Do Championships = Greatness?

[Megatron]

Over the time since sports were created, the best players were always champions. Michael Jordan. Joe Montana. Wayne Gretzky. Babe Ruth. All have had multiple championships in their career. All have been considered as the best at what they do.

But, what about the guys who, were great, but didn't notch a championship. Patrick Ewing. Dan Marino. Ken Griffey, Jr. Again, all great, fantastic athletes, but the grand total of their championships is the same as mine.

So, my question to all of you guys is, just what the thread title states. Do Championships = Greatness?

For me, I'd have to say it's a no. There've been a lot more great players who HAVEN'T won a championship, then who HAVE. Obviously Dan Marino, Barry Sanders, Chris Carter, Jim Kelly, and others haven't won one. And that's only in football. Lebron, Ovechkin, Mauer, Tomlinson. All are still active, and all still don't have a ring. Obviously every athlete strives to become the top at their sport, but even if they don't, does that mean that they aren't great? I mean, look at some of the guys who got their fame from winning a championship.

Trent Dilfer: The QB of the memorable 2000 Raven's team that had the great defense, this is the only thing that people can remember Trent Dilfer about. Not his poor stats or that he was nothing more then a career backup. Nope, his SB win, which was ALL about his great defense.

Joe Namath: One of the most FAMOUS incidents of where a Championship doesn't = greatness. Aside from his 'Guarantee' game in Super Bowl III (which he didn't perform well in) Joe had an average career at BEST. Yet, mainly due to his win, Joe is in the Hall of Fame, while more better Quarterbacks, who don't have a ring, aren't. Boomer Esiason (who I don't think is HOF worthy) has a better career then Joe. This is a clear instance of where a Championship =/= greatness applies. Because, let's face it, even the biggest Jet fans will tell you that Namath wasn't great and, more then likely, made it to the HOF on his win at Super Bowl III alone.

So, I ask you, does championships = greatness?

 

[Khalifa]

I am going to say no as well. Just because you don't win a ring doesn't mean your not one of the greatest players. Just because you have a championship doesn't mean your one of the best. You might have a shit players around you. You can only go so far with the team you have. I mean Kobe Bryant is one of the best players in the NBA and in 2004-2005 he failed to take his team to the playoffs. But yet he was still one of the best players in the game. Even if he does get 7 or 8 rings he wont be as good as Michael Jordan. Same with Reggie Miller. One of the greatest players to ever play the game but didn't win a ring.

If you are a good player then your fans are expecting you to take your team to a title. But as it has been said before " A champion team will always beat a team full of champions", which basiaclly means you only as good as your weakest team member, meaning a championship shouldn't base your greatness.

 

[Big Sexy]

When you are talking about guys like Trent Dilfer of course it doesn't equal greatness. You can't say Darko Millicic is better then Charles Barkley because he has a championship and Barkley doesn't. However, when you are comparing the best players to ever play in their particular sport then a lack of a championship should definitely come into the discussion.

In the NBA when arguing who the best power forward ever is then bringing up how Karl Malone has 0 titles and Tim Duncan has 4 is definitely warranted.

In the NFL when arguing who the best quarterback ever is then putting Dan Marino behind guys like Elway and Montana is perfectly fine.

The number of championships players win shouldn't define their entire careers but it is definitely part of what defines them and they shouldn't just be dismissed. Championships won is often overrated when comparing different players but it should not completely be overlooked.

 

[gd]

It's a big factor, but only when comparing guys that are similar. DJ Mbenga has 2 titles and LeBron James has none. Who's better? Certainly LeBron, proving championships can't be the only measure of greatness.

Number of titles is just another tool to compare players. If you want to be considered among the best ever, i.e. top 10 or so in your given sport, you have to have at least a title or two. There's no way around it. Sure, you can be a Hall of Famer and one of the best ever, but there's still going to be something missing.

 

[Megatron]

Number of titles is just another tool to compare players. If you want to be considered among the best ever, i.e. top 10 or so in your given sport, you have to have at least a title or two. There's no way around it. Sure, you can be a Hall of Famer and one of the best ever, but there's still going to be something missing.

So are you saying that Dan Marino isn't a top 10 QB of all time and Barry Sanders isn't a top 5 RB of all time because they don't have a title? Just curious, btw, as I somewhat agree with what you're saying, but there's always exceptions.

 

[gd]

Top at their positions? Sure they are. As far as calling them the greatest ever though, because they never accomplished what the goal ultimately is, which is to win a title. Football is a tough one to judge though, especially if you're at a position like RB, where your really can't control all that much when you're on a crappy team.

A guy still can be considered great without championships, but can never truly be the greatest.

