To give you some perspective as to my rankings, I started watching and following basketball in 1969, when Jabbar entered the league (I was ten years old at the time).  So, unfortunately, I never saw Bill Russell play and missed the prime years of Chamberlain, Robertson, West, and Baylor.  Since the NBA started in 1946, you would have to be at least 70 (approximately) years old right now AND have gone to the games (since the games were not televised back then) to have witnessed all the great players in the history of the NBA.  This is a very small number of people, and it would be awfully extreme to suggest that these are the only people entitled to an opinion about the 25 greatest basketball players of all time.  However, it is important to note that which players the person doing the rankings saw play will, of course, affect their rankings of the best players in NBA history.  In 1980, the Professional Basketball Writers of America voted Bill Russell the Greatest Player in NBA History.  I took this fact, along with numerous other facts, statistics, things that I have read, experts’ and players’ opinions about great players (especially opinions about pre-1970 players), and highlights, and then coupled these factors with logic and reasoning to come up with my rankings.  Since I did not start watching pro basketball in 1946, my rankings may not be perfect, but, I suspect, neither are yours.  For example, perhaps Russell and Chamberlain should be 3rd and 4th, and Johnson and Bird 5th and 6th (all respectively).  And if you saw them all play their entire careers and ranked them that way, you would not get much of an argument from me.

I used lots of criteria for determining the greatest basketball player of all time, the most important of which was that he must be a great all-around player with no real weakness.  And that includes foul shooting.  Hence, sorry, Chamberlain (.511 career FT%, 3rd worst all-time) and Shaquille O’Neal (whom I ranked 10th) (.525 career FT%, 5th worst all-time) fans, there is no way on earth that a lousy foul shooter could be THE greatest basketball player of all time.  Now, Russell (.561 career FT%) was not much better, but at least he was not the focal point of his team’s offense.  (To give you some perspective, here are the other career free throw percentages of my top 10:  Jordan .835, Jabbar .721, Johnson .848, Bird .886, Robertson .838, West .814, and Baylor .780.)  To be ranked #1 all-time, the player has to be able to lead his team to victory in any close games and especially in close playoff games.  A lousy foul shooter cannot do this.  Close games happen far too often in the playoffs for this not to be part of his repertoire.  He has to be able to get the ball in the final five minutes of a close game and score consistently, and that includes the times that he will inevitably get fouled.  Both Wilt and Shaq could be the second-best basketball player of all time, or the best player of, say, a ten year era, but not THE greatest basketball player of all time.  I feel strongly about this and I think it is more than fair, especially with the existence of a great all-around talent like Jordan, who just happened to close a game out better than anyone else in the history of the NBA.

I eliminated Russell from consideration as the greatest basketball player of all time, because he was a limited offensive player.  Besides being a bad free throw shooter, he did not (by all accounts that I have heard and read) have much of a shot.  He only averaged 15.1 points per game in his career, but what I find even more disturbing (since he had lots of scorers on his teams and could be very selective in his shot selection) is his .440 career field goal percentage (while FG% were lower back then, Chamberlain shot .530% during that same period and he took a lot more shots and drew a lot more attention).  Compare that to other great centers:  Jabbar .559, Chamberlain .540, O’Neal .580, and Hakeem Olajuwon .513 (whom I ranked 12th).  Big, big difference.  And the centers of his era were on the average approximately (the average height in the NBA went from 6’6″ in 1960 to 6’9″ in 1970) 3 inches shorter than the centers after 1970, so he should have had even more of an advantage than later centers to shoot over his defender.  (This helps explain why Russell’s and Chamberlain’s rebounding numbers (22.5 and 22.9 career avg., respectively) are so much higher than those of anyone that played the majority of his career after 1970.  No recent players are in the top 10 in average rebounds per game (Dennis Rodman is 11th with 13.1).  In addition, the teams took somewhere between 6 and 18 more shots per game in the 60′s than they did in the 70′s, 80′s, 90′s, and 2000′s.  More shots, more chances for rebounds.)  Sorry, Russell fans, offense is 50% of basketball and Jordan was way, way better than Russell offensively and comparable to Russell defensively.  Hence, it is clear to me that Jordan has to be rated higher than Russell.

While Russell had more championships than anyone else in the history of the NBA , he also had the most talent around him of anyone in the history of the NBA.  During the Celtics 11 championships Russell played with 4 (!) other members of the 50 greatest basketball players of all time, as selected by the NBA in 1996.  They included Bob Cousy (6 titles with Russell), John Havlicek (6), Sam Jones (10), Bill Sharman (3), and also a 5th Hall of Famer and 6-time all-star, Tom Heinsohn (8).  Perhaps you have heard of them.  Cousy and Havlicek would make almost any knowledgeable basketball fan’s top 25 (they made mine).  The CELTICS won 11 championships with Russell leading them; Russell did not win 11 championships by himself.  Bird, surprisingly, played with 5 members of the 50 greatest players (Kevin McHale, Robert Parish, Nate Archibald, Bill Walton, and Dave Cowens), however, this is misleading because  he only played with Cowens and Walton briefly.  Jabbar played with 3 (Robertson, Magic, James Worthy), while Chamberlain (Hal Greer, Jerry West) and Magic (Jabbar, Worthy) both played with 2.  Robertson (Jabbar) and Jordan (Scottie Pippen) each only played with 1.  Robertson seems to be the one most shortchanged, since he only had Jabbar while Robertson was in the twilight of his career and Jordan had Pippen for all 6 titles and they played together for most of their prime years.  Jordan, however, had the second least amount of talent around him during his career among the seven players we are discussing.        

The All-defensive team awards did not start until the 1968-69 season, which happened to be Russell’s last season.  Not surprisingly, he was voted to the 1st team.  Chamberlain played five seasons when the award was given out and was voted to the 1st team twice.  Robertson played 6 years when the award was given out and never was voted to the 1st or 2nd team.  Jordan, Jabbar, Bird, and Johnson all played their entire careers after the 1968-69 season.  Johnson was NEVER voted to the 1st or 2nd All-defensive team, Bird never made the 1st team and made the 2nd team three times, Jabbar made the first team 5 times and 2nd team 6 times, and Jordan, in just 11 full seasons with the Bulls, made the All-defensive 1st team an amazing 9 times (all but his 1st two full seasons).  Jordan was also the Defensive Player of the Year in 1987-88 (the award was first given out in the 1982-83 season) when he led the league in steals (259, 3.16 spg) and the guards in blocked shots (131, 1.6 bpg), which was the most ever recorded by a guard in NBA history.

Russell was considered by many to be the best defensive player ever.  Jordan was the best defender I ever saw and was probably the 2nd best defender ever.  Chamberlain and Jabbar were obviously both very good defenders.  Robertson was considered a very solid defender and it seems he would have made some All-defensive teams if the award had been given out during his first eight years in the league, when he was quicker.  Johnson and Bird were both good defenders when they were younger, but they were both liabilities on defense sometimes in the second half of their careers against quicker opponents (actually Johnson had this problem his whole career because of his unusual height for a point guard at 6’9″).

The regular-season MVP award was first given out after the 1955-56 season, so all of my top 7 players played their entire careers while that was an official award.  The NBA Finals MVP award was first given out after the 1968-69 finals (which was Russell’s last season).  Keeping that last fact in mind, here are the statistics for all 7 players for these 3 major categories in the following order:  championships won, regular season MVP awards, and finals MVP awards.  Jordan (6,5,6), Jabbar (6,2,6), Johnson (5,3,3), Bird (3,3,2), Russell (11,5,0), Chamberlain (2,4,0), Robertson (1,1,0).  Who knows how many finals MVPs Russell would have won (Jerry West won in a losing cause the only time Russell had a shot), but I am certain it would have been a lot since he led the Celtics to 11 championships.  Chamberlain would have won 1 (1966-67) (maybe 2, if he won one in a losing cause) and Robertson would still not have won any, if the award had started the same year the regular season MVP award did.

The totals for all 7 players for All-NBA, first and second team selections, respectively, are as follows:  Jabbar (10,5), Jordan (10,1), Robertson (9,2), Bird and Johnson (9,1), Chamberlain (7,3), and Russell (3,8).  It is interesting to note two things:  1) that Bird and Johnson, who are always linked together, each had the same numbers; and 2) Russell had only 3 first team selections, two fewer than his MVP awards.  Hmm.  It would be tough convincing a neutral party that Russell was the greatest player of all time when he voted the best center in the league only three times in a 13-year career. 

Robertson, as practically any basketball fan knows well, once (1961-62 season) averaged a triple double for an entire season (wow!).  However, as great a player as he was, he comes up woefully short in the 3 major categories above.  To be fair, he did have to compete with Russell’s Celtics during his prime years, while he was playing with the less-talented Cincinnati Royals, but still 1,1, and 0 is not enough to be ranked #1 all-time.  Robertson was one of the best passers ever (9.5 apg for his career) and probably the best rebounding guard ever (7.5 rpg).  He was also a great scorer (25.7 ppg, .485 FG%), who could score in a variety of ways, and a good leader.  Although I am not convinced he was as good as Jordan (once he figured it out), Johnson, Bird, and Russell for making players around him better, still, pretty impressive stuff.  One comparison to Jordan (and I am paraphrasing a player of Robertson’s generation), “while Oscar was very good defender, Michael was the Tasmanian devil on defense and the best defensive guard ever.”  Maybe he should be higher than 7th, but it is clear to me he was not as good as Jordan.

While Robertson never played against Jordan (I suspect all serious basketball fans drool over the thought of watching this match-up), Johnson and Bird did play against Jordan, although Jordan entered the league five years (in 1984) after they did.  As is well documented, Johnson and Bird came into the league together in 1979 (after playing against each other in the NCAA Basketball Finals six months earlier) and because of their heated, yet friendly rivalry and their great play, they saved the NBA.  (To give you an idea of how low the NBA had sunk, before they came into the league, the NBA finals were shown on television on tape delay because the league was no longer popular enough for prime time!)  Then Jordan’s charisma, dominance, and spectacular play continued the NBA’s resurgence.  I have no strong opinion on who is better between Johnson and Bird (I have gone back and forth through the years), however, I gave the edge to Johnson because of his 5-3 edge in championships.

