Duncan Vs. Garnett

Time to answer the age old question: Whos better, Duncan or Garnett?

Lets see... I think Garnett is overrated as hell. All that time he spent in Minnesota, and he accomplished abso - fucking - lutley nothing, other than being an allstar. Duncan on the other hand, while Garnett was rotting in Minnesota, was busy winning FOUR titles, TWO MVPs, and 3 Finals MVPs. Some (idiots) might argue that Duncan is boring and for that one reason, Garnett is better. I would like to point out that Garnetts game is very similar to Duncans, they both love abusing that mid range jumpshot, Garnett does have at least one semi exciting dunk every few games, but seriously, does that REALLY make him a better player. I think that everyone who thinks the Spurs are boring is an IDIOT. Some of the most exciting games Ive ever watched were Spurs games. Remember that game where Derek Fisher hit the game winner? Yea those were the Spurs, how bout that Christmas day games against the suns where Roger Mason Jr. hit a game winner, I think those were the Spurs too, and who can forget Game 1 of last years playoffs, where Duncan hit the three to go into overtime ( something Garnett has never done, mind you) You can look at stats too, what do you know, Duncan also averages more points than Garnett, wow huh? I know people are going to say "OOHHH but Garnett never had any good teammates ", thats not entirely true, during the year Minnesota went to the conference finals they had some pretty good players. Theres also something I would like to point out, Garnett, in Boston is averaging less points, now you might say that its because he has 2 other allstars, but Tim Duncan also has 2 all star caliber teammates, yet he averages 21-11. Garnett averages 15-8.

And dont even get me started on awards.

Duncan

Titles: 4

Mvps: 2

Finals Mvps: 3

Garnett

Titles: 1 

Mvps 1

Finals Mvps : ZERO