The conversation around the Golden State Warriors and Draymond Green took a sharp turn this week after Kenyon Martin’s comments about Green’s toughness resurfaced. Martin did not hold back. He questioned Green’s reputation, calling him a “fake tough guy” and insisting that the forward only picks spots where he knows no real threat exists. It was blunt. It was vintage K-Mart. And it instantly reignited a conversation that lives somewhere between nostalgia and modern NBA reality.

Martin explained that in his era, toughness meant facing players who pushed back. He listed names without hesitation, the Davis Boys from Indiana, Dale and Antonio, along with PJ Brown and Zach Randolph, men who thrived in contact and confrontation. For Martin, their presence built respect. It wasn’t flash, wasn’t theatrics, but was survival every night under the hard lights of early-2000s basketball.

A Different NBA, But the Warriors’ Draymond Green Debate Remains

Article Continues Below

When asked directly if Draymond Green belonged in that group, Kenyon Martin didn’t pause. He simply said no, shaking his head. The message landed louder than the word itself. He believes Green’s edge comes from calculation, not danger. “Draymond ain’t do nothing to somebody who’s going to do something back,” he said. It was a sharp contrast to the reputation Green carries in the modern league: emotional leader, relentless agitator, and defensive anchor.

Still, the NBA has changed. Rules shifted. Roles evolved. Toughness became strategy as much as strength. Draymond Green thrives in that environment, using emotion as fuel and disruption as a weapon. Warriors fans see that as part of his legacy. Critics see it as theatre.

But moments like this force a real question across eras: what defines toughness now, and who gets to decide? As the Warriors chase their next playoff run, the debate won’t fade. It will only grow louder each time Draymond steps under the spotlight. What story will he write next?