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

[Street Knowledge]

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

Nope no back to back

 

[Fresh]

I'm a Knicks fan, but lmao at all the strays the Spurs are catching, when the convoy started talking about the NFL



not to have a lengthy debate with anybody in this thread, but the Spurs are 'weird' for lack of a better word, on the one hand the Spurs have multiple championships and have had strong competitive teams, and well coached by Pops, but you just can't ignore the Lakers 3peating on the Spurs watch, and Kobe sh1t on San Antonio a few times, coach Pop actually got annoyed when a media reporter asked him about Kobe, and he basically said "Kobe's doing the whole trusting his teammates now" lmao, Pop knew he couldn't fool with Kobe when he had a decent squad in the second half of his career, and started playing more team ball, thus pissing Coach Pop off when they played the Kobe/Pau Lakers

 

[Street Knowledge]

Also I consider the pats run from 01-04 to be different from the runs from 14-18. They went ten years between titles.

 

[premier58]

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.

99 still counts as a part of it. The Skins won two titles in between when the 80's dynasty Niners, won 4.

 

[Baka's Weird Case]

I don’t care what other people think though lol

A lot of people say a lot of things

if you dont care what other people think why did you make this thread asking us what a dynasty is in the first place?

 

[premier58]

Also I consider the pats run from 01-04 to be different from the runs from 14-18. They went ten years between titles.

So are the 14-18 Pars a dynasty or not? They dodnt win back to back like most other dynasties

 

[Street Knowledge]

99 still counts as a part of it. The Skins won two titles in between when the 80's dynasty Niners, won 4.

So during their “dynasty” another team 3peated then? What about the lakers from 2008-2010 or the Heat from 11-14? Were they competing dynasties?

Skins weren’t a dynasty, the 49ers were the team of the 1980’s.

 

[Street Knowledge]

So are the 14-18 Pars a dynasty or not? They dodnt win back to back like most other dynasties

No.

 

[premier58]

No.

How can a team go to 4 out of 5 Superbowls, win 3 of them, and not be comsidered a dynasty? So youre basically saying if KC lost to SF last year, but Philly this year, they arent a dynastty?

 

[KidJSoul]

@Street Knowledge The fukk are you saying? Everyone calls the Spurs a dynasty and the Lakers a dynasty

People always say the "80s Celtics dynasty"

Multiple can dynasties exist at once.

It's usually one after the other but both can happen at the same time every now and then

 

[KidJSoul]

No.

Dude you have you're own weird criteria no one else uses

I mean that's fine but you're acting like it's a commonly accepted fact when it's not. That's my problem at this point

Like, how are the 2014-2018 pats not a dynasty? The had a fukkikg stranglehold on the AFC. 4 super bowl appearances and 3 wins out of 5.

The only thing people debate is if it should count as a separate dynasty from the first one, or altogether.

By your logic, why is the 1st one a dynasty when they literally missed the playoffs 1 year?

 

[Big Boss]

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?

Facts

 

[CHICAGO]

Dude you have you're own weird criteria no one else uses

I mean that's fine but you're acting like it's a commonly accepted fact when it's not. That's my problem at this point

Like, how are the 2014-2018 pats not a dynasty? The had a fukkikg stranglehold on the AFC. 4 super bowl appearances and 3 wins out of 5.

The only thing people debate is if it should count as a separate dynasty from the first one, or altogether.

By your logic, why is the 1st one a dynasty when they literally missed the playoffs 1 year?

DUDE GOT DEBUNKED EARLY.

I HAVE NO ONE IDEA WHY YALL
KEEP GOING BACK AND FORTH
WHEN ITS CLEAR HES GONNA
DBL DOWN NO MATTER
WHAT FACTS ARE PRESENTED



​

 

[BucciMane]

I think people throw the terms generational and dynasty around too often nowadays.

I think I give more leeway for what’s a dynasty in the NFL because of the playoff format and how difficult it is to win. I think three out of four in the NFL is an automatic dynasty.

 

[Ukbrotha]

We need a definition of dynasty

Chatgpt says yes to San Antonio spurs being a Dynasty.

Yes, the San Antonio Spurs can absolutely be considered a dynasty in sports terms. A dynasty is typically defined as a team that sustains a high level of success over an extended period, often winning multiple championships and consistently contending at the highest level.

The Spurs' case for dynasty status includes:

1. Sustained Success (1999–2019) – The team made the playoffs for 22 consecutive seasons (1998–2019), an unprecedented level of consistency.


2. Five NBA Championships (1999, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2014) – Winning five titles in a 15-year span is a hallmark of a dominant era.


3. Hall of Fame Core – With Tim Duncan, Tony Parker, Manu Ginóbili, and later Kawhi Leonard, the Spurs built a legacy under head coach Gregg Popovich.


4. Winning Culture – Even beyond their championship years, the Spurs were perennial contenders, often finishing near the top of the standings.


5. Influence on the Game – Their emphasis on ball movement, team-first play, and international talent shaped modern basketball.



While their dominance was more spread out compared to shorter, more concentrated dynasties like the 1990s Bulls or 2010s Warriors, the Spurs’ two-decade run of excellence solidifies them as one of the NBA’s great dynasties.