I know this isn't the place for it...

[pbeall100281]

The original poster's point was that Jordan would not be near as great if he didn't receive all the referee bias. He never said Jordan wasn't great.

He said Jordan wasn't that great. I'm refuting that statement.

Thank you again.

You know what I think is borderline retardation? - Myself having to explain how awesome of a player Micheal Jordan was to this particular audience.

[pbeall100281]

you have the most athletic people in the world playing a game where that athleticism is displayed in every play

I don't really watch hockey, but I'd say hockey players are at least equal to basketball players when it comes to athleticism. Just my opinion though.

Talk to any trainer. This athletes that jump the highest, lift the most, run the fastest on a consistant basis are football players ( of course there is an exception to every rule)

[pbeall100281]

I'm not going to make many friends here, but Michael Jordan was great, but not that great.

Jordan WAS great. He could never have dunked in his career and he'd still be the Black Jesus in Sneakers (or so proclaimed by multiple NBA players). Jordan and Chamberlain were playing another game. They were that good. These two, Ruth, Ali, and now Bonds are transcending their respective sports.

Saying that Jordan wasn't great is like saying Mets fans are happy with Fred Wilpon. It's simply a dim-witted, unintelligent, untrue statement.

Wait, I never said Jordan wasn't great, in fact I said he was great....er uhh come one pay attention (like I didn't when I responded to one of your other posts).

Anyway, the arguement that I am making isn't hard to stand behind because everyone agrees on these two principles:

1. Micheal Jordan one of the five greatest (if not THE greatest) players of all time, no question.

2. The officiating of the NBA's game benefits star players at the expense of providing a more unbiased and objective result.