clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

Shaq Versus Kobe

So let me get this straight:

Shaq and Kobe have both gone to the finals once without the other and lost. Shaq against one Mr. Hakeem Olajuwon and the Houston Rockets, Kobe this year versus a 60 win Celtics team that was not as good as he made them look

They won 3 titles together, 2 in which I thought Kobe was the dominant player and 1 in which I thought Shaq was.

And at the age of 34, Shaq won (really was handed it thanks to DWade and the NBA refs, and I don't think anyone would mistake me for a Mavs homer) one without him.

Yet for some reason Shaq thinks Kobe only won because of him, I could easily say that Shaq only won because of Kobe and DWade (definitely the case with Wade). AND Kobe has FIVE prime years to go to match what Shaq did.

So, what exactly has been proven?
I'm going with:
1. Not a damn thing as far as what Kobe can do without Shaq
2. Shaq is a dumbfuck (though a funny one).
3. Shaq<<<<<<< Hakeem (Just had to get that in there)