God damn Blake Griffin!!!

First topic message reminder :

Impressive!!!

Camby doing work 2!!

This thread is soooo kewl.

who stopped hakeem?nobody could stop hakeem+he was great defensively (surely better than shaq) and duncan did a pretty good job stopping shaq.

King wrote:

Gimme dat money! wrote:

who stopped hakeem?nobody could stop hakeem+he was great defensively (surely better than shaq) and duncan did a pretty good job stopping shaq.

Hakeem is the most skillful Center, but anyone with half a brain would take Shaq simply because of his sheer strength/dominance over everything. Tim Duncan? Stop Shaq? Retard please!

Most people here would pick Hakeem over Shaq. Both were unstoppable for different reasons (Hakeem was due to skill, Shaq due to sheer brute force) but Hakeem was vastly superior defensively. You've talked about how fantastic the 90's were defensively; Hakeem won back-to-back championships in that era. When did Shaq win his? Starting in one of the worst decades ever for centers (yeah, you've pointed out Wallace and Mourning already, great, but the bulk of the NBA's centers overall were much worse than in the 90's).

King wrote:

CAguyofftoUNC wrote:

King wrote:

Gimme dat money! wrote:

who stopped hakeem?nobody could stop hakeem+he was great defensively (surely better than shaq) and duncan did a pretty good job stopping shaq.

Hakeem is the most skillful Center, but anyone with half a brain would take Shaq simply because of his sheer strength/dominance over everything. Tim Duncan? Stop Shaq? Retard please!

Most people here would pick Hakeem over Shaq. Both were unstoppable for different reasons (Hakeem was due to skill, Shaq due to sheer brute force) but Hakeem was vastly superior defensively. You've talked about how fantastic the 90's were defensively; Hakeem won back-to-back championships in that era. When did Shaq win his? Starting in one of the worst decades ever for centers (yeah, you've pointed out Wallace and Mourning already, great, but the bulk of the NBA's centers overall were much worse than in the 90's).

Most people in this forum lack common sense, fact
Shaq played better statistically in the 90s, fact
Hakeem won championships in the late 90s, fact

Fact: most people in this forum have opinions you fail to respect.
Fact: 2 rings from Hakeem > 0 rings from Shaq (and Hakeem averaged way more blocks/steals and only trailed by a few points in PPG and their RPG was virtually the same in the 90's, until Hakeem inevitably got past his prime).
Fact: Hakeem won his two championships in '94 and '95 (hint: those aren't in the late 90's like you mistakenly said).

King wrote:

CAguyofftoUNC wrote:

King wrote:

CAguyofftoUNC wrote:

King wrote:

Gimme dat money! wrote:

who stopped hakeem?nobody could stop hakeem+he was great defensively (surely better than shaq) and duncan did a pretty good job stopping shaq.

Hakeem is the most skillful Center, but anyone with half a brain would take Shaq simply because of his sheer strength/dominance over everything. Tim Duncan? Stop Shaq? Retard please!

Most people here would pick Hakeem over Shaq. Both were unstoppable for different reasons (Hakeem was due to skill, Shaq due to sheer brute force) but Hakeem was vastly superior defensively. You've talked about how fantastic the 90's were defensively; Hakeem won back-to-back championships in that era. When did Shaq win his? Starting in one of the worst decades ever for centers (yeah, you've pointed out Wallace and Mourning already, great, but the bulk of the NBA's centers overall were much worse than in the 90's).

Most people in this forum lack common sense, fact
Shaq played better statistically in the 90s, fact
Hakeem won championships in the late 90s, fact

Fact: most people in this forum have opinions you fail to respect.
Fact: 2 rings from Hakeem > 0 rings from Shaq (and Hakeem averaged way more blocks/steals and only trailed by a few points in PPG and their RPG was virtually the same).
Fact: Hakeem won his two championships in '94 and '95 (hint: those aren't in the late 90's like you mistakenly said).

