Reply With Quote
No repeats, no dynasty.
No repeats, no dynasty.
The facts disagree with your personal opinion.
No they don't
Full Definition of DYNASTY
1
: a succession of rulers of the same line of descent
2
: a powerful group or family that maintains its position for a considerable time
Fool, did you even read the article?
Article = Opinion and skewed statistics to support opinion
Facts = Dynasty has to maintain its position ie repeat.
If the Spurs repeated, you'd cry "Spurs didn't threepeat", and if they threepeated, you'd cry something else equally inane, just like all the other butthurt Laker fans.
The Duncan Spurs have never missed the playoffs, yet the Kobe Lakers have. What's that about "maintaining position"?
Numbers don't lie, bucko. The Kobe Lakers aren't even the greatest Laker dynasty, anyway. The Showtime Lakers are. But even they are far below the Duncan Spurs.
Spurs = GOAT, and nothing you say will change that fact.
Deal with it.
So we're talking hoops with this guy?
So in essence... you saying making the playoffs consecutively is greater than defending your le.If the Spurs repeated, you'd cry "Spurs didn't threepeat", and if they threepeated, you'd cry something else equally inane, just like all the other butthurt Laker fans.
The Duncan Spurs have never missed the playoffs, yet the Kobe Lakers have. What's that about "maintaining position"?
Numbers don't lie, bucko. The Kobe Lakers aren't even the greatest Laker dynasty, anyway. The Showtime Lakers are. But even they are far below the Duncan Spurs.
Spurs = GOAT, and nothing you say will change that fact.
Deal with it.
AND Dynasties dont adorn their palaces with bronze and fat ugly mexican es....
You have to repeat to be a dynasty
Duncan and Pop, and to an extent Manu, Parker and Robinson, was the same line of descent.
The Spurs maintains the position as an elite team in the league for a considerable time.
The Spurs fit both criterion using your quoted definition of dynasty.
Over the long term, yes. Remember the 1994-1995 Rockets? They repeated (mainly because DK was playing baseball), but then quickly faded into obscurity.
The Spurs have the greatest sustained run of excellence in NBA history. It's basically a fluke that they didn't repeat during that time. There were some pretty bull calls/non-calls that did them in over the years, but it is what it is.
The cut-off years are ridiculous. Why is 1999 being calculated for Jordan? 1987-1990 okay but still an odd cut off
Shaq makes no sense. Why would you include 1995 and 2005 when he wasn't even playing for the Lakers at the time
Dynasties do whatever the they want to, choad boy.
Where does it say that, besides your own mind?
Precisely. Game, Set, Match, Spurs.
If I'm a 2000,2001 and 2002 champion, I've maintained it for 2 or 3 years depending on how you look at it.
If I'm a 2003,2005,2007 champion, I've never maintained it.
Maintain - cause to continue
Spurs never continued.
Its no fluke... his name was Kobe. No Kobe and Jim has 10 les... no less.
In a dictionary, under "dynasty"
The way the statistics are skewed really makes no sense
- Shaq played against the Lakers in 1995 and 2005
But they use the Lakers performance to represent Shaq's time there. So let's assume Shaq played and dominated the Lakers in 1995 and 2005. They are using Shaq's dominance to argue against his dominance
Not repeating=no dynasty
- All of these dynasties defended their les.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/3...history/page/2
- A sports dynasty is a team that dominates their sport or league for an extraordinary length of time. The definition of dynasty by academics implies a single leader over the bulk of that period, a great example being John Wooden who led the college basketball powerhouse UCLA Bruins.
- Dynasty (sports) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynasty_(sports)Wikipedia
You have just decided to define it that way.
The Spurs have maintained a level of excellence over 17 years.
Come to think of it, using your definition, no franchise can be called a dynasty. They were never a succession of rulers, it's always the same core group.
Teams may be similar or the same, but the 2000 Lakers succeeded the 2001 Lakers. They are defined as different squads.
The Spurs never had a dynasty when referring to being the best of the best for their given years. They maintained excellence, but not championships.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
