mariacallas
Bluelight Crew
MissBehavin'_416 said:
lmfao.
If he's as good in the sack as he is on the court, man, his wife sure is lucky :D
-
SPORTS
AND
GAMING -
-
Sports & Gaming Moderators: ghostfreak
Is it STILL ridiculous to argue that Kobe . . .
- Thread starter L O V E L I F E
- Start date
lmfao.
If he's as good in the sack as he is on the court, man, his wife sure is lucky :D
michael
Bluelight Crew
LD, i live in philadelphia. kobe takes a shit and you're bound to have someone tell you he's the greatest shitter ever.
WacoWas AnAccident
Ex-Bluelighter
I thought they hated him for not staying in Philly?
TheLoveBandit
Retired Never Was, Coulda been wannabe
He will *not* be the greatest player of all time. He may be someone very special, but not the greatest. Perhaps the best of his generation, but not the greatest. But that's putting MJ in the generation before, and LBJ in the generation behind...carving out a narrow window for KB to wear his little crown. I say little, in that he can't win a championship (part of defining a 'greatest player') with these teammates and this strategy. He'll be a great player, but not the greatest.
Is there any discussion on (at the time) Jesse Owens being the greatest? Has there really been much controversy over Gretzky being the greatest? For KB to be the greatest, it needs to be undisputable. For KB, there will always be someone who will dispute it.
Is there any discussion on (at the time) Jesse Owens being the greatest? Has there really been much controversy over Gretzky being the greatest? For KB to be the greatest, it needs to be undisputable. For KB, there will always be someone who will dispute it.
L O V E L I F E
Bluelighter
TheLoveBandit said:
With respect, TLB, using your logic, barring unanimous agreement, there can be no such thing as a "Greatest Player Of All Time."
Or does that standard only apply to cases in which you're biased against the player in question?
L O V E L I F E
Bluelighter
crystalcallas said:
Especially if she has rape fantasies.
TheLoveBandit
Retired Never Was, Coulda been wannabe
I didn't indicate a need for unanimous agreement. I implied a majority (granted, a strong majority) was necessary by my definition.
I also implied I am biased against KB...which I'll admit is the case. I can respect a great player's ability, without respecting the person. But personal feelings aside, I still don't see him being called 'the greatest'. He wouldn't get a majority of the people to say he is...so he isn't. It would be interesting to see how many players consider him the greatest, and where they'd rank him compared to the other greats. I raise that point since the fans are too apt towards bias, whereas players have looked at the sport as a profession, and could probably give a better assessment of another player's greatness - as a teammate, as a performer, as a representation of what the sport looks for in an individual.
One place I will concede to LL is that he started off by saying '...on pace to become', whereas most of my comments are regarding KB's performance to this point. His potential is there to be considered the greatest, I'll agree to that as well, but I sincerely doubt he'll reach that potential. Again, that's my using his personal life and applying it to his professional performance. So far, his individual performance has been so-so. Scoring feats...whoopie! Breaking up a legendary team so he can be the big fish in a small pond...not so great in my book. Helping his team out by talking/coaching other players, being anything close to an embassador for the sport, being someone the kids can look up to, being someone who helps the sport's popularity....all these I give him less than 'great' marks on. Being a great player is a lot more than scoring points. So far, he's only scoring points.![:\](https://bluelight.org/xf/BL_Images/Orig_Emoji/wrygrin.gif "wry grin :\")
As an individual player, pretty good to the point of being among the best. As a great basketball person...no, not yet, and probably not ever unless he changes who he is fundamentally - and we all know that ain't happening.
I also implied I am biased against KB...which I'll admit is the case. I can respect a great player's ability, without respecting the person. But personal feelings aside, I still don't see him being called 'the greatest'. He wouldn't get a majority of the people to say he is...so he isn't. It would be interesting to see how many players consider him the greatest, and where they'd rank him compared to the other greats. I raise that point since the fans are too apt towards bias, whereas players have looked at the sport as a profession, and could probably give a better assessment of another player's greatness - as a teammate, as a performer, as a representation of what the sport looks for in an individual.
One place I will concede to LL is that he started off by saying '...on pace to become', whereas most of my comments are regarding KB's performance to this point. His potential is there to be considered the greatest, I'll agree to that as well, but I sincerely doubt he'll reach that potential. Again, that's my using his personal life and applying it to his professional performance. So far, his individual performance has been so-so. Scoring feats...whoopie! Breaking up a legendary team so he can be the big fish in a small pond...not so great in my book. Helping his team out by talking/coaching other players, being anything close to an embassador for the sport, being someone the kids can look up to, being someone who helps the sport's popularity....all these I give him less than 'great' marks on. Being a great player is a lot more than scoring points. So far, he's only scoring points.
