I got into a basketball discussion the other day, and the topic of great power forwards came up. Now, most people will agree that Karl Malone and Tim Duncan are at the top of this list (Charles Barkley is right there as well, but not everyone considers him a power forward so lets leave him out of this) and it is hard to say who is the greater legend.

There are a number of different ways that I look into measuring a player's greatness such as championships, personal achievements, statistics, skill, competition and contribution to the game. After looking at all of these I chose Karl Malone for his longevity ('85 to '04), his list of accomplishments and the era in which he played the game despite not winning a championship.

Tim Duncan on the other hand, is right there as well. Duncan has three titles, although he has failed to repeat as champion. Duncan is also the superior defender, but I believe that Duncan played in a better time. When Shaq's Lakers and Duncan's Spurs were winning titles, the NBA IMO was transitioning from the old game to the new one with emphasis on perimeter play and the rule changes to make wing players better. Duncan dominated in this era along with Shaq when there were really no other players to compete with them. Malone on the other hand was a power forward, at least two inches shorter than Duncan in an era dominated by great big men (one of them Duncan's teamate) and some guys named Larry, Earvin and Michael.

Looking at it again, I could go either way, but what do you guys think?

My thread topics have all been like this lately ... oh well

Good topic for discussion.

I have to go with Karl Malone just because his surrounding cast wasn't nearly as balanced as Tim Duncan's. Malone only had Stockton on his team, and still was able to put up the numbers he did dispite facing much tougher defensive pressure.

I would go with Malone. He was a much better scorer than Duncan, and wasn't really that much weaker as a defender.

I hate using rings as a deciding factor because it's not entirely under their control. Karl's two best teams ran into Michael on a mission, as did some solid teams by Barkley and Ewing. The same goes for Elgin Baylor, he was a great player, but his Lakers just couldn't beat Russell's Celtics. Very rarely is one player enough to win a title.

As for power forwards, when all is said and done Kevin Garnett could be tops on my list. He's just so athletic and versatile. He's a great defender and rebounder, a solid scorer, he can play inside and outside, and he can pass the ball as well. Unfortunately, he hasn't had much support, so he doesn't have any titles. Elvin Hayes would also be up there with Malone, he was a dominant big man that put up some solid numbers.

One of the things that at least thus far Malone seems to have over Duncan is longevity. The last few seasons, Duncan has struck me as dissappointingly injury prone, to the point that it's really impairing the quality of his team. This could chance rapidly with a healthy season this year...but I don't know if it will. Even in 2004-2005 there was talk of Duncan holding back during the Regular season so that he'd be able to go all out for just a couple games late in the playoffs...that's something that Malone never struck me as even needing to do.

Slight edge to Duncan in his prime (yes, I feel that he's already on the decline). In terms of being the more consistent over a long period of time, Malone was clearly a workhorse. Overall probably the better player.

A big factor for me is playoff performance. Duncan seemed to always rise up (I'm pretty sure his numbers are better in the playoffs), particularly in their championship years.

Unfortunately, I don't remember Malone as being one who stepped his game up enough...what comes to mind is the missed free throws when Pippen told him that "the mailman doesn't deliver on Sunday," Jordan stripping the ball from him for his Last Shot, and his overall over-reliance on jump shots and fadeaways in the playoffs when he should have been driving it in more. (Also, Rodman guarded him really well.) Granted, his team peaked when going up against the greatest team ever, but they were the favorites in '98. I give him a lot of credit for challenging those great Bulls teams...

Another way I thought about it is that I would also probably take Duncan if they were matched up against each other, one-on-one. Duncan is slow as hell but bigger, methodical, and effective.





That pick-and-roll was so hard to defend, almost unstoppable, and the team overall played with machine-like precision. Hornacek, Russell and Eisely and Shandon Anderson were pretty good from what I remember, and Ostertag and Carr were effective. I always thought they were a very good team.

Also, the way that you put it, you can also say that Jordan only had Pippen.



Such an athletic freak, with only LeBron at that level, but I also can't say that I see him as that go-to scorer at the end of the game to truly make him the greatest. Too bad he's never gotten that help around him though.

Head to head I think I'd take Malone. Duncan is a bit longer, but Malone was a very strong player in his prime. Plus in his younger days he had enough quickness to go the the hole while still killing you with the jumpers (he had already slowed down a bit by the time the Jazz got really good). Those were definitely some championship caliber Jazz teams though, IMO they would have flattened Houston those two years Michael was gone had they peaked a little earlier.

It's hard for me to say that about Garnett because he hasn't really had a whole lot of chances at big time moments. He's really only had one deep run in the playoffs, and the T-Wolves were totally overmatched against Kobe and Shaq. I'm amazed that he's been able to do as much with that team as he has, they really only had two solid teams (his 3rd year when they still had Marbury and Gugliotta which was slightly before he hit his prime, and a few years ago when they had Spree and Cassell). I think to really get a feel for whether he's great or merely very good is if he ends up on a contender in the near future, which means he'd probably have to leave Minnesota.

I'll take Duncan. And it has absolutely nothing to do with rings. Malone had to deal with the likes of Magic's Lakers; those loaded Blazers teams of the early 90's; Hakeem's Rockets; and, of course, Michael Jordan's Bulls. Let's just say the era Duncan has won his rings in isn't anywhere near as strong as that. However, Duncan get the edge overall as a player. Duncan is not as potent a scorer, but it's not that much of a difference. Malone was a better passer as well. Duncan is a better rebounder and has much more defensive impact than Malone ever had. He's also stepped up (something Malone never really did) in late May and June.

The Mailman: 4
The Big Fundamental: 2

Continue if you wish.