Posts by Susan Kim2

Jessica Gonzalez said:I see what you mean, but I guess the Cavaliers are a professional squad playing at the highest level of global basketball, based out of one of the major metropolitan hubs in the US. So, maybe compare them to somewhere like Budapest or New York rather than just some tiny town of 5,000 people.

Sure, it's a major metropolitan hub, but it was stuck in a massive slump for ages—specifically during the window when LeBron James arrived.
Maybe I went a bit overboard calling it "massive," and I was mostly thinking about how things fell apart with companies like Kamen Ingrad, but honestly, the Cavaliers' management was even more destructive than the city's local issues.

When you have the greatest talent since Michael Jordan, how do you spend seven years surrounding him with guys like Mo Williams, an aging Antawn Jamison, or Shaquille O'Neal? And then you have Mike Brown on the sidelines, who basically just embarrassed himself even after his time with the Cavaliers.

Elizabeth Mendoza said:At the end of the day, it all boils down to one single question: if you were handed a ticket to see one of these two legends play live, who are you picking? Are you heading to the arena to watch LeBron James or Stephen Curry?

Such a great kid. 🙄

Probably the dumbest argument since the internet was invented. "I'd want to see both." 😵
Stephen Curry is such a spectacular player that you'd enjoy watching him on a 15-inch laptop, let alone live. Anyone who's ever been in an arena—even just watching some random US college game—knows how the atmosphere shifts when a guy hits four or five three-pointers in a row. Now imagine when he starts draining shots from 30 feet off the dribble, something maybe three guys in the entire league can even attempt.

Elizabeth Mendoza said:Stephen Curry is the perfect example of the soulless modern athlete. Honestly, the sports world is crawling with them lately. They’ve got the stats and they get the wins, but they’re missing that one thing old-school players used to have: pure charisma.

These modern athletes feel like robots to me, and frankly, it's gross. They don't have an opinion on anything. All they care about is likes, money, and their next contract. You could shove a microphone in their face and they wouldn't say a damn thing because they're too busy protecting their "image" and their Brand.

Give me Charles Barkley. Give me Roy Keane. Give me guys who actually have some grit. I want people I can actually relate to. Give me controversy! Give me someone being brutally honest into a microphone. Give me the voice of the fans on air. Show me some flaws so I can see they're actual human beings made of flesh and blood. That's what makes them worth watching.

Actually, it's quite the opposite. Curry choked in two Finals. First, when Andre Iguodala deservedly took the Finals MVP away from him while LeBron James kept them on edge with that absolute unit Matthew Dellavedova acting as his second-best player and bench focus. Then, the following year, after they went crazy with that 73-9 run, they completely fell apart in the big Finals. And of course, because that "super" 73-win team had to bring in three of the league's best players just to try and take down the Cavaliers.
The media never calls Curry out for stuff like that, mostly because he's just so likable and has such a fun personality.

William Gomez5 said:So who exactly was killing them during that little three or four-year stretch? 🤣

They were a solid squad back then, but they aren't exactly the massive favorites anymore.

Jessica Gonzalez said:It used to be about bringing a major trophy to the city (which actually happened), but I guess my colleague got a little carried away and dropped a few zeros regarding Cleveland.

Not even close, if you ask me. Whether you're looking at the chaos in the city, the region, or just the massive scale of everything else—it doesn't matter. This franchise was barely relevant for a three or four-year stretch in its entire history before LeBron James showed up.

Elizabeth Mendoza said:The NBA is facing the exact same issue they dealt with before Magic Johnson and Larry Bird. The league is getting stale because we just don't have any true superstars on the level of Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant, or LeBron James right now.

Once LeBron James hits the end of his career, who is actually going to be the next big poster boy? Honestly, nobody is even close. The lineup of legends we saw during the 90s and the first decade of the 2000s was on a whole different level compared to today.

No way. Those guys aren't even in the same conversation as the names I mentioned.

Honestly, the league has never been more packed with talent. You have ten guys in a row just waiting for their moment.
I might actually prefer it if we didn't have someone like LeBron James constantly hogging all the oxygen in the room. It’s starting to get a little exhausting.

Anthony Wright30 said:That’s a tough one to call, though I suppose we’ll find out eventually. This current era of sports seems to belong to others; he isn't quite at that same level of cultural icon status that Michael Jordan enjoyed back in the 90s, so perhaps the conversation won't reach those heights.

The only way to truly cement that would be if he managed to pull off a three-peat with the Lakers. 😁

Besides, I feel that the NBA itself lacks much of the charisma it possessed twenty or thirty years ago. It has evolved into this highly profitable, somewhat polished product, yet in that process, it seems to have lost some of the raw charm it used to hold.

Bringing a title to Cleveland in American sports is basically the same as winning the UEFA Cup in London.

