketball-related post is fine. At least I'm not trying to sound smarter than I am just to fluff my e-peen.

Honestly, i made this comparison simply because they both resemble eachother in the way that they attack the basket and finish with authority.

It's easy. Barkley is better than Amare in every department in which Amare excels. Amare's greatest deficiency (defense) is similarly Barkley's weakness, but he was still better in that regard. And then Charles does everything else that Amare doesn't.

Are you sure that Barkley was the better shooter? I don't have any stats to back it up but empirical evidence appears to highlight Amare as the better shooter

Well, the "empirical evidence" in my previous post that Barkley led the league in TS% for four straight seasons would seem to indicate that I'm right.

Or were you too busy looking for a spelling error?

Insinuate
–verb (used with object) 1. to suggest or hint slyly

I said "Yes, man to man matchups insinuate one on one." Makes perfect sense to me.
I wasn't trying to sound smart, i was simply replying to some shmuck would tried to mock me.
Regardless, Amare and Barkley are comparable PF's and i don't think it's all that laughable. I agree that Barkley was the overall better player but i dont think that it's ridiculous to compare them.

[Malinhion]

Of course it makes sense to you. You're using the dictionary. I don't mean to derail this topic but I want to explain a little grammar.

In English there is denotation (the strict dictionary definition) and the connotation (the context in which the word is normally used).

Denotatively, imply and insinuate mean the same thing. But I explained the difference to you above. Insinuate has a more narrow definition than implicate. Imply is a verb can be used with any object, animate or inanimate. You can read text that implies something, and then you infer the underlying meaning. Or someone could imply something by their words.

However, insinuate is something that only a person does. Words do not insinuate anything. Insinuate connotatively gives more of a personal feel, usually a negative tone. It's either used in a sort of *wink wink nudge nudge* context, or its meant that your words are sort of accusatory. Something along that vein. Words are not capable of this. Insinuate carries a degree of personality that cannot be given by text.

EDIT: In this example, you would have been correct to say that you were insinutating that you meant one-on-one matchups with your phrasing. But if you wanted to say that your words carried some meaning, then they implied it.

Agreed, his post wasn't productive either, but you have to realize that you're only derailing your own thread by retailiating in such a fashion. Especially on the first page.

And with that, I will stop derailing your thread myself.