Couldn’t carry them to the chip like he’s projecting himself. Hes not humble and the facts prior to Kobe and Phil needs to be presented in order the see his whole career and why he’s so insecure now. He speaks like his because he knows he underachieved and he wants to change the narrative. Ride on that Shaq bus if you want, it’s a slippery slope, and you know it.
I downplayed nothing. Don’t insert me with those you’ve debated this topic with. I presented his playoff losses before Phil and the emergence of Kobe. I disagree with Shaq.
I miss the same era you miss, and I wholeheartedly agree with you. Rings was never the end all be all, it was just the cherry on top. Here we are now in the new era of thinking, yelling at the moon going against our TRUE beliefs just to roll with the punches.
The ring thing always need to be contextualized...
Deep down, all basketball heads understand that you have to contextualize rings, because nobody under the age of 70 has Bill Russell as the GOAT. Nobody says Hondo or Pippen are Top 10. That in itself, is proof that mf's know how to compartmentalize rings, people just go dumb to win an argument. Any person who flatly says, "_____ has more rings than ____", isn't really worth having a discussion with.
How these guys won their rings matters and there is nobody who considers rings won as a #2 or #3 or role player, greater than the rings someone won as a #1.
Nobody argues anything for James Worthy being high on the list, and Worthy has more rings than Wilt, and the same amount as Bird. But nobody makes no stupid ring argument because Worthy's 3 rings won are not the same weight as Moses or Dirk's single ring.
Rings matter a great deal, but you have to consistently apply the standard you set. If having more rings than the next guy is the standard, then that standard should be held across the board, because none of the people, that people under 70 argue for GOAT, have the most rings.
If nikkas not holding a consistent standard they may as well not even mention anyone's rings at all...