Interesting comments by Barkley

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Been watching PTI (as I do every day when I'm not on duty), and the fellas have Barkley on for Five Good Minutes™. I'm a little preoccupied doing other things, so I was only half-paying attention as they were asking him for his thoughts about the Bryant/Malone fiasco, but something that did catch my attention was when Kornheiser asked him for his thoughts on Shat/Kobe as the segment went to close: Barkley alluded to the fact that he never played with another great player while both were in their respective primes, and said something to the effect about it being disrespectful to all of the great players that never won a championship (specifically naming himself, Ewing, Malone and Payton) for two great players like Shaq and Kobe not to be able to put their "BS" aside to play together while they still had the ability to compete for more championships.

I haven't really decided whether I agree or disagree with this point of view yet, but I found it interesting, and can't help but wonder whether or not any of the other greats who retired without a championship fall in line with that way of thinking?

 

[VF21]

I'm nearly speechless. It's apparent that was Barkley speaking from the heart, something he doesn't do very often. He makes a VERY good point, IMHO...

And I find myself in the very strange and unexplored territory of actually agreeing with Sir Charles.

 

[bdouble013]

Same here VF. I expected to read this thread and find myself shaking my head because of Barkleys stupidity yet again....but I actually find myself agreeing and shaking my head because I can't believe it actually happened.

On a related note...has someone checked the temperature in Hell lately?

 

[Gargamel]

I don't see what's great about it. The personalities of the players really has crap to do with whether they deserve to win titles or don't deserve to. You win championships, with very few exceptions, on talent. In general it makes me gag when Barkley tries to say something with a moral tinge to it, being that he's a guy who once spat on a little girl in the front row of a crowd.

However, I will say that Malone and Payton deserved more cohesiveness AS Shaq and Kobe's teammates. I fail to see how their spats had any impact or disrespect upon Ewing or Stockton, etc. If Barkley wants to be truthful, he should say that Michael Jordan, Larry Bird, and Magic Johnson were an insult to all those greats who never won a title.

 

[Variant]

In a way, I'm grateful that Kobe & Shaq were so immature and childish. Otherwise we'd have to live with the Lakers winning it all year after year after year...

Barkley's point is a bit of a stretch though not as far out there as they usually are.

 

[VF21]

I don't see what's great about it. .

I would have been totally surprised had you said anything else.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I don't see what's great about it. The personalities of the players really has crap to do with whether they deserve to win titles or don't deserve to. You win championships, with very few exceptions, on talent. In general it makes me gag when Barkley tries to say something with a moral tinge to it, being that he's a guy who once spat on a little girl in the front row of a crowd.

However, I will say that Malone and Payton deserved more cohesiveness AS Shaq and Kobe's teammates. I fail to see how their spats had any impact or disrespect upon Ewing or Stockton, etc. If Barkley wants to be truthful, he should say that Michael Jordan, Larry Bird, and Magic Johnson were an insult to all those greats who never won a title.

....


Spoken like someone who has never been a life-long fan of a player that never won... Your post smacks of the "**** 'em; we got ours" mentality to me.

There are dozens of Hall-of-Famers who never won a championship, and never had the luxury of having a player with the unparalleled talent of a Kobe Bryant or a Shaquille O'Neal while those players were in their respective primes. Barkley's point was that for Shaq and Kobe, who could still be competing for championships right now, to break it up simply because they basically decided that Los Angeles wasn't big enough for the both of them, is a slap in the face to all of the players who weren't as lucky to be able to play with another Hall-of-Fame player in their prime.

I don't even like Barkley, and I can definitely sympathize with him in this circumstance: Barkley got to play with Erving, but not in his prime; he got to play with Olajuwon and Pippen, but not in their primes. Bryant and O'Neal got to play with each other while each were in their respective primes, and they won three championships together. They could still be competing for championships today, and, to Barkley's way of thinking, for the two of them to decide that winning championships isn't as important as each of them proving to the other that they should have been "the man" is an insult to all the great players who never won one, and would have given anything to have what Shaq and Kobe had.

I'm inclined to agree with him.

I would have been totally surprised had you said anything else.

Indeed.

