Quantcast
Wednesday, June 5th, 2013 at 10:00 am  |  46 responses

Chris Bosh Facing His Idol Tim Duncan in the NBA Finals


For Chris Bosh, the NBA Finals will represent an opportunity to beat one of his basketball heroes, Tim Duncan. Bosh, who drew inspiration from Duncan reading about him in SLAM, will get an up-close and personal look starting on Thursday. Per the Miami Herald and Fox Sports: “‘I had favorite players, and he was one of them,’ Bosh said of Duncan, the Spurs’ center. ‘He was in SLAM [Magazine] a lot. SLAM was like the Bible, so I took out the pages and put them on my wall. That was a little while ago. That was another lifetime.’ [...] When big man Tim Duncan won his first NBA ring in 1999, Chris Bosh wasn’t looking to emulate him. He was paying attention to backcourt players. ‘When he started having success, I was trying to be a guard,’ Bosh, a Miami Heat center, said about when Duncan claimed his first of four titles with San Antonio. ‘I was heading into my sophomore year of high school. But then I had a growth spurt. In two years, I grew another five inches. I said, ‘I might as well be like those (big) guys.’ One of those big men was Duncan. By 2001, Bosh said Duncan and then Minnesota power forward Kevin Garnett were ‘pretty much a tie for my favorite player.’ [...] When Bosh was preparing for the 2003 NBA draft, he had a chance to check out Duncan in person. He went to a pair of games in Dallas as the Spurs beat the Mavericks in the Western Conference finals. ‘I soaked up the action,’ Bosh said of watching Duncan, who would go on that season to win his second NBA crown. Ten years later, it’s the Heat battling San Antonio. It could be the last stand for the Spurs dynasty as Duncan, 37, is trying to win his fifth ring and Manu Ginobili, 35, and Tony Parker, 31, are each vying for a fourth. ‘They’re one of the best dynasties of all time, and we’ll see how we stack up against each other,’ Bosh said of the Spurs, who also won titles in 2005 and 2007. ‘I grew up in Texas, so I’ve seen what they’ve done. Of course, everybody knows what they’ve done. But we feel like it’s our time now.’”

  • Add a Comment
  • Share
  • RSS

Tags: , , ,

  • spit hot fiyah

    “..I was trying to be a guard” we can tell

  • MUBWAR

    what give it away? the fact that he is shooting mid range jumper at 46% and and 48% from downtown in the playoff

  • shockexchange

    Roy Hibbert is his new idol.

  • bike

    He may be his idol but Bosh doesn’t play anything like Duncan. Not. At. All.

  • spit hot fiyah

    what give it away?

  • RayJr

    I’m sorry but the Spurs are not a dynasty. They have all of the qualifications to be a dynasty EXCEPT back to back championships. Yes the Spurs are the best organization in the NBA and have had 50+ wins in idk how many seasons in a row but no back to back championships = no dynasty.

  • spit hot fiyah

    ” Chris Bosh wasn’t looking to emulate him. He was paying attention to backcourt players.” that would explain why

  • http://www.reverbnation.com/savagemuzicgroup T-Ray

    So you don’t think winning 4 titles in a decade qualifies them as a dynasty?

  • Max

    This again?
    ‘A succession of rulers of the same line of descent.’
    ‘A powerful group or family that maintains its position for a considerable time.’
    According to the 2nd definition they are a dynasty, simple as that.

  • coyboo

    with the headline, i was anticipating gay bosh jokes in the threads. surprisingly there aren’t any

  • 1982

    I don’t think of the Rockets as a dynasty just because they won back to back.

  • http://twitter.com/Jzakoni D dot Sanchez

    someone might be star gazed

  • Mars

    The Spurs are definitely a dynasty. Duncan is a legend. Mano is the ultimate swiss army knife. Tony Parker is gangster. Why? Because all three every year let you forget about them til playoff time. Miami could learn a thing or two from them. Bosh shoulda stayed to Toronto.

  • RayJr

    No because they were not the best in the NBA for consecutive years.

  • RayJr

    It’s because the writer calls them a dynasty.

    This isn’t for sports though. In your terms of dynasty that is for kings, monarchies and things of that sort that had ruled for many years in a row. The Spurs were not NBA champs, or the best, for even 2 years in a row. They had been stopped so according to the second definition they are not a dynasty. Yes they were among the top for a considerable time BUT during that time someone was better than them more than half the time of the Duncan era so they weren’t the most “powerful group”.

  • RayJr

    I would agree because the Rockets were really only dominant in the 90s for a few years. A sports Dynasty has to be dominant for many years and have back to back championships. The Rockets did have the back to back ships but were not dominant long enough to be considered a dynasty.

  • http://www.reverbnation.com/savagemuzicgroup T-Ray

    Ahh I see your reasoning behind them not being a dynasty is due to them not being the clear cut best team for consecutive years. I can respect that.

  • RayJr

    Thanks you sir.

  • Max

    Give me all the definitions of a dynasty, I’m pretty sure the Spurs are one according to atleast 1.

  • GMR

    Dude, basketball just isn’t for you. Honestly. Go color or something. The more you talk the dumber you sound. I’m sure that’s not the first time you heard that, but nonetheless, it applies here.

  • RayJr

    Great contribution…why don’t you argue against me instead of resorting to name calling? Oh yeah because that’s what you do in all of your comments on here.
    GMR – “Uhh I don’t have anything to say so umm…you’re dumb haha”

  • RayJr

    A sports team who dominates their sport for numerous years and wins back to back championships to put the cap on the dynasty. The Spurs have never even won back to back conference titles. Division yeah so I guess they could be considered a dynasty in the southwest division.
    Your definition refers to a monarchy or dictatorship and doesn’t relate to sports.

