plawrence,

I think when we're comparing eras, it's an argument that's going on forever. First, I think it's amusing that I'm taking the side of the guy from the 60s, while you're taking the side of the guy from the 90s. But I think one of the main reasons I pick Russell is because everyone else is so quick to pick Jordan.

In terms of travel, the modern teams do have to travel more. They have to go out to L.A., whereas the teams from before rarely had to travel west of the Mississippi. But traveling is much better now. I would much rather take the team's private jet with custom-built seats and all of the luxuries in the world than some train that goes from St. Louis to Boston. The players stay in MUCH nicer hotels, and all of their accommodations are better.

John Havlicek once described the Boston Garden HOME locker room as "two nails per player", meaning that each stall was just two nails in the wall to hang their coats and their pants. Nowdays, locker rooms are luxurious, some having DVDs, TVs, and video game consoles at each stall.

I think Russell was the ultimate team player. If I was starting a team, I think I would take him first. He can fit into any team, while with Jordan, the team must fit around him. But I do think that Jordan is also a great player, obviously one of the greatest. But I think that some of that is due to the fact that he was a media darling and was hardly ever portrayed in a negative light (much like Kobe was until this most recent incident). He also came around at the right time in terms of marketing and promotion, and he's probably the most recognizable athlete in the world. Russell, on the other hand, was not very accommodating to the press, and it may have altered a lot of people's opinions of him.

But Russell or Jordan, Jordan or Russell. I'd say that they're the top two guys.