And you know this how? Also why should anyone care whether an athlete is loved or not, and by whom? That's right, because the polls told you so.
Look, these polls and similar top-xx lists are slanted to begin with, not to mention far from scientific. That's the point I tried to make, and if you can't even acknowledge that then I don't see the point of continuing here.
Dude, most of my extended family lives in Asia and I still go visit them almost every year. And I know full well I'm offering merely anecdotal evidence, so yes, guilty as charged if you insist. The reason why I keep doing it is because I keep hearing the same predictable moaning about American/Western bias from people who pretend to speak for an entire country/continent when it's clear they have no clue what they're talking about.
The truth of the matter is that we're all biased. The problem is some of us admit it while the rest pretend they know what other people think.
In case you haven't noticed I've already acknowledged this "disadvantage" on Fed's part. My point is, that's no basis for diminishing the role Jordan did play in revolutionizing his sport, marketing and pop culture at large because everyone's fortune is shaped by his circumstances, hence my Columbus analogy.
I'll give you credit for including China, but here's an incomplete list of other countries/continents where most would acknowledge basketball is a major sport:
- Europe (much of it at any rate)
- Latin America (ditto)
- Philippines (a Filipino friend once confirmed it's easily the #1 sport there in both participation and viewership)
- Japan (firsthand experience)
- South Korea (ditto)
- Turkey
- Australia (your own, I believe)
- Several African countries including Angola, Egypt, Tunisia, Cameroon, Ghana, Uganda, Kenya and Nigeria
That's at least two extra continents plus a significant part of a third one, in addition to the individual countries listed. And I'm all but certain that basketball eclipses tennis in participation rates pretty much across the globe (which has been my own experience in both America and Asia). If you've got anything authoritative that shows tennis to be more globally popular than bball I'd like to see it, but until then color me skeptical.
All that really doesn't mean a thing unless you can show me that MJ actually slacked off on the defensive end in clutch games/moments. Why do you think MJ detractors often resort to petty nitpicking when asked to provide such examples? That's right, because there aren't many.
The MJ you describe sounds more like Kobe in his carefree days and he still was a better defender than LBJ unless you put an awful lot of stock in chase-down blocks. To wit, MJ's D had no holes, LBJ OTOH has trouble with elite guards because his high mass and low center of gravity don't allow him to change direction as quickly. Even if we ignore the effort/intensity factor that should clinch it in MJ's favor.
Let's disagree. I've already explained my reasons, you have yours.
That's the usual explanation, that zones have made defense tougher and more sophisticated despite no hand-checking (which is not all I had in mind BTW but let's leave that aside), but it's bunk. Take a gander at this:
https://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_stats.html
A few points here:
1) The game used to be a lot faster. More possessions, more points.
2) Notice the number of 3-point attempts, which has increased dramatically in the last few seasons. More 3s, more points. And also slower pace (at least until recently as it slowly became the norm) as you wanna wait for a good opening for the shooter.
3) More elite bigs and more big-centric gameplans in MJ's heyday, which explains the relatively high FG%s.
4) Recent FG%s have remained more or less the same in the past 10 years or so despite more 3s, which suggests today's defense has indeed gotten lax.
In short the offensive ratings were high back then because they were shooting closer to the basket. Nowadays teams tend to shoot more jumpers because 1) there are few elite bigs and 2) the current rules don't favor them (of course these two are closely intertwined).
You'll probably counter that this wouldn't affect LBJ much because of his size, but considering how easy it is for him to power his way to the rim these days I say his #s indeed would fall under Jordan-era rules. And that's assuming he'd get to dominate the ball as much, which again is a luxury you generally don't have in the triangle.