Who I'd rather be: Barkley. Great career and great life. Who's career I'd have - Horry. But if it means I put my own personality into it and do a little more self promotion off the same accomplishments then what Horry's doing. Which seems to be VERY little.
I posted this in the other thread: Let's allow Robert Horry to answer that question: "In the Ongoing Disintegration of Sports Values department, check out the March 13 edition of ESPN The Magazine. Dan Le Batard writes an article about NBA veteran Robert Horry, clutch big game player (his nickname is Big Shot Bob) and owner of six championship rings earned with the Rockets, Lakers and Spurs, but never an A-list star player. Turns out Horry would trade all those championships for the chance to be a superstar. Writes Le Batard: "Would you rather have your career or Charles Barkley's, Big Shot Bob? 'Barkley's,' Horry says. 'You want to win a championship, but you want to be considered one of the best of all time. All-Star. Hall of Fame. Even though I won championships, I'd take Charles' career." And doesn't that just sum up the NBA's (and most of professional sports') biggest problem. Everybody wants to be The Man. Hardly anybody wants to Just Win Baby if it means minimizing their time in the spotlight. There is no "I" in team but who really cares anymore. Horry, by the way, is the same guy that just last night bit an opposing player on the hand in an on-court tussle during a game. Nice. He's just loaded with great messages for young players." http://integrityinyouthsports.blogs...01_archive.html
I'd say Robert Horry. He has enough respect from other players and has something unique to be proud about. Having been to the playoffs his whole career and more rings than anybody else who played in the NBA. Post career, Barkley got fat(ter) and became even more famous for his big mouth. When I retire, I'd rather not have all that fame.
I don't think your question is very fair, or really compares what needs to be compared. Of course I would rather be Barkley than Horry, but not because of what Barkley's career brought him (numbers, awards, etc), but because of what his personality/persona has brought him. That's what makes Barkley "Barkley", as opposed to other PF's who have arguably been just as good (Malone, McHale, etc). It's like comparing someone to Al Pacino. From a pure basketball/career perspective, the only thing putting up great stats gets you (just speaking of the basketball alone) is the chance to pound on ya chest and say you the man, more money, and a reason for people to remember you in the future (i.e. wasn't Barkley great, he won an MVP and got so many boards, etc). The average role player doesn't get remembered like that, but Horry is the exception. He won't be in the Hall, but he will go down as one of the clutchest players in history. The big shots that he hit for the media darling Lakers (especially that Sacremento one) will guarantee that. So if you wouldn't rather be Karl Malone, Dominique, Gervin as opposed to Horry then I think you have your answer. When it comes to a persona Barkley is right up there with MJ, Tiger, etc.
The Chuck Wagon. Horry was a role player on 7 championship teams. Barkley was an MVP. Sure he never got the rings, but he can console himself with his 2 gold medals. If you would pick Horry's career, you might as well pick Steve Kerr's or John Paxson's.
Dude, a similar question was asked in "White Men Can't Jump" - "Would you rather look good and lose or look bad and win?" - Woody Harrelson Obviously, the correct answer is both (win and look good a la Olajuwon, Magic, Jordan and Bird) - and Horry until recently (Nash and questionally again last night with West) has done both with class. His miracle 3's are something I'll remember longer than any of CB34's dunks and pompus attitude. Horry's recent thug type attitude is something I can live without and has me pulling more and more for the Hornets, but Chuck's ego is larger than life and I'm glad he didn't win one (with the obvious exception being H-town) but if he had 1) maybe he'd be happier and less sarcastic and 2) maybe he'd hate H-town less and not be such a bias punk when making obversions about Yao, T-Mac and the Rox.
Wow that's a really tough question, but I think you should of chose someone else besides Barkley lol. Even though he was a very dominant player and one of the greatest PF's of all time, I still don't like him as a person only as a baller xP. I'd have to say Horry, I'd much rather win a championship, or six lol, (and it's not like he's a nobody who got lucky 6 times, he's still a decent player and has definitely played an important role) than not win one at all, but at the same time I would want to be remember or something liek that. It's really personal preference though. I wouldn't really take money into consideration, Barkley may have several more millions (or well maybe a few tens of millions) but hell I'd be happy with several million in my pocket lol. Some people want to be remembered for something, others just want something.
DaDakota has met both Charles and Horry. I've only met Horry. Actually, Otis Thrope is nicer guy than Horry. He crushed my hand when I thank him for winning 1994 for us. He was so proud that I could never let anyone insult that team ever!
I think Bill Simmons nailed it: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/050620 Lord knows I've written about him enough times. I once compared him to a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, explaining that "Nobody ever talks about him, but he's always there when you need him, just like the Peebee and Jay." I compared him to Nate Dogg, John Cazale and every other famous person who flew under the radar screen but always ended up in good situations. When someone asked me in a recent mailbag whether I would have Horry's career (multiple rings and rich) or Barkley/Malone's careers (no rings and obscenely rich), I opted for Horry's career (and didn't even think twice). Imagine playing on five (soon to be six) championship teams, ending up with a cool nickname, making $50 million, earning the everlasting respect of everyone who ever played with or against you … and you didn't have to deal with any of the superstar BS? Have a great game, everyone notices you. Have a terrible game, nobody notices you. And that's your life. Doesn't that sound like the ultimate gig? And the original mailbag quote is here Q: Would you rather have a sports career like Karl Malone/Charles Barkley/Patrick Ewing or Bob Horry? Hall of Famer with obscene amounts of cash or a clutch performer with five rings who's rich? SG: Fantastic question. I would probably choose Barkley over anyone, and only because he's crossed into that weird Howard Stern Zone where he can say whatever he wants (no matter how offensive or ridiculous) with no repercussions because there's some sort of unspoken, implicit understanding that he's a good guy and we shouldn't take anything he says at face value. That's an unbelievable power to have. But I would rather be Big Shot Bob than Malone or Ewing. Fifteen years later, if you're Horry, you made more than enough money. You played with three of the greatest players ever (Hakeem, Shaq and Duncan). You played crucial roles on five (soon to be six) championship teams who wouldn't have won titles without you. And you were successful enough that everyone brings up your strengths (clutch 3-point shooter, fantastic defender, exceedingly reliable and unselfish) without ever mentioning your weaknesses (that you couldn't create your own shot and needed at least two blue-chip teammates in order to properly thrive). I used to compare him to Nate Dogg, but somebody sent me a great e-mail once (sorry, I tried like hell and couldn't find it anywhere) comparing Horry to John Cazale, the guy who played Fredo Corleone and appeared in exactly five movies before dying of cancer: "The Godfather," "The Godfather II," "The Deer Hunter," "The Conversation," and "Dog Day Afternoon," with crucial roles in all of them that nobody else could have played as well. So the question remains ... would you rather have Cazale's career (except for the cancer part), or would you rather have been a big-time star for an extended period that isn't remembered as fondly (someone like Patrick Swayze or Rob Lowe)? For me, it's no contest – I would have rather been John Cazale (except for the cancer part). And I like the Horry comparison here, because just like Cazale, there wasn't anyone else who would have fit in as well with those Rockets-Lakers-Spurs teams, and only the true fans appreciate him. So there you go. (Which leads to another question: Who's Swayze and who's Lowe between Ewing and Malone? Let's save that for another time.)
