Lebron: Rings Shouldn't Matter; Rings Arent As Important In Other Sports

[The Lonious Monk]

Nobody said, not even Bron, that players can't be great. The conversation is taking away from and diminishing careers due to shit like we've already seen in this thread "Horry got 7 rings." Silly shit like that does get said. Thats why I used the Randy Brown/Isaiah Thomas comparison. Nobody in their right mind is taking him or Steve Kerr over another guard simply because they "won more rings".

Because using rings as the sole or even final determining factor just misses alot of shit especially when certain comparisons get made. It also forces people to talk about what a player hasn't done as opposed to what they have. And when done enough that can become the narrative on somebody's career.

Bron literally said:

Like OK, 'You weren't a great player [because] you never won a championship.' Or if you won one, you can't be in the same conversation with this person. ... You sit here and tell me Allen Iverson and Charles Barkley and Steve Nash f---ing weren't unbelievable?

"Like, 'Oh, they can't be talked about or discussed with these guys because this guy won one ring, or won two rings.' It's just weird to me.

The bold is the sentiment that he's responding to. Like you just said, nobody has ever said that, so Bron is basically making up narratives to knock them down. Who ever said AI, Barkley, or Nash weren't unbelievable? All three are MVPs, so clearly people thought they were great.

Also, more often than not, I see Lebron fans throwing up the Horry 7 rings thing to discredit championships. That's such a stupid narrative. We all know that Horry was not a team leader and is not in the discussion of Top 100 players all-time let alone the GOAT discussion.

Again, who uses rings as the sole factor? There are more LeBroniacs coming out trying to use longevity as the end all be all aspect of greatness than there are other people trying to use rings as the one deciding factor for greatness.

 

[The Lonious Monk]

Okay bruh.

You’re not understanding

Maybe I'm not. I'm responding to this statement from you.

I hate the argument that losing in the playoffs is less not as bad as losing in the finals.

I've never seen anybody say that. I've seen people say losing in the Finals is not as bad as not getting to the Finals, which is true. Yes, you're still a loser if you lose the Finals, that's true, but coming in second is still a bigger accomplishment than coming in 5th.

 

[BlackRain]

Bron literally said:



The bold is the sentiment that he's responding to. Like you just said, nobody has ever said that, so Bron is basically making up narratives to knock them down. Who ever said AI, Barkley, or Nash weren't unbelievable? All three are MVPs, so clearly people thought they were great.

Also, more often than not, I see Lebron fans throwing up the Horry 7 rings thing to discredit championships. That's such a stupid narrative. We all know that Horry was not a team leader and is not in the discussion of Top 100 players all-time let alone the GOAT discussion.

Again, who uses rings as the sole factor? There are more LeBroniacs coming out trying to use longevity as the end all be all aspect of greatness than there are other people trying to use rings as the one deciding factor for greatness.

My bad for misquoting him. I dont think he meant it in the literal sense but he did say it. You also conveniently ignored the next sentence which is the number of rings playing a factor. Which he also said using multiple other examples.

As for who uses rings as the sole factor there's only 1 Fandom that thinks "6-0" ends any argument. Shit the only reason Horry name was even mentioned in this thread was by somebody trying to discredit LeBron not vice versa. So you got your answer there. And people have used rings or lack there of to discredit the achievements of great players. Shit just earlier this week Jason Williams called out Stephen A Smith for saying Gianis career would be a disappointment and underachieving because he "only has 1 ring". It happens in basketball discussions more often than you seem to realize.

Again I will repeat. Rings matter but its part of a larger equation. When people simply boil down a career to the number of rings it discredits the other achievements and how great they are. What's so hard to get about that?

 

[AZTG]

Yall know basketball is my favorite sport, NBA my favorite league. But I'm starting to feel like these players are too sensitive. I say that knowing all of them have agendas to what they say.

But in the NFL, no one will ever say Aaron Rodgers is better than Tom Brady even though Aaron was the more skilled player.

In golf, tiger is celebrated for winning masters and the way he won them.

In tennis, we only talk about Serena to bring up how many grand slams she won.

In Soccer, Messi was the best player of the modern era but people never stopped bringing up how he couldn't win the world cup until he did.

Even in Hockey right now, Mcdavid is the best player but he can't win the Stanley Cup and it's being talked about how he can't win the big one.

It happens in every sport. Basketball players are just the only ones crying about it.

 

[RandomNegro]

BS.