As an individual player, pretty good to the point of being among the best. As a great basketball person...no, not yet, and probably not ever unless he changes who he is fundamentally - and we all know that ain't happening.
^there are a lot of people who have "character issues" with Kobe, and while I agree that he's made questionable decisions with his life, I don't know why he can't learn from them and become a better person, as you seem to suggest he can't.
First off, the "kobe broke up the dynasty" argument is totally flawed. Yes, he was selfish to the point where he wanted to be the leader of the team, and threatened to leave through free agency, but it wasn't like he asked that Shaq not be on the Lakers anymore. It's amazing how Shaq gets a free pass for his role in the situation, as any LA Lakers fan can tell you how lazy and complacent he had become after winning 3-straight championships. His ego was bruised when Kobe wouldn't bow to a teammate who'd take the regular season off, which was the image Shaq seemed to give at that time, and in many ways still does. Jerry Buss chose the younger, still coming into his prime player over the big fella who was showing wear and tear and now two years removed from the trade looks like a shell of his old self. What was even more classless was his potshots at Buss, when Jerry treated Shaq with all the respect a player could ever want from an owner.
Secondly, the alleged rape case turned out to be a dud in terms of actual criminal damage on Kobe. The girl was a bit mental if memory serves correctly, and while Kobe did settle out of court in the civil trial just to keep her mouth shut, I don't think his actions were much different from many other superstar athletes, especially in his sport. Do you not think Jordan or Magic had wild orgies during their heyday? Kobe happened to choose the wrong girl, and he paid for it. I don't see why he has to keep taking heat for it. He's not Ron Artest for crying out loud.
It's not exactly Kobe's fault he doesn't have the talent around him. That blame falls squarely on GM Mitch Kupchak. I really don't think it's too difficult to find marquee names who'd like to play for the Lakers, but Mitch has simply not given the team the sufficient parts needed to win a championship. Even the so-called greatest ever, Jordan, needed someone like Pippen to win it all.
First off, the "kobe broke up the dynasty" argument is totally flawed. Yes, he was selfish to the point where he wanted to be the leader of the team, and threatened to leave through free agency, but it wasn't like he asked that Shaq not be on the Lakers anymore. It's amazing how Shaq gets a free pass for his role in the situation, as any LA Lakers fan can tell you how lazy and complacent he had become after winning 3-straight championships. His ego was bruised when Kobe wouldn't bow to a teammate who'd take the regular season off, which was the image Shaq seemed to give at that time, and in many ways still does. Jerry Buss chose the younger, still coming into his prime player over the big fella who was showing wear and tear and now two years removed from the trade looks like a shell of his old self. What was even more classless was his potshots at Buss, when Jerry treated Shaq with all the respect a player could ever want from an owner.
Secondly, the alleged rape case turned out to be a dud in terms of actual criminal damage on Kobe. The girl was a bit mental if memory serves correctly, and while Kobe did settle out of court in the civil trial just to keep her mouth shut, I don't think his actions were much different from many other superstar athletes, especially in his sport. Do you not think Jordan or Magic had wild orgies during their heyday? Kobe happened to choose the wrong girl, and he paid for it. I don't see why he has to keep taking heat for it. He's not Ron Artest for crying out loud.
It's not exactly Kobe's fault he doesn't have the talent around him. That blame falls squarely on GM Mitch Kupchak. I really don't think it's too difficult to find marquee names who'd like to play for the Lakers, but Mitch has simply not given the team the sufficient parts needed to win a championship. Even the so-called greatest ever, Jordan, needed someone like Pippen to win it all.
posner said:
The better winner eh? Here I thought the guy was a degenerate gambler whose primary decision to make use of his money was to be competitive with it at any possible angle. Then there's the whole conspiracy theory about his gambling debts leading to the mysterious death of his father or his associations with known criminals in regards to his gambling, all surrounding the rather odd 1st "retirement" of MJ and his silly venture into playing baseball...but no, we shouldn't tarnish the image of the almighty Michael Jordan. 8)
Last edited:
WacoWas AnAccident
Ex-Bluelighter
LapDawg said:
Well put Lappykins.