Bird was a deadly shooter from any range or angle (.496 FG%, .376 3pFG%, 24.3 ppg), extremely clutch, a good rebounder (10.0 rpg), a great passer (probably the passing forward ever), and from day one, was great at making his teammates better.  Johnson was a good shooter (.520 FG%, .303 3pFG%, 19.5 ppg) who could score in a variety of ways and could have scored more if it had been needed by his teams.  He was a great ball handler, a fantastic passer, an excellent rebounding guard (7.2 rpg), and, like Bird, was great at making his teammates better from his first day in the league.  Both Bird and Johnson were better leaders and better at making their teammates better than Jordan was early in his career.  Once Jordan figured this out and got some talent behind him, I actually think Jordan was eventually better than both of them (I rate Bird and Johnson equal in this area) in their primes.  Jordan had the extra advantage of being so physically gifted that he drew so much attention to himself, that as a result, he made a bunch of role players look like they were big contributors.  And to be fair to Jordan (I know Jordan fans have been dying for me to point this out), Jordan had a LOT less talent around him than Bird and Johnson did in the first half of all three of their careers.  Bird and Johnson fans do not seem to realize (or acknowledge) that it is a lot easier to make talented players look great than it is to make not so talented players look good.  And, of course, it is a lot easier to win with Jabbar or Parish as your center than it is with Dave Corzine.  (I could go and list all the all-stars that Bird and Johnson played with that were not listed above, but this is all well- documented and I think even Bird and Johnson fans realize this point.)  The bottom line is that Jordan had less talent than Bird and Johnson throughout their careers, and Jordan won more championships.  There is no good answer to that fact.  Plus, Jordan won all 6 championships without a good center or point guard, which are considered the two most important positions in basketball.  Jordan contributed more offensively and a lot more defensively than Bird and Johnson did.  Lest we forget — defense is 50% of basketball, just like offense.  Sorry, I do not have to be as diplomatic as I was with the pre-1969 players (I saw Bird, Johnson, and Jabbar, for that matter, play):  Jordan was clearly better than Bird or Johnson.

When Johnson and Jordan finally met in the NBA finals in 1991, Jordan guarded Johnson at times (along with Scottie Pippen) and did it very well.  Johnson, except on a switch, did not even attempt to cover Jordan, probably knowing what Jordan fans knew:  that Jordan would embarrass Johnson with his speed, quickness, great moves, and breath taking drives to the basket.  When the series was over, with Jordan’s Bulls destroying Johnson’s Lakers (4 games to 1), it was so obvious that Jordan was the superior player that it seemed silly that this was even a debate before the series began.  Jordan scored, led, defended, rebounded, and most importantly, passed brilliantly (11.4 apg).  It was during these playoffs (witness the Bulls’ 4-0 dismantling of the two-time defending champion Detroit Pistons) that Jordan took making one’s teammates better to a new level and never forgot how (unfortunately for the rest of the league).

Unfortunately, Bird and Jordan did not have a great defining playoff moment.  Bird, while a great player, just did not have the defense, mobility, or the credentials (3 titles to Jordan’s 6) to be the best basketball player of all time.  If you need further proof, all you have to do is ask Bird or Johnson — they will each tell you that Jordan is the greatest they have seen.  Bird and Magic loved each other’s abilities and neither one is that humble.  If anybody would know who was better best among the three of them, it would be those two.

One more point, before we move on to the centers.  One other myth I would like to debunk:  that Bird and Johnson each would have won a lot more championships if they did not lose to each other’s teams so much in the finals.  This is hogwash for two reasons:  1) no one gets a free ride to a championship i.e., there are great teams and great players competing every year and in every decade in the NBA (great players of Russell’s era have a much better argument if you are going to go there); and 2) it is historically inaccurate — Bird and Magic only met 3 times, with Magic’s Lakers winning twice.  Besides, there is no guarantee that either of their teams would have won if they played some other team.

Incidentally, a player’s position did not affect my rankings at all.  From 1946 through 1978, the team with a dominant (or at least an excellent) center almost always won the championship.  In 1978-79 Seattle won without a dominant center (Jack Sikma) and then Bird, Magic, Jordan, and Tim Duncan took over and dominated the NBA from all four positions other than center (although Duncan sometimes plays center and Bird was as much a power forward as he was a small forward).  (Yes, I know Shaq won four titles, but he had Kobe Bryant (whom I ranked 11th) and Dwyane Wade (finals MVP) as heavy contributors).  So, it is now accepted by the basketball world that the position that you play does not influence how potentially dominant you can be as a player.  

Trying to conclusively rank Jabbar, Russell, and Chamberlain is next to impossible.  There are so many great arguments, pro and con, for all three players.  (As I alluded to earlier, I started following basketball because of Jabbar and I tried not to let this influence my rankings.)  I flipped a coin and came up with Jabbar first, because he seemed not to have any glaring weaknesses, and for his credentials.  (It should be noted before we go on with the comparisons that blocked shots and steals did not become official NBA statistics until the 1973-74, season which was Jabbar’s fifth year in the league and was after Russell and Chamberlain had finished their careers.  Who knows how many blocked shots by Chamberlain and Russell were not recorded?  Russell, by reputation, was the greatest shot blocker ever, and I am sure Wilt was not far behind.) 

In Jabbar’s first 12 seasons (through age 33) he averaged 28.1 ppg, 14.1 rpg and 2.24 bpg (only seasons 5-12 for blocked shots).  He also won 6 MVP awards in a ten-year period, his first being his second year, the last in his 11th season.  Hence, it is safe to to conclude he was clearly the best player in the NBA for a solid decade.  Pretty impressive stuff.  He managed to win 4 more titles (6 total) after his prime years, with the help of Magic.  He still holds the record for the most points scored (38,387) in the history of the NBA.  He was a powerful offensive force, equipped with his legendary sky hook, which is, perhaps, the only unstoppable shot in the history of the NBA.  Even Chamberlain (who rarely complimented any player but himself) admitted that he told his teammates and coaches that for the first time in his career he needed help guarding someone, mainly because of Jabbar’s sky hook.  He was also a clutch shooter (his signature sky hooks were like daggers to the other teams hearts in the closing minutes), a very good passer, and most importantly, seemed to do whatever was necessary (unlike Wilt) for his team to win.  In addition, he was a good free throw shooter for a big man (career FT% .721 regular season, .740 playoffs).  Jabbar was almost 42 years old when he retired (Russell was 35, and Chamberlain almost 37), which is why I started out by giving you his prime-year statistics since his numbers inevitably dropped. For sake of completeness, here are all three of their career numbers (that have not been provided earlier):  Jabbar, 24.6 ppg, .559 fg%, 11.2 rpg, 3.6 apg; Russell 4.3 apg; Chamberlain 30.1 ppg, .540 fg%, 4.4 apg.  As noted earlier, Jabbar’s rebounding numbers do not compare with Chamberlain’s (22.9) and Russell’s (22.5), but it was hardly a weakness.  Perhaps if Jabbar had rebounded like Wilt and Russell or defended like Russell, he would have been the greatest of all time, but the bottom line is, he did not.  While Jabbar was dominant in his own way, he just did not seem to control the outcome of a game as much as Jordan.  In addition, Jabbar never won a NBA title without a great point guard helping him out (1 with Robertson and 5 with Magic) and while we are on the subject, Magic never won a title without Jabbar.  

What can I say about Russell’s championships (11), defense, rebounding, passing (he was considered a very good passer), and team oriented philosophy that has not already been said?  Russell had a LOT of talent around him, a great coach, a small league (only 8 teams competing for the championships for most of his career), but still, he was the driving force for all those championships and is given credit for revolutionizing the game (e.g., his shot blocking and team defense).  And some of those championships were at the expense of Wilt, who, admittedly, had less talent around him than Russell did throughout the 1960′s.  However, four of the times that Russell and Chamberlain teams met in either the Eastern Conference Finals or the NBA Finals, one series went 6 games and 3 of the series went 7 games.  All four times the deciding game was close — all by 1 to 4 points.  They each were on the team with the better regular-season record twice when they played these series.  Are you thinking what I am thinking?  Exactly, it was not so much that Russell’s teams were better in these four series, but that Russell helped his team find a way to win.  And, perhaps more importantly, Chamberlain did not.  This also brings us full circle back to Wilt’s lousy free throw shooting which was even worse in the playoffs (a horrendous .465 career playoff FT%).  Part of the Celtics’ defensive philosophy against Chamberlain was to attack his weakness and send him to the foul line.  It seems safe to speculate that if Chamberlain had hit more free throws in the fourth quarter of these games, that Wilt might have had a couple more championships and Russell a couple less.

Chamberlain may have retired with the best individual numbers in NBA history, but basketball is different from, say, baseball.  Basketball is a more interactive team sport, and numbers do not tell the whole story.  In order to be a truly great player and especially necessary to be THE greatest basketball player of all time, a player has to make the players around him better.  And Chamberlain rarely displayed this quality.  He always seemed more interested in “his numbers” to prove to people how great he was.  Yes, he averaged an unbelievable 50.4 points per game one season (1961-62), but he took an astounding (almost) 40 shots per game.  How are his teammates going to shoot well when they are always cold from not shooting?  Will his teammates feel motivated to do the little things to help the team, when Wilt is getting all the shots and glory?  In the 1966-67 season Wilt dropped his scoring average over 9 points (from 33.5 the season before to 24.1) and finally won a championship in his eighth season.  Then, just when you thought he finally got the team concept, in the1967-68 season he decided he was going to show everyone that he was a great passer (I heard him allude to this in an interview), and to prove it he proceeded to lead the league in total assists (702, 8.6 apg; Robertson had 9.7 apg, but he only played in 65 games, so he only totaled 633 assists).  But, was this what was best for the team?  I do not know for sure, but I doubt it.  I do know that Chamberlain’s teams did not win the championships either of these years (1961-62 and 1967-68).  To fair to Wilt, in the second half of his career he only averaged 20.7 points a game because, he said, the coaches asked him to shoot less.  He also said he often wondered if this was a mistake.  Given his high shooting percentage and offensive dominance, I am going to have to side with Wilt on this one.  But, there has to a happy medium somewhere.  I just get the impression Jabbar and Jordan found it and Wilt, somehow, did not.  Wilt retired with big numbers and judging from the interviews of him that I have heard an even bigger ego.  But, only 2 championships.

