"When did ring culture become a thing?" - Gilbert Arenas agrees with LeBron's notion of the media caring about championships too much

Yahoo

4 hours ago

"When did ring culture become a thing?" - Gilbert Arenas agrees with LeBron's notion of the media caring about championships too much originally appeared on Basketball Network.
LeBron James recently sparked a nationwide discussion after criticizing the media's obsession with defining a player's legacy solely by their championship count. King James argued that it makes little sense to judge an individual's greatness based on whether their team was able to lift the Larry O'Brien trophy, as basketball is ultimately a team sport that requires collective effort.
Advertisement
Unsurprisingly, Stephen A. Smith was one of the first to fire back, claiming that this was just another narrative LBJ was trying to push because he will never likely match up to Michael Jordan's six championship rings.
However, Gilbert Arenas had a different take that firmly backed LeBron while using Kobe Bryant as a prime example to strengthen his argument.
"What he's saying is actually correct. When did ring culture become a thing?" Arenas said. "When you talk about a team award — something that a structure needs to win — does not boost you in front of individual accomplishments."
Gil differs from Stephen A.'s opinion
Speaking at the Fanatics Fest in New York City on Thursday night, Agent Zero took the opportunity to challenge SAS's stance. Gilbert made a strong case for respecting individual legacies beyond just ring counts, calling out the hypocrisy of media members like Stephen A.
Advertisement
For instance, Arenas pointed out that in the early 2000s, Bryant was already a three-peat winner, yet the media still leveraged their right to compare him to Tracy McGrady, who at the time hadn't won any championship rings and was only a Most Improved Player of the Year honoree at that point. According to Gill, that was proof that championship rings haven't always been the deciding factor. Thus, he called out media members for running their biased and inconsistent narrative about "ring culture," highlighting how they conveniently use this factor to shape discussions and shift the goalposts to fit whatever narrative suits the moment.
"When you used Kobe to frown upon what LeBron said, I would disagree with that," Arenas told Smith. "In real-time, Kobe had three rings; ya'll wasn't treating him like a three-ring player. You were treating him like a sidekick. He was considered a Robin, considered the next Pippen. In 2002, with three rings, we were still comparing T-Mac with Kobe. So, if you're sitting with three rings, you're still being compared to someone who doesn't have rings. What do you think happened? I need individual accomplishments. 'Can you please get rid of Shaq?' If it was about rings, there was no reason for the fallout between him and Shaq."
Related: "He never ever allowed Air Jordan to enter into the locker room" - BJ Armstrong said Michael Jordan was very different behind the scenes
Ring culture should not determine legacies
If championships were truly the sole measure of greatness, then why isn't Bill Russell, with 11 rings, universally considered the GOAT? The reason is that MJ left an undeniable individual impact on the game. Mike carried the team offensively, as evidenced by him leading the league is scoring on 10 occasions, and that is why Jordan is kept at the very top of the GOAT ladder.
Advertisement
So, while Arenas managed to school Smith with facts and historical context, the bigger question remains: will other media figures begin to reassess how they measure greatness? Time will tell if the industry finally learns from this much-needed correction.
Related: "I don't like him, and he don't like me" - Stephen A. Smith opens about his feud with LeBron James
This story was originally reported by Basketball Network on Jun 21, 2025, where it first appeared.