A Philosophical Question

[Bluedawg]

Found this in today's N&O and I thought it made a good question. What embodies success, rings or accolades (http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/story/1098173.html)?

It talks about Ray Allen and Derek Fisher who were drafted in 1996.

Allen has 8 All-Star appearances, an gold medal, is "...one of the most prolific 3-point shooters in NBA history", and has been in a movie. However no championship rings.

Fisher has 3 rings but has never been an All-Star.

Which one is more important?

[EarlJam]

Found this in today's N&O and I thought it made a good question. What embodies success, rings or accolades (http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/story/1098173.html)?

It talks about Ray Allen and Derek Fisher who were drafted in 1996.

Allen has 8 All-Star appearances, an gold medal, is "...one of the most prolific 3-point shooters in NBA history", and has been in a movie. However no championship rings.

Fisher has 3 rings but has never been an All-Star.

Which one is more important?

I normally don't respond like this and dislike it when others do so but my answer simply isn't up there.

To me, the answer would be: Either or both of the above.

How can you not call any of those guys successful? Rings has a lot to do with fate. Simply being in the NBA at all makes for a huge success. And to be an All-Star on top of that is just gravy.

Thinking on this a little more though, I'll vote. In professional sports, I would say players are judged by writers and fans more by the rings they have. Afterall, for the most part, what drives professional sports is the pursuit of the championship..........the ring.

So that gets my vote.

-EJ

[knights68]

My vote is for Allen and the reason is simple.
When compared to the other guy, it would seem to reason that Allen affected more people, came into contact with more people and thusly, had more of an impact (assuming of course he isn't an a**wipe of course).