Wilt fans like to point out that he was so great that they had to change the rules to make him less dominant.  The rules that changed included widening the lane (from 12 to 16 feet), instituting offensive goaltending, and revising rules governing inbounding the ball and shooting free throws.  But, does this mean he was just too good, or was it because the sport was still new and had not implemented all the rules that were fairest and best for the sport?  I will let you decide this one — I just pointed it out to give you a balanced picture of his career.

One last couple of things to justify Jordan as the best player of all time.  As I pointed out with Jabbar, Jordan (30.1 ppg (highest all-time), .497 FG%, .327 3pFG%, 6.2 rpg, 5.3 apg, 2.35 spg (3rd highest all-time), .83 bpg) was clearly the best player in the league for much of his career.  Until Jordan came around, no player had won a MVP award after the age of 31.  Jordan won two after the age of 31, the last being when he was 35, in what should have been his final season.  In a sport that involves major use of your legs this is very impressive.  Also, personally, I think Jordan deserved 10 MVP awards, not 5, but I did not do the voting.  I also think he would have won at least 9 championships in a row had he not retired twice when he did.  Jordan was an excellent ball handler, rebounder (for a guard), and passer.  He was also unbelievably clutch and his will-to-win and competitiveness are legendary.  He was blessed with the most athletic ability in the history of the NBA, and more importantly, he made the most of it through hard work and determination.  He was an unstoppable offensive force who could score in an almost limitless number of ways.  His dunks and creative moves to the basket were breathtaking.  He came into the league with a questionable jumper and left with the best 16-20 foot jump shot the league had ever seen.  He was a good, but not a great 3-point shooter (I think his .327% would have been higher if he did not take so many bail-out shots; ditto for Bird).  In the second half of his career he dunked and drove less and developed a low post game, which included an unstoppable turnaround fade-away jumper.  I got the impression when watching Jordan (from when he hit his prime until the end of his second retirement and championship run) that he was head and tails above everyone else on the court and was just letting the game come to him in the first three quarters of the game.  Then, even people in the North Pole knew what was going to happen:  Jordan was going take over the game, offensively AND defensively, and, almost at will, find a way for the Bulls to win.  No other player I watched came close to making me feel that way.  Yes, a perfect basketball player if there ever was one.  And clearly, as of June, 2007, the greatest basketball player ever.

In case you wondering who my dream team is — it is the first 12 players I ranked minus Shaq or Olajuwon (I have enough centers), and replacing one of them with Dr. J (whom I ranked 13th).  My starting five would be Jabbar, Russell (power forward), Bird, Johnson, and Jordan.  And no matter what team you came up with — you would be in trouble.  Unless, of course, you replace one of my 12 players with Lebron James 5 years from now (circa 2012), because King James is soon going to make me redo my rankings all over again!

Here are my rankings with brief comments about the players not discussed above:

                1.   Michael Jordan

                2.   Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

                3.   Magic Johnson

                4.   Larry Bird

                5.   Bill Russell

                6.   Wilt Chamberlain

                7.   Oscar Roberston

                8.   Jerry West –  (27.0 ppg, .474 FG%, .814 FT%, 6.7 apg, 5.8 rpg ) “Mr. Clutch” won one  championship (losing in the finals a heart-wrenching 8 times), zero MVPs, 10 times  All- NBA first team, 29.1 ppg in the playoffs (3rd highest all-time).  Great all-around player.   Deadly jump shooter and tenacious defender.

                9.   Elgin Bayor — (27.4 ppg, .431 FG%,     .780 FT%, 4.3 apg, 13.5 rpg) He led the Lakers to the  finals 8 times but lost every time, zero MVPs, 10 times All-NBA first team.  Had acrobatic moves ahead of his time.  Great all-around player.  Easily the best forward of the 1960′s.   Overshadowed by Russell’s Celtics and Chamberlain’s scoring.

                10.  Shaquille O’Neal — (25.9 ppg, .580 FG%, 11.6 rpg, 2.4 bpg) Shaq has 4 NBA Titles, 1 MVP, 3  finals MVPs.  Often compared to Wilt because of his power and size.  I always felt (and so do others) that he had the physical skills to be a better rebounder and shot blocker, but was (is) dominant nonetheless (although not pretty).

                11.  Kobe Bryant — (24.6 ppg, .453 FG%, .337 3pFG%, .838.FT%, 5.2 rpg, 4.5 apg, 1.5 spg)   Eerily similar to Jordan offensively with more range on his jumper, but worse shot selection.   He is also an excellent defender.  The best individual player in the league so far this Century, but until the 2005-06 playoffs showed little ability to make his teammates better.   Has 3 NBA Titles, Zero finals and Zero regular season MVPs (perhaps unfairly).  Only 29, so he still has a chance to prove himself.

                12.  Hakeem Olajuwon — (21.8 ppg, .513 FG%, .712 FT%, 11.1 rpg, 3.1 bpg, 2.5 apg, 1.8 spg)  “The Dream” had 2 NBA Titles, 1 MVP, 2 Finals MVPs, 2 time Defensive Player of the Year,  and 6 times All-NBA first team.  A great all-around finesse center who had a dizzying array  of low post moves.

                13.  Julius Erving — (22.0 ppg, .507 FG%, .261 3pFG%, .777 FT%, 6.7 rpg, 3.9 apg, 1.8 spg, .5  bpg)  The electrifying “D. J” had 1 NBA Title, 1MVP, 5 time All-NBA first team, 2  ABA titles,  3 ABA MVPs, 4 time All-ABA first team.  Obviously his numbers and credentials would have better if he played his entire career in the NBA.  His spectacular drives to the basket and powerful slam dunks made him one of the three most exciting players in NBA history.  Good all-around game, but not as great as the players listed above (e.g, defense, rebounding,  and outside shot all were good, but not great).  I am sure his fans want to see him listed higher, but while he was a good leader, he just does not have the reputation that the top  players above do for making the players around them better.

                14. Tim Duncan — (21.8 ppg, .509 FG%, .680 FT%, 11.9 rpg, 3.2 apg, 2.4 bpg) Has 3 NBA Titles  (currently playing in the NBA Finals as I write this), 2 MVPs, 3 Finals MVPs, 9 time  All-NBA first team, and 7 times All-defensive first team.  “Boring”, but a very consistent, unselfish power forward/center and a great all-around player.  I am sure that once his career is finished (perhaps sooner if he gets his 4th title in a week or two), he will have to be ranked higher.

                15.  Rick Barry — (23.2 ppg, .449 FG%, .330 3pFG%, .900 FT%, 6.5 rpg, 5.1 apg, 1.4 spg)  1 NBA  Title, zero regular season MVPs. 1 Finals MVP, 5 time All-NBA 1st Team. 1 ABA Title, 5 time All-ABA first team.  Like Erving, his numbers and credentials would have been better if he had not played the middle of his career in the ABA.  Great scorer and shooter — the only person in history to lead the NCAA, the NBA, and the ABA in scoring.  Became an excellent passer in the second half of his career and was a good defender at times.  His abrasive personality hurt team chemistry and his press image.  Hence, probably underrated by the media.

                16.  Bob Pettit — (26.4 ppg, .436 FG%, .721 FT%, 16.2 rpg, 3.0 apg) 1 NBA Title, 2 NBA MVPs, 10 times All-NBA first team.  Never saw him play, so I had to guess where to place him, but his reputation and numbers are too hard to ignore (rebounds per game only behind Wilt and Russell all-time and his points per game is 6th all-time).  Considered the first great power forward and was the NBA’s first MVP winner.  Known for his hard work and second effort.

                17.  George Mikan — (23.1 ppg .404 FG%, .782 FT%, 9.5 rpg, 2.8 apg) Won 4 NBA titles, zero  MVPs (only because there was no award), and 5 time All-NBA first teams, 2 NBL Titles, 1  NBL MVP, 2 time NBL All-1st team.  Who knows where to place this pioneer.  He changed the NBA to a big man’s game and established its first dynasty in the early fifties.  Because of low post dominance, the NBA had to widen the lane from 6 to 12 feet, which effectively lowered his points per game.

                18. Moses Malone — (20.6 ppg, .491 FG%, .769 FT%, 12.2 rpg, 1.3 bpg) He had 1 NBA Title, 3  MVPs, 1 Finals MVP, 4 times All-NBA 1st team, and 1 time All-defensive 1st team.  Went straight from high school to become one of the best centers of all time.  Was a very good scorer and relentless rebounder.

                19.  Karl Malone — (25.0 ppg, .516 FG%, .742 FT%, 10.1 rpg, 3.6 apg, 1.4 spg, .8 bpg) “The  Mailman” delivered with 2 MVPs, but zero NBA Titles (losing twice to Jordan’s Bulls), 11  times All-NBA first team, 3 times All-defensive 1st team.  He was a muscular, yet agile player who typified the modern-day power forward.

                20.  Charles Barkley — (22.1 ppg, .541 FG%, .735 FT%, 11.7 rpg, 3.9 apg, 1.5 spg, .8 bpg) “Sir  Charles” had zero NBA Titles, 1 MVP, 5 times All-NBA first team.  An entertaining   personality who was known for bluntness and was a great scorer and rebounder.   Amazingly, he played power forward, even though he was only about 6’4″.

