U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Basketball
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-23-2011, 06:22 AM
 
Location: Earth
3,653 posts, read 3,884,885 times
Reputation: 1802

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaolin070388 View Post
You're going to tell me a prime Olajuwon(late 80s-early 90s) couldn't contain 2000-2002 Shaq?
Don't think so, but on the other side of the coin, Shaq wouldn't be able to do much defensively on prime Hakeem either. Frankly, we're splitting hairs trying to determine who's better. Shaq dominated with power and agility for a man of his size, Hakeem dominated with grace and skill. As mentioned before, skill is a earned attribute, and for that I 'appreciate' Hakeem's game more. But they were both incredibly dominant forces in their prime.

If there IS one argument I'd put forth in favor of Hakeem, it's that he stood out in an era (80's/90's) that arguably had the greatest collection of dominant centers at one time, playing at or near their primes. Shaq didn't have nearly the competition in the 2000's.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-23-2011, 07:44 AM
 
Location: Frisco, TX
7,559 posts, read 11,907,452 times
Reputation: 4519
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg1977 View Post
If there IS one argument I'd put forth in favor of Hakeem, it's that he stood out in an era (80's/90's) that arguably had the greatest collection of dominant centers at one time, playing at or near their primes. Shaq didn't have nearly the competition in the 2000's.
Very good point.

I'd venture to say that competition makes a player work harder, and if Shaq had come along 15 years earlier and played with 5s like Gilmore, Moses, and even Mark Eaton - he would've either played even stronger or worked on his moves in the post to become a more rounded (pardon pun) player.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2011, 08:12 AM
 
297 posts, read 340,735 times
Reputation: 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by loloroj View Post
If that's your idea of dominant then you have no idea what the word means...
I think it is you that has a special definition of "dominant". It doesn't matter WHY someone is dominant. Just that they ARE. I doubt that if you look up "dominance" in a dictionary that it will say "possessing skill" or "having grace" or "master of many post moves". If you want to say that Hakeem's dominance was of a greater kind because he was more "skilled", than that is fine. But it is also just your opinion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2011, 08:18 AM
 
Location: Earth
3,653 posts, read 3,884,885 times
Reputation: 1802
There's no question Shaq was more 'physically' dominant; I guess its a matter of preference at the end of the day.

I suppose one way of looking at this, if you took Hakeem from 1995, and Shaq from 2001, and surrounded them with 4 average players( for apples to apples, the same 4 players for each guy) is the team likely to be better with Hakeem, or Shaq??
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2011, 09:42 PM
 
Location: Houston, TX
17,032 posts, read 26,903,179 times
Reputation: 16190
Shaq ast his peak (which was short because he was lazy) would beat Hakeem. But over the course of carrers if they started the same, I think Hakeem would have beaten him 60-40 with equivalent surrounding talent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2011, 11:12 AM
 
Location: 20 years from now
5,539 posts, read 5,726,467 times
Reputation: 3463
Although I agree with Greg1977's post about Hakeem being elevated amongst a very strong (if not the strongest) era of centers, I still couldn't see him outplaying Shaq in his prime. I'd also argue the idea that Hakeem was not definitively the best center during that era anyway. My vote would go to D. Robinson in the 90's for the entire decade, and I still don't think he could have tackled Shaq in his prime.

All in all, it's tough to say, but it's a good argument.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2011, 11:22 AM
 
Location: 20 years from now
5,539 posts, read 5,726,467 times
Reputation: 3463
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Lexus View Post
Shaq was of course big, strong, and dominant, but so what? His shot selection was as limited as that of very limited Dwight Howard. In fact, Shaq just a wider Howard. Great dunks and imposing presence. He was a decent passer, but no Chris Webber. Lousy free throw shooter. No outside shot from any range. Hakeem a far more versatile center and one I'd pick overwhelmingly over Shaq.
The problem is, is that Shaq was not just "big and strong." His inside game was so dominant that he didn't need anything else. There was no need to develope a hook shot, floating jumpers, fade aways etc etc. He was also a terrible free throw shooter (his only true weakness), but he could literally do the same thing game in, game out and still dominate. The only answer defensively was to "hack a shaq"...use players with fouls to put him on the line as much as possible. He certainly wasn't as "skilled" as other centers, yet he still dominated with 3 consecutive rings as the leader. Heck, he made Mutumbo (who is arguably the best defensive center of the 90s) look like a newborn out there I think that speaks volumes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2011, 11:28 AM
 