 

[The Holy One]

I don't believe it should be a big factor in deciding if a player is great or not. However, it should be used to decide if a player is the greatest ever. I mean Steve Nash has never won an NBA title but some consider him one of the best point guards of all time. Though if you try to make him the best then it will be hard putting him over guys like Oscar Robertson, Magic Johnson, Walt Fraizer, and Bob Cousy. So while I think you can be great without having championships, it will be hard to consider you the best of all time without one.

 

[Goliath Uterus]

Top at their positions? Sure they are. As far as calling them the greatest ever though, because they never accomplished what the goal ultimately is, which is to win a title. Football is a tough one to judge though, especially if you're at a position like RB, where your really can't control all that much when you're on a crappy team.

A guy still can be considered great without championships, but can never truly be the greatest.

I disagree, if Michael Jordan had never won a title, I'm damn near positive that there would still be people that consider him the greatest of all time. A title certainly doesn't hurt your resume, but ultimatley doesn't determine greatness.

 

[The Crock]

I disagree, if Michael Jordan had never won a title, I'm damn near positive that there would still be people that consider him the greatest of all time. A title certainly doesn't hurt your resume, but ultimatley doesn't determine greatness.

A championship solidifies a player's greatness... Had Jordan not won a single title we'd be talking about a different "MJ", Magic Johnson as the greatest ever. If LeBron never wins a title yet scores more points, and beats most of Jordan's stats he still won't be the best... He'll be second best because he never won an NBA Championship. The first thing that comes into a persons mind when thinking about him are his championships, his dunking ability, and then his "greatness". Without the championships he wouldn't be that great, most of his greatest moments would have never happened... like his shot against the Jazz. I was there and will never forget it. It was the day we had a championship pretty much stolen from us. Championships DO equal greatness.

 

[gd]

I disagree, if Michael Jordan had never won a title, I'm damn near positive that there would still be people that consider him the greatest of all time. A title certainly doesn't hurt your resume, but ultimatley doesn't determine greatness.

Completely false. The thing that made Jordan so great was how much of a winner he was. That's the same thing that makes Kobe great today and the same reason why a guy like Bill Russell should always be held in higher regard than a guy like Wilt, because of the titles.

Peyton Manning has put up huge numbers every year, but if it wasn't for his championship, no way he enters the greatest ever discussion. There is simply no way you could call someone the best that ever played if they haven't won anything worth a damn.

 

[The Crock]

Another argument that pops into my head; Dan Marino. He is THE BEST PLAYER TO NEVER WIN A CHAMPIONSHIP. Had he won a championship he would simply be the best. The amount of yards that man threw with mediocre receivers is legendary. He could run, throw, and was a hell of a leader. Ask somebody who the greatest QBs of all time are; you'll get never get Dan as the first guy, ever. Not that he wasn't a great player, man just couldn't do it in the playoffs.

 

[Goliath Uterus]

A championship solidifies a player's greatness...

To an extent, yes, but sometimes, a player so good comes along, that no matter what he has to be considered the greatest. Or at least one of the greatest, regardless of a championship.

Had Jordan not won a single title we'd be talking about a different "MJ", Magic Johnson as the greatest ever.

Some people think Magic is better even with the titles, but like I said, regardless of the titles, Jordan is the greatest.

If LeBron never wins a title yet scores more points, and beats most of Jordan's stats he still won't be the best...

Keep in mind basketball is a team sport. If he is out there dominating every night, and his team is playing like shit (not gonna be a problem for 'Bron) then he can still be considered the greatest.

Without the championships he wouldn't be that great, most of his greatest moments would have never happened... like his shot against the Jazz. I was there and will never forget it. It was the day we had a championship pretty much stolen from us.

There's a point I can agree with, to an extent. But lets say MJ had the same stats, but failed to win the big one, would that be his fault? Would that make me think any less of him? The answer is no.

Championships DO equal greatness.

As far as a team, yes. But if you wanna look at an individual, then no, championships do NOT equal greatness, (at least in team sports) it takes a team to win a championship, Jordan never did it on his own.

 

[The Crock]

To an extent, yes, but sometimes, a player so good comes along, that no matter what he has to be considered the greatest. Or at least one of the greatest, regardless of a championship.




Some people think Magic is better even with the titles, but like I said, regardless of the titles, Jordan is the greatest.



Keep in mind basketball is a team sport. If he is out there dominating every night, and his team is playing like shit (not gonna be a problem for 'Bron) then he can still be considered the greatest.





There's a point I can agree with, to an extent. But lets say MJ had the same stats, but failed to win the big one, would that be his fault? Would that make me think any less of him? The answer is no.



As far as a team, yes. But if you wanna look at an individual, then no, championships do NOT equal greatness, (at least in team sports) it takes a team to win a championship, Jordan never did it on his own.

