Not really.
It's just like the rings argument, they aren't the only qualifier, but the whole "well Horry >>>> Malone" as a rebuttal is a cop-out.
When you're comparing ATG talent, rings do become a means creating separation between the who's who. But people like to do it without context or nuance to get their points off.
Being the most recognizable NBA icon is a distinguishing factor among the rare air, ATG players. You can compare stats, accolades, skill set and all that and Jordan is still top 3, at WORST.
And whoever it is you're TRYING to put in front of him ain't nearly as iconic. Tell me I'm lying...and be a fukkboi and say that it being the most iconic, most responsible for the popularity of the league, on top of being one of the most skilled and dominant doesn't mean anything toward creating a distinction between who's who.
Jerry West?
Bill Russel?
Wilt?
Magic?
LEBRON?
The only person you can really make an argument for is Cap and all things accounted for, they got the same amount of rings and the GOAT got his stats and his rings with a higher degree of difficulty.