James Harden vs Charles Barkley

[Lebron23]

Who do you think is the better player? I think Harden officially surpassed him last season.

[Roundball_Rock]

Barkley, although Harden is underappreciated by fans.

[Round Mound]

Barkley...better performance in the play-offs. Harden is a better long range and ft shooter than Barkley that's about it. Prime Barkley was the most difficult PF to guard ever. Plus a better post player, rebounder, as good passer, stealer, shot blocker, coast to coast finisher, dunker and could take games over. Harden gets calls that back in the 90s and 80s he wouldn't get as far as free-throw attempts per game. Barkley played when REAL CONTACT WAS ALLOWED. Harden plays in an era WITH NO CONTACT ALLOWED.

[SATAN]

What a weird thread.

Can't even imagine Harden playing in Barkleys' era. 6-5 Barkley was going against guys like Malone and grabbing over 10 rpg for his whole career, meanwhile Harden is flopping all over the place and trying to draw contact on step back 3 pointers. Leading the league in scoring yet hardly anyone truly respects his game for the reasons mentioned. I'd take Barkley.

[MrFonzworth]

If Harden wins a ring (lol) then he has a slim chance of catching Barkley. It's not even close right now though.

[baudkarma]

Barkley...better performance in the play-offs. Harden is a better long range and ft shooter than Barkley that's about it. Prime Barkley was the most difficult PF to guard ever. Plus a better post player, rebounder, as good passer, stealer, shot blocker, coast to coast finisher, dunker and could take games over. Harden gets calls that back in the 90s and 80s he wouldn't get as far as free-throw attempts per game. Barkley played when REAL CONTACT WAS ALLOWED. Harden plays in an era WITH NO CONTACT ALLOWED.

Okay. Grant you better performance in the playoffs, though neither guy has a ring. But ranking Barkley as better simply because he played in a more physical era is stupid. Players have to adapt to the rules and the calls of the game they're playing. If Chaz was playing in todays NBA and tried the tactics he used back in the 90's, he'd foul out in five minutes.

Put Harden in the 80's and he would find a way to compete. Put Chaz in todays game and he'd adapt, find some new moves, fine some new tricks, and still find a way to dominate without drawing too many fouls.

Get yourself over the idea that the game was better back when it was more physical. It wasn't.

[Wally450]

Barkley by a bit. Harden can probably catch him in a year or two.

[BigShotBob]

Okay. Grant you better performance in the playoffs, though neither guy has a ring. But ranking Barkley as better simply because he played in a more physical era is stupid. Players have to adapt to the rules and the calls of the game they're playing. If Chaz was playing in todays NBA and tried the tactics he used back in the 90's, he'd foul out in five minutes.

Put Harden in the 80's and he would find a way to compete. Put Chaz in todays game and he'd adapt, find some new moves, fine some new tricks, and still find a way to dominate without drawing too many fouls.

Get yourself over the idea that the game was better back when it was more physical. It wasn't.

Game was better back then lil' boi. Sad you missed out on it?

Barkley was a better post season performer by an extremely comfortable margin. He's only lost to the best of the best, not to the geriatric Spurs while being blocked by Manu

[ArbitraryWater]

In a few years we‘ll have to take Harden if he does what he is doing last 2 years for another 3 years

[Whoah10115]

A ring is the only reason Barkley isn't consensus top 12 and probably 10, like Hakeem or Mr. Duncan.

Barkley is a top 15 player at worst.

[Phoenix]

A ring is the only reason Barkley isn't consensus top 12 and probably 10, like Hakeem or Mr. Duncan.

Barkley is a top 15 player at worst.

Yep. Malone and Barkley are like the only two players I see routinely counted as top 20 alltime without a ring. That has to count for something in debates like this.

[Whoah10115]

Yep. Malone and Barkley are like the only two players I see routinely counted as top 20 alltime without a ring. That has to count for something in debates like this.

Especially nowadays where everything is centered around some checklist of accomplishments. Malone has longevity in line with Kareem and LeBron and behind nobody, is the 2nd highest scorer ever, with a higher PPG than the guy in front of him.

Charles is ranked there solely for how good he was.

[baudkarma]

Game was better back then lil' boi. Sad you missed out on it?

Barkley was a better post season performer by an extremely comfortable margin. He's only lost to the best of the best, not to the geriatric Spurs while being blocked by Manu

I'm 60 years old. I didn't miss out on the 90's. Nor did I miss out on the 80's NBA, and I still have memories of comfortable stretches of the 70's. The game was more physical back when Barkley played. That didn't and doesn't make it better than the modern era. I can see your point about Barkley being the better player, especially in the postseason. But saying he was better because back when he played guys could mug each other in the paint and get away with it is wrong. Todays players are (as a whole) much more gifted physically than those of previous eras, and they're more skilled as well. Most of the guys playing today could transition to the more physical style of the 90's and at least hold their own. There were a bunch of tin cans on the court in that era who would be lost on the court today.

[LoneyROY7]

I'm 60 years old. I didn't miss out on the 90's. Nor did I miss out on the 80's NBA, and I still have memories of comfortable stretches of the 70's. The game was more physical back when Barkley played. That didn't and doesn't make it better than the modern era. I can see your point about Barkley being the better player, especially in the postseason. But saying he was better because back when he played guys could mug each other in the paint and get away with it is wrong. Todays players are (as a whole) much more gifted physically than those of previous eras, and they're more skilled as well. Most of the guys playing today could transition to the more physical style of the 90's and at least hold their own. There were a bunch of tin cans on the court in that era who would be lost on the court today.

https://i.gifer.com/WmEm.gif

[goozeman]

I'm 60 years old. I didn't miss out on the 90's. Nor did I miss out on the 80's NBA, and I still have memories of comfortable stretches of the 70's. The game was more physical back when Barkley played. That didn't and doesn't make it better than the modern era. I can see your point about Barkley being the better player, especially in the postseason. But saying he was better because back when he played guys could mug each other in the paint and get away with it is wrong. Todays players are (as a whole) much more gifted physically than those of previous eras, and they're more skilled as well. Most of the guys playing today could transition to the more physical style of the 90's and at least hold their own. There were a bunch of tin cans on the court in that era who would be lost on the court today.

This is the era of so-called positionless basketball. The term "positionless" is just another name for guard skills. Guard skills are not the only kind of basketball skills. Teams want lineups in which everybody is a threat from deep and play in the perimeter and that can play with and without the ball. It's a requirement to have players on the roster that can shoot high percentage threes thanks to analytics. Guard skills favor the smaller, quicker guy, so we are seeing the league trend in that direction. Players today are inch shorter than they were in the 90's. Average weight is also trending down and has dropped for five consecutive years to the point where weight is the same today as in the 90's. Yea, players are more skilled in the since that they have guard skills, but some of those players are just three-point shooting specialists. They are not all-around threats from mid-range, etc. like in other eras. The raw athleticism (agility, quickness, etc) of today's players is better as a collective (end of the bench), but I would say it is overstated, and who cares anyway? You could switch around the last two or three roster spots at random between teams and wouldn't change the league standings one bit. The reality is that thanks to the way the sport is trending with its overreliance on the outside shot I think the game is going to get less athletic if it continues. Imagine lineups when every team is taking 50% of their shots from deep. Teams will need shooters and they'll sacrifice overall athleticism to make room for them on their roster. It's already happening.