-I respect everyone's opinion, but I like to correct their mistakes
-4 rings >>> 2 rings
-Hakeem won against New York/Orlando, where at the time the East was very weak.
-Excuse my error, sorry.

You call anyone who disagrees with you a retard and refer to our opinions as mistakes. That's not respect, but I could come up with a few less pleasant words for it if I wanted to.

Hakeem's rings were in the 90's, when he had to go through Robinson (in '94, when Robinson and the Spurs had HC advantage in the WCF) and Ewing (in the Finals the same year), and he became the only player in NBA history to win MVP, Finals MVP and DPOY in the same year. In '95, he eviscerated Shaq in the Finals for his second ring in a row. Shaq has two more rings, but his came in a much weaker era for centers.

Don't know why you're calling the East weak at that time, but it sure as hell couldnt've been weaker than it was for Shaq when he won his. The 2000 Pacers didn't have anyone on the level of Ewing or Robinson, unless you have an insanely high opinion of Rik Smits. The 2001 76ers did have Mutombo, but he was ravaged by injuries (only played 26 games that season). The 2002 Nets? No one of note, unless you also have an insanely high opinion of Todd MacCullough, or think that 6'9 sophomore PF Kenyon Martin was going to handle him. By 2006, the only guy that could come close to handling Shaq (Duncan) was out West; Shaq had a cakewalk through the East and then finally had to square off with the immortal Erick Dampier in the Finals for his fourth ring. I guess that whole argument just boils down to whether you value quality over quantity. Hakeem won two that came against vastly more difficult competition that what Shaq went through to get four.

King wrote:

Magic wrote:

King wrote:

Magic wrote:

Now,you really you lost everything with this

"Shaq is arguably the best man to man defender in the NBA History"

I love Shaq,he's my all time fave player.He wasn't a strong defensive center,sure he was good in that aspect but not as good as his competition during the 90's.All of the guys scored well on him,he didn't really stop anyone...

Shaq is the best man-man defender, can't even deny that retard!

"Skinny" Shaq in the Magic played similar to Michael Jordan his rookie season; Amazing!

No retard,Shaq's not even close to being the best in any category on defense...and don't give me those shits.

Ever heard of Russell,Olajuwon,Rodman,Dumars?

Shaq is better than all of the players you listed.

Way to back up your argument...

CAguyofftoUNC wrote:

King wrote:

CAguyofftoUNC wrote:

King wrote:

CAguyofftoUNC wrote:

King wrote:

Gimme dat money! wrote:

who stopped hakeem?nobody could stop hakeem+he was great defensively (surely better than shaq) and duncan did a pretty good job stopping shaq.

Hakeem is the most skillful Center, but anyone with half a brain would take Shaq simply because of his sheer strength/dominance over everything. Tim Duncan? Stop Shaq? Retard please!

Most people here would pick Hakeem over Shaq. Both were unstoppable for different reasons (Hakeem was due to skill, Shaq due to sheer brute force) but Hakeem was vastly superior defensively. You've talked about how fantastic the 90's were defensively; Hakeem won back-to-back championships in that era. When did Shaq win his? Starting in one of the worst decades ever for centers (yeah, you've pointed out Wallace and Mourning already, great, but the bulk of the NBA's centers overall were much worse than in the 90's).

Most people in this forum lack common sense, fact
Shaq played better statistically in the 90s, fact
Hakeem won championships in the late 90s, fact

Fact: most people in this forum have opinions you fail to respect.
Fact: 2 rings from Hakeem > 0 rings from Shaq (and Hakeem averaged way more blocks/steals and only trailed by a few points in PPG and their RPG was virtually the same).
Fact: Hakeem won his two championships in '94 and '95 (hint: those aren't in the late 90's like you mistakenly said).

-I respect everyone's opinion, but I like to correct their mistakes
-4 rings >>> 2 rings
-Hakeem won against New York/Orlando, where at the time the East was very weak.
-Excuse my error, sorry.

You call anyone who disagrees with you a retard and refer to our opinions as mistakes. That's not respect, but I could come up with a few less pleasant words for it if I wanted to.

