In his prime he dominated - perhaps to an unprecedented extent (arguable). Where I take issue is simple: He didn't beat the Bird/Celtics in their prime and didn't beat the Isiah/Bad Boys until attempt #3 (at which time everyone but Joe D was in their 30's but I digress) Owing to never beating these 2 dominant 80's teams he never even earned the right to face the Lakers in their prime. Why are basically 0 F's given about this reality? Is it a function of a broader belief that his teams were overwhelmed by the talent on the Celtics/Pistons so it's the whole "team game" argument? And, if that's the case, why is his ascension to legend/goat-tier characterized as different than LeBron's? Or is it simply that we forget the earlier part of his career b/c of the decade of dominance that ensued after the legends of the 80's retired/declined?
Care to elaborate on Lebron's success before he jumped ship to partner with 2 other superstars in their prime?
He also was basically the next singular megastar beyond what Pele did for football. Made Nike a megabrand single handedly. Two separate dynasties in two different eras. He dominated both sides of the ball. He also wasn't a total b**** running to his friends for titles. Lebron isn't even close to MJ. There isn't a Mount Rushmore in Basketball. There is Jordan and then the next group that features Russell, Lebron, Wilt, Kareem, Bird and Magic.
Yes, but I think I was at a kid's stage, you just remember His Airness, maybe his daunting journey into baseball, the comebacks..... Personally not being from Chicago, reports about his dad being murdered and such. The Nike brand stuff, you definitely learn later on.
He beat legends in all 6 of his championships. 90s Western Conference was a Gauntlet. He handled everyone except the Rockets
Year 3 LBJ took a few 99'ers, Rich Lord, Charlie Paulillo, and Russ Small to the E. Conf Finals. Maybe some LoF's were on the bench? And then at 22, in year 4, LBJ won the East. Candidly, he won it by himself but technically he did have a roster filled with the aforementioned red-headed half-step-sisters of the poor. They lost to a top 7 all-time NBA dynasty. So LBJ did it earlier, better, and further than MJ. The end of their careers isn't even a discussion. LBJ is getting MVP votes at 38 and Jordan shot 40% for the Wizards. I think discussing the decade in the middle is your best bet with MJ and with that I refer you back to my OP: Jordan couldn't displace or supplant the kings of the East until year 7 and I already addressed why I devalue it relative to consensus. I didn't intend to make this an LBJ vs MJ but you asked. I'm moreso asking about Jordan's reverence in general.
People really value being undefeated in the finals. If Jordan was 6-2 instead of 6-0, he would be thought of less then he currently is. Despite the fact that logically it's absurd that losing in round 2 is better then losing in round 4, that's the world we live in. Montana is the same, being 4-0 is viewed much more highly then if he went 4-2 in superbowls
