jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (12 posts)

Is it fair to judge a team athlete by the number of championships he/she has won

  1. KevinTimothy profile image82
    KevinTimothyposted 5 years ago

    Is it fair to judge a team athlete by the number of championships he/she has won?

    In sports like golf, tennis, or track and field, I can see why an athlete would be defined by the number trophies they've won.  But with so many variables involved in a team sport, why does it seem like the media defines a player by how many times they have won it all?

  2. KangaYankeeDoo profile image78
    KangaYankeeDooposted 5 years ago

    I would like to use the great basketball player Michael Jordon for instance. He was among many other key players during the Chicago Bull's championship years, and his remarkable plays did indeed define him as champion among champions.

    1. KevinTimothy profile image82
      KevinTimothyposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      What portion of MJ's legacy have been molded by the media and marketing? Long before his first title he was a marketing god. Do you think that played a large part in defining him. Trophies aside...

  3. Mr.CommonSense profile image59
    Mr.CommonSenseposted 5 years ago

    I think it is fair.  The star players in team sports are expected to raise the level of the supporting players and make the necessary plays to reach the ultimate goal,of a championship.

    1. KevinTimothy profile image82
      KevinTimothyposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      But let's say that Mr. Star Player CAN raise the level of the supporting players but has a coach or ownership who's team philosophy is all screwed up. I think that there have been players that have been robbed of titles b/c of poor coaching.

    2. Gregoryy profile image61
      Gregoryyposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      That is about being clutch, and making the right plays at the right time. That does not mean you are better. It is also about leadership.

  4. Bruce A. Beaudet profile image84
    Bruce A. Beaudetposted 5 years ago

    Hi Kevin,

    I think it depends upon whether the athlete has had an opportunity to play in a championship game/playoff series.   If the athlete plays in a championship game/ playoff series then, they are fair game because they are competing against their athletic peers in meaningful games.  However, there are many great athletes who just simply played on lousy teams and in this case it doesn't make much sense to judge them according to "number of championships" criteria.

    1. KevinTimothy profile image82
      KevinTimothyposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Bruce,

      I appreciate your response.  So in short you believe that it boils down to the number of opportunities at the title.  If they blow the opportunity then it's their business.  LOL.

    2. Bruce A. Beaudet profile image84
      Bruce A. Beaudetposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Kevin,

      There are many variables to consider when judging an athlete's success. There has to be a body of work against his peers and championships should be considered but should not be the sole criteria. Jim Kelly, 4 Superbowl losses, one bad kick!

    3. Gregoryy profile image61
      Gregoryyposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Is Brandon Jacobs and the other Giants running back better than Ray Rice, or Arian Foster. I know Jacobs and the other RB has a super bowl ring, but what makes them better?? I would rather have Ray Rice/ Arian Foster as the running backs.

  5. Gregoryy profile image61
    Gregoryyposted 5 years ago

    No. In a team sport championships are not the greatest measure of an athlete. Winning games, and championships are about being clutch, making the right plays at the right time, and team effort. You define an athlete by individual cumulative statistics for example career FG%. Career PPG. Career Rebound per game. Career pass completion %. Yard per game. Do not base it on totals as one player may have been in the league longer, rather look at averages.  as  See even a bad player can be on a good team, and often when the team wins the championship of their sport each player gets a ring.



    For example Tim Tebow made the playoffs, yet do you consider him better than Cam Newton?? Tim Tebow may be clutch, and make the right plays at the right time, but is he better??  Is Eli Manning better than Aaron Rogers, or was Eli team more clutch?? How many sacks did the giants defensive line have. How many super bowls would Tom Brady have won if he was with a team like Jacksonville for his career?? Do you think Ladanian Tomilson is a bad running back, because he has no championships. Lebron vs Kobe 1-1 pick up basketball who would win??  Lebron has a higher ppg total than Kobe. When Kobe did not play the Lakers still did ok. When Lebron did not play in Cleveland they sucked.

    Ted Williams?? Dan Marion?? Adrian Peterson?? Barry Sanders?? Charles Barkley?? So many great athletes who have no championship rings. Yet there are many back ups, and reserves on championship teams that have rings.  Would Eli would have won Superbowl 1 if Tyree did not make that amazing catch, and the defense had that amazing pass rush.

    It is not right to base a players worth based on championships as championships a team effort. When looking at which player is better then which player look at individual statistics. How many fowards in the NBA have championships that are not LeBron compared to how many are better than LeBron??

  6. jackcoburn profile image70
    jackcoburnposted 5 years ago

    It's might be because it's quick and easy research meaning the media can quickly right something up on the person using the achievements as evidence rather then going back into personal achievements which could take time? As society tends to accept this they can easily get away with it?

 
working