The fight I thought was a farce went down this past Saturday. The general feeling is that Conor Mcgregor did better than expected, and that the fight was competitive. I don't know what to think. How do I judge the fight when it was pretty clear to me that Floyd was carrying him? In the first 3 rounds Mayweather threw a total of 28 punches. Was it really Conor's awkward stance, and pitty pat punches that was making Floyd hesitant to throw punches? Floyd got semi serious in round 4, and caught Conor with some sharp punches in the middle portion of the round. Mcgregor was landing his own punches, but they had no snap whatsoever. He did land a good uppercut in the first round, but beside that he was just making contact with punches that make Floyd's punches look like Julian Jackson's by comparison. Floyd continued to gain steam, and win easily until the 9th round, where he finally went all out. Mcgregor had shown signs of fatigue before that. Late in the 7th round he laid on the ropes, and took a deep breath after they were broken apart. Now in the 9th he was taking hard punches to go along with that fatigue. He had very little left, and was nothing but a punching bag for that round, and the 10th round, until the referee stopped the fight a little more than a minute into the round. As a fighter Mcgregor looked awkward. His stance was awkward, and his punches lacked steam. Floyd was very kind to him, and Conor would have taken a serious beating had he been in there with a strong aggressive fighter like Canelo, or GGG. Mayweather showed his 40 years to some extent, though it's hard to tell how much age caught up with him in this fight, because he seemingly could take over whenever he felt like it.
The fight was a money grab, and a very successful one at that. Floyd went in there with an opponent that was no threat to beat him, and he behaved like it. He walked forward for most of the fight, which isn't what he does. He could afford to do it here, because Mcgregor's punches didn't have the type of power to make him pay for coming forward. He had a big smile on his face after the second round. It is also worth noting that Mayweather says that he tried to place a 400k bet that he would knockout Mcgregor within 9.5 rounds, but wasn't allowed to. He wanted to place another bet on him winning by knockout, but wasn't allowed to do either. He did get someone else to place a bet for him. The numbers aren't in yet, but this fight is either the 1st, or 2nd biggest money fight in history, with Pacquiao/Mayweather being the other. At 40 years old, and not the fighter he used to be, maybe Floyd will retire for good, or maybe some issues, like tax problems, could have him coming back for another money grab.
Tuesday, August 29, 2017
Friday, August 4, 2017
Michael Jordan Is Wrong: Lebron is better than Kobe
Michael Jordan recently said that Kobe Bryant was better than Lebron James, because 5 sounds better than 3. He brought up the ring count. This is something he did before, when Lebron only had 2 rings. There could be a number of reasons that Jordan prefers Kobe to Lebron. Jordan, and Kobe are friends, and I've never heard of him being a friend of Lebron's. Kobe also copied many of Michael Jordan's moves, and mannerisms. Maybe in MJ's mind, a vote for Kobe over Lebron is like a vote for him over Lebron. I'm as big a Michael Jordan fan as there is, but he is wrong on this one. Lebron James is better than Kobe Bryant. Sure Kobe has 5 championships, but championships are a team accomplishment. They are something to consider when judging who is better than who, but there are plenty other things to look at. If Jordan said that Kobe and Lebron as so close in terms of their individual greatness, that he gave the edge to Kobe because of rings that would make a little more sense, even though Kobe isn't up there with Lebron in terms of individual greatness.
