Steve Nash or Tony Parker? One was a two time MVP who put up good assist numbers for years. The other was never the big-time distributor that Nash was, but he has 3 championships and one Finals MVP.

How will history look at those two? I feel like usually history favors the guy with the rings, but at the same time, it seems like Parker is somewhat of an afterthought in today's NBA, after being considered a star just a couple years ago.

One is a dirty Canadian, but one is a dirty Frenchman, so that's a wash.

Well, technically, Nash is South African. He was born in Johannesburg and moved to Canada when he was 18 months.

well, i think tony is more satisfied with his career if we count what they think. sir charles always said he'd trade in his mvp for a ring. and unless you're an ego maniac, which i don't think steve is, he'd probably feel the same.

i'd like to say steve was the better player over all, but tony sure did what it took when it counted. granted, he had big shot rob and arguably the best 4 of all time, and obi wan ginobli. so while i think steve might stand out as being great by himself, tony is part of a dynasty of greatness in sa that will not soon be forgotten. so who knows?

and tony's half american, so he's only partially a dirty frenchman.

Tony's mom was a dutch model, so he is only French in that he grew up there.

Nash won two MVPs and will be thought of as better historically. If Tony had gotten to 23-25ppg and 8apg, it would be different, but he never quite got that high. He peaked at 22/7, and he has shown he is more of a 18/6 guy. I don't think that beats a 16/10 guy with two MVPs. Even though Parker won Finals MVP, 2007 was still Duncan's team and I think here in 2011, we realized it has been Ginobili's team for a while. The Spurs live and die by what Manu is doing.

Let's look at this from a rarity perspective. Parker's a damn good slasher, but he's not the best ever (or all that close). Nash, on the other hand, is one of the best passers ever and he's one of 5 players to get into the 50/40/90 club. Of those 5, he's got more appearances (4) than the next best (Bird with 2. The other 3 only have 1).

Basketball is a team sport which means one has to look past the rings. Doing that, Nash is a "rarer" player than Parker, so history will most likely reflect that.

parker did dominate nash head to head winning 3 to 1 in playoff series with the 2010 series meaning nothing and the 2003, 2005, 2007 series resulting in spurs championships.

Steve Nash...Parker had Tim Duncan and Manu Ginobili.

Nash won 2 MVPs, was without question the best PG in the NBA for most of the mid-2000's. Parker has had a solid career, but being the second or third wheel on multiple championship teams does not make him a better player than Nash.

Nash for sure... he has the most raw talent

Nash, and it's not even close.

nash is the better player, by far. tony deserves credit for not wasting the talent he had around himself and helping to secure three rings.

both are going to be remembered for having great careers, just for different reasons.

You can look to Karl Malone and Kevin McHale for a similar comparison. I don't think there is much debate that Malone is viewed as the better individual player. But that being said, I don't think you can take anything away from McHale's career.