who was better chicago bulls in 1990s or lakers in 2000 2001 2002?

look it up on whatifsports.com, and i better get the 10 since i recommended this site, lol.

The 1996 Bulls would do very undesirable issues to the 2001 Lakers. The 2001 Lakers would all sit down interior the bathe attempting to bathe off the dirt from that have. (i had to get extra specific, yet i be attentive to for a actuality i'd get a contravention observe.) there's a clarification why Phil won extra Championships with the Bulls, it is call Jordan.

i dont know...

the bulls of the 90s were basically all MJ, pippen, rodman, and a little bit of toni kukoc

the lakers had kobe, shaq, clutch robert horry, rick fox, horace grant, AC Green, Ron Harper (who was on both teams), and other good role players

i think the bulls were a better team, but the lakers team would win in a game because shaq was so dominant back then

Lakers 2000, 2001, 2002 and the 80;s lakers with Magic.

Bulls beat bunch of no bodies in the finals, Utah, Portland,

Phoenix, none of them had a title.

Lakers in 80s beat boston which had 4 titles, and

200-2002 they beat SA and Detroit good teams.

Jordan dominated Kobe even after his prime had already past.... and shaq never was much of a threat to MJ either....

The lakers of the 2000's were the best at the time, but not of all time..... and not even close!

Bulls of the 90's would have killed the lakers of th 2000's.

Jordan would have dominated Kobe and rodman would frustate shaq.

No question the Bulls with MJ and Pippen were better, although Shaq is one of the best players ever. Kobe needed Shaq to win it all, yet Shaq can go to any team and win a title.

The 1990's bulls.

Comparing a Lakers team to a legendary Bulls team with Jordan???

You're out of your mind.

Def. Lakers

The lakers had more talent because shaq and kobe together were more dominant than jordan and pippen, but the bulls had more desire and teamwork.