Both players could score, and that is the area where Kobe is closest to Lebron. Lebron has averaged 36.7 points per 100 possessions, and 27.1 points per game. Before Kobe fell off late in his career he averaged 36.1 points per 100 possessions and 25.5 points per game. Now the fact that he played with Shaq early in his career can be seen as a large part of the reason that his averages are under Lebron's. The thing is a prime Kobe got plenty shots while playing with Shaq. The big difference is in the roles they played when they came into the league. Lebron was already bigger and stronger than most NBA players when he got to the league out of high school. He only shot 41.7% from the floor, but played over 39 minutes per game as a rookie, and averaged over 20 points per game. Kobe on the other hand was a backup in his first two seasons. He played only 15.5 minutes per game in his rookie year, and 26.0 in his second season. It wasn't until his third season that he got big time minutes, and it wasn't until his 4th that he established himself as one of the best players in the league. Lebron was already one of the top players in his second season. Lebron was two years ahead of Kobe. Lebron never averaged 35+ like Kobe did in 2005-06, and he never scored 81 in a game, but he has been so consistent over the course of his career, and he's a more efficient scorer than Kobe. Kobe never shot 50 percent in a season. Lebron has shot around 50% for his career, with a career high of 56.5%. Kobe's true shooting percentage for his career is 55.0%, and was 55.5 before he really fell off. Lebron's is 58.4%. Both were less efficient as scorers in the postseason, but Lebron has scored the same 36.7 points per 100 possessions, while Kobe's average per 100 possessions fell to 34.7 in the playoffs, and Kobe didn't play any playoffs games after he became washed up and injury prone, so it's more fair to compare their career postseason stats. Lebron may well be the better scorer of the two, but it's debatable. What's more obvious is that Lebron is clearly better at mostly every thing else. He's a better passer than Kobe, a better rebounder, just as good at getting steals, and clearly a better shot blocker. Overall Lebron is the better defensive player. Kobe was on the NBA's first team all defensive team for 9 seasons, but I think there were a few of those in which he got on the first team based on reputation. Lebron is the better of the two defensively. He is probably a better perimeter defender, and his shot blocking gives him another element to his defense. In terms career PER Lebron is second all time at 27.6, while Kobe's career mark is 22.9, but Kobe was washed up for those last three seasons. What was his mark before then? It wasn't much better at just 23.4. Lebron has had 4 seasons with a PER of over 30, including 3 over 31, and another at 30.7. Kobe's career high is 28.0, and in that season he was given free reign to jack up shots. Kobe had a 26.2 PER one year, and a 26.1 in another, but has no other season of 25+. In terms of the postseason it's 27.7 for Lebron, and 22.4 for Kobe. Lebron is the better individual player.
Kobe's argument is largely dependent on the ring thing, but as great rings are, they are overrated in judging an individual's greatness. Michael Jordan finished his career with more rings than Magic, and Bird, but 5 less than Bill Russell, and Robert Horry surpassed Jordan in championships with his 7th title in 2005. The thing is that Jordan didn't need to pass Bird, and Magic in terms of championships to be considered better than them. He was already considered the greatest player of all time when he retired the first time, and he only had 3 titles then, which was 2 less than Magic, and the same as Bird. He didn't gain his status as the consensus GOAT when he came back and won 3 more, he was already the consensus greatest of all time before then. He just added to his legacy. The argument for Jordan as greatest of all time back then wasn't about rings. It was about his scoring ability, dominance, skill, athleticism, and mastery of the game. After his retirement, though, 6 has become some magic number. People wondered could Kobe get 6, and he finished his career with 5. Horry got 7, but isn't close to being in the GOAT debate, and 6 seems to be the number that Lebron is measured against. Instead of looking at Lebron's individual greatness, and looking at rings as a bonus, the 6 title things is put there as some obstacle that he has to reach. Kobe won 3 titles with Shaq, and while Kobe was important to those teams, Shaq was the key. I don't consider Kobe to have been a Robin, but if there was a Robin between the two of them, it surely wasn't Shaq. He did win two titles as the lead player, but had an underrated cast of big men in Pau Gasol, Lamar Odom, and Andrew Bynum. While Bynum had injury problems, he was strong in the 2010 playoffs. Both Kobe, and Lebron have played with some talented players, but Kobe had better teammates than Lebron. He played with a prime Shaq. Lebron never played with a player that had that type of dominance. Dwyane Wade was still great when Lebron got to Miami, but slowly went downhill. I don't know how much value I should put in Lebron's 8 Finals appearances since the East hasn't been strong in recent years, but he has done a lot to get his teams in position to be in the Finals.
In the Finals both men have had mediocre series'. Kobe had one in 2000 (he did come through in game 4), and another in 2004, while Lebron wasn't that good in his first two NBA Finals in 2007, and 2011. From there the advantage goes to Lebron. Kobe had some really good Finals, but Lebron has had some all time great Finals, and that's a big difference. Kobe was never as good in the NBA Finals as Lebron was the three times he won the title, and you can argue Lebron was better in the last 3 Finals series that his team lost, than Kobe was in any of his Finals appearances.
So yeah, Lebron is better than Kobe in my humble opinion.
