SOTB!!! on Spotify

 

Speed ontheBeat Speed ontheBeat Author
Title: Rem's Rant: Should Rings Matter in the Hall of Fame?
Author: Speed ontheBeat
Rating 5 of 5 Des:
Should HOF entry be contingent upon rings? Even with the most recent star studded 2016 HOF class featuring the prolific scoring, whilst t...
Should HOF entry be contingent upon rings?

Even with the most recent star studded 2016 HOF class featuring the prolific scoring, whilst temperamental, guard Allen Iverson and dynamic international prodigy Yao Ming, I'd have to definitively say YES.


We've all been a part of NBA debates at one point or another, whether it be defending our favorite players, eras, or statistics but even in the midst of all that we tend to conveniently cast common sense to the wind. Preferential bias keeps us from acknowledging just how great some of the NBA legends have been in their respective eras of play. And it seems as if the most elusive accolade that we disregard is a championship. The blood, sweat, and tears that are a prerequisite to becoming a contender every year let alone being the recipient of the award is ignored.

That alone raises questions as I've been frequently told that "championships aren't everything." Well, in some warped reality where professional athletes only play for money and recognition, I can't imagine how in this reality that the efforts of past champions still isn't enough. I believe that the measure of a player's individual and joint greatness is manifested during the journey of, and after, winning that ring.

Now don't get me wrong, I do not believe the Hall is for all champions. We know that even the last guy on the bench gets a ring with his respective team. But, in choosing who's granted access to the promised land, a championship should definitely be on the resume. I personally don't believe allowing players without rings into the HOF makes for great debates. And that's simply because it downplays the efforts of great athletes that were not only able to win it all, but the even greater players that were able to do it multiple times.

We all know the margin between an Allen Iverson and Michael Jordan is worlds away.


One is heralded as the GOAT...while the other is more known for his now infamous "Practice Rant" in some circles. But, somehow, both of them being enshrined blurs that line. MJ is a six-time champion (among several other accomplishments) while Iverson's closest attempt at winning was getting thrashed in the 2001 NBA Finals 4-1 and never returning.

I use those two as perfect examples of how one player is compared to the other without much premise outside of it being debate material. Iverson's entire career is nothing more than a delusion of grandeur in reality. But, the NBA's criteria for enshrining an athlete seems to be flawed. So, to sum this all up, I do believe the HOF should be contingent upon rings.

Anything else berates the individuals who had no issue going to "practice" to win said rings. 

Post a Comment

 
Top