I agree 100 percent. Break up of the Laker Dynasty being Kobe's fault? If you believe that, you have no idea what you're talking about and you listen to too much ESPN commentary. Shaq is more to blame than anybody because he refused to slip into a supporting role for Kobe - a guy who can score 81 points in a game. There's just no question that Shaq in the twilight of his career should've moved the fuck over and stopped demanding the entry pass every time down the floor. I watched every Laker game the last 3 seasons and it was totally a case of Shaq being a baby. I began to dislike him when he played for the Lakers, and I loathe him now.
The rape case was totally bogus. Yes, he cheated on his wife but in no way did he force himself on that girl. In addition to all the tangible evidence supporting his innocence, do you really believe Jerry Buss would've sunk 137 million dollars into someone unless he had checked the situation out himself and got an all clear? And on the subject of sexual proclivities, Jordan had a mistress and Lebron just had a baby out of wedlock. I don't see anyone bashing them for it.
And finally, the fact that the Laker's even have 22 wins this season and most of their losses have been very close, just goes to show you what a great player Kobe is. Not the greatest, not yet, but great. One of the top 5 of all time, no question. It's hard to believe that Kupchak was tutored by Jerry West, but he was and he still sucks as a GM. Even so, the Laker's are very close to being a contender again. The addition of another key player, or another year of experience and I think next year they will really be clicking.
So I basically just repeated everything that Jeff said, but it had to be said. I also think, at this juncture, it's ridiculous to call Kobe the greatest player ever or say that he's not the greatest player ever. You simply can't make that kind of determination while someone is still an active player, and certainly not when they're in their prime. Trust me, we still haven't seen Kobe at his best. There will be more to come.
WacoWas AnAccident
Ex-Bluelighter
Not to mention Lebron's mom was just charged with a DUI, and reportedly damaged a window in a police car!
What kind of message does that send to the kiddies?
What kind of message does that send to the kiddies?
mariacallas
Bluelight Crew
Who surpasses or subdues mankind, must look down on the hate of those below. ~ Lord Byron 1788-1824, British Poet
There is never jealousy where there is not strong regard. ~ Washington Irving 1783-1859, American Author
There is never jealousy where there is not strong regard. ~ Washington Irving 1783-1859, American Author
LapDawg said:
I didn't say I wanted to fuck the guy. I said he was the better winner. Let's try to maintain some sort of relevance here.
We're talking about basketball, remember. Not gambling. Or rape. Or baseball. Or expensive sake fed cows.
And we're talking about a regular season game in the middle of the season against the Raptors.
Not to say it isn't very impressive, but I'm not going to give him a trophy that says "World's Greatest" anything after it.
Last edited:
^no one's giving him that trophy here. It's just ludicrous to me you can even call someone a "better winner" when there's no real way to judge that.
The "It's only the Raptors" argument is pointless. Who cares which team it is? Pointing out it's the Raptors is a weak attempt to downgrade the greatest single-player game performance this league's seen in a long time, not to mention the greatest ever by a swingman. The impressive part about the performance was that it was even done to begin with considering the Lakers needed Kobe to do what he did to win that particular game.
The other stuff...well that was more directed to those kobe dismissers who don't like his character, but probably don't view Jordan in similar light because he's Jordan. You'd be amazed how much people have forgotten about his own troubled history simply because he is the greatest to many.
The "It's only the Raptors" argument is pointless. Who cares which team it is? Pointing out it's the Raptors is a weak attempt to downgrade the greatest single-player game performance this league's seen in a long time, not to mention the greatest ever by a swingman. The impressive part about the performance was that it was even done to begin with considering the Lakers needed Kobe to do what he did to win that particular game.
The other stuff...well that was more directed to those kobe dismissers who don't like his character, but probably don't view Jordan in similar light because he's Jordan. You'd be amazed how much people have forgotten about his own troubled history simply because he is the greatest to many.
It isn't ludicrous. It's not as if any of these descriptions or standards are particularly objective but, to me, Jordan was simply able to do more with less. Granted, he had Pippen, but Kobe had Shaq and lost! with him.
Jordan's ego and temperament enabled the Bulls to form a dynasty. Kobe's ego (and others on the team as well, I grant you) prevented the Lakers from matching the high level at which the Bulls performed.
Kobe's still got a lot of time left. However, I'm still not sucking his dick over a game against Toronto in the regular season. It was a huge accomplishment, but the game meant absolutely nothing. And if you think that isn't a sufficient argument, then I ask you to reflect on the reasons why players on particularly bad teams are regularly left off all-star teams. There's something to be said for winning.
Why do you think most people consider Tom Brady to be a better quarterback than Peyton Manning?
