Tom Brady leads a near five minute drive where he caps it off by throwing a touchdown in order to take a 28-24 lead in Super Bowl XLIX. After doing all that he can to secure a victory, he returns to the sideline and Seattle takes its turn to march down the field. We all know what happens from there, but I'm retelling this story to bring up a point. Malcolm Butler records a game-winning interception on the worst play call I have ever witnessed, and everyone goes in a frenzy. Comments like: "Tom Brady is the best quarterback of all-time. FOUR RINGS!" surface and become popular to many outside fans. (Of course this is all before deflate-gate became an enormous issue) But what if the Patriots defense fails to stop the Seahawks and gives up a touchdown to lose the game? Tom Brady's Super Bowl record becomes 3-3 and because he doesn't have that 4th ring, people will automatically write him off when talking about greatest quarterbacks of all time. The thing that perplexes me about this is that Tom Brady literally does all that he could, gives his team the lead, and then has to rely on others to finish the job. It's not like he's playing defense and has the opportunity to nab a pick himself. Why should Tom Brady's legacy be at risk when he literally has no control of what happens on that side of the field?
Note: I do not think Brady is the best quarterback of all time. I'm just stating this scenario to highlight the main idea of my article. For those who are curious, I believe the best QB title should go to Joe Montana.
This is a big reason why I don't believe in the "ring argument". Everyone has heard it before, and I find it absolutely dreadful that so many people resort to it when trying to prove a point. There are way too many variables in winning a championship for it to be a reasonable measure of how good an individual player is. Some of these include: teammates, coaches, health, match-ups, weather, and even luck. With so many things that are out of control in the sporting world, it's silly to pinpoint to the number of rings one has and say that's a solid reason to judge the talent of a professional athlete. The "ring argument" is little more than a poorly thought-out and uninspired idea that defines next to nothing.
To further prove that the "ring argument" is stupid, I'm going to slight the reason it got popular. ESPN First Take T.V. Personality Skip Bayless is most known for his eccentric hate for LeBron James. Early in his career, LeBron accomplished a lot but never won an NBA championship, and for whatever reason, Skip Bayless felt the need to find problems with the NBA star. Because it was the only thing Bayless could denounce LeBron for, Skip constantly repeated the fact that LeBron never won a ring. So in short, the "ring argument" started because one man excessively hated another, not because it is a logical stance that has substantial evidence to support it.
A player to a team is like a part to the whole, meaning that the individual athlete makes up for only a fraction of the team. Essentially, they only play a role in trying to have their team succeed. (Now determining how big of a role they play is another thing altogether) What the ring argument does is try to create a comparison between two things that aren't related. To put that in an easier-to-understand perspective, it measures a player based on a team accomplishment. When you think of it like that, the whole argument just stops making sense.
The counter-examples that could be presented for this are endless too. Exceptional players like Dan Marino, Barry Bonds, and Karl Malone never won a championship, but was that really because they weren't good enough? Obviously not! Great athletes achieve milestones and accumulate stats; great teams win championships. While the two aren't mutually exclusive, there's no reason to get them mixed up.
Note: I do not think Brady is the best quarterback of all time. I'm just stating this scenario to highlight the main idea of my article. For those who are curious, I believe the best QB title should go to Joe Montana.
This is a big reason why I don't believe in the "ring argument". Everyone has heard it before, and I find it absolutely dreadful that so many people resort to it when trying to prove a point. There are way too many variables in winning a championship for it to be a reasonable measure of how good an individual player is. Some of these include: teammates, coaches, health, match-ups, weather, and even luck. With so many things that are out of control in the sporting world, it's silly to pinpoint to the number of rings one has and say that's a solid reason to judge the talent of a professional athlete. The "ring argument" is little more than a poorly thought-out and uninspired idea that defines next to nothing.
To further prove that the "ring argument" is stupid, I'm going to slight the reason it got popular. ESPN First Take T.V. Personality Skip Bayless is most known for his eccentric hate for LeBron James. Early in his career, LeBron accomplished a lot but never won an NBA championship, and for whatever reason, Skip Bayless felt the need to find problems with the NBA star. Because it was the only thing Bayless could denounce LeBron for, Skip constantly repeated the fact that LeBron never won a ring. So in short, the "ring argument" started because one man excessively hated another, not because it is a logical stance that has substantial evidence to support it.
 |
| This is the same guy who promoted the idea of judging the talent of an athlete based on how many rings they have. Skip Bayless throws out his sense of logic when discussing anything related to LeBron James. |
A player to a team is like a part to the whole, meaning that the individual athlete makes up for only a fraction of the team. Essentially, they only play a role in trying to have their team succeed. (Now determining how big of a role they play is another thing altogether) What the ring argument does is try to create a comparison between two things that aren't related. To put that in an easier-to-understand perspective, it measures a player based on a team accomplishment. When you think of it like that, the whole argument just stops making sense.
The counter-examples that could be presented for this are endless too. Exceptional players like Dan Marino, Barry Bonds, and Karl Malone never won a championship, but was that really because they weren't good enough? Obviously not! Great athletes achieve milestones and accumulate stats; great teams win championships. While the two aren't mutually exclusive, there's no reason to get them mixed up.
 |
| Dan Marino ranks among the top of nearly every passing record possible, but he never won a Super Bowl. It's unfair and illogical to misjudge his talents based on that one fact when he's accomplished so much. |
0 comments:
Post a Comment