Wendy Said:

Who is better, Kobe Bryant or Michael Jordan?

We Answered:

There is no argument for Kobe. Jordan dominated to a greater degree in a much tougher era. The only reason we don't look at the names Malone Stockton Ewing Miller Barkley as immortals is because they never won it, and they never won it all because MJ was winning it all every year. Then people use this to say that makes his era weak and MJ just wasn't that good. So if the Jazz had won 1 or 2, or Barkley, Kemp etc had won during this time, meaning the Bulls would have won less, does that make the era then harder and the Bulls better? Basically that argument says "we would think of them as better if they had won less". That makes no freakin sense, the era wasn't weak, the Bulls and MJ were just so much better, just like Fed is worlds ahead in the tennis world the last 7 years, the era's not weak, he's just that damn good.

MJ's 63 v Kobe's 81

63 (away) 81 (home)
63 (playoffs) 81 (regular season)
63 (away, vs the best home team in NBA history, and one of the three best teams ever) 81 (home, v one of the worst teams in the league and one of the worst defensive teams of all time)

63 (guarded by Dennis Johnson, a legend famous for being a defensive stopper)
81 (guarded by an ancient Jalen Rose)

63 (second year in the league, shortly after coming back from a broken foot)
81 (loong time in the league, can't be effed counting the years)

And yeah, I also think that MJ is better than the almighty David Thompson despite Thompson's 73 point game. Last game 1994: San Antonio has nothing to gain except help Robinson win the scoring title in the last game of the season, so they all just play for that. This is against the CLIPPERS, might I add. Robinson scores 71. I guess he's better than Jordan too.

Kobe's a fantastic player, but what's he done? I don't care about those first three rings, that's akin to Scottie Pippen, winning it as a second man, not to Michael Jordan.

Chicago = only team since 1980 to win it all without an All-Star center.

MJ's era = weak?
Look at this:

2000 Pacers
2001 76ers
2002 Nets
2009 Magic

These are the teams the Lakers have beat in the finals this decade.
Anyone else notice how they'd all get swept (by double digits in every game) by any of the teams that the Bulls beat in the Finals?
seriously, Pacers, Nets twice, Cleveland '07, Orlando, Philadelphia, the East has served up garbage in the finals this decade. Pistons and Celtics were the only two teams that were even half-decent. And yes I know Miami "won".

MJ>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>KOBE

Not to say that Kobe's not good.
Kobe retires tomorrow = doesn't even go down in the top ten of all-time, so I dunno where all this talk of #2 and maybe even #1 comes from.
Kobe isn't even the best Laker of all-time. Magic is.