People here seem to think aesthetically pleasing only means smooth and graceful. Bron's game is aesthetically pleasing because of the power and athleticism. Same thing with Shaq.
I feel like aestheticially pleasing includes all of it. Not just some of it. Kind of the reason I just never mention Bron or Shaq in threads like this.
Guys like Kobe, MJ, Penny, T-Mac, Dr. J, David Thompson, VC, them nikkas was some pretty game ass nikkas. For many, they value that. You see nikkas like
@Braman,
@Swagnificent And
@CHICAGO who lack BBIQ really value that shyt. Them nikkas will try to tell you really good nikkas like Draymond suck because their game isn't easy on the eyes. Some nikkas need to see beauty in the shyt.
For nikkas like me, the smart nikkas. We see the entire game. We see the era, how reffing was in that era or time period, over possession by possession impact. Every aspect of the game.
So shyt like aesthetics is a part of the game but it's just a part of the game. I would Tim Duncan in extremely high regard as one of the game's
but most wouldn't because his game is boring and lacks beauty.
Al Horford is one of the best players I've seen play this game but his game is robotic and he plays for the team, not his individual stats and most will greatly undervalue him who's an impact superstar.
If you can't see the game well, your a dumbass to me. But to nikkas who see beauty in the game. To them, you can't convince them of shyt if they don't like how you look playing the game. Dwight gets a lot of hate for how he plays the game in his prime when he was impactful even if he wasn't skilled or fun to watch outside of Highlight dunks or blocks.
