Kobe Bryant doesn’t have any real friends. He never learnt how to make them. These are his words, not mine.
You would expect Bryant, the most single-minded, ruthless and in a way, selfish, athlete of his generation, to rationalise the lack of friendships in his life. But he doesn’t.
He calls it a weakness of his personality, perhaps his defining weakness.
Bryant grew up in Italy. He was virtually the only black kid wherever he went. His father played professional basketball and Kobe was constantly moving around the country as a child.
He had a poor grasp of the language, he was tall and black when everyone else was short and white, and he was never around for long before the next city beckoned.
He never had any friends. But he was really good at basketball.
Sport is theatre and Staples Center in Los Angeles is just one of its many stages. On a nightly basis for the past 19 years, Kobe Bryant has either been the play’s protagonist or antagonist – the delicious tension in the script comes from figuring out exactly which role he plays. It may be different for each audience member.
It’s impossible not to be intrigued by Kobe Bryant. He’s one of the most articulate and thoughtful athletes of all-time. In response to people who vilify him for being selfish and shooting too much, naturally he compares himself to Mozart.
He says that Mozart told critics that there were never too many notes and never too few; only as many as necessary. I’m not sure that contested 18-foot fadeaway jump-shots are comparable to Mozart’s Symphony in G Minor, but it’s nice that Bryant has the gall to go there.
What makes Bryant so fascinating is that it’s impossible to tell if he’s incredibly human or incredibly not. He’s either impressively self-aware and open about vulnerability or impressively crafty at manufacturing a public persona to elicit sympathy. The only thing that is certain is that he’s impressive.
Despite being articulate, thoughtful and potentially extremely self-aware, it’s almost impossible to like Kobe Bryant. His rationality is cold and unforgiving, and self-awareness, often the most beautiful thing, looks menacing on Bryant.
For everything that he might say to the contrary, I know that Bryant would rather score 50 points in a game and lose than score 15 points and win. He’d rather be a mythical success in defeat than a meek bystander in victory. I want to chastise Bryant for this and deride him as selfish, but I can’t help thinking that I’d probably want the same thing. And therein lies the rub with Kobe Bryant – he shows us a part of ourselves that we don’t like, but that we reluctantly understand.
What makes Bryant most sympathetic and endearing is that he seems to be a fundamentally unhappy person. Nobody who is that competitive, who is that driven and who strives for such validation could possibly be happy.
He has to be overcompensating. That’s what makes Bryant so compelling – the fact that he’s a 6’6 athletic freak who has earned $298 million in salary and is one of the most famous people in the world, and yet his level of happiness is probably no different to someone who cleans windows for a living. We need that in sports – we need these physical gods to be mentally flawed. And on the front of human failure, Bryant unquestionably succeeds.
Bryant encapsulates what makes sport so addictively and wonderfully absorbing. We’re never just watching the red team try and beat the blue team. It’s never just a game. At best, it’s a representation of life. At worst, it’s seriously entertaining theatre.
Every time Kobe Bryant steps onto the court he’s not just playing against the other team. In the process of competing he’s debunking (or unintentionally promoting) the merits of altruism, exploring whether or not pathological devotion is rewarding or masochistic, and whether, ultimately, success is truly fulfilling or just a temporary bandage for an unhealable wound.
On the surface it’s ludicrous to attach all this meaning to a guy who shoots a ball into a hoop. But look a little deeper and it’s really not. Meaning can be found in sport the same way it is found in literature, music, film, television and theatre. Sport, like these mediums, is just another form of narrative. Its depth is not limited to Mr. Bryant either. Just look at some of his teammates over the years.
Ron Artest is an improbable redemption story, someone who charged into the stands in the middle of a game and started punching fans, and then six years later hit the shot to win the championship. Pau Gasol is a deft, selfless but petulant artist who found a way to coalesce to Bryant’s shadow.
His rise from ‘soft Euro’ to the most fearless player on the court in Game 7 of the 2010 Finals is a masculinity study waiting to happen. Jeremy Lin is an uplifting underdog story of race transcended, as well as a depressing tale of someone whose life will forever be defined by a six-week apex and now has to live the rest of his days as a requiem to that high.
