Michael Jordan Actually Changed Basketball for the Worse, Says Stephen A. Smith


Stephen A. Smith, a former NBA player and current ESPN basketball analyst has spoken out about Michael Jordan’s legacy in the game of basketball. Many believe that he changed the game by dominating it with his incredible competitive drive and dominance on both ends of the floor. However, according to Stephen A., MJ has actually destroyed what was beautiful about basketball before him because today’s players are not as skilled or willing to play hard like when he played.

Stephen A. Smith, a professional basketball player and commentator, has said that Michael Jordan’s changes to the game of basketball have been for the worse. Read more in detail here: first take today.

While there is some disagreement, most basketball fans would agree that Michael Jordan is the greatest of all time. That is a fact that Stephen A. Smith does not deny. However, as you would think, the ESPN commentator isn’t willing to leave sleeping dogs alone. There’s always a bold comment or hot take to be discovered, and he managed to come up with an all-timer in this situation.

On a recent edition of First Take, the topic shifted from Steph Curry’s influence on contemporary basketball to His Airness’ impact on the game. Jordan, in Stephen A.’s opinion, contributed to the decline of the NBA.

That’s right, you read it accurately. Let’s take a closer look at their assertions.

Basketball has become more individualistic and star-driven as a result of Michael Jordan, according to Stephen A. Smith.

.@stephenasmith says Steph Curry changed basketball for the better, while MJ changed it for the worse.

“Michael Jordan is responsible, as much as anybody, for changing the game for the worse!” pic.twitter.com/XkgDKzFp0l

— First Take (@FirstTake) June 1, 2022

Arguing that Michael Jordan had a significant part in molding the present form of basketball isn’t new at this point. While most NBA fans will concentrate on the positives, Stephen A. Smith chose to dwell on the negatives.

“Here’s how it works. “My brother, Michael Jordan, who I adore and feel is the greatest player to ever play the game, is as much as anybody else responsible for altering the game for the worst,” Smith added. “Please bear with me on this. Of course, this isn’t meant to be a dig at Michael Jordan. In my opinion, he is the best of all time. Okay, let’s start with number one. But he was so good that the NBA promoted him as a person, the public flocked toward him, and the game grew more individualized as a result. “Because everyone wanted to be Mike.”

Stephen A. then went on to establish his claim by going even farther back in NBA history.

He went on to say, “Before Mike, you had… Bird and Magic.” “However, what exactly was Bird and Magic?” Bird, as good a shot as he was, as Mr. Clutch as he was, could also pass and rebound. Bird had McHale, Parish, Dennis Johnson, Gerald Henderson, and a slew of others, including Danny Ainge and others. Isn’t it true that they had a team? Blue-collar, yet part of a group. What exactly was Magic? It was Showtime for Magic. What was Magic’s most valuable asset, despite his brilliance? I’m passing… What I mean is that you were thinking team until Jordan took it to the next level. And then there were the Kobe Bryants, Vince Carters, and those who followed Jordan.”

Jordan transformed the game, but positioning him as the beginning point of individual greatness is perhaps oversimplified.

*{padding:0;margin:0;overflow:hidden} html,bodyheight:100% img,spanposition:absolute;width:100% ;top:0;bottom:0;margin:auto;bodyheight:100% html,bodyheight:100% html,bodyheight:100% html,bodyheight:100% html,bodyheight:100% html,bodyheight:100% html,bodyhe spanheight:1.5em;text-align:center;font:48px/1.5 sans-serif;color:white;text-shadow:0 0 0.5em black;text-shadow:0 0 0.5em black;text-shadow:0 0 0.5em black;text-shadow:0 0 0.5em black;text-shadow:0 0 0.5em black;text-shadow><span>▶</span>

While Stephen A. Smith isn’t recognized for his delicacy, he does make some solid arguments within the context of his bigger argument. We do know how much Michael Jordan influenced the following generation of NBA stars. Would Kobe Bryant have been able to make it to the NBA if he hadn’t seen His Airness? Probably, but it’s reasonable to speculate that he would have had the same Mamba Mentality.

However, it does seem to be a little reductionist to link all individualization to MJ.

First, let’s take a wide view of the situation. Individual athletes have dominated the limelight in a number of sports for as long as the games have existed. While there is some controversy about who the NFL’s first great superstar was, many consider Red Grange to be the guy. He was a player in the 1920s who, although being part of a team, generated a lot of solo headlines.

Any other sport, even if it crosses national borders, will suffice. During his tenure at Manchester United in the 1960s, George Best established himself as an individual figure. He played with some amazing players once again, but this time Best took on a larger-than-life character. Returning to basketball, players such as Wilt Chamberlain and Dr. J stood out from the throng and were, in current language, brands in their own right.

That leads us back to Smith’s utilization of Larry Bird and Magic Johnson. While it’s clear what he was trying to say — those two individuals were stars who thrived inside collective groups – the analogy doesn’t stand up.

To begin with, the fact that he was able to separate Bird and Magic from the rest of the group demonstrates that they did transcend the collective. It’s also worth mentioning that their continued NCAA rivalry had a role in their success; although the Lakers-Celtics rivalry definitely played a role, there was also an individual aspect at play.

Aside from that, Jordan was joined on the floor by a number of well-known athletes. Scottie Pippen and Dennis Rodman weren’t quite as good as Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and James Worthy, but neither were they slackers. There was also a renowned Chicago painting that showed the Worm’s ever-changing hair in addition to His Airness. Nothing else indicates that MJ was a member of a collective group.

Overall, comparing current individuality to Michael Jordan is certainly a stretch. As humans, we like the idea of a celebrity; someone would have picked up the mantle and run with it at some point.

Was Michael Jackson a huge influence on the next generation of artists? Yes, of course. But, even if he is the GOAT, being the only genesis point of a famous NBA player is arguably too much for one guy to handle.

Like Sportscasting on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter @sportscasting19 and subscribe to our YouTube channel.

RELATED: Charles Barkley Thinks Michael Jordan Is the Greatest of All-Time for Two Reasons That Have Nothing to Do With His Playing Record

The “shaquille o’neal” is a basketball player that was born in the year 1972. He has won three NBA championships, two Olympic gold medals and an MVP award. He is one of the greatest players to ever play the game. Stephen A. Smith says that Michael Jordan actually changed basketball for the worse when he retired in 2003 because he did not want to compete with LeBron James and Kobe Bryant anymore.

  • jordan cornette wife
  • nba
  • yvette prieto
  • stephen a. smith
  • where was michael jordan born

Share this article

Recent posts

Popular categories

Recent comments