Location: Earth
3,653 posts, read 3,884,885 times
Reputation: 1802
Quote:
Originally Posted by itshim View Post
Although I agree with Greg1977's post about Hakeem being elevated amongst a very strong (if not the strongest) era of centers, I still couldn't see him outplaying Shaq in his prime. I'd also argue the idea that Hakeem was not definitively the best center during that era anyway. My vote would go to D. Robinson in the 90's for the entire decade, and I still don't think he could have tackled Shaq in his prime.

All in all, it's tough to say, but it's a good argument.
Yeah it is a tough argument, and I will agree that David Robinson was considered arguably the better player compared to Hakeem prior to the back to back championships, and Hakeem owning him in the playoffs in 1995. That 2 year period 'raised' Hakeem's historical profile, and dropped Robinson's down a peg or two. But, prior to 1994, you indeed could make a case that the Admiral was the best overall center. Or at the least, it was a legit discussion. Now, they're considered in two different classes of players, with Hakeem's name now popping up on many people's top 10 all-time list, while Robinson is generally regarded 'somewhere' in the top 25-30.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2011, 12:00 PM
 
Location: 20 years from now
5,539 posts, read 5,726,467 times
Reputation: 3463
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg1977 View Post
Yeah it is a tough argument, and I will agree that David Robinson was considered arguably the better player compared to Hakeem prior to the back to back championships, and Hakeem owning him in the playoffs in 1995. That 2 year period 'raised' Hakeem's historical profile, and dropped Robinson's down a peg or two. But, prior to 1994, you indeed could make a case that the Admiral was the best overall center. Or at the least, it was a legit discussion. Now, they're considered in two different classes of players, with Hakeem's name now popping up on many people's top 10 all-time list, while Robinson is generally regarded 'somewhere' in the top 25-30.
I agree with everything you're saying here. It is interesting to note that as time has gone by, people are beginning to bring up Olajuwans name again, while Robinson is faintly remembered by anyone. I'd even suspect that the newest watchers of the NBA (kids who grew up in the 2000s+) know little if anything about him. This pretty much explains why championships are all the more important. If you fail to be recognized as a winner, or even leading a team through the course of a championship, you can easily be forgotten in a generation or two. In the next decade or so, we'll probably witness the same evaporation of people's names like Steve Nash (for example) from general conversation about the "best of" during those years for the same reason.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2011, 04:06 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
2,884 posts, read 5,184,831 times
Reputation: 2731
Hakeem was a brilliant player, but he went under the radar.

-Not as marketable. Difficult name.
-He wasn't a flashy player, more like Tim Duncan. More of a fundamentals guy than see this dunk.
-Houston is a smaller media market.

Plus he played in a high skilled era...like david robinson. A lot of reasons why he's sort of under the radar when it comes to debates.

Why Shaq is ranked above him...

He was perceived as very dominate, playing with a bunch of 6'4 or 6'6 players.
Power is looked at very favorably. It's more "exciting" to be powerful. Like homerun hitters in baseball. Vs hitting a triple.

Shaq is also ranked above him because he got a bunch of rings. Seperated himself from Alonzo Morning, Glen Robinson and other rookies from his time. I think the fact that he got more rings late in his career helped him.

Olajuwon never got the national spotlight he should have gotten. His skills got overshadowed by Jordan in the middle 90's. Pretty much the worst time to be the 2nd best, or 4th best player in the league.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Basketball
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top