NBA poll best NBA player of all time

[mtm7393]

here

[etothep]

wilt

[DarthJaker]

jordan

[HoustonGM]

Mj!

[Arctic Blast]

How do you not list Bill Russell, dude?

[Pavelb1]

Jordan is to Basketball as Gretzky is to Hockey.

[Reade]

Jordan

Did this really have to be asked. There's only one other athlete that has his competition whipped before they even play and thats Tiger. Anytime Jordan entered a gym or Tiger steps on the driving range all activity stops to watch, even the guys playing against them watch in amazement and disbelief.

[nuzzy62]

magic Man

[Tannhauser]

Jordan

Did this really have to be asked. There's only one other athlete that has his competition whipped before they even play and thats Tiger. Anytime Jordan entered a gym or Tiger steps on the driving range all activity stops to watch, even the guys playing against them watch in amazement and disbelief.

*cough* Tennis *cough* Federer *cough*

But MJ no doubt.

[boomboom]

no question, for his time, Wilt was the Babe Ruth of Basketball. He was head and shoulders above his competition.

MJ was good, but he wasn't as good over his competition then Wilt was.

[boomboom]

That is like saying Barry Bonds would be more dominate in Babe Ruths era than Babe Ruth being dominate in Barry Bonds Era.

You can only compare them verses there contemporaries. Wilt was head and shoulders above the rest of the league.

The 12 player on the Sonics might dominate in Wilts era.

[Red Sox Fan 734]

Jordan, no competition

[asianinvasion]

The 12 player on the Sonics might dominate in Wilts era.

For all you non Sonic follower, that's not good.

[dickay]

I think your view on how to compare them is valid, but I feel 'the best' would mean in any era could said player dominate.

By that logic, no argument can ever be made that Babe Ruth was 'the best' ever because no way could he dominate todays game. Same with Wilt. MJ at his best, could dominate todays game albeit not nearly as much as Wilt did, but could MJ dominate 50 years from now? And he can't, then I guess he can't be the best........by the logic listed above of course.

Boom hit it dead on. I use this argument for baseball....all steriods aside, pound for pound Bonds is by far the best offensive player ever to play the game. I shouldn't say by far, AROD is close and will maybe surpass Bonds one day, but other than those two its really not close. Todays players and the game are eons better than it was in Ruths era. Does anyone really think that Ruth would be a great talent in todays game??? That said, Ruth dominated his era to a much greater degree than Bonds has his. So Ruth is the most dominant ever to play the game.

MJ very possibly is the best ever to play basketball, but he's not the most dominant ever. I'd go with Wilt on that one. And one has to be real here...Kobe is every bit as dominant today as MJ was in his day. Time will tell if he has the longevity however to rival MJ as the best ever. Everyone wants to annoint Lebron, he's got a ton of talent but isn't as dominant as Kobe is at this point in his career.

[dickay]

The future argument makes no sense, we can't say the best is someone who isn't here yet. Era for era, Babe was the most valuable, arguably, but in point of view, no, not the best.

I have a different view on the 'best' and you aren't gonna change my just like I won't change yours. Attacking my position with 'well someone better is going to come along' isn't really viable.

Besides, the question was 'who was the best', which to me implies most gifted and skilled, period. To you it doesn't. I don't think either of us are wrong. That's the beauty of subjectiveness.

Well, you and I are pretty much in agreement. The 'best' ever is the player who was the most gifted, talented, skilled, of alltime and w/o question in baseball its Bonds and in basketball I'd still go for Jordan. Now the most dominant ever was Ruth and Wilt.

The 'best' is always going to be a modern great however because historically players over eras get quicker, faster, stronger, bigger. Unless the curve peaks, the best is always yet to come.

You have to admit, even though we have the same view of the meaning of 'best', even our definition is flawed. One could argue our definition means that say Francisco Liriano is one of if not the 'best' pitcher of alltime. He was probably the most dominant pitcher for that short stretch as I've ever seen in this the most talented era. So does that mean he's the 'best' ever? Obviously longevity has to play into the argument. Being the most gifted, skilled and talented isn't always enough.