Jordan's ego and temperament enabled the Bulls to form a dynasty. Kobe's ego (and others on the team as well, I grant you) prevented the Lakers from matching the high level at which the Bulls performed.
Kobe's still got a lot of time left. However, I'm still not sucking his dick over a game against Toronto in the regular season. It was a huge accomplishment, but the game meant absolutely nothing. And if you think that isn't a sufficient argument, then I ask you to reflect on the reasons why players on particularly bad teams are regularly left off all-star teams. There's something to be said for winning.
Why do you think most people consider Tom Brady to be a better quarterback than Peyton Manning?
^The thing is, that analogy is completely off-base as to what we're talking about. Going into a tangent about good players on bad teams (like Starbury) isn't really the focus either, since it should be obvious Kobe's talent level is unrivaled at this point in time and is't way too early to be criticizing him as a team leader since this is only his 2nd season as a torch-bearer.
I'm just curious...what defines a "better winner"? I call it ludicrous because your statement is so vague. Is Bill Russell a "better winner" than Jordan? Is Wilt Chamberlin? Is Magic? I just don't see it as a valid point of discussion when comparing players.
Jordan did more with less? I'll agree to that in the sense that Jordan's championship era lacked a clear rival, which possibly points to the fact the league wasn't too heavy with talent-laden teams. The Lakers? They're dealing with a Spurs team that's pulled in 3 of their own championships, while Detroit's looking to form their own budding dynasty...not a bad two teams to lose to in the playoffs, which is what happened to the last two Shaq and Kobe Laker teams.
I don't think the difference is that much if you compare Shaq to Pippen/Rodman or Pippen/Grant.
I understand Kobe will most likely never revolutionize the game like Jordan did, but if we're to objectively judge their skills on the floor, it's not that difficult to see Kobe has the potential to be a greater individual player.
I'm just curious...what defines a "better winner"? I call it ludicrous because your statement is so vague. Is Bill Russell a "better winner" than Jordan? Is Wilt Chamberlin? Is Magic? I just don't see it as a valid point of discussion when comparing players.
Jordan did more with less? I'll agree to that in the sense that Jordan's championship era lacked a clear rival, which possibly points to the fact the league wasn't too heavy with talent-laden teams. The Lakers? They're dealing with a Spurs team that's pulled in 3 of their own championships, while Detroit's looking to form their own budding dynasty...not a bad two teams to lose to in the playoffs, which is what happened to the last two Shaq and Kobe Laker teams.
I don't think the difference is that much if you compare Shaq to Pippen/Rodman or Pippen/Grant.
I understand Kobe will most likely never revolutionize the game like Jordan did, but if we're to objectively judge their skills on the floor, it's not that difficult to see Kobe has the potential to be a greater individual player.
First of all, labels themselves are ridiculous. Best player? Worst haircut? Best person? These things actually mean nothing and it is only for us with little to do to actually argue about them. Now that I have that out of the way:
1. I think winning and losing have a great impact on how you are perceived as a player. Can you truly be great and win nothing? What is the point of the game?
2. Your logic regarding the Bulls winning and the Lakers losing doesn't really work. I suppose you are suggesting that the teams the Lakers have lost to are better than the teams the Bulls beat. That's one hell of a comparison. I'd like to see the criteria.
As far as the talent disparity on the Bulls versus the Lakers--the Lakers have had some great players on their teams besides Kobe and Shaq (during the years they played together).
As far as Kobe having more talent...I don't really know what that means. Can he jump higher? He scored more points in one regular season game on a shitty team than Jordan did. Does that mean (in Objective-land, of course) that he has more talent? Maybe. I don't know.
But the thread was started positing whether Kobe will retire as the greatest ever. I think that encompasses more than raw talent. (Personally, I think Garnett has more talent than anyone-he just doesn't know what to do with it.) It most certainly has something to do with winning. Also, you even admitted that Jordan revolutionized the game. No one gives a shit about the NBA now, even with Kobe scoring a billion points. Does the draw you bring have something to do with a 'greatest ever' tag?
1. I think winning and losing have a great impact on how you are perceived as a player. Can you truly be great and win nothing? What is the point of the game?
2. Your logic regarding the Bulls winning and the Lakers losing doesn't really work. I suppose you are suggesting that the teams the Lakers have lost to are better than the teams the Bulls beat. That's one hell of a comparison. I'd like to see the criteria.
As far as the talent disparity on the Bulls versus the Lakers--the Lakers have had some great players on their teams besides Kobe and Shaq (during the years they played together).