 

[Gargamel]

....

Spoken like someone who has never been a life-long fan of a player that never won... Your post smacks of the "**** 'em; we got ours" mentality to me.

Ha. Cool. You could be right.

There are dozens of Hall-of-Famers who never won a championship, and never had the luxury of having a player with the unparalleled talent of a Kobe Bryant or a Shaquille O'Neal while those players were in their respective primes. Barkley's point was that for Shaq and Kobe, who could still be competing for championships right now, to break it up simply because they basically decided that Los Angeles wasn't big enough for the both of them, is a slap in the face to all of the players who weren't as lucky to be able to play with another Hall-of-Fame player in their prime.

That's Barkley's opinion. I don't think they'd be competing for titles anymore even if they were tighter than Tom Hanks and Peter Scolari. That argument is moot to me. Shaq is no longer dominant enough to make up for the lack of talent that would surround him and Kobe, but I digress...

I don't even like Barkley,

With you there.

and I can definitely sympathize with him in this circumstance: Barkley got to play with Erving, but not in his prime; he got to play with Olajuwon and Pippen, but not in their primes.

Not with you there. I love watching the footage of Stockton hitting that 3 to knock Houston out just to see the expression of sorrow on Bark's face. Barkley got to play with Erving, Moses, KJ, Hakeem, Drexler, and Pippen. He's a loser and Jordan used to tell people in private that he'd never win a title because he wouldn't pay the price in the offseason.

Bryant and O'Neal got to play with each other while each were in their respective primes, and they won three championships together. They could still be competing for championships today,

Again, don't think they'd be championship caliber. You might have a different opinion of what "competing for titles" is being that you're not a life-long fan of a player who's ever won one. I think Kobe and Shaq would only be competing for the WCFs if that.

and, to Barkley's way of thinking, for the two of them to decide that winning championships isn't as important as each of them proving to the other that they should have been "the man" is an insult to all the great players who never won one, and would have given anything to have what Shaq and Kobe had.

I'm not inclined to believe this because, as I implied before, you don't get closer to a title for being a sterling pro. Kobe and Shaq had each other and won a few titles while Ewing and Nique didn't have another superstar and never won. Life's unfair sometimes, but for Chuck to sit there and cry about Kobe and Shaq insulting his feelings because they couldn't get along is a loser's refrain. The 8th seeded Lakers came within an eyelash of dumping him out of the first round in the year the Suns went to the Finals. They were underachievers all postseason long. I'm not buying that he was some hero who happened not to win just because he didn't cross paths with another superstar in his prime. He never won because he couldn't elevate his game to the level necessary to win a title. I personally like the fact that he can't even talk sh-- about winning to Kenny Smith.

 

[quick dog]

To me, Barkley's later day moral assessments seem a bit hollow.

 

[Gargamel]

I would have been totally surprised had you said anything else.

I'm not just being disagreeable because you guys agree with him. I haven't given a smack for Chuck's opinions for a long time.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

... Not with you there. I love watching the footage of Stockton hitting that 3 to knock Houston out just to see the expression of sorrow on Bark's face. Barkley got to play with Erving, Moses, KJ, Hakeem, Drexler, and Pippen. He's a loser and Jordan used to tell people in private that he'd never win a title because he wouldn't pay the price in the offseason...

... I'm not inclined to believe this because, as I implied before, you don't get closer to a title for being a sterling pro. Kobe and Shaq had each other and won a few titles while Ewing and Nique didn't have another superstar and never won. Life's unfair sometimes, but for Chuck to sit there and cry about Kobe and Shaq insulting his feelings because they couldn't get along is a loser's refrain. The 8th seeded Lakers came within an eyelash of dumping him out of the first round in the year the Suns went to the Finals. They were underachievers all postseason long. I'm not buying that he was some hero who happened not to win just because he didn't cross paths with another superstar in his prime. He never won because he couldn't elevate his game to the level necessary to win a title. I personally like the fact that he can't even talk sh-- about winning to Kenny Smith.