I see your point, but I have to disagree. There has never been a team without a clear "star" or "stars" that have won a championship. There always has to be that one player, that one great player, who is going to lead his team to championship gold. If he can't do that, then he is simply not the greatest. Basketball is defined as a "team sport" but when it comes down to it, does any Laker get that shot in the last 2 minutes of the game? No, it goes to Kobe. Basketball is a game that depends on the great players, so is every sport. If the Lakers play like shit it is going to be Kobe's fault, he's the star, he's the leader, he's "the great one". A team can never achieve greatness without individual greatness. The Bulls would not be so great had MJ never won them all those championships, sure they won 72 games in a season but they lost in the playoffs when it mattered... is that really the same as this: they won 72 games and the championship. No, man, without without MJ's individual greatness they wouldn't have won those 72 games. He upped his stats that year, while the rest of his team relegated themselves to helping him.

 

[Rhonda Rousey's Sports Bra]

Championships equal greatness and anyone who says otherwise is probably a fan of a bad team. It's been said already but look at Dan Marino, greatest QB to never win the big one. A championship is what you strive for every year and is the only reason to play the game. To win a championship means you are the best. Team sports are the same way, you can't be considered the best or greatest unless you have won when it counts and proved you are the best in the world.

 

[Goliath Uterus]

I see your point, but I have to disagree. There has never been a team without a clear "star" or "stars" that have won a championship. There always has to be that one player, that one great player, who is going to lead his team to championship gold.

Or you could have a balanced roster with no clear #1 guy. Case and point, the 2008 NCAA basketball champions, the Kansas Jayhawks. They had a team stacked from top to bottom, there were 4 different guys who could've taken that shot that put it into overtime.

If he can't do that, then he is simply not the greatest.

So you're telling me that if a guy is the all time leader in every stat possible, and absolutley dominates every single game he's in, but doesn't manage to win a title then he's not the best?

Basketball is defined as a "team sport" but when it comes down to it, does any Laker get that shot in the last 2 minutes of the game? No, it goes to Kobe.

[YOUTUBE]ucEOOVW8PNE[/YOUTUBE]


Sorry for the Ultra slow mo, but you get the point.

If the Lakers play like shit it is going to be Kobe's fault, he's the star, he's the leader, he's "the great one

No, it's the teams fault, he's not out there playing by himself, if his team loses, then it's the whole teams fault.

A team can never achieve greatness without individual greatness.

Once again I'll use the 07-08 Kansas Jayhawks as an example, there was no clear #1 guy, just a slew of good players that worked well together. In fact, I'm almost positive (I can't find the official stats) that there wasn't a single player on that team that averaged more than 20 PPG.

The Bulls would not be so great had MJ never won them all those championships

MJ didn't win those titles, the Bulls did.

He upped his stats that year, while the rest of his team relegated themselves to helping him.

No, they worked together. Sure, Michael was the centerpiece of that team, without question. But without the other acquisitions such as Rodman, Pippen, and Steve Kerr, then I don't think they would have won those titles. And you saying "he upped his stats" is inncorrect, while he did have outstanding years during the championship seasons, he didn't have his best statistical years, which tells you that there's more to those title wins then just Jordan.

 

[The Crock]

Or you could have a balanced roster with no clear #1 guy. Case and point, the 2008 NCAA basketball champions, the Kansas Jayhawks. They had a team stacked from top to bottom, there were 4 different guys who could've taken that shot that put it into overtime.



So you're telling me that if a guy is the all time leader in every stat possible, and absolutley dominates every single game he's in, but doesn't manage to win a title then he's not the best?



[YOUTUBE]ucEOOVW8PNE[/YOUTUBE]


Sorry for the Ultra slow mo, but you get the point.



No, it's the teams fault, he's not out there playing by himself, if his team loses, then it's the whole teams fault.



Once again I'll use the 07-08 Kansas Jayhawks as an example, there was no clear #1 guy, just a slew of good players that worked well together. In fact, I'm almost positive (I can't find the official stats) that there wasn't a single player on that team that averaged more than 20 PPG.



MJ didn't win those titles, the Bulls did.



No, they worked together. Sure, Michael was the centerpiece of that team, without question. But without the other acquisitions such as Rodman, Pippen, and Steve Kerr, then I don't think they would have won those titles. And you saying "he upped his stats" is inncorrect, while he did have outstanding years during the championship seasons, he didn't have his best statistical years, which tells you that there's more to those title wins then just Jordan.

Yeah I understand that Fisher and Horry made some big shots, but Kobe has made more than both combined. He is the guy who gets the ball 99.99% of the time... not Fisher. Jordan had 15 different guys around him, Horace Grant... Toni Kukoc, it was a revolving door. They filled out the roster because they had to. By the way, he DID up his stats. Look at defensive stats too. Sure his scoring went down once or twice but the man always came back better. Those championships are all his.

