|
10 jul 06 "Who's better Michael Jordan or Larry Bird?" michael jordan, although i've never seen larry bird play. i grew up around the legend of michael jordan, but in truth, i don't know how he compares to wilt chamberlain, kareem abdul jabar, larry bird, and other legendary players. it's probably hard to say, considering that the game of basketball overall changes from year to year. if you put michael jordan into a game in the 1950s, then he'd be preventing from an assured win by being ejected from the game for a variety of violations within the first few minutes. as a team player, probably bird. but i'm pretty sure jordan would win at one-on-one. there was a video game called "jordan vs. bird", which is probably where this asker got the question. it's the same person who's asked the last five or so questions. terrible. give other people a chance. and, you know...there's some racialist ugliness going on here. some people referred to larry bird as "the great white hope", and i'd be willing to bet that some of those same people, when voting on an all-star team, were racially exclusive in their nominations. i'm certain of it, in fact. basketball is probably the most racially charged sport, and there's something about "jordan vs. bird" that implies "race war". i'm sure a lot of people would tune in for a one-on-one match; i can just see the lit television screens in the kkk headquarters. why are you asking me these sports questions? you know i know nothing about sports, except that they are all essentially the same game, excepting baseball -- a simulation of warefare, where the objective is to advance into enemy territory and "capture the flag". i'd like to see team jiujitsu on a playing field -- opponents would line up in their end-zones, and then rush at each other, trying to get across to the other side of the field in spite of attacking defensive plays. no ball involved. they'd be greased up, too. it'd be popular viewing in gay bars. baseball is just weird. i wonder who thought that up (i know it came from cricket, but i wonder who thought that up). sports are preferable to war. their resemblence to it is probably the principal reason the "world cup" is so exciting -- nation vs. nation. in national sports, you have to pretend to get excited about the state of michigan. go michigan! if that fails, which it often does, then you start fixating on the uniforms, mascot, personality cults of the players, or statistics. but when a team represents a country, and the countries are fighting, it's exciting on the deep and primitive level of national socialism. france vs. italy, though...the two biggest failures of wwII go head to head. i would have liked to have seen germany vs. england, or england vs. argentina (battle of the falkland islands, part II). france vs. morroco would have been fun, too. or the united states vs. iran -- imagine how much money that would generate. but italy vs. france is really sort of depressing, except i'm sure some americans got into it because they've been trained to hate the french over all else. i'm sure italian and french troops have shot at, or even killed one another (i'm talking post-napoleon here), but neither were exactly forces to be reckoned with in 1944. michael jordan is much better-looking than larry bird. |
ask a question