LeBron James will eventually retire as a top-three player of all time. But honestly, it’s the pure talent and the mental clarity he showed—especially during his second stint with the Cavaliers—that actually cemented his spot on those eternal lists.
We can debate this forever, but who knows where his career would be if the incompetent Gilbert Arenas hadn't failed to bring in anyone better than Mo Williams during the first half of his career? Who even is Mo Williams, as Jessica Gonzalez asks? Exactly. ☕

Amanda Evans2 said:Has anyone happened to catch a decent movie lately? ☕

Truman. A Spanish film.

My mom spent 10 years working as the head nurse in a facility with 50 patients. Having 10 people all come down with a fever at once is practically impossible—except, coincidentally, when Corona hit. 🤣

If they think that’s normal, then not a single nurse among them knows how to insert a catheter sterilely.

Ten people suddenly spiked a fever because of a catheter. 🙏

Matthew Young35 said:Did you even watch any of those games?

🤦

Matthew Young35 said:Generally speaking, almost every game Drazen played in Europe or for his national team turned into a one-man show.

The situation involving Jordan and Pippen had entirely different motivations—none of them related to pure talent.
Besides, for that specific roster, the Olympics was little more than an easy practice session or an exhibition tournament.

Seriously, what are you even talking about?
So, you're suggesting that because the old powerhouse roster featured legends like Dražen, Divac, and Kukoc—who basically swept World and Euro MVP honors—it was all just a one-man show for Dražen? Or are you saying the US squad with guys like Robinson, Barkley, and Drexler was just Dražen's solo performance?
Even if it's just trolling, it's still pretty low.

Matthew Young35 said:Not even close.
By their third attempt, the club was facing a massive financial meltdown—so bad they actually had to change their name, and everyone expected half the roster to jump ship.
They were absolute underdogs that time. Well, maybe not total outsiders, but certainly not the favorites.

Your argument might hold water if Dražen wasn't a three-time EuroLeague MVP and the standout performer in two international tournaments alongside the absolute elite of basketball at the time.

Dražen remains one of the top three players America has ever produced.
That isn't up for debate.
But even back then, there was never any question about who the undisputed leader of the US national team was. Doesn't that say something?

Alright.

Kukoc is one of the three best players America has ever produced.
There's no debating that.
But back when he played, everyone in the American national team knew exactly who the leader was. That says something, too.

Did we suddenly switch to analyzing Ashley Young's leadership style? You're conveniently ignoring two championships with a powerhouse US squad and three MVP awards. But sure.
Since we're talking about the US, do you realize who Jordan and Pippen—two of the top three defenders in the world at the time—were targeting during the Olympics?
It seems like you're painting the American team and Dražen as a one-man show, which is miles away from the truth.

Matthew Young35 said:I’ve been rewatching the tapes from both of them, and honestly? Drazen was playing on an entirely different plane.
Respect to Toni Kukoč and Vlade Divac, of course, but Drazen was simply a class above the rest.
I’m talking about his prime years playing over in Europe; I didn't follow the NBA quite as closely back then.

It’s the same story with the club level: the Los Angeles Lakers of that era were leagues ahead of a team like Split.
The Split squad mostly earned their legendary status because they played the role of the underdog—it was all heart, grit, and pure defiance. But the LA teams? They were the heavy favorites every single time they took the title, primarily because they had Drazen.

If there is any regret, it’s just that he was one of the first major European stars to jump to the NBA during that transition, and he ended up on a much tougher roster than Kukoč did.

As for debating who won more trophies in team sports, I find the whole argument pointless. Look at someone like Ashley Young—he’s collected more silverware than Gary Lineker or Francesco Totti ever did. Even in individual sports, look at the chess legends: Emanuel Lasker held the world title for twenty-seven years, while Bobby Fischer held it for two.

Weren't they the favorites after the first win? What about the second? 🕺

Drazen was really just nursing a bit of an ego bruise. He wanted to be recognized as one of the true pioneers from overseas during that era, especially since he ended up with the Lakers while Kukoc went to the Warriors. Does it really matter which jersey you wear when you're making history?

He joined a squad that had just played in a massive championship final, only to find themselves in the Conference Finals the following season. Sure, they took a step back, but how big was that drop? Honestly, I’m not entirely sure how much the talent level actually shifted. If anything, maybe it was a disadvantage for Drazen to move to a group like that, especially since he struggled to carve out meaningful minutes alongside guys like Drexler, Porter, and Ainge.

Who cares about team trophy counts? It’s a meaningless metric. You have guys like Ashley Young who have more hardware than legends like Gary Lineker or Francesco Totti ever dreamed of. Even in individual sports, the numbers don't tell the whole story. Look at Emanuel Lasker holding the world chess title for 27 years versus Bobby Fischer's two. Does the math actually mean anything?

Your argument might actually hold water if Kiki hadn't been a three-time EuroLeague MVP and the undisputed leader for that legendary powerhouse national team back in the day. Is it really that hard to believe?

Jessica Gonzalez said:That's true; in a league where three-point shooting is basically the standard offense, it feels more geared toward guys like Toni than someone like Dražen. It’s pretty wild how much things change over time. Maybe if you have any other thoughts or insights, feel free to shoot me a DM.