So, basically, you're dismissing the message outright because you don't like the messenger? Because you don't actually seem to be refuting the argument; you seem to rather be approaching it from the standpoint of, "Well, it's Barkley, so tough ****," and I don't get that. I think that it's a fair comment, regardless of who said it; who would it have to come from that you wouldn't disregard the comment outright?

 

[sloter]

What's a lot more disrespectful is forgetting the Ring in the laundry basket...

 

[Bricklayer]

What's a lot more disrespectful is forgetting the Ring in the laundry basket...

That one's still bugging you huh?

 

[C Diddy]

I am fairly indifferent to anything Barkley has to say in general, and to me, this isnt a point that Barkley has the merit to make. The argument, while intriguing, loses value coming from a guy like Charles. He has played with great players in the past and hasn't been able to put his teams over the hump.

Certain arguments shouldn't be made by people who don't have the credibility to speak on them. I don't wanna see Iverson 10 years from now talking about coming through when it matters, I don't wanna see Kobe talking about team leadership, I don't wanna see Jason Williams talking about fundamentals of basketball, I dont wanna hear Peja talk about low-post moves, and I sure as heck dont wanna hear Barkley whining about never playing with another superstar and not being able to win a championship and how Shaq and Kobe are somehow insulting him because they couldnt set their differences aside and win 3 more rings.

 

[vladetomiller]

As someone else pointed out, barkley did play with some superstars, whether they were past their prime or not he couldnt get it done and pippen had just come of a championship run and was still good. That team with pippen, barkley and hakeem lost to the lakers i suppose and i dont think he can complain

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

:: screams ::

All of you that are choosing to disregard the argument for no better reason than because it came from Barkley are missing the point.

 

[sloter]

:: screams ::

All of you that are choosing to disregard the argument for no better reason than because it came from Barkley are missing the point.

Well, again, the fact is that he's talking about Kobe (another big name) makes this an interesting story. What would he say if Kobe kept leaving his rings in the laundry basket?

 

[sloter]

That one's still bugging you huh?

I guess so

 

[AceKingSuited]

To me, the message is kind of besides the point. Don't get me wrong, I love Barkley because he's so damn funny and entertaining, but the fact that this message is coming from him is ironic.

It's ironic because of his whole "I am not a role model" mantra. Barkley has long been a champion of the individual, and against the idea that star athletes have an obligation to meet a certain set of behavioral criteria. Basically, Barkley is saying Shaq and Kobe owe it to him, to Ewing, Payton...whoever...to get put the drama aside, and that's a bunch of bull if they are to be held by the same set of standards that Charles held himself to when he was in his prime.

C'mon, Chuckie. Stick to crackin jokes with The Jet and Ernie.

 

[Gargamel]

So, basically, you're dismissing the message outright because you don't like the messenger? Because you don't actually seem to be refuting the argument; you seem to rather be approaching it from the standpoint of, "Well, it's Barkley, so tough ****," and I don't get that. I think that it's a fair comment, regardless of who said it; who would it have to come from that you wouldn't disregard the comment outright?

No, I'm refuting the argument too. I said: a) he's whining, b) he never won because of himself, c) Kobe and Shaq have no bearing whatsoever on the failures of others because they didn't break some law that says you have to be great teammates to win titles.

I completely disregard the comment from anyone, but from Charles in particular. I think it's just an extension of the whining he did to get himself traded from Philly ("I asked for Shaq and they gave me Shackleford.", etc.) Fact is that he did play on talented teams, but he seldom raised his level of play high enough to do the type of playoff damage that would've been appropriate for the particular team he was on.

 

[Gargamel]

I sure as heck dont wanna hear Barkley whining about never playing with another superstar and not being able to win a championship and how Shaq and Kobe are somehow insulting him because they couldnt set their differences aside and win 3 more rings.

And Chuck's comments are based on something that's untrue anyway. Perhaps LA would've won 1 more last year, but that's only if Scott Williams never sat on Malone's knee. If GP and KM never signed up, there's no way they would've made it to the Finals, imo. The team around K/S sucked in 2003 so no title there either. No opportunity for a title in 2005 because Buss never would've maxed K/S/P out. If we're talking pre-2000, they were outmatched by Utah and Chicago (and SA in 1999) no matter what. It's not a very stirring argument. Their window was only open for 3 years.

