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

[Street Knowledge]

@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

There was only one dynasty in the 1980’s and it was Showtime lakers.

 

[Street Knowledge]

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



​

What facts?

You think a team can be in the midst of a “dynasty” when another team is 3peating



It’s not just that lakers team

On the spurs watch the lakers went to 3 straight finals and won back to back and the heat won back to back

But but dynasty

 

[Street Knowledge]

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?

They way never went back to back.

The first team went back to back. That’s the difference. That was the only pats dynasty.

 

[Street Knowledge]

How you a dynasty when multiple teams are winning back to back during your run

Lakers 3peated from 2000-2002

Lakers won back to back from 2009-2010

Heat from 2012-2013

This is all during the spurs alleged dynasty

 

[Street Knowledge]

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?

No they’re not a dynasty. You need to go back to back. Every dynasty in sports history has a repeat.

 

[mastermind]

Chatgpt says yes to San Antonio spurs being a Dynasty.

I agree

And with the premise of this thread, the 49ers dynasty overlapped with the Slurs dynasty.

 

[KidJSoul]

No they’re not a dynasty. You need to go back to back. Every dynasty in sports history has a repeat.

So if the 49ers rings went 81, 84, 87, 89 instead of 81, 84, 88, 89 they wouldn't have been a dynasty?

 

[Street Knowledge]

So if the 49ers rings went 81, 84, 87, 89 instead of 81, 84, 88, 89 they wouldn't have been a dynasty?

No they didn’t win back to back. Like the Joe Gibbs Redskins. Just a great team with a great run

 

[bigde09]

Man U and Arsenal in the early/mid 2000s in the Premier league

 

[Heelmatic]

Haven’t seen anyone saying Yankees/Braves. I guess it depends on your definition of “dynasty”

 

[In The Zone '98]

If you're splitting the titles, sure

 

[premier58]

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.

Name a team that is undeservedly deemed a dtnasty...

 

[VegetasHairline]

Haven’t seen anyone saying Yankees/Braves. I guess it depends on your definition of “dynasty”

As a Braves fan, they definitely are not a dynasty.

 

[Numpsay]

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

Destroyed??!? The series went 6 and then the Lakers promptly beat them the following year.

 

[KingBeez]

Edit