Basketball is what Kobe Bryant plays but life is what he represents. He’s one of theatre’s great antiheroes, it’s just that his stage has a JumboTron and Kiss-Cam above it. Loneliness, selfishness, the struggle of deference, the fight for relevance in old age, and supreme, transcendent physical achievement – this is Kobe Bryant’s world and these are the stories he’s given us.
The beauty of sport is that its appeal is dynamic and multiform. I am primarily drawn to sport as a form of narrative. Every season is a novel; in basketball that novel has 82 chapters, in English soccer it has 38. But as alluring as sport is on an intellectual level, it also succeeds on a raw instinctual one too. I’ve spent countless hours, maybe days, of my life watching or reading about Kobe Bryant. And yet, the power of sport is that someone who has never heard of Bryant or watched a game of basketball can marvel at this video, and the majestic, celestial arc on that second shot, on the exact same level as I do.
It’s for moments like this that we watch sport; where layered narrative and inexplicable physical achievement converge in one perfect moment of purity.
That’s what makes sport so captivating; it can take the form of popcorn entertainment or something much more meaningful. It can be Birdman, exploring Kobe Bryant’s unexpected virtue of ignorance, or it can be Mission Impossible 4, watching him scale great physical heights.
The magic of sport though, is that it can be, and often is, both of these things at the same time.
Squidward
Roar Rookie
Great read. Well written my friend
pete bloor
Guest
The "fooling yourself" comment suggests you didn't read the article which is funny given you throw the term ignorance out there. He admits to having the same urge. Also yes Jordan and James took more shots but come on that is just such a disingenuous misused of stat's it calls your integrity into question as Kobe didn't start 143 of his first 150 games. Do it per 100 possessions and he has more than James and made his shots at a materially lower TS% than both (James and Jordan score at slightly above average efficiency, Kobe at or slightly below which is the issue) You are basically saying he's a good bloke because he didn't take shots whilst riding the bench in making the comparison.
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
I would have loved to have seen MJ play with Shaq and/or Dwight. Something tells me Shaq's lack of conditioning and Dwight's fooling around wouldn't have sat too well with Jordan, and they may have been on a plane out of Chicago as well! I think you could definitely argue Kobe's method worked. 5 titles is 5 titles. But I take your point, as I agree that him and Shaq should have dominated for a longer period, but I'm not sure that should all be put on Kobe. Shaq certainly played a role in the break-up as well. Kobe is definitely an odd dude, and deserves much of the criticism that comes his way. But I also think a lot of it goes too far, is unbalanced and lacks objectivity. (Not your piece, by the way! Just stuff like Abbott's piece.)
Jay Croucher
Expert
I think we're essentially on the same page Ryan, and your last paragraph echoes my feelings to a tee. I guess the question is, how much did it really work? Kobe and Shaq should have dominated the league for a decade. I sympathise with Kobe's frustration at Shaq's lack of work ethic, but the public manifestation of that frustration effectively curtailed the possibility of another half-decade of trips to the finals. The difference between Jordan's motivational techniques and Kobe's is that Jordan's teammates actually liked him. 'Liking' someone is such an airy, subjective area of discussion, but it's hard to make the case that it's not important. Jordan literally punched Steve Kerr in the face during a practice once but all Kerr goes on about is how much he loves and respects the guy, and it was Kerr who later went on to hit some of the biggest shots of that second Bulls three-peat. Contrast that with the way Shaq, Dwight and to a lesser extent guys like Ramon Sessions and Smush Parker have spoken about their time with Kobe. Whereas Jordan lighting fires under his teammates seemed to inspire them to do better, Kobe's efforts to do the same just led to Shaq and Dwight hopping on planes out of Los Angeles. Like Jackson talks about, Jordan always loved his teammates and was 'one of the guys', whereas Kobe was reclusive and 'lacking social skills'. (By the way, the Nash non-call is from Lakers sources in the Abbott article, an article I agree is oddly vindictive but definitely illuminating.)
Sideline Comm.
Guest
Yes, really fantastic article. Thank you Jay.
