therealbig3 wrote:Watched a few Wilt interviews specifically regarding the GOAT, during the 90s at the height of Jordan's prime, and he's very vocal about the fact that he doesn't think Jordan's the greatest and that not only himself but a number of other players (he mentions Russell, but nobody else specific) were better than him. Talks about how soft the era is now and how much physically tougher it was during his day and that Jordan would have been crushed if he tried taking it into the paint during his era. Also specifically points out how just because one guy wins more rings doesn't make them the greater player necessarily.
Beyond the familiar criticisms of the more modern era by a player from a previous era, it kind of puts in perspective how much the media narrative has shaped the GOAT discussion. Back in the day, you really did have a number of people that were way more familiar with and more closely identified with the 60s and 70s and had Wilt or Russell as the GOAT. Then Kareem entered the conversation during the 70s. But the Magic/Bird era during the 80s re-popularized the game and then Jordan began his ascent when Magic and Bird were in their primes and at the top of the game. As time has gone by, Wilt/Russell/Kareem have become more forgotten about, and the media really only talks about Magic/Bird and then Jordan as the clearly greater player among the three, and that's it for the GOAT discussion. Sure, they'll talk about Wilt and Russell and Kareem, but they'll make it seem like they played in the Stone Age, while Magic/Bird/Jordan played during the Golden Era, and Jordan reigned supreme against his direct competition. Now, fans of the 80s and 90s are the old heads, and fans of even earlier eras when Wilt/Russell/Kareem were the GOAT candidates are way fewer now. Furthermore, it highlights how winning a bunch of rings didn't become the absolute requirement for GOAT status until Jordan.
And that's all a media narrative, and it's why Jordan's near consensus status as the GOAT within the media will likely never change. Because he's gotten mythologized in a way previous greats never did, and that's now cemented in history.
To me, the red flag is that we have framed the GOAT debate not in terms of general goals (e.g. Who impacted winning and losing the most overall?) but instead in terms of Jordan. If your team ever lost in the Finals, you're out because Jordan was 6/6. If you're not known as a crunch time killer, you're out because Jordan had ice in his veins. It even seems like big men are completely ignored at times because their games aren't as aesthetically-pleasing as the Jordan/Kobe/LeBron types. And as long as we continue to frame the debate that way - Who can out-Jordan Michael Jordan? - no one will ever have a shot.