 

[Khalifa]

That's the same thing that makes Kobe great today and the same reason why a guy like Bill Russell should always be held in higher regard than a guy like Wilt, because of the titles.

Not exactly, Bill Russel had less teams in the league than when Wilt was in the league. So Bill had less competition than Wilt.

Yeah I understand that Fisher and Horry made some big shots, but Kobe has made more than both combined. He is the guy who gets the ball 99.99% of the time... not Fisher. Jordan had 15 different guys around him, Horace Grant... Toni Kukoc, it was a revolving door. They filled out the roster because they had to. By the way, he DID up his stats. Look at defensive stats too. Sure his scoring went down once or twice but the man always came back better. Those championships are all his.

And Kobe doesn't have 15 guys around him? Ugh yes he does, He has Gasol, Artest, Fisher, Bynum, Brown, Vujacic, Blake, Barnes, Odom, Walton, Ratliff and so forth.

Your wrong about the Jordan thing as well. Michael Jordan had less in each stat during all his championship years compared to lets say 87-88. The only stat he got higher during his championship years was his 3 point% and 0.4 of a rebound. There is no way in hell Jordan would have got those titles without Pippen and everyone knows that for a fact.

 

[gd]

Not exactly, Bill Russel had less teams in the league than when Wilt was in the league. So Bill had less competition than Wilt.

Umm, not really. Russell played from 56-69 and Wilt played from 59-73. Virtually the same time period. The number of teams has nothing to do with why Russell has more titles and is more respected. The fact that he was a guy who was willing whatever it was he needed to win is the reason why he should be considered as one of the 2 or 3 greatest players of all time while Wilt will always be remembered as a great talent, but not the best ever, like he could've been.

 

[Khalifa]

Umm, not really. Russell played from 56-69 and Wilt played from 59-73. Virtually the same time period. The number of teams has nothing to do with why Russell has more titles and is more respected. The fact that he was a guy who was willing whatever it was he needed to win is the reason why he should be considered as one of the 2 or 3 greatest players of all time while Wilt will always be remembered as a great talent, but not the best ever, like he could've been.

Ugh, well yeah I guess. But by the time Wilt entered the league, Russel already had his great team solidfied. While as Wilt came into a losing team. Hence why his stats were so high for Philedalphia and not the Lakers. If he went to the Lakers straight away then he wouldn't have the record for scoring, or scoring average or rebounds etc. The fact that he played on such a bad team to start of with didn't help his chances.

I am not saying Wilt is better, I am just saying that Russel shouldn't be based better because he has more championship. Because they had time to solify there team. Where as when Wilt came in, so did more teams.

 

[gd]

Ugh, well yeah I guess. But by the time Wilt entered the league, Russel already had his great team solidfied. While as Wilt came into a losing team. Hence why his stats were so high for Philedalphia and not the Lakers. If he went to the Lakers straight away then he wouldn't have the record for scoring, or scoring average or rebounds etc. The fact that he played on such a bad team to start of with didn't help his chances.

I am not saying Wilt is better, I am just saying that Russel shouldn't be based better because he has more championship. Because they had time to solify there team. Where as when Wilt came in, so did more teams.

No, Wilt was on great teams as well. At that point, basically every team was loaded because the league was so small. Hell, Wilt was on a team with Jerry West and Elgin Baylor, 2 of the best 15 players of all time. You can't say he didn't have the talent around him that he needed to win titles.

A guy like Wilt should've had more than 2 titles given the time period he played in, but because he was a egotistical guy that cared about his own stats and recognition more than others things, like winning, he never fulfilled his true potential while Russell exceeded his, when it comes to winning anyway.

 

[Khalifa]

No, Wilt was on great teams as well. At that point, basically every team was loaded because the league was so small. Hell, Wilt was on a team with Jerry West and Elgin Baylor, 2 of the best 15 players of all time. You can't say he didn't have the talent around him that he needed to win titles.

A guy like Wilt should've had more than 2 titles given the time period he played in, but because he was a egotistical guy that cared about his own stats and recognition more than others things, like winning, he never fulfilled his true potential while Russell exceeded his, when it comes to winning anyway.

Yes he played on good teams, when he was with the Lakers. That showed as well because they got the highest winning streak of games. But I do agree with you he should of ended up with more titles. But it shouldn't hinder his status as a great center, and one of the most dominant of all time.

Like I said before. When Russel won all his titles Wilt just started to come in. The Lakers were the other force from the West, but Wilt played in the east for his first 8(?) seasons. Against the Celtics, who had the dominant team and all the stars before Wilt came in.