Hakeem's rings were in the 90's, when he had to go through Robinson (in '94, when Robinson and the Spurs had HC advantage in the WCF) and Ewing (in the Finals the same year), and he became the only player in NBA history to win MVP, Finals MVP and DPOY in the same year. In '95, he eviscerated Shaq in the Finals for his second ring in a row. Shaq has two more rings, but his came in a much weaker era for centers.

Don't know why you're calling the East weak at that time, but it sure as hell couldnt've been weaker than it was for Shaq when he won his. The 2000 Pacers didn't have anyone on the level of Ewing or Robinson, unless you have an insanely high opinion of Rik Smits. The 2001 76ers did have Mutombo, but he was ravaged by injuries (only played 26 games that season). The 2002 Nets? No one of note, unless you also have an insanely high opinion of Todd MacCullough, or think that 6'9 sophomore PF Kenyon Martin was going to handle him. By 2006, the only guy that could come close to handling Shaq (Duncan) was out West; Shaq had a cakewalk through the East and then finally had to square off with the immortal Erick Dampier in the Finals for his fourth ring. I guess that whole argument just boils down to whether you value quality over quantity. Hakeem won two that came against vastly more difficult competition that what Shaq went through to get four.

I agree with this as far as Centers the 90s was the best era for Centers. Calling the East or NBA at all in the 90s weak is a joke. Many argue the 90s was the best era of all-time

The 90s was loaded with All-Star caliber bigs and centers.

In the 2000s the 2nd best center in the NBA for a while was Ben Wallace.

When Hakeem Olajuan went up against Shaq in the Finals Hakeem destroyed him. As CAGuy pointed out it speaks for itself when Hakeem was able to defeat a Hall Of Famer like Patrick Ewing in the Finals and dominate Shaq in another Finals while the center Shaq went up against were Dale Davis, Todd Macculloch, and Jason Collins.

You just fail to respect anybody elses opinion but throwing out insults like a little child at anybody. It shows your level of maturity though. Maybe one day you'll grow up

King wrote:

CAguyofftoUNC wrote:

King wrote:

CAguyofftoUNC wrote:

King wrote:

CAguyofftoUNC wrote:

King wrote:

Gimme dat money! wrote:

who stopped hakeem?nobody could stop hakeem+he was great defensively (surely better than shaq) and duncan did a pretty good job stopping shaq.

Hakeem is the most skillful Center, but anyone with half a brain would take Shaq simply because of his sheer strength/dominance over everything. Tim Duncan? Stop Shaq? Retard please!

Most people here would pick Hakeem over Shaq. Both were unstoppable for different reasons (Hakeem was due to skill, Shaq due to sheer brute force) but Hakeem was vastly superior defensively. You've talked about how fantastic the 90's were defensively; Hakeem won back-to-back championships in that era. When did Shaq win his? Starting in one of the worst decades ever for centers (yeah, you've pointed out Wallace and Mourning already, great, but the bulk of the NBA's centers overall were much worse than in the 90's).

Most people in this forum lack common sense, fact
Shaq played better statistically in the 90s, fact
Hakeem won championships in the late 90s, fact

Fact: most people in this forum have opinions you fail to respect.
Fact: 2 rings from Hakeem > 0 rings from Shaq (and Hakeem averaged way more blocks/steals and only trailed by a few points in PPG and their RPG was virtually the same).
Fact: Hakeem won his two championships in '94 and '95 (hint: those aren't in the late 90's like you mistakenly said).

-I respect everyone's opinion, but I like to correct their mistakes
-4 rings >>> 2 rings
-Hakeem won against New York/Orlando, where at the time the East was very weak.
-Excuse my error, sorry.

You call anyone who disagrees with you a retard and refer to our opinions as mistakes. That's not respect, but I could come up with a few less pleasant words for it if I wanted to.

