I find it quite unpleasant to compare the "historical status" of NBA stars! Kobe at 11th? It doesn't matter!

Emperor has mentioned more than once that I personally dislike comparing players' so-called "historical status."

Indeed, I remember I also wrote about the topic of historical status, but what I expressed is that among the players I've seen, Curry is in the top ten historically, after all, I haven't watched Chamberlain and Russell play...

Every year during the off-season, these topics seem to be brought up again...

For instance, the recent "hot topic": Bleacher Report's latest ranking of the top 100 NBA players in history published in July 2025, where Kobe Bryant is ranked 11th.

The reasons are: 1. During the three-peat period, Kobe was the second option. 2. Kobe only won the regular season MVP once. 3. The article also mentioned Curry's value, considering him the greatest shooter in history, while Kobe lacks any skill that stands out in the historical timeline...

And then, it led to everyone pulling each other.

Klay: "It's unbelievable that Kobe isn't respected! If he were alive, this ranking wouldn't exist."

Wade: "All players who faced Kobe believe he is in the top three historically! The rankers have never played at a high level."

As a fan of Mamba, God Yu was even more direct, going live to vent...

These days, many brothers have asked, "What does Emperor think?"

Every time I see discussions about "historical status," my choice is: not to watch.

Whether it's Kobe fans or Curry fans, there's really no need to argue; it makes no sense.

The biggest reason is: this thing has no standard.

Does the NBA have an official standard? No! The NBA has never certified any ranking; media rankings are essentially a business for traffic.

The core issue is that we cannot unify the standard.

There is an irreconcilable contradiction in judging historical status: the span of time.

The rules, styles of play, and competitive environments of different eras vary greatly.

Bill Russell is great, right? The ring king.

But the NBA didn't expand to 14 teams until 1969, and the league stabilized at 8 teams in the early 60s.

If we directly compare data and honors, is it fair?

Let’s mention another fact: the three-point line became mainstream due to the NBA's official adoption in 1979, which underwent a series of adjustments and improvements, such as changes in distance...

The ring king never experienced an NBA world with a three-point line; how can we compare?

However, he is regarded as a top ten player in history.

This can also be explained by the changes in our lifestyle.

When our parents were young, earning 2000 yuan compared to your current 10,000 yuan, whose historical status is higher?

In the 1980s, becoming a "ten-thousand-yuan household" not only meant having substantial savings but also symbolized a lifestyle that others envied, often celebrated with banners.

In cities, the basic configuration for a ten-thousand-yuan household included a "TV, refrigerator, washing machine," while in rural areas, it was "bicycles, sewing machines, watches."

Let me ask another question: Nokia or the iPhone 16, whose historical status is higher?

Can you say Nokia is not good? In that era, it was the dream of countless people.

Getting caught up in fan wars, overlooking the historical context, and reducing multifaceted achievements to a single ranking is simply just a number.

But now, historical rankings seem to have become a "battle of beliefs" for fans to defend their idols, which is quite pointless.

The river of history flows endlessly, and all comparisons will eventually be deconstructed by time.

I believe that in several years, our descendants will look at LeBron, Curry, and Kobe, and they might find these players quite ordinary.

Basketball has been evolving, and in a few years, there might even be a four-point line... will you compare who scores more then?

The contributions of historical figures are constrained by the context of their times and the limitations of historical materials; simply comparing "who is greater" overlooks the complexity of history.

The tactical environment, competitive conditions, and evaluation standards of different eras are completely different; strong comparisons merely simplify complex history into competitive labels.

Therefore, the media can rank Kobe at 11th or even 51st; to me, it doesn't matter.

Moreover, under most standards, Jordan is the first, right? Have you ever seen him brag all day...?

Greatness doesn't need self-promotion; achievements resonate on their own.

Historical figures are like stars, each shining in their exclusive temporal coordinates.

Rather than debating brightness, it's better to interpret why they shone in that era.

What was that saying?

"What's important is not comparing the varieties of roses, but the time you spend nurturing them."

True value lies not in external forms or material possessions but in the emotions and time invested within.

So, Kobe may not be first, but he is the one and only for countless fans.

True rarity always stems from heartfelt contributions and recognition, and the same applies to LeBron and Curry.

This is just like being in love:

"She may be an ordinary rose, but she is your rose. You have spent time and invested emotions in her, making her irreplaceable."