                21.  John Stockton — (13.1 ppg, .515 FG%, .826 FT%, 10.5 apg, 2.2 spg)  The other half of the  fabulous “Stockton and Malone” duo who together, unfortunately, finished with zero NBA  Titles, zero MVPs, 2 times All-NBA first team (6 times second team).  Great all-around unselfish point guard who was an underrated outside shooter (.384 3pFG%), a good  defender (twice leading the league in steals), and was probably the 2nd best passer in NBA  history (after Steve Nash).

                22.  John Havlicek — (20.8 ppg, .439 FG%, .815 FT%, 6.3 rpg, 4.8 apg) “Hondo” had 9 NBA Titles,  zero MVPs, 1 Finals MVP, 4 times All-NBA first team, 5 times All-defensive 1st team.  One of the greatest all-around players ever, who was known for his clutch performances in big games, his endurance, and his great effort,.

                23.  Scott Pippen — (16.1 ppg, .473 FG%, .326 3pFG%, .704 FT%, 6.4 rpg, 5.2 apg, 2.0 spg)  Helped Jordan lead the Bulls to 6 NBA Titles, had zero MVPs, 3 times All-NBA first team,                and was 8 times All-defensive first team.  One of the most versatile players ever and even acted like a “point forward” at times.  Great defender.

                24.  George Gervin — (26.2 ppg, .511 FG%, .297 3pFG%, .844 FT%, 4.6 rpg, 2.8 apg) “The Iceman” had zero titles, zero MVPs (came in second twice), and 5 times All-NBA first team.  He was a phenomenal scorer (4 scoring titles behind only Jordan and Wilt) and was known for his silky-smooth jump shot and his patented finger-roll.

                25.  Bob Cousy — (18.4 ppg, .375 FG%, .803 FT%, 5.2 rpg, 7.5 apg) “The Houdini of the Hardwood” had 6 NBA titles, 1 MVP, 10 times All-NBA first team.  Truly revolutionized the point guard position with his great ball handling skills, court vision, and flashy passes while leading the league in assists 8 consecutive seasons.  Probably should be higher, but it is tough to know where, since all I have is highlights of him to go by.  (Note:  his shooting percentage was typical for back then.)

Logically, the MVP award should be determined this way:  if you could magically take each player off his (or her) team and make their team play their season all over again, which player’s departure would cause that team to drop the most in the standings (i.e., incur the most additional losses).  I am quite certain that is what is meant by an MVP in a team sport; I am equally certain not everyone uses this exact standard.  But, logically, I think they should, or they should rename the award to correlate with whatever standard they are using.  If they are voting for the “best player in the league” then they should name the award, “Player of the Year Award.”  I think we can agree that a person could theoretically could be the Player of the Year and not the MVP (and vice versa), since some players are better at making other players around them better for various reasons. 

Hence, ideally, there should be both awards in all team sports.  Sometimes there would not be duplication; sometimes there would be duplication.  However, this type of potential duplication would not be a travesty and would in fact, make things fairer and more interesting.  It would be fairer for two reasons.  First, it seems unfair to be the best player in the league and not receive an award to signify this.  Secondly, most sportswriters and sportscasters do not really vote for the “true” MVP; instead, they vote for the best player on one of the top 2 teams in the league.  If you think I am overstating this, take the NBA, for instance.  Starting with the 1988-89 season and through the 2004-05 season, the winner of the MVP Award was on the team with the 1st or 2nd (or tied for 2nd) best record 17 STRAIGHT years!

This eliminates all the players on the roughly 30 (assuming 32 teams, which is typical for major team sports in the US) other teams in the league.  How is this fair, consistent, or logically correct?  Obviously, it is not.  A bright 10-year-old could come up with the question:  what if the person who means the most to his team (i.e., the “true” MVP) is stuck on a lousy team?  Or, more specifically, what if the highest this great player can drag his non-talented team to, is say, the 6th or even the 8th best record in the league?  After all, he led them to the playoffs and a decent winning percentage.  Sorry, no vote for you.  This is silly, ridiculous, and moronic (do you get the impression I feel strongly about this?).  After all, theoretically, the MVP could actually play on the team with the worst record in the league, but this is extremely unlikely with all the parity in the league nowadays and even I would not go that far if I was voting.  Besides, since it is impossible to know for sure who the “true” MVP is — it seems reasonable to give the benefit of the doubt (in a close call) to the player on a team with at least a record close to .500.  But, to regularly limit your consideration to a player who plays on one of the top 2 teams just does not seem right unless you are going to find another name for the award.  I cannot think of a good name (“The Best Player on the Top Two Teams Award” seems a bit awkward), nor do I have the perfect solution to all of this.  But, making more of an effort to vote for the “true” MVP would be a good start.  And having the two awards to counter the fact that sportswriters and sportscasters apparently do not have the inclination or the ability to do this would be an improvement.   This is exactly what I have done at my site, ultimatesportsrankings.com.  As long there are MVP awards in sports, there will always be controversy, and while this may not be a bad thing, it cannot hurt to be as fair as possible.

The NBA and NFL are the only major sports organizations that prohibit players from entrance until a prescribed period after high school graduation.  Maurice Clarett is well known for unsuccessfully challenging the NFL’s rule that a player must be out of high school for three years to be eligible for the entry draft.  Federal Judge Shira Scheindlin initially ruled that the NFL could not bar Clarett from participating in the 2004 NFL Draft. This decision was later overturned by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and Clarett’s higher appeal was refused by the Supreme Court.   Drafts are permissible under anti-trust law because they are included in collective bargaining agreements between leagues and labor unions representing players.  In siding with the NFL, the Appellate Court stated that the labor market for NFL players was organized around a collective bargaining relationship that was provided for and promoted by federal labor law.  The court concluded that this was not a case in which the NFL was alleged to have conspired with the union to drive its competitors out of the market for professional football.  The NFL is subject to the nonstatutory labor exemption and is therefore immune from antitrust liability.  NFL clubs could therefore act jointly in setting terms and conditions of players’ employment without risking antitrust injury. 

If we put a young reader of this article (or any young Muhammad Ali fan) into a time machine and zapped him back forty or so years ago, two things concerning Ali would become obvious to the youngster:

1)      He really was as fast, quick, and as great as he had heard;

2)       He was a very unpopular sports figure.  The first should not come as much of a surprise to him or her, given the availability of VHS tapes, DVDs, and now, YouTube.  But, the second observation may shock him or her.  As hard as it is to believe about someone who is now as beloved and popular as any sports figure worldwide, Muhammad Ali was at one time not liked, well, actually hated by many people (whether they were sports fans or not).  Much of the hatred was not justified, of course, but bigotry and ignorance never are.  He was also loved by his fans — a true love or hate him celebrity if there was one.

(Before I go on I should give you my perspective:  I was born in 1959, I am white, and before Michael Jordan came around, Muhammad Ali was my favorite athlete.  Yes, as they say, this one is personal.)

To be fair and balanced, Ali brought some of the dislike for him upon himself.  Right after he won the heavyweight title from Sonny Liston in 1964, he announced that he had joined the Nation of Islam, which was often called the Black Muslims at the time.  The Black Muslims were in some ways (for lack of a better term) anti-white.  Ali’s religious beliefs at the time included viewing the white man as the “devil” and white people as not “righteous.”  He also claimed that white people hated black people.  All of these things were somewhat understandable, given how poorly many whites treated blacks (although rarely called blacks back then) at that time.  However, fairly or not, joining the Black Muslims was not going to make “white society” warm up to him.  Also, Ali was boastful — “I am the greatest” — “I’m pretty” — ” I can’t possibly be beat” — I “shook up the world” — I “float like a butterfly and sting like a bee” (my personal favorite sports quote of all time) and early in his career, even predicted in what round he would knock out his opponents (with amazing accuracy).  He was seen as a loudmouth who was both cocky and conceited.  He was the most controversial athlete in the US (maybe the world) AND then in 1967 he refused to serve in the United States Army during the Vietnam War as a conscientious objector, saying that the war was against his religion.  Most of the country was still behind the war in 1967 (however, this would soon change), so this was obviously not a popular move, and at least for the short term, increased the dislike towards him.  It was at this time that his popularity hit an all-time low while his controversial image hit an all-time high.

When Ali told the public that he had joined the Nation of Islam he also announced that he had changed his name from Cassius Clay to Muhammad Ali.  He said that “Clay” was a symbol of his ancestors’ enslavement, explaining that it was a name given to his slave ancestors by the white man.  I do not know if this name change affected his popularity, however, it should be noted that only a few journalists (notably Howard Cosell and boxing announcer Don Donphy) in the US accepted it at this time.  (Personally, I think Cassius Clay is one of the coolest and catchiest sports names I have ever heard, however, when thousands of people chant “Ali”, “Ali”, “Ali” it does have a nice “ring” to it (pun intended).)  One boxer, Ernie Terrell, refused to acknowledge Ali’s name change and was punished brutally by Ali throughout their 15-round bout.  This fight would be Ali’s 2nd to last fight before he was stripped of his title by the professional boxing commission.  He was also stripped of his boxing license near the end of 1967 for refusing to enter the U.S. Army.  He was sentenced to 5 years in prison for his refusing induction into the U.S. Army.  Ali appealed the conviction and was out on bail during his appeal.

