The Ring arguement

[ralaw]

I hate the ring argument only because it's the laziest of lazy sports arguments. Instead of a thoughtful conversation about a players legacy people just throw out a number and consider it gospel.

It is lazy, but rings do matter. If Jordan was without a ring I wonder what his legacy would be? Probably a selfish scorer who couldn't elevate his team to greatness.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

The problem with the ring argument, is when it comes to NBA players, NFL QB's, and coaches (all sports), there are some who use it as the be all, end all. Instead of using it as part of the argument, it becomes the argument. It really is incredibly lazy.

I said this in the Super Bowl thread, but people were crowing Eli and putting him in the Hall of Fame 12 months ago, and I was getting laughed off the board for suggesting we take a breath, step back, and examine what Eli actually is, which is a pretty good QB at best, and a slightly above average QB at worst. I can rattle off a half dozen QB's who are much better than Eli with no rings, but Eli has two so we just must put him on some new level. Why do we have to ignore the entire body of work, based on the outcome of two games? It makes no sense.

 

[FedEx227]

It is lazy, but rings do matter. If Jordan was without a ring I wonder what his legacy would be? Probably a selfish scorer who couldn't elevate his team to greatness.

And that's to Warner's point and I totally agree. It's apart of the argument no doubt, but it's not THE argument. You shouldn't just say "Well Kobe is better than LeBron because he has 5 rings". That' silly. There's so much more to the conversation and so much more to the argument that can't be summed up in one number. With that being said, it carries the most weight in the NBA since a star affects his teams more than in any other sport and the 7-game series really forces the stars to rise to the top. There are no fluke NBA Finals victories.

Still, though, I'm not a fan of it because it's just so incredibly lazy. It ignores team factors, age, experience, the league around the player and those are two extremely important factors that can't and should not be ignored in any higher level sports discussion.

 

[ralaw]

And that's to Warner's point and I totally agree. It's apart of the argument no doubt, but it's not THE argument. You shouldn't just say "Well Kobe is better than LeBron because he has 5 rings". That' silly. There's so much more to the conversation and so much more to the argument that can't be summed up in one number. With that being said, it carries the most weight in the NBA since a star affects his teams more than in any other sport and the 7-game series really forces the stars to rise to the top. There are no fluke NBA Finals victories.

Still, though, I'm not a fan of it because it's just so incredibly lazy. It ignores team factors, age, experience, the league around the player and those are two extremely important factors that can't and should not be ignored in any higher level sports discussion.

I agree. I just want to make sure that people aren't just dismissing championships.

A funny ring argument that we use to hear about Kobe was that "he never won a ring without Shaq". So, it wasn't enough that he played an integral part in winning 3 championships, but he has to be the go-to guy leading those championships? All of that came to an end when he won 2 more without Shaq, but I than heard the "Well, he has never won a championship without an all-star C/PF!!" Sports debates can be so lame at times. TBH I think most people really can't break down a player well enough to just have a debate on what they provide...instead they just point to the ring argument. To some winning a championship is all that counts.

 

[DoubleDeuce]

To me, rings mostly matter when discussing legacies. When discussing how well a player actually plays, it's irrational to say they're a worse player because they don't have a ring. And they don't suddenly become a thousand times better when they win one. LeBron after winning a ring isn't any better than LeBron Game 6 against Boston, unless you're purely talking about legacy.

 

[Saluki]

Ring argument becomes more valid when trying to rank players of about equal talent. If you have two equal guys and one has 2 rings that def gives him an advantage

Sent from my HTC myTouch 4g using Tapatalk 2

 

[FedEx227]

Does it always though? I think it's not that easy to do. Player A may have had one of the best centers of all-time on his team while Player B didn't. That's why I just hate it, there are so many different factors involved that it just doesn't work. I'd like to think we're all smarter than that.

More over, why do we have to always rank dudes? Can't we just say "Yeah, Michael Jordan was really good and, shit, LeBron James guards all five positions, he's really good too. Kobe was a great scrorer!" why does it always have to be ranked in an arbitrary list that forces us to devalue certain aspects of these players and put their careers into such a small little package.

 

[JimLeavy59]

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

Not having rings doesn't mean Malone, Stockton, Barkley, Reggie, Nash, etc. were/are any less great.

Not less great...but weren't that great.

The Rings discussion comes into play when you discuss peers, mostly at the highest level.

 

[Crotch]

Dennis Rodman is a better rebounder and defensive player than any of those.