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
I should firstly admit that I think Henry Abbott's Kobe piece was an absolute disgrace. Rarely have I see a character assassination like that, that was personal and agenda-driven. Though he made some valid points, he conveniently left out many more (like the vetoed Chris Paul trade for one). On Jordan, it's easy to forget that for a long time, many people - including Phil Jackson - held the opinion that MJ was a bad teammate and selfish. He eventually grew into one, and perhaps Kobe never made the transition to that level quite as well, but no players are perfect. As for Kobe driving Shaq out of LA, that's been a little overblown. Numerous people within the Lakers organisation will freely admit there was way more to that than just Kobe vs Shaq. And in Kobe's defense, Shaq's conditioning did need improving! Kobe trashed his teammates, including Bynum? Good! Bynum needed a kick up the pants! And if you've read the Jordan Rules, you would know Jordan regularly did the same thing (Will Purdue and Stacey King were two memorable ones). Refusing to suck up to Dwight Howard? Again, I think that's a good thing. Why the hell should Kobe Bryant suck up to clown like Dwight? Kobe not calling Steve Nash? Do you have a source on that? I've heard Nash say Kobe actually played a large role in getting him to the Lakers? It's worth pointing out that Derrick Rose refused to recruit Melo. Does he cop similar criticism? I'm no necessarily defending Kobe, and I'm enjoying the debate with you. There is no question in my mind that Kobe is selfish, complex, myopic and can be detrimental to his team. But he's also one of the most driven players in NBA history, and one of it's most successful. There is no blueprint for greatness - despite what people say - as humans are all different in some way. Kobe's blueprint may not be traditional, classical, likeable or team orientated. It may not have the romance of teamwork like a Tim Duncan or Bill Russell. But . . . it's also worked.
Jay Croucher
Expert
Ryan, I think the best quote about Kobe was one in Henry Abbott's famous article about him, when a Laker insider said that Kobe 'wants to win, but only as long as he's the reason we're winning'. I agree that Jordan was similarly driven by personal goals but they weren't at the expense of the team. As Phil Jackson wrote in his book, when his shot wasn't falling Jordan 'would shift his attention to defense or passing or setting screens to help the team win the game' whereas Kobe 'will pound away relentlessly until his luck turns' with his shooting. If Phoenix was an isolated incident I'd cut him slack too, but it's just one in a litany. There's driving Shaq out of LA by calling him 'fat and out of shape' in public, there's the video trashing Andrew Bynum, there's the fact that he refused to acquiesce to Howard and spent the 'recruiting' meeting lecturing Dwight on winning. He refused to call Steve Nash when the Lakers were courting him in free agency and nearly derailed the signing by insisting that it should be Nash calling him. Agents in the NBA have said time and time again that their players don't want to play for the Lakers purely because of Kobe. Jackson called him 'uncoachable' in his book. There's such a history of pettiness and undermining teammates that it's difficult to craft an argument that Kobe cares nearly as much about team as he does about his own situation. There's the quintessential basketball quote from Bill Russell that 'the most important measure of how good a game I played was how much better I made my teammates play'. Kobe Bryant is the antithesis of this statement. Again though, as I write in the article, none of this is necessarily a qualitative criticism of Bryant. I find his selfishness human, and in a twisted way, sympathetic. He's a character out of 'Paradise Lost'. He's the most captivating NBA personality of his generation, and we're lucky to have had him.
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
Yes, that Suns game is a serious blemish on Kobe's career and character. No question. However, it was 9 years ago, to be fair. And a few players have a nasty little hiccups in their career. Pippen refusing to go back into a game. Magic throwing his coach under the bus. Bird getting into a bar fight and breaking his hand. Barkley boozing the night before a playoff game, etc. All could be considered selfish and detrimental to winning. So as much as that Phoenix game is something Kobe should be ashamed of, I'm willing to cut him a little slack. Interesting question you pose: "Would he want the win more for his team, or for his personal legacy?" You could ask the same question to Jordan, right? He was always quoted as saying he wanted to win more titles than Magic or Larry. Isn't that personal legacy?
