Kareem Abdul-Jabbar thinks Tim Duncan had a better career than Kobe
- Thread starter JordanWearinThe45
- Start date
ManBearPig
half man half bearpig
Duncan > Kobe
No doubt
No doubt
ManBearPig
half man half bearpig
Last edited:
ManBearPig
half man half bearpig
So?
LOL THATS LIKE COMPARING WHOS A BIGGER SLUT AND U SAY THE BIITCH WHO FUCCED THREE MEN IN THREE DAYS IS SLUTTIER THAN THE BIITCH WHO FUCCED THREE MEN IN THREE WEEKS. STOP IT.
ManBearPig
half man half bearpig
Back to back and 2 championships in 3 years is the same shyt
Laker/Kobe fans brag about dumb shyt
LOL NO ITS NOT, THATS THE DUMBEST POST IN THIS FORUMS HISTORY. WINNING MULTIPLE TITLES CONSECUTIVELY SHOWS DOMINANCE, GOIN BACK TO BACK IS MUCH HARDER THAN GOIN 1 N DONE.
Sure, but at the end of the day, 5 rings = 5 rings. You're basically just trying to compare the styles in which they were won. Kobe going 3x and 2x is impressive. But he's also had seasons where he let his squad slip to the lottery. And if you use your logic, Bill Russell (8 peat) is the GOAT, no further discussion required.
Duncan's won 50 games 16 straight years. He's never missed the playoffs. He has kept his team in the hunt every single year of his career. Think of all the other teams in the NBA that begin every season knowing they have no shot at a title. With Duncan, you had a top 5 contender every single year. That's unheard of, especially in a small market like San Antonio.
WHAT PREVENTS BILL RUSSELL FROM BEING GOAT IS THE FACT THAT 1.HE WON THOSE RINGS WITH 5+ OTHER HALL-OF-FAMERS ON THEM SQUADS 2.HE WAS THE 5TH LEADING SCORER ON SOME OF THEM WINNING TEAMS 3.THERE WERE A LOT LESS TEAMS IN THE NBA DURING THAT ERA=LESS COMPETITION. ALL THAT IS FACTORED IN TO ADJUSTMENT FOR ACCURACY WHEN DEBATING LEGACIES.
LIKE I SAID FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, KOBE HAS HAD HIGHER HIGHS+LOWER LOWS AND DUNCAN HAS HAD BETTER CONSISTENCY. I DON'T NEED TO KEEP REPEATING THIS FACT.
LET ME ASK YOU SOMETHING, WHATS BETTER, MAKING $3 MILL IN 3 YEARS OR MAKING $3 MILL IN 10 YEARS? SURE, $3 MILL=$3 MILL, BUT ONE STILL SHOWS A GREATER LEVEL OF PRIME DOMINATION. IT'S NOT EVEN UP FOR DISCUSSION.
First sentence, what you're quantifying as higher highs is subjective. You're placing the Kobe/Shaq 3-peat and post-Gasol trade 2-peat as the higher highs. Duncan's individual accolades (MVPs and Finals MVPs) outnumber Kobe's. Those could be viewed as higher highs. Also, how can never missing the playoffs or winning 50 games every single season not be viewed as a high? Again, I understand what you're saying, but it's subjective.
As for the second statement, I'd also take into account if the guy making $3 mil in 3 years is a trust fund baby whose daddy opens the checkbook for him whenever he wants (the Lakers spared no expense in bringing in help with the exception of the battle of egos between Jim Buss and Phil) vs. a guy who is operating with limited resources (Duncan/small market/cheap owner). Kobe has the extra privilege of playing for the golden franchise, yet still has the same number of rings as Duncan.
Prime domination is looking at what Duncan did in 2003. Kobe never took a team with that kind of talent deficiency to a title.
HIGHER HIGHS ISN'T QUANTIFIED, BUT RATHER A CAPTURING OF THE PEAK. SO IF KOBE HAS MVPS/FINALS MVPS, WE'RE NOT TALKING HOW MANY, BECAUSE THATS THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT REACHED REGARDLESS OF AMOUNT. WHEN CAPTURING A MOMENT, KOBE BEING THE CHAMP/FINALS MVP FOR 365 DAYS AND THEN DEFENDING THOSE TITLES AND GOIN ON TO REMAIN A CHAMP/FINALS MVP FOR ANOTHER 365 DAYS CONSTITUTES AS A HIGHER PEAK THAN DUNCAN BEING A CHAMP/FINALS MVP FOR ONLY 365 DAYS AND FAILING TO DEFEND THOSE CROWNS. THATS WHERE "HIGHER HIGHS" COMES INTO PLAY...LOWER LOWS IS BECAUSE KOBE HAD TO PLAY ON TEAMS THAT FEATURED SMUSH PARKER-KWAME BROWN-LUKE WALTON AS STARTERS, WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY NOT A MEASURE OF INDIVIDUAL TALENT. ANYONE WHO THINKS DUNCAN VS KOBE IS EVEN A VIABLE MATCH-UP AS FAR AS 1-ON-1 GOES NEEDS TO CHECK THEIR CREDENTIALS OFF TOP.
TO EVEN BRING UP TEAMMATES INTO THIS DEBATE IS LAUGHABLE WHEN ARGUING FOR DUNCAN. BECAUSE DUNCAN PLAYED ON (NOT GOOD BUT) GREAT TEAMS FOR HIS ENTIRE CAREER. KOBE HAS PLAYED WITH GREAT TEAMS, BUT ALSO TERRIBLE ONES. SO I'D FALL BACK ON THIS RATIONALE IF I WERE U.
BTW THE 2003 SPURS MINUS DUNCAN > THE 2010 LAKERS MINUS KOBE..WE TALKIN MANU GINBOLI, TONY PARKER, DAVID ROBINSON, STEPHEN JACKSON, BRUCE BOWEN. TALENT DEFICIENT? LMAO
DO U REALLY THINK KOBE WOULDN'T HAVE WENT BACK-TO-BACK AT LEAST ONCE IF HE PLAYED HIS ENTIRE CAREER ON THE POPOVIC SPURS? CMON BRUH
Bilz
Superstar
The "they never repeated" argument is one of the dumbest arguments in sports. It's probably one of the dumbest arguments in any topic. Other than Kobestans trying to say Kobe>Duncan, I've never seen that stupid argument used at any time in any sport.