Lately, NBA circles have been heating up over “ring culture.” It’s that worn-out idea that if you don’t have a championship ring, your greatness somehow comes with an asterisk. Sure, titles matter, but basketball’s never been a solo gig. Plenty of players have balled out on the court night after night, only to fall short because of roster holes or bad timing. Still, for some reason, the debate rages on—can a player be legendary without the jewelry?

Recently, LeBron James also joined the debate. While speaking about the obsession with rings, the four-time champion questioned why so many Hall-of-Fame-level players get sidelined in these conversations just because they didn’t win it all. “You sit here and tell me Allen Iverson and Charles Barkley and Steve Nash weren’t unbelievable?” he asked, shining a light on just how limiting that ring-only mindset really is. After all, greatness isn’t just about the final result—it’s about everything a player does to even get there.

And that same energy popped up again on ESPN when Stephen A. Smith, Tracy McGrady, and Gilbert Arenas sat down for a fiery debate. Arenas echoed LeBron’s stance and took it a step further. “When did ring culture become a thing?” he questioned. “You’re talking about a team award that has nothing to do with individual achievements. And to say Kobe would have frowned upon LeBron, I disagree.”

Yet, just when it felt like Arenas was completely dismissing ring talk, he threw a curveball. Because later in the same discussion, Arenas shifted gears and drew a line between different types of rings. “No one respects the passenger of rings. Right? No one says it, but the one who’s leading the team, that’s the gold member right there,” he said. “That ring counts. The second option ring? That’s silver. No one respects it. In history, no one has respected it.”

And that comment didn’t just spark backlash—it confused supporters of both Kobe Bryant and Stephen Curry.

Gilbert Arenas sparks a new debate

So as soon as Gilbert Arenas’ comments about “passenger rings” hit the internet, fans wasted no time chiming in—and they came with receipts. One fan dropped a stinger: “So Kobe was the second option to Shaq 😂😂😂.” The reference? Shaquille O’Neal’s dominant three-peat with the Lakers from 2000 to 2002, where he snagged Finals MVP each time. Back then, Kobe was younger, still rising, and undeniably the second star. But let’s not forget—Kobe Bryant later grabbed two Finals MVPs of his own in 2009 and 2010, solidifying himself as the guy.

Still, Gilbert did circle back in the same podcast to clarify his stance. He expressed how Kobe, despite already holding three rings, was often talked about like a sidekick. “Kobe was treated like a sidekick, a Robin, or the next Scottie Pippen, rather than the three-time champ he was,” Arenas added. That comment struck a nerve, especially with those who remember how Kobe Bryant had to claw his way out of Shaq’s shadow just to earn full respect.

Likewise, fans couldn’t help but drag Stephen Curry into the conversation. “Steph ain’t win finals mvp for 3 straight finals appearances…. We respected Stephs rings… Voided,” one fan argued, pointing out Curry’s Finals MVP drought despite his leadership role. Another fan joked about the backlash Arenas might face: “Kobe and Curry fans not gonna like this at all 🤣😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣 Gil better beef up that security.”

Eventually, the debate landed on a name that fit Gilbert’s “passenger” tag—Scottie Pippen. “He is right. Look at pippen,” a fan wrote. Sure, Pippen won six rings right alongside Jordan, but when the GOAT debate pops up, his name barely gets a mention. So some fans feel that Gil is spot on. “Gil cooked here Ngl,” another added. So now the question is—do rings really measure greatness, or is it all about who was in the driver’s seat?