Jared
Roar Pro
Awesome read.
express34texas
Guest
Even Jordan's had ugly shooting games in the playoffs like Kobe did in game 7 in 2010. And it wasn't like Kobe was shooting bad shots, they just weren't going in. Nobody was shooting well that game. It was ultimate Memphis grindhouse. An ugly defensive, incompetent offensive game. Kobe did whatever he could to win though, playing awesome defense, getting to the line 15x, and outrebounding BOS's starting bigs combined. Amazingly, people still don't understand the 2006 Suns/Lakers series very well. Overall, the LAL did better when Kobe shot less in that series. PHO was clearly a much better team than LAL. Kobe led his team to a 3-1 lead, and nearly pulled it out in game 6, the one game he went off, which LAL still lost. Kobe dominated the first half in game 7, but PHO was still dominating the scoreboard. Phil told him at half to start passing more and shooting less, which is what he did. His teammates continually got great looks in the 2nd half, but they were so incompetent, of course they struggled. Kobe wasn't going to win that game by himself, PHO was playing too well. It's funny how he shoots too much one time, and then doesn't shoot enough another time. It's a no-win scenario for him. And he still shot 16x. And you're fooling yourself if there is a player out there who wouldn't want to be 'the man', if possible. James and Jordan both have averaged more FGA/game than Kobe, but yet you never hear people talk about them shooting too much or just playing for personal glory. And we all know how concerned Jordan was about his ppg. The 50 pt/lose vs 15pt/win comment is really ignorant. Kobe scored 50 pts. in that game 6 in 2006. You really think he would rather have that than the win? Also, James has had several awful shooting games this year, quite close to 6-24. He's been 8-25, 10-30, and 7-23. Yet, the amount of backlash he's received, if any, if nothing compared to Kobe's backlash. To this day, Kobe still gets discredited more for winning the 2010 Finals than actually credited.
Jay Croucher
Expert
That's a fair point, Ryan. I guess it's more of an intuitive 'knowing' than a factual knowing. So much of my feeling towards Bryant is coloured by his disgraceful showing in Game 7 2006 against Phoenix where he refused to take shots in the second half as an affront to his teammates, only taking three shots to make the point that his teammates couldn't win without his scoring. Really one of the most bizarre and indefensible things a star of Bryant's calibre has ever done. I agree that Kobe would take the win in the specific scenario of Game 7 of the Finals over anything else (and he was pleasantly self-deprecating after the Lakers won in spite of his 6-24 performance), but that raises other interesting questions. Would he want the win more for his team, or for his personal legacy? Given his history, I get the sense that it's the latter. But even if it is, I can't really blame him for it.
John
Guest
For everything that he might say to the contrary, I know that Bryant would rather score 50 points in a game and lose than score 15 points and win. He’d rather be a mythical success in defeat than a meek bystander in victory."- I disagree with this statement. Kobe's pursuit of perfection and to always trying to MASTER HIS craft is because he wants to be better than the competiton, TO WIN! The reason he has that killer instinct and game "take over" mentality is because he thinks its the best chance to win. I highly doubt he is upset that he won a fifth championship because Metta World Peace had a great game 7 and he didn't. That makes no sense.
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
Yep. Artest saved his bacon with a big three! Kobe also had 15 boards in that game as well though. When Larry Bird had poor shooting nights, the talk was often about him 'hitting the boards' instead to help his team. Kobe rarely gets those types of 'leeway' comments, especially in the game you mention. I'm not defending that poor shooting performance, just giving a different perspective!
Jayme Markus
Roar Guru
Went 6-24 in his last Finals game 7 against the Celtics in 2010. Some have said he almost shot the Lakers out of the game, I would never say such things ;)
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
Great piece, and exceptionally written. I really enjoyed it, Jay. Outstanding. My one small, little comment is around the sentence "I know that Bryant would rather score 50 points in a game and lose than score 15 points and win." I personally don't think that's true, and I'm not sure how you could 'know' this to be a fact, as it's almost impossible to prove. In a regular season game, perhaps. Maybe. Potentially. But in game 7 of the NBA Finals with the title on the line, Kobe would take the win over all else, I'm sure.
Tristan Rayner
Editor
Mate this is fantastic.
Rugby stu
Guest
Great article, brilliant writing
Tony Loedi
Roar Guru
Great read jay