As far as Kobe having more talent...I don't really know what that means. Can he jump higher? He scored more points in one regular season game on a shitty team than Jordan did. Does that mean (in Objective-land, of course) that he has more talent? Maybe. I don't know.
But the thread was started positing whether Kobe will retire as the greatest ever. I think that encompasses more than raw talent. (Personally, I think Garnett has more talent than anyone-he just doesn't know what to do with it.) It most certainly has something to do with winning. Also, you even admitted that Jordan revolutionized the game. No one gives a shit about the NBA now, even with Kobe scoring a billion points. Does the draw you bring have something to do with a 'greatest ever' tag?
michael
Bluelight Crew
WacoWas AnAccident said:
it's about half and half, and let me point out that if you were to stay in philly you'd either have to be from there or have played there.
L O V E L I F E said:
uh, LD already said that kobe is his favorite player to watch, so i don't think he's biased against him.
Last edited:
^ I think that LL quote you used was for TLB, not me.
posner... what you've brought up basically hits at every level of the discussion of sports... which is what makes it fun to talk about to begin with.
regarding your first point...what does that have to do with Kobe? He's won already. The goal is to win more.
Hmmm...championships perhaps? The Spurs have 3, Detroit has one. Any '80s dynasty teams Chicago faced by the time they became champions already were on the downslope. When they weren't, Chicago didn't win. Houston snuck in their two but they never went head-to-head against Chicago. I was bummed when Barkley was on the team and they were knocked out by Utah...that would've been an incredible Finals to watch.
I'm willing to rank the current Spurs run and Detroit's budding run higher than the likes of Utah, Seattle, Portland, and Phoenix during their height in the Bulls era.
Yes, the Lakers had a good supporting cast around Shaq and Kobe to fit their needs, but so did MJ and Pippen. To try and slight them as below the Laker role players is a disservice to those guys who contributed to 6 championships.
I should clarify what I meant by Kobe's talent level being unrivaled at this point in time, meaning in the game today. I'll go further and say his perimeter game is more advanced now than Jordan's was at the age of 27, partially due to the fact the rules have changed since Jordan's prime years.
I think you're wrong about no one caring about the NBA these days. That's your opinion. I think the game has expanded a lot more on the world stage overall and that there is plenty of interest in the game, though it's not exactly like the golden age of the '80s when Magic and Bird were dueling. Jordan continued to build on that golden age, but see...him revolutionizing the game isn't exactly a positive thing. In fact, it has had a few negatives. He gave the illusion that one player can do it all, that one individual can win in a team sport. In a way, he also damaged the game with his legacy...should something like that be connected with the greatest ever? His image still haunts the game today...and all the backlash about selfish, arrogant players reflect from what his game was certainly about.
posner... what you've brought up basically hits at every level of the discussion of sports... which is what makes it fun to talk about to begin with.
regarding your first point...what does that have to do with Kobe? He's won already. The goal is to win more.
Hmmm...championships perhaps? The Spurs have 3, Detroit has one. Any '80s dynasty teams Chicago faced by the time they became champions already were on the downslope. When they weren't, Chicago didn't win. Houston snuck in their two but they never went head-to-head against Chicago. I was bummed when Barkley was on the team and they were knocked out by Utah...that would've been an incredible Finals to watch.
I'm willing to rank the current Spurs run and Detroit's budding run higher than the likes of Utah, Seattle, Portland, and Phoenix during their height in the Bulls era.
Yes, the Lakers had a good supporting cast around Shaq and Kobe to fit their needs, but so did MJ and Pippen. To try and slight them as below the Laker role players is a disservice to those guys who contributed to 6 championships.
I should clarify what I meant by Kobe's talent level being unrivaled at this point in time, meaning in the game today. I'll go further and say his perimeter game is more advanced now than Jordan's was at the age of 27, partially due to the fact the rules have changed since Jordan's prime years.
I think you're wrong about no one caring about the NBA these days. That's your opinion. I think the game has expanded a lot more on the world stage overall and that there is plenty of interest in the game, though it's not exactly like the golden age of the '80s when Magic and Bird were dueling. Jordan continued to build on that golden age, but see...him revolutionizing the game isn't exactly a positive thing. In fact, it has had a few negatives. He gave the illusion that one player can do it all, that one individual can win in a team sport. In a way, he also damaged the game with his legacy...should something like that be connected with the greatest ever? His image still haunts the game today...and all the backlash about selfish, arrogant players reflect from what his game was certainly about.