Hakeem's rings were in the 90's, when he had to go through Robinson (in '94, when Robinson and the Spurs had HC advantage in the WCF) and Ewing (in the Finals the same year), and he became the only player in NBA history to win MVP, Finals MVP and DPOY in the same year. In '95, he eviscerated Shaq in the Finals for his second ring in a row. Shaq has two more rings, but his came in a much weaker era for centers.

Don't know why you're calling the East weak at that time, but it sure as hell couldnt've been weaker than it was for Shaq when he won his. The 2000 Pacers didn't have anyone on the level of Ewing or Robinson, unless you have an insanely high opinion of Rik Smits. The 2001 76ers did have Mutombo, but he was ravaged by injuries (only played 26 games that season). The 2002 Nets? No one of note, unless you also have an insanely high opinion of Todd MacCullough, or think that 6'9 sophomore PF Kenyon Martin was going to handle him. By 2006, the only guy that could come close to handling Shaq (Duncan) was out West; Shaq had a cakewalk through the East and then finally had to square off with the immortal Erick Dampier in the Finals for his fourth ring. I guess that whole argument just boils down to whether you value quality over quantity. Hakeem won two that came against vastly more difficult competition that what Shaq went through to get four.

Why did you type that long ass shit? To shorten it up, Shaq owned the 2000s era. and Lakers-Shaq was the greatest player I've seen in the history of the league.

Jesus, you just don't understand how basketball works. Or maybe you just don't know how to read (seriously, when someone tries to win an argument by saying "that was too long for me to read," you know that guy's an idiot). What part of "the era Shaq owned was arguably the weakest of all time for centers" is confusing you? We've been over this a few times now, and it still hasn't gotten through your thick skull.

King wrote:

CAguyofftoUNC wrote:

King wrote:

CAguyofftoUNC wrote:

King wrote:

CAguyofftoUNC wrote:

King wrote:

CAguyofftoUNC wrote:

King wrote:

Gimme dat money! wrote:

who stopped hakeem?nobody could stop hakeem+he was great defensively (surely better than shaq) and duncan did a pretty good job stopping shaq.

Hakeem is the most skillful Center, but anyone with half a brain would take Shaq simply because of his sheer strength/dominance over everything. Tim Duncan? Stop Shaq? Retard please!

Most people here would pick Hakeem over Shaq. Both were unstoppable for different reasons (Hakeem was due to skill, Shaq due to sheer brute force) but Hakeem was vastly superior defensively. You've talked about how fantastic the 90's were defensively; Hakeem won back-to-back championships in that era. When did Shaq win his? Starting in one of the worst decades ever for centers (yeah, you've pointed out Wallace and Mourning already, great, but the bulk of the NBA's centers overall were much worse than in the 90's).

Most people in this forum lack common sense, fact
Shaq played better statistically in the 90s, fact
Hakeem won championships in the late 90s, fact

Fact: most people in this forum have opinions you fail to respect.
Fact: 2 rings from Hakeem > 0 rings from Shaq (and Hakeem averaged way more blocks/steals and only trailed by a few points in PPG and their RPG was virtually the same).
Fact: Hakeem won his two championships in '94 and '95 (hint: those aren't in the late 90's like you mistakenly said).

-I respect everyone's opinion, but I like to correct their mistakes
-4 rings >>> 2 rings
-Hakeem won against New York/Orlando, where at the time the East was very weak.
-Excuse my error, sorry.

You call anyone who disagrees with you a retard and refer to our opinions as mistakes. That's not respect, but I could come up with a few less pleasant words for it if I wanted to.

Hakeem's rings were in the 90's, when he had to go through Robinson (in '94, when Robinson and the Spurs had HC advantage in the WCF) and Ewing (in the Finals the same year), and he became the only player in NBA history to win MVP, Finals MVP and DPOY in the same year. In '95, he eviscerated Shaq in the Finals for his second ring in a row. Shaq has two more rings, but his came in a much weaker era for centers.

