migya wrote:One thing I will say is that it is humanly very difficult for the level to get much higher than it is right now in the nba! There is not much more moves to be invented and the level of condiotioning and athleticism is incredibly high

You know, some of them could also learn to shoot...

migya wrote:We can honestly say that if Wilt Chamberlain was so much better than every other player in his era (which he wasn't miles ahead of some but it is said he was), then he should be seen as the greatest player ever. Most of us, me certainly, will say Jordan is the best ever but he wasn't quite as ahead of everyone else as Wilt was (though I reckon he was because he won so much and was ALWAYS the best player, not counting his 2 seasons in Washington)

I hate dominant players in any sport (that is, unless they play for my team). It just makes it (somewhat) boring to watch. I was always rooting against Jordan's Bulls for that reason, hoping to see them lose a significant game. And it never happened... Watching the same players and the same teams winning for a long time gets boring quickly (well, not really watching them play, but being able to predict the outcome).

tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:Yeah, I think that they were neccesary to the game, but so was pistol pete (he innovated as much, if not more) and he isn't considered top ten all time. So did joe fulks and he isn't considered top ten all time. I just think that sometimes people confuse innovation with dominance and if somebody invented the hookshot but never did all that much in the league then they shouldnt be considered top ten all time.

there are multiple ways you can succeed in sports. dominance. inovation. value. skill. You can exceed in multiple ones of these but they are not mutually inclusive which is the point I'm trying to make.

I get you. In terms of dominance, I don't think Elgin or Julius have many real votes from people who know what they're talking about. Why's that? Because neither of them got any jewelry to show for it (and, like it or not, that's a big part of being considered 'dominant').

I have a hard time placing a guy whose never won a championship in the Top 10 of all-time. Maybe I'm discriminating. But I agree with a quote Bill Russell said. To paraphrase, he basically said, "Winning was all that mattered to me because it's the most democratic thing in the world. Either you win or you lose. And all I wanted to do was help my team win." That sort of attitude deserves to be in the Top 10 (and I don't know anybody who'd consider Bill Russell outside of the NBA's 10 best players ever).

Don Nelson (while playing for the Celtics) also made a quote about Russell that I enjoyed:

Don Nelson wrote:"There are two types of superstars. One makes himself look good at the expense of the other guys on the floor. But there's another type who makes the players around him look better than they are, and that's the type Russell was."

Not to knock guys like Patrick Ewing, Karl Malone, or Dominique Wilkins, but I think the first part of that quote described them perfectly. 'Guys who made themselves look good at the expense of others'. I think only a small handful of truly great players from the second, Russell-like category left the league without a championship (Charles Barkley and John Stockton, to name two).

But, once again, that's why I have a hard time considering Julius or Elgin Top 10 players. Because they don't have the rings to prove it.

#32 wrote:But, once again, that's why I have a hard time considering Julius or Elgin Top 10 players. Because they don't have the rings to prove it.

Actually, Dr. J has that ring...

#32 wrote:

tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:Yeah, I think that they were neccesary to the game, but so was pistol pete (he innovated as much, if not more) and he isn't considered top ten all time. So did joe fulks and he isn't considered top ten all time. I just think that sometimes people confuse innovation with dominance and if somebody invented the hookshot but never did all that much in the league then they shouldnt be considered top ten all time.

there are multiple ways you can succeed in sports. dominance. inovation. value. skill. You can exceed in multiple ones of these but they are not mutually inclusive which is the point I'm trying to make.

I get you. In terms of dominance, I don't think Elgin or Julius have many real votes from people who know what they're talking about. Why's that? Because neither of them got any jewelry to show for it (and, like it or not, that's a big part of being considered 'dominant').

I have a hard time placing a guy whose never won a championship in the Top 10 of all-time. Maybe I'm discriminating. But I agree with a quote Bill Russell said. To paraphrase, he basically said, "Winning was all that mattered to me because it's the most democratic thing in the world. Either you win or you lose. And all I wanted to do was help my team win." That sort of attitude deserves to be in the Top 10 (and I don't know anybody who'd consider Bill Russell outside of the NBA's 10 best players ever).

Don Nelson (while playing for the Celtics) also made a quote about Russell that I enjoyed:

Don Nelson wrote:"There are two types of superstars. One makes himself look good at the expense of the other guys on the floor. But there's another type who makes the players around him look better than they are, and that's the type Russell was."

Not to knock guys like Patrick Ewing, Karl Malone, or Dominique Wilkins, but I think the first part of that quote described them perfectly. 'Guys who made themselves look good at the expense of others'. I think only a small handful of truly great players from the second, Russell-like category left the league without a championship (Charles Barkley and John Stockton, to name two).

But, once again, that's why I have a hard time considering Julius or Elgin Top 10 players. Because they don't have the rings to prove it.

The doctor has a ring (though not as a #1 guy) but you're spot on, that's basically my point

tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:

#32 wrote:

tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:Yeah, I think that they were neccesary to the game, but so was pistol pete (he innovated as much, if not more) and he isn't considered top ten all time. So did joe fulks and he isn't considered top ten all time. I just think that sometimes people confuse innovation with dominance and if somebody invented the hookshot but never did all that much in the league then they shouldnt be considered top ten all time.

there are multiple ways you can succeed in sports. dominance. inovation. value. skill. You can exceed in multiple ones of these but they are not mutually inclusive which is the point I'm trying to make.

I get you. In terms of dominance, I don't think Elgin or Julius have many real votes from people who know what they're talking about. Why's that? Because neither of them got any jewelry to show for it (and, like it or not, that's a big part of being considered 'dominant').

I have a hard time placing a guy whose never won a championship in the Top 10 of all-time. Maybe I'm discriminating. But I agree with a quote Bill Russell said. To paraphrase, he basically said, "Winning was all that mattered to me because it's the most democratic thing in the world. Either you win or you lose. And all I wanted to do was help my team win." That sort of attitude deserves to be in the Top 10 (and I don't know anybody who'd consider Bill Russell outside of the NBA's 10 best players ever).

Don Nelson (while playing for the Celtics) also made a quote about Russell that I enjoyed:

Don Nelson wrote:"There are two types of superstars. One makes himself look good at the expense of the other guys on the floor. But there's another type who makes the players around him look better than they are, and that's the type Russell was."

Not to knock guys like Patrick Ewing, Karl Malone, or Dominique Wilkins, but I think the first part of that quote described them perfectly. 'Guys who made themselves look good at the expense of others'. I think only a small handful of truly great players from the second, Russell-like category left the league without a championship (Charles Barkley and John Stockton, to name two).

But, once again, that's why I have a hard time considering Julius or Elgin Top 10 players. Because they don't have the rings to prove it.

The doctor has a ring (though not as a #1 guy) but you're spot on, that's basically my point

Very good point and it really does have relevance! Players that make other players better really are special and deserve the recognition. Add Nash to that list (though he hasn't won a championship yet)

Ah yes. The 1983 Championship. I completely forgot Erving was on that team. Nice snag.