Sunsdeuce wrote:Anyone who takes Nash before Barkley must have only been watching basketball since 2000. Barkley is one of the 50 greatest basketball players of all times. You realize he was only 6"4. Listed at 6"6 which was bs. Slightly taller then Steve Nash and averaged more then 12 rebounds a game. Could shoot with the left or right hand.
There is no diamondbacks or coyotes without Barkley making Phoenix an actual city with star power.
I have been watching basketball since 1988 aproximately, and Barkley was my favourite power forward of all time. In the last years I have changed my mind, and now I think Tim Duncan is the greatest.
Barkley was exactly 6'4 3/4 barefoot, so 6'6 it was his real height with shoes. Nash is 6'1 barefoot, like draftexpress says, and with shoes he can be 6'2 but never 6'3.
In 1997 Barkley said, "I'm 6-4 3/4 [6ft 6] just sounded good coming out of college".. He also said "I claimed to be 6-6 when I played, but I'm only 6-5 1/2".
Ohhh, for me Nash is better than Barkley. Two different great players, but Nash is more exciting playing, pure technique.