During the All-Star break, on Feb. 17, 2013, LeBron
James was asked about his opinion on Michael Jordan's statement that he would choose Kobe over James as a player because "five beats one every time I look at it." (referring to Kobe and LeBron's
championships) Well, LeBron's
response was one of the greatest explanations of all time.
It went like this: "Rings (don't) always define someone's career, if that's the case, I'd sit up here and say that I'd take (Bill) Russell over Jordan, but I wouldn't. I wouldn't take Russell over Jordan," James said. "But Russell has 11 rings, Jordan has six."
Not only did MJ
completely disregard the fact that Kobe has been playing for 16 seasons and that LeBron
has only been playing for nine, he was also completely illogical. And LeBron
exposed it.
If Jordan were to follow his own logic, he would have to admit that Bill Russell was almost twice the player that he ever was. It's just a ridiculous thing to reference. Is Joe Flacco
better than Dan Marino now because he has a Super Bowl ring? No. James then went even further with his explanation.
"Rings do not define someone's career. You look at a guy like (former Bulls reserve) Jud Buechler
, he has multiple rings and Charles Barkley does not have one ring,” James continued. “He’s not better than Charles Barkley. Patrick Ewing is one of the greatest of all time, Reggie Miller is one of the greatest of all time. Sometimes it’s about the situation you’re in, the team you’re on, and it’s about timing as well.”
As Jerry "Rev" Harris from Remember The Titans would say, "amen, amen!" Thank you LeBron
, you just put to rest every illegitimate argument about sporting prowess that has ever been discussed.
LeBron
"haters" love to use Jordan's logic in arguments about "The King." Now, they can't. The "ring fallacy," as I have deemed it, has been used in heated debates for years. It definitely has relevance, but it isn't the deciding factor on a player's greatness. No one can look at you with a straight face and say, "Eli is better than Peyton because Eli has two rings and Peyton only has one." You just can't do that, it's weird that Eli actually has more rings anyway, that wasn't supposed to happen.
But, here's where the grey matter begins to creep in. Rings still do matter. They aren't irrelevant by any means. It's a huge feat to accomplish, but it shouldn't automatically cement you into legendary status, just like not getting one shouldn't banish you to the depths of loserdom
. Trent Dilfer
isn't a legend because he has a ring, and Barry Sanders isn't any less of a legend because he didn't win one. Like LeBron
said, it's about the situation, the team, and the timing.
There is only one reliable test when discussing players' greatness, and that is the eye test.
I can just watch Peyton and tell you that he's better than Eli. I can watch Barkley and tell you that he's better than Robert Horry. Sure, that comes down to opinion, but that's what sports arguments are all about. There is no bona fide law of sport out there that defines a player's greatness.
The key is, you have to be well-informed, and willing to listen. Too often, hypothetical sports arguments blow up like a stink bomb and force everyone to leave a room. It's about being logical, humble, and respectful. If someone thinks that Jerry Rice is the best football player of all-time, but you think that Jim Brown is, one of you doesn't have to be wrong. Rings should no longer be accepted as the default deciding factor on a player's lore. It's called an opinion, and everyone has them.
So, the next time someone uses the "ring fallacy" in a sports argument with you, politely interrupt them, and show them this YouTube video of Lebron's explanation.