 

[Gargamel]

As someone else pointed out, barkley did play with some superstars, whether they were past their prime or not he couldnt get it done and pippen had just come of a championship run and was still good. That team with pippen, barkley and hakeem lost to the lakers i suppose and i dont think he can complain

Pippen's parting shot at Barkley before being traded to Portland is interesting in light of this discussion: "I'm sorry that you (Chuck) convinced me to come play with your sorry fat butt." Interesting choice of words. Pippen was the guy who told ESPN that Jordan used to say in private how Chuck didn't have the will to win titles.

 

[VF21]

Oh geez... I cannot believe how some of you are making it about Barkley. It ISN'T about Barkley. He just happened to make the comment.

The point is that his comment is valid, at least in Slim's and my opinion. He said - and I heartily agree - that the actions of Kobe and Shaq are a disgrace to all the rest of the great players who never had the opportunities they have had and, as a result, never won the big prize despite their individual greatness. Two such all-time greats, as Shaq and Kobe, should be able to put aside the personal BS to compete at a level that few others will ever achieve.

Why is that wrong simply because Barkley was the one who said it? He wasn't speaking specifically for himself, although he was speaking from the heart about how he felt seeing those two and their continuing soap opera.

As a 40+ year follower of the NBA, I feel Shaq and Kobe put themselves above the game, above their teammates and above the love of the fans for the game. Shame on both of them...

Now, am I whining too?

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

No, I'm refuting the argument too. I said: a) he's whining...

Not relevant to the argument. He can be whining and still be right.

b) he never won because of himself...

Debateable, but not germane to this argument; I guess if you really wanted to be a prick about it, you could apply that reasoning towards each and every single great player who never won a championship.

c) Kobe and Shaq have no bearing whatsoever on the failures of others because they didn't break some law that says you have to be great teammates to win titles.

And this just goes to show that you utterly and completely misunderstood the argument. Barkley wasn't trying to make the case that you have to be great teammates to win championships, so to try to defend the position that they weren't friends, but won anyway, is pointless. We already know that they weren't friends; nobody's trying to say that you have to be good friends to win championships, including Barkley. What he's saying is that, as a great player who never one a championship, he takes offense to the how Shaq and Kobe split, because when you break it down, both of them decided that neither of them coveted a championship enough to play with the player that could have given them the best chance to win a championship.

For goodness sake, just pretend that a player you don't dislike who never won said it, if it would make you feel better. Look at it this way: last year, Laker fans were all singing the praises of Karl Malone for signing with the Lakers, because it was seen as a sign that winning a championship was more important to Malone than anything else; that he'd do anything to win a ring. Shaq's best chance to win another ring is unquestionably playing with Kobe, and Kobe's best chance to win another ring is unquestionably playing with Shaq, and for them to split the way that they did is essentially the two of them saying, "I would rather never win another ring than play on the same team with you." That sort of attitude is a personal affront to any great player, like Malone, who never won a ring, and was willing to do whatever to win one.

... Fact is that he did play on talented teams, but he seldom raised his level of play high enough to do the type of playoff damage that would've been appropriate for the particular team he was on.

"Talented" teams is not the same as playing with alongside a sure-fire Hall-of-Famer while both of you are in your prime; Kobe had that with Shaq, and vice versa. Barkley never did. Ewing never did. Wilkins never did.

 

[Gargamel]

Oh geez... I cannot believe how some of you are making it about Barkley. It ISN'T about Barkley. He just happened to make the comment.

Now, am I whining too?

I hate Barkley so I'm taking the liberty. However, I've argued abundantly that his point is BS afaic. Feel free to disagree. That's fine by me.

 

[VF21]

I hate Barkley so I'm taking the liberty. However, I've argued abundantly that his point is BS afaic. Feel free to disagree. That's fine by me.

And that's the whole crux of the matter, IMHO. You hate Barkley so you automatically refute his comments. I, on the other hand, also hate Barkley but can see the irony and truth in his statement.

But what the heck. I'm in too good of a mood right now to keep arguing about something Charles Barkley said about Shaq and Kobe.

Life is good tonight ... here in the forest.