Don't know why you're calling the East weak at that time, but it sure as hell couldnt've been weaker than it was for Shaq when he won his. The 2000 Pacers didn't have anyone on the level of Ewing or Robinson, unless you have an insanely high opinion of Rik Smits. The 2001 76ers did have Mutombo, but he was ravaged by injuries (only played 26 games that season). The 2002 Nets? No one of note, unless you also have an insanely high opinion of Todd MacCullough, or think that 6'9 sophomore PF Kenyon Martin was going to handle him. By 2006, the only guy that could come close to handling Shaq (Duncan) was out West; Shaq had a cakewalk through the East and then finally had to square off with the immortal Erick Dampier in the Finals for his fourth ring. I guess that whole argument just boils down to whether you value quality over quantity. Hakeem won two that came against vastly more difficult competition that what Shaq went through to get four.

Why did you type that long ass shit? To shorten it up, Shaq owned the 2000s era. and Lakers-Shaq was the greatest player I've seen in the history of the league.

Jesus, you just don't understand how basketball works. Or maybe you just don't know how to read (seriously, when someone tries to win an argument by saying "that was too long for me to read," you know that guy's an idiot). What part of "the era Shaq owned was arguably the weakest of all time for centers" is confusing you? We've been over this a few times now, and it still hasn't gotten through your thick skull.

Defensively, no it was not
In the early 2000s Mourning/Wallace were beasts, and could contain Shaq

YES. WE FUCKING KNOW ABOUT MOURNING AND WALLACE. YOU HAVE BROUGHT UP THEIR NAMES AND NO ONE ELSE'S.

Shaq never met Mourning in the playoffs (unless you want to count them playing together on the Heat) and the one time he ran into Wallace in the playoffs it was the 2004 Finals...which Shaq lost. Hmmm.

2 centers lol there were still 32 teams

CAguyofftoUNC wrote:

King wrote:

CAguyofftoUNC wrote:

King wrote:

CAguyofftoUNC wrote:

King wrote:

CAguyofftoUNC wrote:

King wrote:

CAguyofftoUNC wrote:

King wrote:

Gimme dat money! wrote:

who stopped hakeem?nobody could stop hakeem+he was great defensively (surely better than shaq) and duncan did a pretty good job stopping shaq.

Hakeem is the most skillful Center, but anyone with half a brain would take Shaq simply because of his sheer strength/dominance over everything. Tim Duncan? Stop Shaq? Retard please!

Most people here would pick Hakeem over Shaq. Both were unstoppable for different reasons (Hakeem was due to skill, Shaq due to sheer brute force) but Hakeem was vastly superior defensively. You've talked about how fantastic the 90's were defensively; Hakeem won back-to-back championships in that era. When did Shaq win his? Starting in one of the worst decades ever for centers (yeah, you've pointed out Wallace and Mourning already, great, but the bulk of the NBA's centers overall were much worse than in the 90's).

Most people in this forum lack common sense, fact
Shaq played better statistically in the 90s, fact
Hakeem won championships in the late 90s, fact

Fact: most people in this forum have opinions you fail to respect.
Fact: 2 rings from Hakeem > 0 rings from Shaq (and Hakeem averaged way more blocks/steals and only trailed by a few points in PPG and their RPG was virtually the same).
Fact: Hakeem won his two championships in '94 and '95 (hint: those aren't in the late 90's like you mistakenly said).

-I respect everyone's opinion, but I like to correct their mistakes
-4 rings >>> 2 rings
-Hakeem won against New York/Orlando, where at the time the East was very weak.
-Excuse my error, sorry.

You call anyone who disagrees with you a retard and refer to our opinions as mistakes. That's not respect, but I could come up with a few less pleasant words for it if I wanted to.

Hakeem's rings were in the 90's, when he had to go through Robinson (in '94, when Robinson and the Spurs had HC advantage in the WCF) and Ewing (in the Finals the same year), and he became the only player in NBA history to win MVP, Finals MVP and DPOY in the same year. In '95, he eviscerated Shaq in the Finals for his second ring in a row. Shaq has two more rings, but his came in a much weaker era for centers.