Exactly. A league moving toward positionless basketball and floor spacing needs tall players who can switch between three or four positions depending on the set. Toni could probably play four. They want guys with elite ball control for their height, shooters from everywhere, players who can drop to the low post or facilitate from the top to create constant mismatches—and they need players capable of running the pick-and-roll as primary ball handlers.

The same goes for transition play. Teams want someone who can push the pace, whether they're the one making the final pass or finishing the play themselves.
Sure, the league prizes the three-pointer, but in today's game, shooting is often just a byproduct of the mismatches players like Toni create.
Toni would be a franchise cornerstone in today's NBA, no question. He'd be playing in the playoffs.

In fact, Mike Schmitz, the lead NBA scout for ESPN, actually released a video series scouting the Bulls from that era and analyzing how their styles would translate to the modern game. Kukoc was featured in it.

Jessica Gonzalez said:Imagine you have the first overall pick in the draft. You're choosing between peak Kukoc, peak Drezen, peak Rađa, or peak Ukic. Who are you taking? I think I know who I'd pick.

Good grief, if we're talking about drafting these guys into today's NBA, it has to be Toni.
The guy wasn't winning trophies by accident.
A player with that height, speed, and skill set? You couldn't find that kind of talent anywhere else, and the league is built exactly for players like him right now.

neonfalcon16 said:That argument might have held water about 15 years ago, but not anymore. The whole direction of modern sports is to extend careers. Nowadays, athletes are timing their peaks to hit in their late twenties or early thirties. We are seeing more "veterans" on the tour today than ever before. Back in the day, if you were 28, you were considered an old man—think guys like Goran Ivanišević, Andy Roddick, or Pete Sampras.

I hope they live long lives, but I'm not convinced we'll be watching players in their thirties consistently sweeping two or three Grand Slams a year.

Novak Djokovic, Tom Brady, Roger Federer, Drew Brees, LeBron James. To me, those are just outliers. I don't think the rest of the sporting world is headed in that direction.

Jessica Gonzalez said:Wait, so you're saying an athlete who’s literally redefining the limits of the sport at 38 was somehow physically declining ten years ago and couldn't hold his own against Roger Federer? That seems like some pretty questionable math to me. Meanwhile, here is Roger Federer at 32, absolutely dominating the competition like he hasn't aged a day. I guess they forgot to tell him his prime ended when he was 26. Maybe he should check his WhatsApp for the update.

Right, so now it's a problem that the man is still at the top of the tour at 38. 🤣

Jessica Gonzalez said:Novak Djokovic has spent his entire career competing against Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer on the tour, both of whom were established players older than him. On the flip side, Roger had already hit his peak before Djokovic even started on the tour or was just a newcomer. By the time Djokovic reached his absolute top level, Roger's era was pretty much over. Since everyone loves charts and tables lately, here is a visual version of what you already know, even if you're pretending otherwise. Those last three Fedov GS wins were great, especially when Djokovic was struggling. Around 2010, things just shifted and never really went back. Maybe it's the governing bodies, or maybe it's just the Mexicans...

Tennis is physically exhausting and purely individual. Because of that, players usually hit their absolute prime between ages 22 and 26. Look at the timeline: Becker, Sampras, Agassi, Federer, and even Nadal, who started picking up those GS wins right in that age bracket. And finally, there's Novak.
It’s like saying Jordan was playing against everyone once he matured, even though Bird and Magic had already had their primes in the 80s.
Honestly, even in snooker, it's hard to stay at the top past a certain age without a total reset. In tennis? It's practically impossible.

From the perspective of a casual tennis fan, I think people take it for granted how long Federer has stayed at the top. He’s basically traded raw physical dominance for pure technical mastery to stay relevant.

Both Novak and Roger hit their massive peaks around the same age. Using their head-to-head record as the ultimate deciding factor isn't exactly fair, considering Roger hit his prime six years earlier. In a high-intensity individual sport like tennis, six years is an eternity.
Another thing that didn't help Roger was the shift in the game itself. There aren't enough grass court tournaments anymore, surfaces have slowed down at most major events, and ball technology changed. Right when he was in his prime, the game moved from fast-paced action to a lot more grinding.

The third thing that comes to mind is Roger's style. Personally, I think he contributed way more to the sport's global popularity than either Novak or Nadal ever did.
It’s like how Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant popularized basketball significantly more than someone like Tim Duncan. That kind of impact matters.

When we talk about the "Greatest of All Time," it usually boils down to whether we’re throwing everyone into one giant bucket just to fill up a list. Laver, Connors, Borg, Sampras, Federer, Nadal, Novak.
Or in basketball: Russell, Wilt, Magic, Bird, Jordan, LeBron.
Every single one of them broke records and pushed boundaries within their specific eras.

You can see how much a sport evolves by looking at something like the UFC. We watched MMA grow right before our eyes. Most fans know the early days, and many will still list Fedor, Mirko, Minotaur, or Cain as the legends. But today, there are fighters three times better than them—they just happen to be fighting in their shadows. In twenty years, hardly anyone will be putting Fedor in their top five.