But it's difficult to draw any other conclusion based on Jackson's pointed, and earnest words.
"One of the biggest differences between the two stars from my perspective was Michael's superior skills as a leader," Jackson writes. "Though at times he could be hard on his teammates, Michael was masterful at controlling the emotional climate of the team with the power of his presence. Kobe had a long way to go before he could make that claim. He talked a good game, but he'd yet to experience the cold truth of leadership in his bones, as Michael had in his bones."
That's not too bad considering Jackson's analysis in this instance because it describes the emotional growth and maturation of a player, which is something that is learned and often exists parallel to a player's impact on the floor.
However, Jackson goes on to explain why he does feel like Jordan is a better overall player than Bryant, and by the time he's done you get the overall impression that the competition was never even close.
"No question, Michael was a tougher, more intimidating defender," Jackson writes. "He could break through virtually any screen and shut down almost any player with his intense, laser-focused style of defense."
Jackson doesn't mince words when describing Jordan as a superior defender, and even though he issued a caveat by saying that Bryant did eventually learn some of Jordan's defensive tricks, Bryant was still the lesser player on defense.
And offense as well.
On offense, Jackson said: "Jordan was also more naturally inclined to let the game come to him and not overplay his hand, whereas Kobe tends to force the action, especially when the game isn't going hi...
Article Source: Bleacher Report - Los Angeles Lakers