 

[Gargamel]

And this just goes to show that you utterly and completely misunderstood the argument. Barkley wasn't trying to make the case that you have to be great teammates to win championships, so to try to defend the position that they weren't friends, but won anyway, is pointless. We already know that they weren't friends; nobody's trying to say that you have to be good friends to win championships, including Barkley. What he's saying is that, as a great player who never one a championship, he takes offense to the how Shaq and Kobe split, because when you break it down, both of them decided that neither of them coveted a championship enough to play with the player that could have given them the best chance to win a championship.

And I've said a bunch of times that they split because of MONEY. Not only that, but they had no chance (imo) to win a title beyond 2002 because of the difficulty in surrounding them with good enough role players at the prices they demanded. It's pretty miraculous (some people think crooked) that they won in 2002 at that. Barkley's point ultimately doesn't hold water. They wouldn't have won a title this year together. Kobe won't win a title without Shaq. Shaq won't win a title without Kobe. Their "best chance" is something that can't realistically exist (Kobe at $17 mill, Shaq at $25 mill, and Phil at $12 mill).

For goodness sake, just pretend that a player you don't dislike who never won said it, if it would make you feel better.

Slim... I would say the same thing if Ewing or Nique said it. I just hate Barkley so I'm gonna dump on him at any opportunity.

"Talented" teams is not the same as playing with alongside a sure-fire Hall-of-Famer while both of you are in your prime; Kobe had that with Shaq, and vice versa. Barkley never did. Ewing never did. Wilkins never did.

West and Baylor were in their primes for their entire time together and never won a ring together because Boston had more talented teams.

Trying to quote your posts correctly makes me feel like the President.

 

[Gargamel]

And that's the whole crux of the matter, IMHO. You hate Barkley so you automatically refute his comments. I, on the other hand, also hate Barkley but can see the irony and truth in his statement.

Nearrrgghhh!!! Scram, see!

 

[KA_2]

Barkley is right, it's unfortunate. But it pretty much ends there. The Lakers won three championships, all consecutively, becoming only the 4th team in history to 3-peat. They made 4 Finals in 5 years and were the best team of their era. It's not like they failed to do what they were supposed to do.

But facts are that the Lakers didn't win anything the last two seasons, and Shaq was (is) on the decline. Shaq and Kobe weren't going to win anymore championships together unless FAs fell in their lap again like it did in the summer of 2003. Better to rebuild around your youngest player instead of wasting two years of his prime with Shaq getting fatter and less dominant each season.

And technically speaking, only Shaq was really in his prime during the 3-peat.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

... They wouldn't have won a title this year together...

Probably not; we'll never know. What we do know is that the Lakers were considered to be perennial contenders because of Shaq and Kobe; the paradigm was that Shaq/Kobe and three guys off the street had a half-decent shot at the championship... and now, neither one of them will be favored to win again...

Yeah, the official story was that it came down to money, but fundamentally, it came down to money because of their egos. The reason that money was the deciding factor was because each of them felt that they didn't need the other: "I don't want to play with you, but I'll swallow my pride for XXX million." If the championship meant anything to them, it never would have gone to the money, and the point is that the two of them knew that they always had a shot as long as they played together, and they ultimately decided that they couldn't be bothered. That's bound to offend somebody who was never that fortunate. It would have been like if Kareem had decided to retire in '81 because he didn't want to share the spotlight with Magic, despite the fact that he had to know that his best chance to win another ring was with the Lakers.

Slim... I would say the same thing if Ewing or Nique said it...

Why?

... West and Baylor were in their primes for their entire time together and never won a ring together because Boston had more talented teams...

And you don't think that if that talented Boston team had decided that they'd rather go their separate ways than compete for another banner together, that they wouldn't have been insulted?

Perhaps, being a fan of a team that has always been in the hunt, that has been to the playoffs more than any other team, that has won the second-most amount of championships, it is simply beyond your ken to appreciate the fact that, to the "have-nots" of the world, it's a slap in the face when we see the "haves" take what they have for granted.

...Trying to quote your posts correctly makes me feel like the President.

Whatever the hell that's supposed to mean... :|