Now to me MJ is the goat. But how many rings did he have compared to lebron at brons current ageWho can say how many rings Bron will end up with
IS IT AGE OR MINUTES PLAYED?
Show me a post where I said anything about age or minutes before
YALL CANT KEEP FLIP FLOPPING ON THIS ISSUE.
AND YEA...BRON WONT WIN 6 RINGS...
QUOTE IT, WRITE IT DOWN, BOOKMARK IT,
AND SAVE IT.
And what the hell does minutes played have to do with chips at this age
Quit ducking the question I just asked you
Show me a post where I said anything about age or minutes before
The question was how many rings did MJ win at brons current age
DUCKING WHAT QUESTION?
I JUST TOLD YOU BRON WONT WIN 6 RINGS.
More like @The Dankster just ended your little thread with simple logic and now you refuse to reply because there's nothing you can say.
The question was how many rings did MJ win at brons current age
Also nikkas said Kobe wouldn't win anymore rings without shaq. How did that work out
So you are one of those its better to lose in the 1st round than in the finals ass nikkasHow many Finals losses did Jordan have at LeBron's age
As I already told you, there's a lot more to ranking all-time great players than one isolated aspect that you seem fixated on. Should be common sense to anyone that remotely understands the game, but now you're frustrated and in your emotions because shyt aint simple like you want it to be. Tough break, smarten up or stay mad
Kobestans going full retard in here.
How da fukk does winning an extra title, with the same number of Finals MVPs, make you worse? You're saying that if Kareem had tanked in the 1st-round in 1988, that his legacy would have been better?
I have NEVER seen an argument that dumb. Some people say that Kobe's first three titles aren't as important because Shaq was the #1, but I've never met someone stupid enough to claim that Kobe would have been better off only winning 2 titles so that he'd have all the Finals MVPs to himself.
This is as idiotic as those claims that losing in the first round is better than losing in the Finals.
That logic IS used with Kareem. His titles ARE worth less than if he was the undisputed best player on all six teams, and everyone knows this.
Kareem was MVP six times, won six titles, record 19-time all-star, is the all-time scoring leader. If Finals MVP didn't matter, it would be KAREEM, not Jordan, who would be listed as the indisputable GOAT.
Instead, people honestly argue whether Magic or Kareem was better. If being the best player on your championship team didn't matter, then Kareem would win that argument in a landslide and there wouldn't be a discussion.
These are the indisputable top-5 players
Jordan: 5 MVPs and 6 Finals MVPs
Kareem: 6 MVPs and 2 Finals MVPs
Magic: 3 MVPs and 3 Finals MVPs
Lebron: 4 MVPs and 3 Finals MVPs
The fifth is very arguable - might be Wilt or Hakeem or Duncan...maybe an outside argument for Shaq or Bird for some people.
Kareem clearly belongs in that top indisputable group even with only 2 Finals MVPs. None one else has 6 MVPs, no one else is the all-time scoring leader. If he retired at 38 so that Magic/Worthy weren't able to help carry him to his last two titles, would he still be ranked the same? Of course he would. Those last two titles are a very small part of his legacy, because he was clearly a sidekick by that point. His 6 MVPs and 2 Finals MVPs and four titles before then had already cemented his legacy.
If Finals MVP doesn't matter, then why doesn't everyone make a big deal about 3-time champion Wade (1 Finals MVP) and 4-time champion Tony Parker (1 Finals MVP) and 6-time champion Pippen (0 Finals MVP) and 8-time champion Havlicek (1 Finals MVP) and 10-time champion Sam Jones? Why don't their titles get them into the discussion with the others?
Whose logic? NO ONE I've ever met says that Finals MVPs are the sole measure with which to rank players. It would be stupid to say that.
Kareem has 6 MVP awards, Duncan has 2. Kareem is the all-time scoring leader, Duncan ain't even top-10. There are plenty of other reasons to rank Kareem ahead of Duncan - you don't look at Finals MVPs alone and claim that a difference of "1" therefore determines everything.
You made up some false bullshyt argument in your head and then created an entire thread to yell at it.
And before you say otherwise, everyone considers Wilt top 10 with his struggle 2 rings having ass. I don't even like Tim Duncan either. I'm just poking holes in your logic.
(which y'all already say now) but with Kareem it's but but but it's different 
arguments like these were all created to defend the honor of
no matter what, nikkas will always point to 6 for 6 in the finals, 6 finals mvps...its the standard
so no matter how many rings and final appearances Lebron grabs they gonehim for that finals record and he bet not let Kyrie get an mvp
Kobe got
whoever comes from the throne gotta get pass them
YOU MAKE NO SENSE.
BRON WILL NEVER WIN 6 RINGS
AND HAS A SUB .500 FINALS RECORD.
MJ DOESNT NEED PROTECTION FROM THAT nikka.
I said Michael is the standard and Lebron will always be 'd cause of his finals record...what doesn't make sense about that?
So you are one of those its better to lose in the 1st round than in the finals ass nikkas
MJ is 6 for 6 in finals...but going by logic he's 6 for 15 in winning chips. The coli has spoken you don't get credit for losing in the 1st round as opposed to the finalsNo. I'm a basic math nikka.
Is it better to shoot 3 for 3 or 3 for 7? I'll wait
If what you said made sense, then Magic is the GOAT for making it to 9 Championships and winning 5 of them whereas Jordan could only make it to 6.....RIGHT? Why did we not use that argument with Magic and only choose to do so after LeBron started losing more than he won?
Nobody wants to answer how many rings the goat had at Brons age