Before he was stripped of his title in 1967, Ali had 9 successful title defenses (including a rematch with Liston and a convincing win against former heavyweight champion Floyd Patterson ) and had built up his record to 29-0 with 25 wins by knockouts (including TKOs).  The boxing world had never seen so perfect a boxer.  Or, so I thought.  Ali’s refusal to enter into the U.S. Army was big news and immediately made me a boxing fan.  My father, a fan of both Muhammad Ali and Joe Louis, explained to this sports-nut 8-year-old the best he could about Ali’s legacy and talents up to this point.  He explained to me that some white people did not like Ali because he was so loud and brash and did not toe the line as Joe Louis had.  Also, that some white people did not like him simply because he was black.  He explained that the government went after Ali for these reasons.  (In 1964 Ali failed the Armed Forces qualifying test because his writing and spelling skills were subpar.  The tests were revised in 1966, and “somehow” Ali was reclassified as 1A.)  Soon after this, Martin Luther King was assassinated, and I now learned the full meaning of the words bigotry and prejudice.  Even an 8-year-old (with the proper guidance) could see that Ali, while not perfect, was not being treated fairly. 

I became a Muhammad Ali fan even though I had never seen him fight!  Every chance I had over the next few years I would at look at boxing magazines and boxing books at newsstands, magazine stores, and libraries.  The articles (including ones in “Ring Magazine”, called the “bible of boxing”) that interested me the most were the ones where the so-called boxing experts (who I suspect were all older white guys at that time) would rate the greatest fighters of all time (yes, there was an important point to this story), and specifically, the greatest heavyweights of all time.  Routinely, Ali did not even make the lists of greatest fighters (pound-for-pound) and on the lists for greatest heavyweights of all time he was much lower than I expected, usually 6th-10th and sometimes not even in the top 10!  My father had told me he thought Ali and Louis were the two greatest heavyweights ever, so imagine my surprise.  Was my father wrong (I was confident he was not), or were the boxing “experts” underrating him because they did not like him and/or because they were prejudiced?  Rocky Marciano,  Jack Dempsey, Gene Tunney, all white, were always rated higher than Ali.  (Dempsey, I would later learn, refused to fight any of the black heavyweight fighters of his time.  How could a neutral person (say a person with green skin) not rate him lower just because he ducked at least half the good and/or great heavyweights of his time?)  These lists made me so mad that to this day I look at any athletes’ rankings with a jaundiced eye, especially when it is from a very small sample of people.  Think about the reaction of our imaginary young Ali fan if he or she saw these lists!  (I am sure this is surprising to a lot of readers, which is part of the reason that I decided to write this article.)

The boxing experts (and I use that term as loosely as humanly possible) said that while Ali was fast (how is that for an understatement?), he had little or no power (what drugs were they on?).  They also said he had poor technique on defense, mainly because he would often avoid punches by leaning his head straight back.  (This was, at the time, considered poor technique because the fighter would be off-balance and if he got got caught with a punch, it would accentuate the force of that punch and, of course, increase the chance of a knockdown or knockout.)  Some writers even suggested he did not take a punch well (hello, is anybody out there?).  They suggested both of his victories over Liston were fixed (with no proof) and that Liston suddenly was not as great as they thought he was before he fought Ali (Ali was a 7-1 underdog when they fought for the title, and Liston was considered “invincible” before the fight).  My favorite was the implication that Ali’s first victory over Liston was not that impressive because Liston got “old in the ring” — a phenomenon that logically does not exist (as you know, people age gradually over time, not in an instant), but creative nonetheless.  They had other lame reasons (I cannot remember them anymore) for rating this super fast and unbelievably talented undefeated fighter so low.  I suppose I could go and explain why all these criticisms are not true, (I will save that for my article, “The 10 Greatest Heavyweight Boxers of All Time”) but that is not the point of this article.  The point that I am making, is that while Ali is a very popular figure right now and considered the greatest heavyweight of all time and one of the two greatest fighters all time (“pound for pound” — along with Sugar Ray Robinson — I give the edge to Ali), neither of these things were close to being that way in 1967.  The question is:  How and why did he magically transform himself to how he is viewed currently?

In order to answer this question, we have to finish the story (both mine and Ali’s).  Ali’s last title defense was in March 1967 against Zora Folley, and the next time he that he was able to fight was in October 1970 against Jerry Quarry, a top contender for the heavyweight crown.  Ali was no longer the official champion, even though he had never lost a fight (how fair does this seem?).  For the Quarry fight, Ali was able to get a boxing license through the help of a state senator in Georgia, because Georgia was the only state in America without a boxing commission.  Ali won in 3 rounds when the fight was stopped because of a cut to Quarry’s face.  Although rusty, Ali was clearly better than Quarry.  Sadly, though, Ali was not the same fighter as before.  Ali had lost some of his speed, quickness, bounce, and sharpness because of the 3-year, 7-month lay-off.  Ali was 25 years, 2 months old when he last fought and was now 28 years, 9 months old.  Even sadder was when the realization sank in that the sports world had missed seeing the greatest and most exciting boxer in history fight during his best prime years.  (On a personal note, this made me even angrier than those moronic all time heavyweight rankings lists.)  Soon after the Quarry fight, Ali was able to get a boxing license in New York, when the New York Supreme Court ruled that Ali had been unjustly denied a boxing license.  He fought this fight in Madison Square Garden against another top contender, Oscar Bonavena.  Ali, who was ahead on all 3 of the judges’ scoring cards, knocked down Bonavena 3 times in the 15th round, which caused an automatic stoppage of the fight.

Soon after that, Ali finally got a shot at the heavyweight title with a fight against the current “champion”,  Joe Frazier (who also happened to be undefeated at 26-0).  Never before in the history of boxing had two undefeated fighters, both with legitimate claims to the heavyweight crown, fought for the heavyweight championship.  It was the most anticipated fight in boxing history and was billed, appropriately, as “The Fight of the Century.”  I remember Quarry, who also fought and lost to Frazier (a TKO — again a cut to Quarry’s face) shortly before he fought Ali, predicted Ali would win because he was too fast for Frazier.  Who better than Quarry would know?  On March 8th, 1971, a now 11-year-old boy’s sports hero was finally going to get the title back that was unjustly taken from him.  Or, so I thought.  I was helping my brother with a morning paper route at the time, and I woke up at 5:30 on the morning after the fight and literally ran down the steps to see the morning paper.  I grabbed the paper, and I still remember the headlines in huge capital letters (biggest headline I ever saw) “IT’S FRAZIER.”  My heart sank as low as a heart could sink.  I am surprised anyone got their papers that morning.  Sometimes life is just not fair, I thought.  Then I imagined how Ali must have felt that morning.  And, how low was Ali going to be on those stupid lists now?

The fight was very close and Frazier fought a great fight (his best performance ever) and even knocked Ali down with a vicious left hook in the final round (the 15th).  At the time, there was no “10-point-must scoring system”, so whoever won the round got a point.  I have since watched the fight three times and I scored it 8-7 all three times, with Ali winning each time.  You can watch the fight and make your own decision.   All three judges had Frazier winning — 8-6-1, 9-6, 11-4 (what fight was he watching?).  Both fighters spent time in the hospital after the fight, with Frazier spending more time there.  Hmm.  But, as far as the record books go, Ali had lost his biggest fight (so far, at least).

Soon after the fight, on June 28, 1971, the United States Supreme Court, in a unanimous 8-0 (With one abstention — no — Antonin Scalia was not on the bench at that time) decision, reversed Ali’s conviction for refusing to enter the U.S. Army.  Finally, some good news for Ali and his fans.  With the conviction and the 5-year jail sentence no longer hanging over his head, Ali, like a man possessed (and with good reason), fought and won an amazing 10 times in 17 months against top heavyweight opposition between July, 1971 and February, 1973.  It seemed as if Ali was trying to make up for lost time, get all the rust off, and force a rematch with Frazier.  Unfortunately, Frazier defended his title against hard-punching and also undefeated (37-0) George Foreman in January, 1973, and in somewhat of a surprise, lost his title when he was destroyed by Foreman.  Foreman knocked Frazier down (as Cosell famously screamed “down goes Frazier, down goes Frazier”) an astonishing 6 times in just 2 rounds before the fight was stopped.  In March of 1974, Ali lost to an excellent fighter, Ken Norton (29-1), when Norton broke Ali’s jaw and won a close decision.  Six months later, Ali won the rematch against Norton in another close decision.

In January, 1974, Ali finally got his rematch against Frazier, although this time it was not for the heavyweight crown.  Foreman had agreed (at least unofficially), however, to fight the winner for a shot at his heavyweight crown.  In the second round, Ali had Frazier in trouble on the ropes and it appeared he might knock Frazier out when the referee stopped the fight because he said he thought he heard the bell signifying the end of the round.  There was, however, still almost 30 seconds left in the round.  Frazier was able to recover and the fight ended up going the distance (12 rounds).  Ali clearly won a unanimous decision with the judges scoring it, 8-4, 7-4-1, 6-5-1 for Ali.  Even though Ali was 3 years older than he was in the 1st fight, he somehow looked a little sharper than in the 1st fight.  It appeared that any rust that could possibly be knocked off was fully knocked off now, even though he was never the same fighter after the lay-off.  Ali finally had another shot at the heavyweight crown, but as they say, “be careful what you wish for.” 

Meanwhile, Foreman fought Norton two months later and pulverized him with 3 knockdowns in 2 rounds before the fight was stopped.  Foreman had won his last 8 fights with 1st or 2nd round knockouts.  He was an impressive 40-0 with 37 knockouts (including TKOs), 30 of which occurred in the first 3 rounds!  He also was just hitting his prime at age 25.  Ali was now 44-2 and past his prime at age 32.  Boxing experts were saying that Foreman had the hardest punch of anyone in the history of boxing (this time the boxing experts knew what they were talking about — go watch the Frazier and Norton fights if you have any doubt).  It looked to me at the time that Foreman had a shot at going down in history as being the greatest heavyweight ever.  He looked more invincible and powerful than Liston did before he fought Ali the first time.  In addition, Foreman was younger than Liston (age 32) when Liston fought Ali in 1964, and Ali was now older.  Plus, Foreman had destroyed Frazier and Norton while Ali had 4 close decisions with them, winning 2 and losing 2.  Foreman was heavily favored (5-1 odds) and even Ali’s longtime supporter, Cosell, did not think Ali had a chance of winning.  How come Ali and his now 15-year-old supporter cannot get a break?  I actually thought Ali would find a way to win a 15 round decision by winning the later rounds as Foreman got tired, but I do not know if I actually believed it, since I always thought Ali would win (excluding his two fights when he was old — 38 and almost 40 years old).  My father agreed, but neither one of us was confident enough to make it sound like a real prediction.  After all, Foreman looked awesome and fought as if he had only one goal in mind when he was in the ring — to knock the other fighter senseless — and Ali was going to be no exception.