Both players could score, and that is the area where Kobe is closest to Lebron. Lebron has averaged 36.7 points per 100 possessions, and 27.1 points per game. Before Kobe fell off late in his career he averaged 36.1 points per 100 possessions and 25.5 points per game. Now the fact that he played with Shaq early in his career can be seen as a large part of the reason that his averages are under Lebron's. The thing is a prime Kobe got plenty shots while playing with Shaq. The big difference is in the roles they played when they came into the league. Lebron was already bigger and stronger than most NBA players when he got to the league out of high school. He only shot 41.7% from the floor, but played over 39 minutes per game as a rookie, and averaged over 20 points per game. Kobe on the other hand was a backup in his first two seasons. He played only 15.5 minutes per game in his rookie year, and 26.0 in his second season. It wasn't until his third season that he got big time minutes, and it wasn't until his 4th that he established himself as one of the best players in the league. Lebron was already one of the top players in his second season. Lebron was two years ahead of Kobe. Lebron never averaged 35+ like Kobe did in 2005-06, and he never scored 81 in a game, but he has been so consistent over the course of his career, and he's a more efficient scorer than Kobe. Kobe never shot 50 percent in a season. Lebron has shot around 50% for his career, with a career high of 56.5%. Kobe's true shooting percentage for his career is 55.0%, and was 55.5 before he really fell off. Lebron's is 58.4%. Both were less efficient as scorers in the postseason, but Lebron has scored the same 36.7 points per 100 possessions, while Kobe's average per 100 possessions fell to 34.7 in the playoffs, and Kobe didn't play any playoffs games after he became washed up and injury prone, so it's more fair to compare their career postseason stats. Lebron may well be the better scorer of the two, but it's debatable. What's more obvious is that Lebron is clearly better at mostly every thing else. He's a better passer than Kobe, a better rebounder, just as good at getting steals, and clearly a better shot blocker. Overall Lebron is the better defensive player. Kobe was on the NBA's first team all defensive team for 9 seasons, but I think there were a few of those in which he got on the first team based on reputation. Lebron is the better of the two defensively. He is probably a better perimeter defender, and his shot blocking gives him another element to his defense. In terms career PER Lebron is second all time at 27.6, while Kobe's career mark is 22.9, but Kobe was washed up for those last three seasons. What was his mark before then? It wasn't much better at just 23.4. Lebron has had 4 seasons with a PER of over 30, including 3 over 31, and another at 30.7. Kobe's career high is 28.0, and in that season he was given free reign to jack up shots. Kobe had a 26.2 PER one year, and a 26.1 in another, but has no other season of 25+. In terms of the postseason it's 27.7 for Lebron, and 22.4 for Kobe. Lebron is the better individual player.
Kobe's argument is largely dependent on the ring thing, but as great rings are, they are overrated in judging an individual's greatness. Michael Jordan finished his career with more rings than Magic, and Bird, but 5 less than Bill Russell, and Robert Horry surpassed Jordan in championships with his 7th title in 2005. The thing is that Jordan didn't need to pass Bird, and Magic in terms of championships to be considered better than them. He was already considered the greatest player of all time when he retired the first time, and he only had 3 titles then, which was 2 less than Magic, and the same as Bird. He didn't gain his status as the consensus GOAT when he came back and won 3 more, he was already the consensus greatest of all time before then. He just added to his legacy. The argument for Jordan as greatest of all time back then wasn't about rings. It was about his scoring ability, dominance, skill, athleticism, and mastery of the game. After his retirement, though, 6 has become some magic number. People wondered could Kobe get 6, and he finished his career with 5. Horry got 7, but isn't close to being in the GOAT debate, and 6 seems to be the number that Lebron is measured against. Instead of looking at Lebron's individual greatness, and looking at rings as a bonus, the 6 title things is put there as some obstacle that he has to reach. Kobe won 3 titles with Shaq, and while Kobe was important to those teams, Shaq was the key. I don't consider Kobe to have been a Robin, but if there was a Robin between the two of them, it surely wasn't Shaq. He did win two titles as the lead player, but had an underrated cast of big men in Pau Gasol, Lamar Odom, and Andrew Bynum. While Bynum had injury problems, he was strong in the 2010 playoffs. Both Kobe, and Lebron have played with some talented players, but Kobe had better teammates than Lebron. He played with a prime Shaq. Lebron never played with a player that had that type of dominance. Dwyane Wade was still great when Lebron got to Miami, but slowly went downhill. I don't know how much value I should put in Lebron's 8 Finals appearances since the East hasn't been strong in recent years, but he has done a lot to get his teams in position to be in the Finals.
In the Finals both men have had mediocre series'. Kobe had one in 2000 (he did come through in game 4), and another in 2004, while Lebron wasn't that good in his first two NBA Finals in 2007, and 2011. From there the advantage goes to Lebron. Kobe had some really good Finals, but Lebron has had some all time great Finals, and that's a big difference. Kobe was never as good in the NBA Finals as Lebron was the three times he won the title, and you can argue Lebron was better in the last 3 Finals series that his team lost, than Kobe was in any of his Finals appearances.
So yeah, Lebron is better than Kobe in my humble opinion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)