Why does it even matter what's defined as a dynasty in sports? It' is just as bad in Human History. Do you get extra bragging rights because you franchise was one of the chosen few that actually got lucky and won a few les? It never made sense. Oooh my team was dynastic in nature. Just be glad you're not the Clippers.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dynasty
1.
a sequence of rulers from the same family, stock, or group:
the Ming dynasty.
2.
the rule of such a sequence.
3.
a series of members of a family who are distinguished for their success, wealth, etc.
The Duncan-era Spurs are a family (more so than any other NBA franchise) and nobody can deny their long run of success (never missing the playoffs), so the Spurs are, by definition, a dynasty.
Heh...yeah, when you're talking about the majority of human history, there are two groups of people: those in the lucky sperm club, and everyone else who was ruled by those in the lucky sperm club.
So the Buffalo Bills were a dynasty. The Utah Jazz were a dynasty. The Mavs were a dynasty.
...you were compelled to give an NBA le back (your 1st 5th).
That was your death knell.
yeah i'd much rather talk hoops with a paki in naruto PJ's
So we're talking hoops with this guy?
This is what I imagine most of you to look like. Which is why I stay in bully mode.
Perhaps...but if they are, they're still not as great as the Spurs dynasty.
That's like saying the kings are the same but the generals and soldiers are different. The definition of dynasty referred to the rulers, and the rulers to me are either the coach or the best players, and it's always the same core for pretty michael every franchise.
And you just decided to add in additional definitions to fit your agenda. Either stick with the definition that you put in or admit you are just twisting and turning every which way to avoid defining the Spurs as a dynasty.
Btw, I can give two s about the term dynasty, it's arbitrary and meaningless.
Btw2, Hakeem rockets is a dynasty and the bird celtics weren't. What does that really mean?
...all the while Bird thought he was setting up Magic? Magic was measuring him for a coffin.
By the time Bird had it figured out Magic "was on the beach, earning 20%."
Then it just comes down to one of changing our perspective and neither of us will.
Take it easy, Chang.
Minimum 3 in a row - if u can't defenend your le it's a fluke win.
so the lakers in 2010 were a fluke because they didn't defend in 2011?
Apparently so, not that 6-24 had anything to do with 2010...we all know that 'Test bailed him out, and that's only after Perkins went down, otherwise it's a parade in Boston that June. Real talk.
My issue isn't whether the Spurs are a dynasty or not, it's not really that important.
My issue is your inconsistency in defining the term dynasty, and just randomly add in definitions after feigning objectivity by coming up with a definition from a 3rd party that you thought supported your point.
The virus multiplies by 20% a year? That's really potent.
It's called "moving the goalposts", a common tactic used by trolls and gots.
Now Chang, I did support my provided definition
Dynasties maintain, is what I cited. What differs between us is what they maintain.
I cite championships, you cite excellence. When you bring up the subject of succession that was a gray area because squads are defined by years, not iden y, in basketball.
According to "Hans."
So all in all, there is no way to confirm or deny whether the Spurs were a dynasty, and is at the interpreter's whim. Much like where we started without your posted definition, which means that your posted definition, for its intents and purposes, was useless.
Obviously the Spurs were a dynasty if the day's most accurate statistician puts them at #1 all time using, ya know, stats.
Your 1st 5th is sittin' out there somewhere with a forehead like a drive in movie theatre screen. It's twin, your 2nd 5th? It's in your in' case.
I thought the same exact thing
Not quite, Chang. I used it to invalidate the original post - it proved useful and I stand by it without any provided reasoning to doubt it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