Interestingly, Ali actually gave away part (but only part) of his strategy by making fun of Foreman’s slow, long, deliberate punches (one of the funniest moments in sports history) and mentioning the fact that Foreman had only fought past the 8th round (remember that round) three times in his career.  Ali said that Foreman would get tired, and I believed him, because it made sense to me logically.  Provided that a 32-year-old Ali, who was slower now and no longer capable of dancing for 15 rounds, could avoid getting knocked out.  Tall order against the likes of Foreman.

The fight finally took place on October 30, 1974, in Kinshasa, Zaire and was billed as “The Rumble in the Jungle.”  Ali, who usually started slowly in the second half of his career, surprisingly came right at Foreman and caught Foreman several times with punches to his head.  While Foreman looked imposing in the ring, it was clear after the end of the first round that Ali was faster, quicker, and most importantly, by far the better “boxer”.  While none of this was surprising, seeing this gave Ali fans hope.  Then in the second round, Ali unveiled the other half of his strategy — the half he did not tell anyone about.  For most of the next 7 rounds, Ali sat on the ropes and let Foreman hit him with all his might.  Ali absorbed the punches with his arms and fists and also threw in some well-timed counter punches.  Ali even taunted Foreman in an effort tire him both mentally and physically.  Each round Foreman grew more and more tired and, as a result, he threw his punches with decreasing force and effectiveness.  Near the end of the 8th round, Ali caught an exhausted Foreman in a counter- punching combination, and Foreman spun around and fell mightily to the canvas.  Goliath was slain with a combination of brains and brawn, and 7 long years after his title was unjustly stripped from him, Ali was again the “rightful” heavyweight champion.  And a 15-year-old sports nut thought to himself:  Can my sports hero finally get some respect from the so-called boxing experts?  Do you still think he cannot take a punch?  Did you see that explosive, powerful combination at the end of the fight?  Did you notice that poor defensive technique now known as the “rope-a-dope?”  Was this fight fixed also?  Will we ever see a heavyweight as fast and quick as Ali?  Will Foreman suddenly and magically be considered overrated just like Liston?  And, did a 25-year-old Foreman get “old in the ring” too?

This fight, more than any other, helped persuade Ali’s critics that they were wrong about his overall abilities as a boxer (whether they actually admit it or not — I am doing it for them).  The rest of his career, except for his 3rd fights with Norton and Frazier (the “Thrilla in Manila”), are fairly inconsequential to our discussion.  He beat Norton in a close fight to gain a 2-1 career edge against him (Norton would eventually win a portion of the heavyweight crown after Ali retired).  Before the third fight with Frazier, Ali called Frazier a “gorilla” while punching a play gorilla as if it were Frazier during the promotion of the fight.  Joke or no joke, all things considered, for Ali to call another black man a gorilla was truly a despicable act and his lowest moment as a public figure.  (Openly cheating on his second wife around the time of the Foreman fight was not an admirable action either.)  The fight, however, was another classic, and Ali again showed both his ability to take a punch and a lot of heart.  In a sometimes brutal back and forth fight, Ali won when Frazier’s corner did not allow him to answer the bell for the 15th round because his eyes were closed and he had taken a beating the last couple of rounds.  Ali fell to the canvas in exhaustion when he realized he had won.  Ali now also had a 2-1 career edge against Frazier.  Later, Ali would lose his title to an inexperienced Leon Spinks and then win it back 6 months later to become the first fighter to win the heavyweight title 3 times.

In 1998, Ring Magazine ranked Ali as the #1 heavyweight boxer of all time (finally!).  Ring Magazine also did a ranking of the 80 greatest boxers in 80 years in 2002, and Ali was 1st among heavyweights and 3rd overall (Sugar Ray Robinson was 1st overall, the great Henry Armstrong was 2nd, and Louis was 4th overall, 2nd among heavyweights).  ESPN recently listed the 50 greatest boxers of all time, and Ali was 2nd overall and 1st among heavyweights.  Five-time middleweight champion Sugar Ray Robinson was 1st overall and Joe Louis was second among heavyweights and fourth overall.  At the end of 1999, ABC voted Ali the “Athlete of the Century” ahead of Jordan, who was second.  Also late in 1999, a panel of 46 sports experts voted Ali the 3rd Greatest Athlete of the 20th Century.  Jordan was first (and deservedly so), Joe Louis was 11th, and Sugar Ray Robinson was 24th.  Now I ask you again:  How and why did Muhammad Ali’s magical transformation take place?

His transformation actually happened in two different ways.  First, there is his popularity as a public sports figure, and second, the ranking of his boxing skills.  I will deal with his boxing skills first.  When I first started looking at these lists, Ali had only finished the first half of his career.  He was, as previously mentioned, 29-0, and in his 9 title defenses he looked heads and tails above his opponents.  To get full appreciation of Ali’s greatness you have to watch his 10 fights between 1964 and 1967 when he was between the ages of 22 and 25.  They are the most incredible display of boxing you will ever see.  Blinding speed and quickness, amazing footwork, sharp jabs, and powerful combinations.  He also displayed an amazing ability to avoid getting hit by dancing around his opponents and using his abnormally quick reflexes to avoid their punches.  This ability and the speed of his punches and footwork had never been seen before in the history of boxing.  As for power, I think 25 knockouts (including TKOs), 14 of which were in the first 5 rounds, in 29 bouts, speaks loudly enough.  In one fight in particular, against Cleveland “Big Cat” Williams (check it out on YouTube where you can witness the “Ali Shuffle”), he looked so sharp, fast, and powerful, yes powerful, you would have thought we did have that time machine mentioned in the beginning of our story, and that he was an athlete from 200 years into the future!  Nobody, not even the great Joe Louis, would have stood a chance against Ali that night.  In other words, during his prime, his opponents were completely outclassed — he barely got touched in most of these fights.  (In the Williams fight, for example, (by one count that I read) Ali landed over 100 blows while Williams landed only three!) 

After the lay-off, however, it was a different story, since he lost some of his speed, quickness, and the bounce in his legs, so he could no longer dance around his opponents as he used to for an entire fight.  So, Ali had to find other ways to win.  He also had to take punishment, something that was not tested much in the first half of his career.  It turns out that his ability to take a punch might have been his biggest strength, but we did not know it till after 1969.  So, while he did not look as good overall in the second half of his career, he did display two important qualities in a fighter which he had not displayed before:  1) an amazing ability to take a punch and punishment; and 2) an ability to find other ways to win, such as “ring smarts.”  So, to be fair to the so-called boxing experts in the late 1960′s and 1970′s, the evaluation of his boxing skills should have gone up, but not by that much.  Which means that some of them had grossly underestimated his abilities.  This includes Ring Magazine. 

Ring Magazine has actually changed ownership and publishers (a couple of times), so I suspect that none of the people who did the rankings 25-40 years ago were the same ones who did the rankings in 1998.  I also suspect that, unlike now, the people doing the rankings (all the rankings I saw — not just Ring’s) were ALL middle-aged or, more likely, older white guys.  These so-called boxing experts were not going to give a brash, loudmouth, flamboyant, anti-establishment black male his due and rate him higher than their childhood heroes, whether they were white boxers or a toe-the-line black boxer like Joe Louis.  (Ironically, Jack Johnson, the first black heavyweight champion (1908-1915), has always been underrated for the same reason.)  My father, a very liberal, intelligent man, was apparently able to look past Ali’s skin color and in-your-face personality and just evaluate only what he saw in the ring; these so-called boxers apparently could not.  There is just no other explanation for the disparities in the rankings.  Sometimes sports can teach you an important lesson in life.  I know I learned one from all of this.

But, this only tells half the story.  As mentioned in the beginning of this article, lots of people, sports fans or otherwise, just did not like Ali’s personality; other people loved it.  I mentioned many “negative” parts to his personality; however, I have yet to mention any likable parts to Ali’s personality (pretty good restraint for an Ali fan).  Ali was funny, quick-witted, intelligent, an entertaining poet, charismatic, and at times, classy and kind-hearted.  So, why do people now see his positive qualities and overlook the negative qualities and actions of Ali?  You almost never hear anything negative about Ali anymore.  When he was the final Olympic Torchbearer in Atlanta in the 1996 Olympics, in listening to the announcers and the fans’ reception, you would have thought he had been elevated to a God-like status.  

How did this part of Ali’s magical transformation take place?  Well, first, people have changed.  While admittedly a slow process, each generation of people is less prejudiced than the one before.  Second, soon after Ali refused induction into the U.S. Army, the Vietnam War started to become very unpopular.  Instead of being seen as a draft dodger, Ali was now being seen as a hero for standing up to an unjust war and draft.  Plus, he did this at a great personal, sacrifice, losing 3 and half of his prime years, with very little complaint.  Third, he lost.  An individual’s popularity sports or otherwise, goes up whenever they have a setback and bounce back from it.  Fourth, in his three fights with Frazier, Ali showed he had lots of heart (so did Frazier).  Fifth,  redemption,  Ali gained his “rightful” title back 7 years after it was unjustly taken away.  Plus, he did it with a feat that can only be described as sheer athletic brilliance, while absorbing great punishment against what appeared to be an unbeatable Goliath.  Sixth,  sympathy,  The punishment that Ali took in the ring resulted in his now having Parkinson’s syndrome.  It is sad to see such a quick-witted, fast-talking, brilliant athlete, struggle to talk and control the shaking of his hands.  As a result, people do feel sorry for him.