  • RayJr

    And thanks for the argument. I respect that. Not like GMR below who doesn’t have anything to say so he turns into a 5 year old.

  • Da-Meat-Hook

    I think both parties have valid points on the “Spurs Dynasty” subject.

    Related Question: if Miami loses to the Spurs they will have made 3 consecutive finals appearances with 1 chip . . . They will have “maintained their position for a considerable time” but will have failed to win back to back titles.

    Would they be considered a dynasty?

  • Francis

    I was expecting the same…

  • Francis

    Bosh has put up decent if not good numbers against the Spurs since coming to Miami. I expect him to be more of a factor in this series. Duncan and Splitter aren’t as physical as West and Hibbert… And Bosh knocking down some shots is all Bron needs and it’s over.

  • Max

    Lol, go read what he wrote on the 3 Cavs players thingy..

  • Max

    Is that the only definition of a sports dynasty?
    If it is, then you’re right, but common we all know they are a dynasty given how dominant they were even if it doesn’t equal the definition exactly.

  • Max

    It applies way more to you than it does to RayJr lol, saying Tyler Zeller is better then AD (will even be lol)
    Tyler can hope he’ll ever become as good as AD is right now.

  • RayJr

    That is for me but yeah I definitely see your point. Ok how about this?…I’ll agree they are a dynasty if they win this Finals. I am willing to take the back to back qualification out because in all honesty Duncan and the Spurs have been amazing this year and I didn’t think Duncan could play this great at 37.

  • RayJr

    Lol yeah there should be an age limit on here.

  • Max

    Haha fair enough.

  • whooo!

    so the only thing i have about the back-to-back is it starts to suggest they weren’t dominant in the off years. to me, at the VERY LEAST, winning 3 rings in 5yrs is equivalent to a back-to-back championship. ESPECIALLY when the back-to-back championship is surrounded by bad seasons.

    now in the past 6 yrs, they’ve been regular season teams, and i think that throws things off. but i think you’re overlooking 3 rings in 5yrs, including being a Game 7 overtime away from the Finals in ’06. add to that potentially bookending the run with 1 chip in ’99 and maybe 1 in ’13, while winning 50+ games each of those 14yrs and regularly finishing top 3 in the?

  • whooo!

    the closest comparison is the Larry-Bird era Celtics, except the Spurs maintained their winning over a longer period and won more rings. but i’ll definitely value those 2 teams for their work far more than HOU, DET, or the Kobe-Gasol 2peat “dynasty”.

  • RedRum

    Winning back to back rings also takes certain amount of luck. Had the Fisher’s 0.4 not have happened they would have had a three peat (assuming of course everything stays the same). Or even more if Ginobily does not foul Dirk in 2006. A team that has the highest winning percentage in ANY sport the past 15 years, has won 4 championships and has reached the conference Finals almost every year the last 15 years is not a dynasty??

  • Lloyd

    Back-to-back championships doesn’t have to be a qualification for a team to be a “dynasty”. Dynasties just exhibit prolonged years of dominance, which of course at it’s peak would be championships, but doesn’t have to be. Between 1999 and 2008, they had 4 chips though. That’s 4 out of 9 championship years. That’s dominance.

    Anyway it sounds like your argument about whether the Spurs are a “dynasty” or not is based on semantics. They’ve been near the top of the league and winning for 15 years straight. Whether or not you use the word “dynasty” to describe them or not, really doesn’t matter.

  • Lloyd

    Probably because it’s pertaining to Timmy D. No one can make a joke out of a man saying that he respects one of the greatest to ever do it.

  • Lloyd

    The definition of “dynasty” is so subjective that it can go either way. The only reason I think we can give the Spurs the “dynasty” mantle is because they’ve been consistently strong for almost a decade and a half as opposed to Miami who has only been consistently strong for 3 years. If they win this year and can be dominant next year or vice versa, I think they can be a dynasty. If they lose this year and be dominant next year but still lose, I think they fall short. At the end of the day, multiple championships in a short time is all that matters. 1 in 4 years just isn’t that great.

  • Da-Meat-Hook

    Agreed. It’s hard to put an exact formula on dynasties in basketball, but I think most of us can agree that numerous championships and being a top 4 team in the L for a prolonged period of time are 2 strong indicators.

  • grgeblck

    He should be embarrassed to say that his idols are Duncan and Garnett.

  • Bandwagonfan

    16 dislikes?

  • RayJr

    Valid point. That back to back thing really is a big point for me but then again that’s me. I never said the Spurs weren’t dominant. They have been but in some years someone has been better. To me the dynasty is to the best for mulitiple and consecutive years.

  • RayJr

    Yeah you do need some luck sometimes to make it into Finals sometimes. If the Warriors don’t collapse in Game 1 and Ginobli doesn’t make a buzzer beater in OT we might not be talking about SA.

  • RayJr

    Bring something to the table and then talk. I don’t care how many dislikes I get. At least I defend my argument.

  • Lloyd

    I can see the validity in that and I agree for the most part, I just think that if they’re one of the top 5 for 15 years consistently when every other team has fluctuated out of that position, you can dub them a “dynasty” just for the longevity/consistency of dominance. Multiple championships are a must, back to back is just sprinkles on top for me. Anyway, like I said, this is just a semantics based argument at the end of the day. Everyone can agree that they’ve been dominant for 15 years, and that they have a good chance of getting 5 chips in 15 years within the next couple weeks. That’s all that matters.

  • Pingback: Chris Bosh Wants to Retire … in Six Years » SLAMonline

Advertisement