Don't know why you're calling the East weak at that time, but it sure as hell couldnt've been weaker than it was for Shaq when he won his. The 2000 Pacers didn't have anyone on the level of Ewing or Robinson, unless you have an insanely high opinion of Rik Smits. The 2001 76ers did have Mutombo, but he was ravaged by injuries (only played 26 games that season). The 2002 Nets? No one of note, unless you also have an insanely high opinion of Todd MacCullough, or think that 6'9 sophomore PF Kenyon Martin was going to handle him. By 2006, the only guy that could come close to handling Shaq (Duncan) was out West; Shaq had a cakewalk through the East and then finally had to square off with the immortal Erick Dampier in the Finals for his fourth ring. I guess that whole argument just boils down to whether you value quality over quantity. Hakeem won two that came against vastly more difficult competition that what Shaq went through to get four.

Why did you type that long ass shit? To shorten it up, Shaq owned the 2000s era. and Lakers-Shaq was the greatest player I've seen in the history of the league.

Jesus, you just don't understand how basketball works. Or maybe you just don't know how to read (seriously, when someone tries to win an argument by saying "that was too long for me to read," you know that guy's an idiot). What part of "the era Shaq owned was arguably the weakest of all time for centers" is confusing you? We've been over this a few times now, and it still hasn't gotten through your thick skull.

Defensively, no it was not
In the early 2000s Mourning/Wallace were beasts, and could contain Shaq

YES. WE FUCKING KNOW ABOUT MOURNING AND WALLACE. YOU HAVE BROUGHT UP THEIR NAMES AND NO ONE ELSE'S.

Shaq never met Mourning in the playoffs (unless you want to count them playing together on the Heat) and the one time he ran into Wallace in the playoffs it was the 2004 Finals...which Shaq lost. Hmmm.

Wallace/Mourning are two of the greatest defensive Centers in NBA history.

Gimme dat money! wrote:

2 centers lol there were still 32 teams

They were great defensive Centers.

King wrote:

CAguyofftoUNC wrote:

King wrote:

CAguyofftoUNC wrote:

King wrote:

CAguyofftoUNC wrote:

King wrote:

CAguyofftoUNC wrote:

King wrote:

CAguyofftoUNC wrote:

King wrote:

Gimme dat money! wrote:

who stopped hakeem?nobody could stop hakeem+he was great defensively (surely better than shaq) and duncan did a pretty good job stopping shaq.

Hakeem is the most skillful Center, but anyone with half a brain would take Shaq simply because of his sheer strength/dominance over everything. Tim Duncan? Stop Shaq? Retard please!

Most people here would pick Hakeem over Shaq. Both were unstoppable for different reasons (Hakeem was due to skill, Shaq due to sheer brute force) but Hakeem was vastly superior defensively. You've talked about how fantastic the 90's were defensively; Hakeem won back-to-back championships in that era. When did Shaq win his? Starting in one of the worst decades ever for centers (yeah, you've pointed out Wallace and Mourning already, great, but the bulk of the NBA's centers overall were much worse than in the 90's).

Most people in this forum lack common sense, fact
Shaq played better statistically in the 90s, fact
Hakeem won championships in the late 90s, fact

Fact: most people in this forum have opinions you fail to respect.
Fact: 2 rings from Hakeem > 0 rings from Shaq (and Hakeem averaged way more blocks/steals and only trailed by a few points in PPG and their RPG was virtually the same).
Fact: Hakeem won his two championships in '94 and '95 (hint: those aren't in the late 90's like you mistakenly said).

-I respect everyone's opinion, but I like to correct their mistakes
-4 rings >>> 2 rings
-Hakeem won against New York/Orlando, where at the time the East was very weak.
-Excuse my error, sorry.

You call anyone who disagrees with you a retard and refer to our opinions as mistakes. That's not respect, but I could come up with a few less pleasant words for it if I wanted to.