It would be interesting to see how Ali is viewed 100 years from now.  I am sure, thanks to his magical transformation that has taken place over the last 40 years, it will be better than it was in 1967.  And as a life-long Ali fan, this makes the little boy inside of me happy.  It is also nice to know that my father did not steer me wrong in all of this and that the so-called boxing experts were flat-out wrong (which is only fitting since they underrated Ali for the wrong reasons).  In addition, this taught me an important lesson:  Never let your personal bias or views about someone affect how you rate someone’s abilities, in sports or in other areas of life.  I told you in the beginning — this one is personal.                          

The BCS must be the only major sports organization in the world that refuses to make a major change to their sport even though almost all their fans want the change.  And the sad part is that the fans really have no recourse other than not watching college football which would only take away something that gives them pleasure.  The BCS knows that realistically no fan strike will ever take place so they do what they want no matter how stupid their actions are.

The BCS is managed by the commissioners of the 11 NCAA Division I-A conferences, the director of athletics at the University of Notre Dame, and representatives of the bowl organizations.  The latter of which suggests that the BCS system and stubbornness might be about money.  (It is hard to know for sure, but I do address the bowl organizers concerns below.)

The BCS arrogance is one reason I like the NFL and the NBA a lot more than College Football.  The NFL and the NBA listen to their fans and are constantly tweaking their game and system to make their fans happy.  It does not seem to be a difficult concept to grasp — which leads me to believe that the BCS collectively is not very smart.  (I was going to say that it is hard to believe that such incompetent, unintelligent individuals acquired such important positions then I remembered George W. Bush has been our President the last eight years.)  And since they are not very smart, let me help them with a workable, fair, and most importantly, an exciting, fan-friendly play-off system.

First problem: determining the number of teams that qualify for the playoff system.  16 or more team are too many and unnecessary.  We just want to see the best teams play and find out who is the best team in the country (the best we can given that it is has to a single elimination tournament).  If you are ranked 9th in the country it is highly likely that you are best college team in the country; however, the same cannot be said if you are ranked 5th or especially 3rd (which, of course, the main reason the current system is stupid, unfair, and unsatisfying).  Hence, since so few of the top teams play each other and knowing which teams are really better is just a guess, having an 8 team playoff seems fairest and the most logical.  Besides, with 8 teams — instead of only 4 teams — we would get 7 potentially exciting playoff games and not just 3.  An 8 team playoff can be done in 3 weeks which is very doable.  Problem #1 solved and it was not that difficult.

Second problem:  making the bowl sponsors happy.  Rotate the finals, the semis, and one (or 2) quarterfinal game (their choice) among the 4 (or 5 if the Championship Game is now considered a separate major bowl) major bowls.  The other 2-3 quarterfinal games can be rotated among the other medium size bowls.  Problem #2 solved and it was not that difficult.

Gosh, no more problems — wow — that was hard.  How about the advantages of the playoff system that we have not yet discussed.  Well, the current system penalizes teams for playing a tough schedule since one loss might drop you out of the championship game (last year was an exception).  This discourages teams from scheduling any touch teams in their few non-conference games.  Also, the current system has one important game, 4 meaningless major bowl games, and several more meaningless non-major games.  Our (the 94% of us) way, we have 7 important bowl games.  Not good for the fans (what’s new?). 

Plus, the one loss and your done possibility penalizes teams that play in a tough conference such as the SEC.  Also, the Big Ten does not have a Championship Game so they have an advantage over the major conferences that do since they avoid another tough game.  Not fair to the teams (what’s new?).

The BSC claims that it is concerned that a playoff among college football’s leaders would make football a two-semester sport and would lessen the importance of a regular season that now has a do-or-die feel to it from week to week.  Poppycock. 

The do-or-die games only involve the teams at the very top when only 2 teams make the playoffs.  With 8 teams making the playoffs a lot more teams are involved in do-or-die games each week since a team currently ranked, say 13th, still has a shot at making the top 8 if they continue winning and the teams in front of them lose.  And even the top 2 teams are still in a do-or-die situation every game unless they are undefeated and it is the last week if the season (in which case they would probably still make the playoffs).  Even then, they would still want to win for seeding purposes.  Hence, this is actually another advantage of the playoff system — not a disadvantage.

OK, I have solved all of the major problems and concerns of having a college playoff system and it was not that difficult.  Unfortunately, I doubt the BCS is listening, after all, they have already proven they are a bunch of idiots.  And that is the nicest word I could think of for individuals who do not care about their fans.  Sad, but true.

People’s tastes can change a lot in 200 years in any culture or country; however, they rarely change that quickly when it comes to major pastimes.  Baseball (first match played in the US, 1846), soccer (1869), American football (1869), basketball (1891), and hockey (1893) have all been around for a long time and they are not going anywhere in the near future.  On the other hand, in the first 25-50 years of the 20th Century, the only 3 “major” sports that existed in the US were baseball, boxing, and horse racing.  And the last two are slowing dying.  Hence, allow me to back off from the never comment, after all, I had to get your attention somehow.

Admittedly, soccer is the most popular sport in the world, with 175 countries considering “football” to be their national pastime.  However, while this is not totally irrelevant to our discussion (after all, at least you can make the argument that it is a highly marketable sport), soccer’s tremendous worldwide popularity has little effect on its popularity in the US.  This could change, of course, if a very large number of individuals immigrate to the US from countries where soccer is very popular.  Given the current state of immigration laws, for purposes of this discussion, I am going to assume this will not happen in the near future.

Unless you were born yesterday (in which case you have incredible reading skills for a one-day-old), by now you know that soccer is not popular in the US because it does have enough scoring, action and/or contact for most Americans’ tastes.  To Americans who like the NFL (arguably the number 1 league and sport in the country), soccer seems like a chess match which often results in a stalemate.  Americans like sports with action that contain the exciting possibility of a comeback.  We do not want to watch a sport where when a team goes up 2-0 in the first half — it feels like an insurmountable lead!  Baseball does not have a lot of action or contact, however, it has enough scoring to keep its many fans happy.  And comebacks almost always seem possible in a baseball game, which holds their fans’ interest.  Football has plenty of scoring and lots of action and contact.  Basketball has lots of scoring and action, but little contact.  Hockey has plenty of scoring and action, but more contact than it should.  Soccer has little action, little scoring, and little contact.  Not a good combination for Americans. 

Keep in mind it does not matter whether you like soccer the way it is — it only matters whether the typical American sports fan likes it or not — no matter the reasons why.  You might really appreciate the strategy in soccer, however, I will counter with:  Why should I watch a boring “strategy” sport when I can watch an exciting sport  with scoring, lots of action AND lots of strategy (i.e., American Football)?

Sorry, soccer fans, your sport has a long uphill battle for popularity in the US.  As long as soccer remains very popular worldwide (which seems very likely), FIFA will make no major rule changes.  And without major rules changes there will be no significant increase in scoring, which of course, will prevent soccer from becoming popular in the US.  Unless, of course, Major League Soccer wants to play by different rules than FIFA, which seems very unlikely.

Soccer organizations and their fans are very much like MLB and its fans in regard to tradition and their resistance to change.  Tradition has it place in everything in our society, including sports; but, there is always a balancing act between the sacredness of tradition and the improvement that change can make. Soccer needs to make some changes to create more scoring if it really wants to make it in the US.

I am less resistant to change than baseball and soccer fans, so let me make a few suggestions to improve soccer.  First, get rid of the rule that limits substitutions to 3 per game.  I see no reason not to allow unlimited substitutions, just as in American football and basketball (my two favorite sports to watch).  Fresh bodies will result in faster, better play, and more action.  It will probably increase the scoring a little, but only a little, though, since the defenders will also be fresher.  Second, have the official time on display for all to see.  Currently, only the referee, who can add “injury time” to the official time, is the only one who knows how much exact time is left.  This is nothing short of moronic.  It takes some of the suspense away from the fans in a close game and also affects the ability of the players to strategize near the end of the game.

Third, allow the players to use their hands.  OK, I am kidding.  I am just preparing you for my third suggestion.  You ready?  Here goes:  get rid of the offside rule.  Originally (1856/1863), the offside rule did not let the attacking player touch the ball “unless there are more than three of the other side before him.”  In the 1870′s, after much discussion between clubs, it was changed to 3 defenders.  Then in 1925, it was changed to 2 defenders and an immediate increase is scoring resulted (from 4700 goals to 6373 — a 36 % increase.)  Hmm.  Of course you would have to limit the offside to, say, 2 players, who are offside — otherwise a team could pack of a bunch of players in front of the goal keeper.

I know soccer purists hate this suggestion, because they claim it will ruin the quality of the game.  I find their objections very unconvincing (especially with my suggestion where I would limit it to two players even on direct or corner kicks).  There would more excitement, more action, more fast breaks, and most importantly, more scoring.  I played soccer in high school and I tried to watch games in the last 3 World Cups.  Even the Brazilian men were boring.  Some of the games were unbearable, and I love all sports. 

Please, if you want soccer to EVER be popular in the US, get rid of the unnecessary offside rule.  Or make the goals bigger.  Anything to increase the scoring to make it an exciting sport and not a chess match.  I love chess, but it is not sport.  And for the typical American sports viewer, neither is soccer.       

At this site, I put a disclaimer under the baseball category, encouraging voters to consider the players from the Negro Leagues.  Unfortunately, it is just a guess where to rank the players from the Negro Leagues for several reasons.  First, many of them never played in MLB, or when they did, they were past their prime.  For instance, the legendary Satchel Paige did not start pitching in MLB until he was around the age 42 or 43 (depending on which date of birth you believe).  Second, the statistics from the Negro Leagues were incomplete.  Third, those statistics are almost meaningless when comparing them to the MLB statistics, since the quality of the Negro Leagues were hard to determine.  Fourth, the leagues were different statistically:  from 1930-1950, the batting average in the Negro Leagues was .308, while the batting average in MLB was .269.  This difference was apparently (from what I read — including quotes from Negro League hitting stars such as Buck O’Neil) the result of a lack of pitching depth in the Negro Leagues.  A study of 15 Negro League Stars (including Roy Campanella and Willie Mays) that I saw showed the same players hitting .319 in the Negro Leagues and then .271 in MLB.

