MJ vs. Kobe Debate Becoming Stale

I know it’s fun to argue who is the greatest player ever, but it gets old after a while. Especially when it is the same debate over and over like Tiger vs. Jack, or Kobe vs. MJ. Well, the latter was used over at FoxSports.com today and talked about by Charley Rosen:

I don’t believe there’s any discernible difference in the athleticism of Jordan and Kobe, but I do think that M.J.’s competitive edge was sharper and more intense.

You hear this a lot, Kobe doesn’t have the “edge.” This isn’t an argument! There is no science behind a statement like this. Two people can act differently on the outside and can be competitive in different ways. This makes as much sense as when people say that a team “wants it more.” Yeah, that’s why the Magic lost, Kobe and the Lakers wanted it more.

Also, Jordan was never much of a team leader

That’s a thriving endorsement.

Kobe is a better 3-point shooter than M.J. — except in the clutch, when they were both deadly.

Another weird argument that is often thrown around. M.J. was clutch, no doubt, but if they’re both deadly and Kobe is, in general, a better 3-point shooter, than Kobe wins this round.

For Kobe to surpass Jordan, he needs to win two more championships

After four, don’t you think the number of championships should be low on the priority list in this argument? And where does he come up with that number? Robert Horry has seven championships. If we’re going with this logic, he’s better than Jordan and Kobe. Oh, and Horry was clutch!

Answering your NBA questions: Greatest ever?