Duncan had deeper teams, and lesser opponents. Malone was statistically superior. Of course SA is gonna win titles if they have a great team vs. lessor opponents. That has nothing to do with individual comparisons.
To say Duncan is better then Malone solely based on rings, then you have to concede Horry > Duncan. If, instead, you point to Malone's drop in FG% as your arguement, then you must be ignoring Duncan's equally dismal FG%. Obviously, I dont believe Horry is better then Duncan...thats why I dont believe in Rings vs. No Rings as the best bench mark in determining which player was better. That works when comparing two teams, not two players. If you compare statistics, Malone has the edge. Malone also was better over a longer period, Duncan is already declining. The only "edge" I give Duncan is in shot blocking. I wont even say defending per se, Malone was a great position defender.