Kareem's got six....AND SIX MVPs. More than anyone. AND retired #1 scorer all-time. AND retired as all-time all-star nods. And won the block title 4x.

What's y'all excuse for that?

If you believe Kareem is the best player ever, I wouldn’t argue you down at all, but I still hold Mike as number one because very very very few teams historically found success without a dominant big as their best player. Mike changed the winning paradigm for players in the league.

 

[VIBE]

When you mention a player like Horry who obviously isn't better than alot of players who never won rings as part of the rings argument it just validates the side of the argument that says people overvalue them. Shit Randy Brown got 3 rings just being on the Bulls roster. You telling me he's a better guard than Isaiah Thomas?

Clearly there’s a difference between players who are just on a roaster compared to the ones who played real game time.

I don’t think Horry is better than many players because he has 7 rings. He just happened to be on those teams.

Every player chases rings, they’re lying if they say they don’t. No player is just playing for the fuck of it. Everyone wants to be a champ… and there’s many players who won them without playing more than 10 minutes a season.

What I’m saying is, it’s a cop out statement. Idc who you are, if you’re Bron, Giannis, Kobe, Shaq etc… it’s almost like one gives up… “nah rings are overrated” simply because they can’t get to it.

If Bron won all Finals then he would have 10 rings. He sits behind Bill Russell. Does he still say rings aren’t all that? Or does he take a picture with all ten on each finger? Does he use it as bragging rights for GOAT status?

And GOAT status itself is overrated. It’s not even objective. It’s subjective. Bron is one of the GOAT’s but not **the** GOAT. Some take issues w that, as Bron does. I can see why ring talk would be annoying to an nba player w his status.

 

[The Lonious Monk]

My bad for misquoting him. I dont think he meant it in the literal sense but he did say it. You also conveniently ignored the next sentence which is the number of rings playing a factor. Which he also said using multiple other examples.

I didn't ignore it. I just don't agree with him. It's reasonable to look at two players that have a similar level greatness and hold the one that won more with higher reverence.

As for who uses rings as the sole factor there's only 1 Fandom that thinks "6-0" ends any argument. Shit the only reason Horry name was even mentioned in this thread was by somebody trying to discredit LeBron not vice versa. So you got your answer there. And people have used rings or lack there of to discredit the achievements of great players. Shit just earlier this week Jason Williams called out Stephen A Smith for saying Gianis career would be a disappointment and underachieving because he "only has 1 ring". It happens in basketball discussions more often than you seem to realize.

I know SAS and people in the media commonly throw that "6-0" shit around. I haven't seen that as much with the average MJ fans or even Lebron haters. In fact, I've heard a lot of MJ fans talk about how stupid going straight to "6-0" is. There are dudes on Youtube dedicating hour long video essays on YouTube to why MJ is better than Lebron, and you'll be 30 mins. in before you hear "6-0."

How does SAS saying that Giannis' career would be a disappointment with only 1 ring discredit Giannis? He's not saying that Giannis' two MVPs don't count or that Giannis doesn't deserve to be in the Top 75. He's just saying that as good as Giannis is, he should probably have more rings. That's not an unreasonable statement. It's just a fact that a great career with multiple rings is better than a great career with 1 or no rings. That shouldn't be a debate.

Again I will repeat. Rings matter but its part of a larger equation. When people simply boil down a career to the number of rings it discredits the other achievements and how great they are. What's so hard to get about that?

There's nothing hard to get about that. I don't even know who you're arguing with when you say that because most people in this topic have already agreed with that sentiment. My point is that Lebron and his supporters are largely making up this narrative that rings are the end-all-be-all. Who is saying that only rings matter? You yourself said that nobody has said the players can't be great without rings, so what are we talking about here?

 

[Dwayne]

I think most yall didn’t really hear what he said

 

[BlackRain]

I didn't ignore it. I just don't agree with him. It's reasonable to look at two players that have a similar level greatness and hold the one that won more with higher reverence.



I know SAS and people in the media commonly throw that "6-0" shit around. I haven't seen that as much with the average MJ fans or even Lebron haters. In fact, I've heard a lot of MJ fans talk about how stupid going straight to "6-0" is. There are dudes on Youtube dedicating hour long video essays on YouTube to why MJ is better than Lebron, and you'll be 30 mins. in before you hear "6-0."