Hakeem's rings were in the 90's, when he had to go through Robinson (in '94, when Robinson and the Spurs had HC advantage in the WCF) and Ewing (in the Finals the same year), and he became the only player in NBA history to win MVP, Finals MVP and DPOY in the same year. In '95, he eviscerated Shaq in the Finals for his second ring in a row. Shaq has two more rings, but his came in a much weaker era for centers.

Don't know why you're calling the East weak at that time, but it sure as hell couldnt've been weaker than it was for Shaq when he won his. The 2000 Pacers didn't have anyone on the level of Ewing or Robinson, unless you have an insanely high opinion of Rik Smits. The 2001 76ers did have Mutombo, but he was ravaged by injuries (only played 26 games that season). The 2002 Nets? No one of note, unless you also have an insanely high opinion of Todd MacCullough, or think that 6'9 sophomore PF Kenyon Martin was going to handle him. By 2006, the only guy that could come close to handling Shaq (Duncan) was out West; Shaq had a cakewalk through the East and then finally had to square off with the immortal Erick Dampier in the Finals for his fourth ring. I guess that whole argument just boils down to whether you value quality over quantity. Hakeem won two that came against vastly more difficult competition that what Shaq went through to get four.

Why did you type that long ass shit? To shorten it up, Shaq owned the 2000s era. and Lakers-Shaq was the greatest player I've seen in the history of the league.

Jesus, you just don't understand how basketball works. Or maybe you just don't know how to read (seriously, when someone tries to win an argument by saying "that was too long for me to read," you know that guy's an idiot). What part of "the era Shaq owned was arguably the weakest of all time for centers" is confusing you? We've been over this a few times now, and it still hasn't gotten through your thick skull.

Defensively, no it was not
In the early 2000s Mourning/Wallace were beasts, and could contain Shaq

YES. WE FUCKING KNOW ABOUT MOURNING AND WALLACE. YOU HAVE BROUGHT UP THEIR NAMES AND NO ONE ELSE'S.

Shaq never met Mourning in the playoffs (unless you want to count them playing together on the Heat) and the one time he ran into Wallace in the playoffs it was the 2004 Finals...which Shaq lost. Hmmm.

Wallace/Mourning are two of the greatest defensive Centers in NBA history.

Wow. That's really all you have to say? Incredible. Why the hell does it matter how great they were if Shaq never had to go through them to win anything (except, again, when Wallace's Pistons took down Shaq's Lakers)? Hakeem went through Robinson, Ewing and Shaq directly for his two titles...oh, but why bother repeating myself? You'll just say "oh it's too long for me to read retard" or "but Wallace and Mourning were in that era"...pathetic.

CAguyofftoUNC wrote:

King wrote:

CAguyofftoUNC wrote:

King wrote:

CAguyofftoUNC wrote:

King wrote:

CAguyofftoUNC wrote:

King wrote:

CAguyofftoUNC wrote:

King wrote:

CAguyofftoUNC wrote:

King wrote:

Gimme dat money! wrote:

who stopped hakeem?nobody could stop hakeem+he was great defensively (surely better than shaq) and duncan did a pretty good job stopping shaq.

Hakeem is the most skillful Center, but anyone with half a brain would take Shaq simply because of his sheer strength/dominance over everything. Tim Duncan? Stop Shaq? Retard please!

Most people here would pick Hakeem over Shaq. Both were unstoppable for different reasons (Hakeem was due to skill, Shaq due to sheer brute force) but Hakeem was vastly superior defensively. You've talked about how fantastic the 90's were defensively; Hakeem won back-to-back championships in that era. When did Shaq win his? Starting in one of the worst decades ever for centers (yeah, you've pointed out Wallace and Mourning already, great, but the bulk of the NBA's centers overall were much worse than in the 90's).

Most people in this forum lack common sense, fact
Shaq played better statistically in the 90s, fact
Hakeem won championships in the late 90s, fact

Fact: most people in this forum have opinions you fail to respect.
Fact: 2 rings from Hakeem > 0 rings from Shaq (and Hakeem averaged way more blocks/steals and only trailed by a few points in PPG and their RPG was virtually the same).
Fact: Hakeem won his two championships in '94 and '95 (hint: those aren't in the late 90's like you mistakenly said).

