Is it possible to have multiple dynasties in a sport at once?

[SchoolboyC]

No they were not. The dynasty of that era was Showtime

I’m confused.

You say the Spurs can’t be a dynasty bc the Lakers won 3 during their reign, but the Celtics winning 3 during the Showtime reign doesn’t stop them from being called one?

 

[Street Knowledge]

I’m confused.

You say the Spurs can’t be a dynasty bc the Lakers won 3 during their reign, but the Celtics winning 3 during the Showtime reign doesn’t stop them from being called one?

The lakers won back to back had the most titles/finals appearances of their era and owned the Celtics in the playoffs. The Celtics also never won back to back.

Nobody 3peated on showtimes watch or owned them in the playoffs

 

[premier58]

No they were not. The dynasty of that era was Showtime

So why on the Courtship of Rivals documentary they called the Lakers and Celtics the dualing monarchies? From 80-86, they both won 3 a piece. The Lakers separated themselves with 87 and 88. They were already the teams of the decade at that point..didnt the Abel/Howe/Lindsay production line win 3 amidst the dominance of Montreal?

 

[Street Knowledge]

So why on the Courtship of Rivals documentary they called the Lakers and Celtics the dualing monarchies? From 80-86, they both won 3 a piece. The Lakers separated themselves with 87 and 88. They were already the teams of the decade at that point..didnt the Abel/Howe/Lindsay production line win 3 amidst the dominance of Montreal?

I don’t care what other people think though lol

A lot of people say a lot of things

 

[premier58]

@Street Knowledge how do you feel about the NJ Devils and Detroit Red Wings? From 95-03, the Devils won 3(95,00,03), the Wings won 3(97,98,02) one head to head championship matchup in 95, where NJ swept them. Detroit is considered a dynasty, what about New Jersey?

 

[Street Knowledge]

@Street Knowledge how do you feel about the NJ Devils and Detroit Red Wings? From 95-03, the Devils won 3(95,00,03), the Wings won 3(97,98,02) one head to head championship matchup in 95, where NJ swept them. Detroit is considered a dynasty, what about New Jersey?

I don’t follow hockey

 

[premier58]

I don’t care what other people think though lol

A lot of people say a lot of things

Well from 80-86, aside from Philly in 83, the Celts and Lakers hoarded all those championships. This is not an opinion. 87 broke the tie and 88 made it undoubtable. Doesnt change the fact thr at one points, the Lakers and Celtics ruled the basketball world with the same amount of titles in a 7 year span. How can you get more even than that?

 

[mastermind]

We need a definition of dynasty

 

[premier58]

Once a team 3 peats on your watch your dynasty is over and a new one potentially starts. We are now in the midst of an eagles dynasty.

Not if the other team returns and wins another one. If SF wouldve won in 96 and 97 and the Cowboys win one more in 98, those are simultaneous dynasties.

 

[Street Knowledge]

Well from 80-86, aside from Philly in 83, the Celts and Lakers hoarded all those championships. This is not an opinion. 87 broke the tie and 88 made it undoubtable. Doesnt change the fact thr at one points, the Lakers and Celtics ruled the basketball world with the same amount of titles in a 7 year span. How can you get more even than that?

The 1980’s was the showtime lakers dynasty. There were other Great teams, but one dynasty.

 

[Street Knowledge]

Not if the other team returns and wins another one. If SF wouldve won in 96 and 97 and the Cowboys win one more in 98, those are simultaneous dynasties.

Once another team 3peats in your watch, your dynasty is over.

 

[premier58]

Once another team 3peats in your watch, your dynasty is over.

Cowboys didnt three peat and in my hypothetical, neither did SF. San Antonio destroyed the 3peat Lakers and made their own dynasty.

 

[SchoolboyC]

The lakers won back to back had the most titles/finals appearances of their era and owned the Celtics in the playoffs. The Celtics also never won back to back.

Nobody 3peated on showtimes watch or owned them in the playoffs

The Celtics, 76ers, Pistons and Bulls all beat the Lakers in the Finals, and they almost had the same amount as Finals losses as wins

I’m not arguing that they’re not a dynasty, I think they are. I just think these rules seem very arbitrary

 

[premier58]

@Street Knowledge if the Steelers beat the Packers in SB45, are they a dynasty?

 

[Street Knowledge]

Cowboys didnt three peat and in my hypothetical, neither did SF. San Antonio destroyed the 3peat Lakers and made their own dynasty.

Boys won 3 in 4 years and most importantly won back to back.

So your saying the spurs dynasty started in 2003 right? Because how can you be a dynasty when another team 3 peats on your watch.