You may have heard claims that the Negro Leagues were actually stronger than MLB because they consistently beat them in exhibitions.  Well, yes and no.  The teams from MLB rarely had all their players from the major leagues — many of the players that played in these exhibitions were minor league players.  Here is a study I found on the internet from a blog on Baseball Fever (the numbers on the right, e.g. (4-6) were the number of MLB players that played in the games; Major League Teams means that most of the same players were from the same team played) (games included are between 1902-1946):

Negro League Teams vs. Major League “All Stars” (0-3)

36 – 12 (.750);

Negro League Teams vs. Major League “All Stars” (4-6)

23 – 15 (.605);

Negro League Teams vs. Major League “All Stars” (7+)

41 – 49 (.456);

Negro League Teams vs. Major League Team (4-6)

9 – 5 (.643);

Negro League Teams vs. Major League Team (7+)

23 – 29 (.442);

Total

Negro League vs. Major Leaguers (4-6)

32 – 20 (.615)

Negro League vs. Major Leaguers (7+)

64 – 78 (.451).

I will let you draw your own conclusion from all of this.  However, I will say this, while MLB might have had more depth than the Negro Leagues, it seems obvious that the stars in the Negro Leagues would have been stars in MLB.  Joe DiMaggio called Paige the best pitcher he ever faced (you would think he would know).  Was Satchel the best pitcher ever?  Was Josh Gibson the best home run hitter ever?  Was James “Cool Papa” Bell (great nickname) the fastest player and the best base stealer to ever play baseball?  How great an all-around hitter was Buck Leonard?  I do not have a definitive answer to any of these questions and sadly, neither does anyone else.

Tradition has it place in everything in our society, including sports; but, there is always a balancing act between the sacredness of tradition and the improvement that change can make.  Baseball and baseball fans, in my opinion, have always over emphasized tradition and have continually failed to see the advantages of change.  For heaven’s sake — it is a sport — not a religion (yes, even if you are a fanatic).

Football and Basketball are constantly adjusting their rules, schedules, playoffs, conferences, leagues, and anything else they can think of to keep their sport fresh and make it more exciting.  They can tell by studies, attendance, and television ratings that their fans enjoy a certain amount of scoring (for example) for their optimum viewing pleasure, and they adjust their rules slightly to do this.  Football is as popular as ever and has replaced baseball as our National Pastime.  Basketball is doing well also, and I suspect the NBA Finals starting this week will get high ratings because of the ideal Boston-Los Angeles match-up. 

As for hockey and soccer, do not even get me started with their problems.  Yes, I know, soccer fans, that soccer is the world’s most popular sport, but, it is the fifth most popular team sport in the US.  And soccer will never make it big in the US until they change the rules to allow for more scoring.  Who wants to watch a sport where a 2-0 first half score is an insurmountable lead?  Enough said.  Hockey, by allowing unnecessary clutching, grabbing, holding, tripping, elbowing, checking, and most of all, fighting — denies their athletes a chance to show off their exciting athletic skills (e.g., stick handling and skating).  A larger rink, as there is in international play, would also help.

Baseball and their fans resist any change no matter how small, reasonable, or advantageous the proposed change.  For example, some fans were going to commit suicide merely because interleague play was proposed.  And baseball itself, added interleague play at least 50 years after it should have and without a good reason.  How about we deny some naturally great rivalries (e.g., Yankees-Mets, Cubs-White Sox) by not allowing them to play?  That makes a lot of sense.  Interleague has only been good for baseball and it was fought tool and nail.

The same can be said for the addition of the wild card team and hence, the extra round of playoffs.  There was great resistance at first and now practically everyone loves it.  However, I think baseball has it wrong — the first round of the playoffs should also be best of 7 games.  It seems unfair and frankly, silly, that you can get eliminated in fewer games merely because it is the first round.  Basketball realized their error and corrected this.  I wonder how many centuries go by before baseball corrects this mistake?

The Designated Hitter is more complicated because it is not so clear whether this is good or bad for baseball.  I know some of you have strong opinions about this, but, for once, I do not.  However, it seems dumb to have it in one league and not the other.  I know technically MLB is two leagues, but in reality, it is more like one league.  And if baseball and its fans would just stop worrying about tradition for one second, they just might find it more productive to be one league.

If you need more examples, how about how slow it was for MLB to allow Afro-Americans to play?  Was that tradition too?  How about how long it took them to start testing for steroids and even longer to have any real penalties for a positive test?  I think the last couple of weeks (4 wrong homer calls) has shown that baseball has been too slow (again) to add instant replay to get certain calls right.  By the time three umpires decide to get together, then actually get together, discuss who saw what wrong, and then make the wrong decision; they could have looked at the instant replay and gotten it right.  Oh, gosh, how terrible, traditionally, the call was always made on the field.  As with the above examples, I guarantee you that none of the baseball gods will roll over in their grave if you make this change.

In addition to making changes too late for no good reason, baseball does not change things that it should change.  Like speeding up the game to make it more exciting.  How about not allowing the batter to step away from the batter box, or enforcing the rule about how much time a pitcher has between pitches.  Something, anything, to speed up the game.  How about making  all the baseball parks (i.e., fields) the same size.  I cannot imagine playing football one week on a 100 yard field and a 88 yard field the next week.  How about a 10 foot basket in Boston and 9 and a half foot basket in LA?  Yes, to me, this tradition, for lack of a better word, is moronic.

And while were at it, can we get rid of all that disgusting tobacco chewing/spitting and excessive crotch grabbing that baseball players like to partake in?  Baseball players do more crotch grabbing than a Sopranos episode and Michael Jackson video combined.  The last thing that a person needs who is trying to enjoy his hot dog (after all — he/she needs something to do — the batter just stepped away from the box again) is to see a grown man regurgitate brown saliva out of his mouth at the same time he is checking his manhood (or lack thereof), all the while on national TV (and/or in front of 60, 000 fans).  Sorry, this is one tradition everyone can do without.               

First of all, they have to come out of the locker room all fired up and get off to an early lead in order to take the crowd out of the game.  Second, they have avoid a big letdown if team A gets hot and goes on a run.  They have to stay focused and they can’t let the crowd faze them if this happens.  Third, they play an exciting brand of basketball with an up-tempo game, however, they most take what the defense gives them and control the tempo of the game.

No question about it, Cory.  They have to treat this like any other game and remember what got them here. However, we have the league’s best offense against the league’s best defense — something’s got to give.  What are your 3 KEYS for team B to ensure that their offense flows smoothly against team A’s smothering defense and avoid being put on the brink of elimination?

First of all, they have to get the big guy involved in the offense by pounding the ball inside.  And he needs to step up his offensive production and go strong to the basket.  Second, they need to turn up the intensity and dominate the offensive glass.  Third, they have to eliminate the mental mistakes while sticking to the fundamentals.  It is the little things and the intangibles that are often the keys to winning a championship.

Good stuff, Cory.  Team A  controls their own destiny by virtue of having the home court advantage and they don’t want to let team B steal this game on the road and wrestle away the home court advantage.  Team B has their work cut out for them.  Team A has been here before and they have a lot big game experience.  They’re going for back-to-back championships and anything less than a championship is unacceptable, Cory. 

Well put, Joe.  This team has a chance to do something special, but in the playoffs anything can happen.  On any given day any team is capable of beating another team.  Team A is in the driver’s seat, however, they have to remember to do the things they have been doing all season if they want to make it to the Finals again.  They have to come together as a team, stay hungry, and play like they are capable of playing.  Because team B can’t be intimidated and they just might rise to the occasion and use the revenge factor to take it to them.  Let’s get this party started because I have a feeling we are in for a doozy tonight. 

1. “Defense wins championships”:  No, actually teams and individuals win championships.  Besides, Bill Belichick has actually proven that cheating, not defense, wins championships.  And he also shown that when it is the most important game of your career, and you do not cheat, you choke, er, lose.  Geez, what a shame. 

2. “Most games are won on the practice field”:  I do not know if this is true, but, painfully, I know where the most games are lost, uh, that would be Philadelphia.

3. “White men can’t jump”:  OK, this one is true.  (Just do not tell Dick Fosbury).

4. “Good pitching beat good hitting”:  Actually, even bad pitching beats good hitting — even good hitters get a hit only 3 times out of 10, which means the hitter is actually getting beat 7 times out of 10.  As usual, flawless logic.

5. “Our athletes do not use steroids to help them perform better”:   Yea, right, and I look away in disgust when the dancers come out to perform between quarters at a basketball game.

6. “A boxer should abstain from sex when he training for a big fight”:  Not true — he should have lots of sex (it raises his blood testosterone level) — just not at the same time as his sparring sessions.

7. “Golf is not a sport — it does not require any athletic ability”:  Apparently, this has just been proven –some golfer, who no one has ever heard of, recently won the US Open with a broken leg.

8. “The hardest thing to do in sports is hitting a baseball”:  Actually, the hardest thing to in sports is to avoid getting hit by the baseball.  I mean, you have so little time to react when the pitcher is gunning for you.

9. “The quarterback is the most important position in football”:  No, silly, the center is the most important position in football because the quarterback would never even get the ball if it was not  for the center.  No football, no scoring (unless you are Tom Brady who seems to score too much for his own good).

10.  “The team that wants it the most is going to win”:  Usually not true — the team with the most talent is going to win most of the time (unless it is soccer (football), then the team with the better penalty kickers are going to win because they just had another exciting 120 minute 0-0 tie game again!).