-I respect everyone's opinion, but I like to correct their mistakes
-4 rings >>> 2 rings
-Hakeem won against New York/Orlando, where at the time the East was very weak.
-Excuse my error, sorry.

You call anyone who disagrees with you a retard and refer to our opinions as mistakes. That's not respect, but I could come up with a few less pleasant words for it if I wanted to.

Hakeem's rings were in the 90's, when he had to go through Robinson (in '94, when Robinson and the Spurs had HC advantage in the WCF) and Ewing (in the Finals the same year), and he became the only player in NBA history to win MVP, Finals MVP and DPOY in the same year. In '95, he eviscerated Shaq in the Finals for his second ring in a row. Shaq has two more rings, but his came in a much weaker era for centers.

Don't know why you're calling the East weak at that time, but it sure as hell couldnt've been weaker than it was for Shaq when he won his. The 2000 Pacers didn't have anyone on the level of Ewing or Robinson, unless you have an insanely high opinion of Rik Smits. The 2001 76ers did have Mutombo, but he was ravaged by injuries (only played 26 games that season). The 2002 Nets? No one of note, unless you also have an insanely high opinion of Todd MacCullough, or think that 6'9 sophomore PF Kenyon Martin was going to handle him. By 2006, the only guy that could come close to handling Shaq (Duncan) was out West; Shaq had a cakewalk through the East and then finally had to square off with the immortal Erick Dampier in the Finals for his fourth ring. I guess that whole argument just boils down to whether you value quality over quantity. Hakeem won two that came against vastly more difficult competition that what Shaq went through to get four.

Why did you type that long ass shit? To shorten it up, Shaq owned the 2000s era. and Lakers-Shaq was the greatest player I've seen in the history of the league.

Jesus, you just don't understand how basketball works. Or maybe you just don't know how to read (seriously, when someone tries to win an argument by saying "that was too long for me to read," you know that guy's an idiot). What part of "the era Shaq owned was arguably the weakest of all time for centers" is confusing you? We've been over this a few times now, and it still hasn't gotten through your thick skull.

Defensively, no it was not
In the early 2000s Mourning/Wallace were beasts, and could contain Shaq

YES. WE FUCKING KNOW ABOUT MOURNING AND WALLACE. YOU HAVE BROUGHT UP THEIR NAMES AND NO ONE ELSE'S.

Shaq never met Mourning in the playoffs (unless you want to count them playing together on the Heat) and the one time he ran into Wallace in the playoffs it was the 2004 Finals...which Shaq lost. Hmmm.

Wallace/Mourning are two of the greatest defensive Centers in NBA history.

Wow. That's really all you have to say? Incredible. Why the hell does it matter how great they were if Shaq never had to go through them to win anything (except, again, when Wallace's Pistons took down Shaq's Lakers)? Hakeem went through Robinson, Ewing and Shaq directly for his two titles...oh, but why bother repeating myself? You'll just say "oh it's too long for me to read retard" or "but Wallace and Mourning were in that era"...pathetic.

Detroit didn't beat Los Angeles
Los Angeles beat Los Angeles

If Kobe/Shaq would have worked better together, they would have swept the Pistons

Shaq is great and shall have his jersey retired in multiple locations

King wrote:

Detroit didn't beat Los Angeles
Los Angeles beat Los Angeles

What series were you watching? The Pistons clearly outplayed LA.

King wrote:

If Kobe/Shaq would have worked better together, they would have swept the Pistons

No way! So you're saying that if something had changed about that series, the outcome would've been different? No shit, Sherlock. Again, why do you bring up hypothetical stuff when trying to prove something about how things are now? It's like saying "oh if the Lakers had scored more they would have won" or "oh if the Pistons had missed more the Lakers would have won."

King wrote:

Shaq is great and shall have his jersey retired in multiple locations

Dunno about the multiple locations, but no one's denying Shaq's greatness. Some of us would just rather have Hakeem.