Krizko Zero wrote:Bryant Gumble wrote:Finally tonight, a few words about championship rings. Just when did they become the all-important barometer of who does or doesn't count in sports? When did they supersede personal excellence or exemplary character as a standard of greatness?
I got to thinking about that the other night after the self-anointed chosen one, LeBron James, embarrassed himself as he tried to make his decision to seek rings in Miami sound like a search for the Holy Grail. It's when he essentially admitted to placing a higher priority on winning than anything else.
LeBron's decision is typical of our immediate gratification era, but it flies in the face of history. Even though he never won a title, Dan Marino is still the biggest hero in Florida. And in Boston, all those Celtics championships are dimmed by the unforgettable brilliance of Ted Williams, who never won anything. In Chicago, Gale Sayers and Dick Butkus have legendary status despite playing on losing teams. And even in the NBA, where guys seem obsessed with being viewed as "the man," real men like Barkley, Ewing and Baylor are ringless, but revered.
Despite such evidence to the contrary, LeBron James seems to think he needs a ring to change his life and secure his legacy. Maybe he'll get one, maybe he won't, but it's probable that no amount of rings will ever remove the stench he wallowed in last week. LeBron may yet find that in the court of public opinion, just as putting on a tux can’t make a guy a gentleman, winning a ring can’t make one truly a champion.
Gumbel makes some good points and he certainly knows how to wax poetic--or at least someone on his staff does. But I have to disagree with him. In Chicago (and I may be Gale Sayers' #1 fan), Sayers and Butkus are stars but Michael Jordan is the MAN. Why? Because he won 6 championships. In Boston, Ted Williams was one of the most gifted hitters of all time and the last man to hit .400, but there's no way his brillance outshines that of Bill Russell. Why? Because Russell led the Celts to multiple championships.
And, while Barkley, Ewing and Baylor are indeed revered (and should be) and are easily among the top players of all time, how often have you heard sportscasters and other players (like Kenny Smith), who have rings, chide (or dismiss) them, especially Barkley and Ewing, for not winning a championship.
I'm firmly on the side of those who believe that "rings" aren't that big of a deal. I think too many great players in all sports are unfairly belittled for not having won one. But, let's face it, in sports (and our society) winning is the standard and those who have a "ring" are usually placed on a higher pedestal than those who don't, rightfully or wrongfully.
