Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player ever.

I appreciate it and look forward to a good debate. I would like to add one more detail I forgot to mention. Please no new arguments in the final round, just conclude the debate. Other than that let us begin. Before I get into Wilt Chamberlain I will first point out Michael Jordan's accomplishments. Jordan came into the NBA as a rookie in 1984 where he played all 82 games and averaged over 20 points per game (28), over 5 assists per game, and 5 rebounds per game, now only one of four players to ever accomplish this feat. The others are Oscar Robertson, LeBron James, and Tyreke Evans. This can be found here (. http://www.nba.com...) Jordan also averaged 2.39 steals per game his rookie year setting the tone as not only an offensive threat but an all around player. From 1986 to 1993 Jordan averaged over 30 points per game every year. In 86-87 he averaged 37 points per game followed by 35 the next year. Jordan dominated these years including 1991 when he won his first championship at the age of 28. You pointed out that it took Michael Jordan a long time to reach a championship much like Michael Jordan. While LeBron was actually younger (27) Jordan had only been in the league for six years since he went to North Carolina for college ball and didn't enter the league until 22. LeBron on the other hand came into the league at 18 and won his championship nine years in. So that argument doesn't work. It's not about age it's about years in the league. Anyway, after his first title Jordan and the Bulls went on to 3-peat then something unusual happened, Jordan retired at the age of 30! His reasoning was he ran out of challenges. As in the NBA was too easy! We all know what happened next with his stint in baseball but then he returned right where he left off winning another three titles. Rings don't matter? They are a team accomplishment? Then why didn't the Bulls win a ring while Jordan was gone? Jordan would have won eight straight titles had he not retired. Jordan was not only dominant in the regular season but the postseason where he got even better. Player Efficiency Rating or PER, was developed by John Hollinger as an attempt to determine the most efficient players of all time. This formula can be explained here: (. http://en.wikipedia.org...(basketball) This is not some random formula, it is used by many networks and analysts including ESPN, the worldwide leader in sports. Micheal Jordan has the highest regular season PER ever with 27.91. But Jordan doesn't stop there, he gets better as the pressure builds. He also has the greatest PER in the postseason at 28.59. As for Wilt Chamberlain. He played in an era that benefited him greatly. I will only use one point for right now. Really, it's the only point that needs to be made. Wilt Chamberlain was 7'1 in a basketball era that was played by less athletic and shorter players than now. Humans are also taller (over 1 inch) and wiegh more (over 25 pounds). Wilt was not only towering over his competition but outwieghed them. He had a body built to play in the league today at 7'1 275 pounds. You say his durability at that size is amazing but it actually helps him. He has bigger and stronger bones to help support his body. 275 pounds at 7'1 is the perfect size to stay fit and stay durable for the entire career. An example of the hieght discrepancy would be on Wilt's very own 1967 championship team. Wilt was 7'1 while the next closest player in hieght was Luke Jackson at 6'9. That's four inches shorter. The next closest after him were three players at 6'6. That is seven inches shorter. Even Nate Thurman the "protege" to Wilt was 6'11. While that's a solid hieght it isn't 7'1. 7'1 in today's NBA would be considered tall and he was that hieght during the 1960s. As you can see Wilt played in an era that benefited him greatly. . http://www.nba.com...