How does SAS saying that Giannis' career would be a disappointment with only 1 ring discredit Giannis? He's not saying that Giannis' two MVPs don't count or that Giannis doesn't deserve to be in the Top 75. He's just saying that as good as Giannis is, he should probably have more rings. That's not an unreasonable statement. It's just a fact that a great career with multiple rings is better than a great career with 1 or no rings. That shouldn't be a debate.



There's nothing hard to get about that. I don't even know who you're arguing with when you say that because most people in this topic have already agreed with that sentiment. My point is that Lebron and his supporters are largely making up this narrative that rings are the end-all-be-all. Who is saying that only rings matter? You yourself said that nobody has said the players can't be great without rings, so what are we talking about here?

You say in one sentence you know SAS, who is by far a large media presence so him saying it isn't just some random person, and others in the media push the 6-0 narrative. Yet then say you don't know where it comes from and that its minimal. SAS saying something repeatedly on the biggest sports platform for years is way bigger than a random YouTube video. The narrative isn't largely made up when you yourself admit it exists and gets talked about damn near on a weekly basis for years at a time.

Saying someone should have more rings is different than calling their career a disappointment. Those are 2 different statements. One acknowledges their achievements. The other doesn't. Simply having more rings doesn't make somebody a better player.

 

[The Lonious Monk]

You say in one sentence you know SAS, who is by far a large media presence so him saying it isn't just some random person, and others in the media push the 6-0 narrative. Yet then say you don't know where it comes from and that its minimal. SAS saying something repeatedly on the biggest sports platform for years is way bigger than a random YouTube video. The narrative isn't largely made up when you yourself admit it exists and gets talked about damn near on a weekly basis for years at a time.

I didn't say I don't know where it comes from. I specifically said that it's something that is constantly spouted by SAS and other media figures. So, sure, it is a common narrative in those circles. The same circles that get paid to push these narratives. I'm saying that for normal people, like us on this forum, that narrative isn't nearly as common. We've all had multiple discussion on the GOAT debate. How many times have you seen, on this forum, a person put 6-0 and just leave it at that as if that was a discussion ender?

Saying someone should have more rings is different than calling their career a disappointment. Those are 2 different statements. One acknowledges their achievements. The other doesn't. Simply having more rings doesn't make somebody a better player.

lol You can acknowledge someone's achievements and still consider a career a disappointment. Some people like yourself see winning as a perk of playing. That's fine, but at some point, you're going to have to try and understand that others see sports with the Herman Edwards mentality "You play to win the game." For a lot of fans, a player's personal achievements are great but if they didn't result in wins they are empty. They aren't out of line to feel like that.

 

[Gray Matter]

The idea that you need a ring to be one of the greatest or even the GOAT is stupid.

You mean to tell me that if someone came along and averaged 40/18/15 shooting 45% from 3 for 20 years that he wouldn't be the GOAT if he doesn't get a ring? That would be silly. It's a team sport.

 

[RandomNegro]

The idea that you need a ring to be one of the greatest or even the GOAT is stupid.

You mean to tell me that if someone came along and averaged 40/18/15 shooting 45% from 3 for 20 years that he wouldn't be the GOAT if he doesn't get a ring? That would be silly. It's a team sport.

It wouldn’t be silly because what do you play for?

 

[Chi-Town B]

The idea that you need a ring to be one of the greatest or even the GOAT is stupid.

You mean to tell me that if someone came along and averaged 40/18/15 shooting 45% from 3 for 20 years that he wouldn't be the GOAT if he doesn't get a ring? That would be silly. It's a team sport.

Yes, empty stats that didn't lead to winning. How are you the best ever and you never won a championship?

 

[Sky Davis]

The idea that you need a ring to be one of the greatest or even the GOAT is stupid.

You mean to tell me that if someone came along and averaged 40/18/15 shooting 45% from 3 for 20 years that he wouldn't be the GOAT if he doesn't get a ring? That would be silly. It's a team sport.

There’s a reason why Allen Iverson ain’t even a top 25 player all time

 

[BlackRain]

 

[Goldie]

I hate this nigga Lebron. Now he got all the ringless niggas crying for recognition.

 

[Goldie]

And I fuck with McGrady, but foh

 

[Chi-Town B]

And I fuck with McGrady, but foh

Mf'er that never advanced past the first round, we don't need to hear from him ever

 

[Sky Davis]

Mf'er that never advanced past the first round, we don't need to hear from him ever

Is Tmac early 2000s Zach lavine?

 

[Chi-Town B]

Is Tmac early 2000s Zach lavine?

Nah, T mac was winning in the regular season, I'm not going to diss him like that