Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is wilt remembered for winning rings or for his stats?
Malone?
Robinson?
Barkley?
Payton?
Ewing?
West, Clyde, AI, girvin, dr J, Baylor...
The list of all time greats with 1 or less rings goes on for ever.
Why are you arguing "1 or less rings" - I said ZERO.
Regardless, stats without a championship are pretty empty. Most people have Wilt ranked anywhere from 1-5...without a championship he probably drops out of the top 10. As I said - how many top 10 players all time don't have a ring?
Notice a common theme among most of the players you listed? Most are all fringe top 20 all time (some top 30-40). Players like Barkley and Malone would likely be seen in a totally different light had they won a championship. Jerry West won a ring and went to the finals NINE times. That's success. Dr J won 2 ABA championships and 1 NBA championship. That's success. The Spurs pre Pop/Duncan never went to the finals. That's not success by most definitions.
Your credibility went right out the window a while ago, it went out of the country with"Stockton isn't an all time great"
Ridiculous
You also have players like Robert Horry, who has 7 championships, but isn't one of the all-time greats. He was a very good role player, but even in his prime wasn't among the GOAT.
I'm certainly not disparaging Horry, but just citing him as an example that rings aren't necessarily indicative of true greatness. That Malone and Stockton never won a ring says more about the greatness of Jordan's Bulls than their own shortcomings.
Last edited by PanapolicRiddle; 03-27-2016 at 10:38 PM..
Your credibility went right out the window a while ago, it went out of the country with"Stockton isn't an all time great"
Ridiculous
You're trying to pick apart irrelevant bits of my statement in an attempt to claim victory - we see what you did there. .
And to address your Stockton "point" - it depends on how one uses "all time great". If one is referring to all time greats that are among the 10 best to ever play (as I was) Stockton doesn't make THAT all time great list.
And to address your Stockton "point" - it depends on how one uses "all time great". If one is referring to all time greats that are among the 10 best to ever play (as I was) Stockton doesn't make THAT all time great list.
Oh, so now they have to be among the top 10 all time greats. And they must be at least 6'9". And they must have at least 3 championships. Oh, oh, oh, and they must play for big market teams.
You also have players like Robert Horry, who has 7 championships, but isn't one of the all-time greats. He was a very good role player, but even in his prime wasn't among the GOAT.
I'm certainly not disparaging Horry, but just citing him as an example that rings aren't necessarily indicative of true greatness. That Malone and Stockton never won a ring says more about the greatness of Jordan's Bulls than their own shortcomings.
The qualifications for ranking players at the very top often becomes so slim that championships become a deciding factor. Take KG and Duncan for example - KG may be a fringe top 20 player whereas Duncan is arguably top 10. Now let's say both are in the same draft class and somehow the Spurs get KG and a team like the TWovles get Duncan - how are the careers of both players remembered? As great as Duncan is, does anyone see him having Spurs-like success with the TWolves during his prime? I could certainly see Pop/KG/DRob/Parker/Ginobili winning a lot.
Oh, so now they have to be among the top 10 all time greats. And they must be at least 6'9". And they must have at least 3 championships. Oh, oh, oh, and they must play for big market teams.
Ok, now I understand your thinking.
??? The debate started with what makes for a historically great team and I compared it to characteristics of great players. One of those characteristics is CERTAINLY winning at the highest level. Check out ESPN's recent top 100 players list - not a single player in the top-15 that DOES NOT have a championship. I'm really confused by people that think a team or player doesn't have to win to be considered among the best.
??? The debate started with what makes for a historically great team and I compared it to characteristics of great players. One of those characteristics is CERTAINLY winning at the highest level. Check out ESPN's recent top 100 players list - not a single player in the top-15 that DOES NOT have a championship. I'm really confused by people that think a team or player doesn't have to win to be considered among the best.
Actually, the conversation was that Leonard would continue the Spurs dynastic success, which morphed into you taking apparent offense at the Spurs SUCCESS pre Duncan.
You attempted to minimize the Spurs pre Duncan success due to a lack of championships. Then proceeded to imply without rings you couldn't be an all time great, then all time great because top 10, the goal posts continue to move.
As was stated, there were and are great players and teams who have no rings, or very few.
Actually, the conversation was that Leonard would continue the Spurs dynastic success, which morphed into you taking apparent offense at the Spurs SUCCESS pre Duncan.
You attempted to minimize the Spurs pre Duncan success due to a lack of championships. Then proceeded to imply without rings you couldn't be an all time great, then all time great because top 10, the goal posts continue to move.
As was stated, there were and are great players and teams who have no rings, or very few.
And as I said - pre Duncan/Pop - the Spurs played for ZERO titles and WON ZERO titles. That isn't success. Perhaps you have a different definition of success? And yes, I used rings as an example of how players that don't win them can't be all time great - as in top 15 all time.
All you've done is argue semantics concerning the the word "all time greats". I've been clear from the start that I'm using the term to refer to the best of the best - hence why I brought up Barkley/Malone/Stockton. And as I've said, Duncan is NOT a top 10 player had he not won a ring. The Spurs as a franchise did NOT have great success considering they never won a ring or even went to the finals. Therefore, it's quite a leap to assume the Spurs will continue their run of the last 15 years without Duncan/Pop.
How this is hard to understand the world may never know.
Let's face it - you've put together no logical argument to counter my points. You simply say "success" without defending what constitutes success.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. 
