If Jordan had made the finals the other 9 years and lost every one, his winning percentage would still be better than Lebron's. Assuming GSW wins this series.
Not necessarily. If the Thunder stroll through the West and then get obliterated by Miami, it doesn't mean the East is a great conference. It means the East has one great team. The East isn't very good, I agree, but a Finals record isn't necessarily "proof" or "verification" at all.
It is if it happens consistently and to different teams, yes, it is. You are giving an example of a one time occurrence, but James has not been challenged in the East, at all, for nearly a decade. Yet, when he gets to the Finals, it all changes. He's benefitted greatly by being in a shitty conference. He's still great, of course, but he doesn't get anywhere near 8 Finals playing in the much tougher West. So, the argument that James' greatness, and status as being better than Jordan and anyone else, is heavily influenced by him making 8 finals in a row makes reflection on those 8 in a row and the competition involved relevant.
Jackie Robinson NCAA Champ in long jump Lettered in four sports at UCLA Running back for the Bruins and they went "undefeated" 6-0-4 I won't bother bringing up his baseball career.
It's still not verification. That verification/proof point is never going to work for you, because the Finals can't tell you about the strength or depth of a conference. It can only tell you about literally one team from that conference. 2015-18 it's the Warriors, 2014 it was the Spurs (and the Warriors weren't that good), and the fact that those are 2 different teams doesn't change anything. The Cavs could go 12-0 in the East and 0-4 in the Finals, and all it means is that the West has one team that's better.
Worse to make the finals and lose, than miss them huh? Bold argument! It avoids any discussion about how awful a conference you play in must be though, by them winning when it apparently doesn't really count, since you were not a champion that year.
But yes, if you give LeBron an inferior team and make him go up against the far-and-away best team in the NBA every single year, he'd probably lose most of the time. Not every time, because we've seen him win in that situation, but probably most. How did Jordan fare in those situations? When he had an inferior team and was going up against the best team in the NBA, I think it can be argued that he lost every single time. All of them. Like Uni said, context matters.
At this point, allow for my short defense of Jesse Owens' greatness by particularly noting the greatest athletic accomplishment ever, his 4 world records in hour. Oh, sorry, make that 45 minutes. Consider the fact that this record is amazing on a number of levels. One, athletes of this level don't compete this often. Take a Usain Bolt, for example. He runs in the 100m dash at the Olympics, but the qualification is spread out. One day is the opening heats, then he runs again the following day in the semifinals. The finals are then two hours or so later and the commentators opine on if the sprinters may be tired from their earlier run. Meanwhile, Owens was running around the track within that 45 minutes to various races and events, setting a world record each time. Second, Owens did this in sprints, hurdles and jumps. Only Carl Lewis comes close to this, as he was a long jumper, as well, but track guys don't do sprints and hurdles, much less set world records in both, alongside the long jump. The versatility is astonishing, alongside the compressed amount of time he did it within. But, as I said, the times he lived within really denied him of his deserved legacy, though still great. Bolt, who just does short sprints, would be a clear level below Owens.
Not an argument against or for either. Found that interesting after considering your post about finals appearances. I do think most teams would take 6 wins in as many trips over 3 in 8 though.
Secretariat would outrun him at all of those distances while taking a shit. Secretariat's time in all of his races verifies that.
I do find your condescending response funny since you seem to be harping on finals appearances over finals wins.
How many sports did Jordan play in at the highest level? James? Oh, just one. Thorpe excelled in three of them.
It can also be argued that Jordan had to compete against more than just one great team a year, unlike James, who, as you said, has only gone up against one good team a year when he gets to the Finals. People overrate those first three-peat teams because they had a Pippen who stopped shitting his pants in big games and the second three peat team that was all time great, but he very much carried those guys against tough teams. Also, when could it be argued that Jordan lost to an inferior team? I could make the argument for James more than once.
Isn't intended to be condescending. It just seems like the case is really about championships alone in a team sport, but people don't want to admit that it really is just championships that shape their perception.
I am leaning more and more toward LBJ. I just think using finals appearances as a negative against Jordan is reaching.
