At the very least, a dynasty has to have consectutive championships. And even there it's shaky to say winning 3 out of 4 is a dynasty despite having a back-to-back in there. It really depends on the sport to be honest, how hard it is to repeat. Also, time is a factor. Winning two in a row in the World Cup definitely is a Dynasty, but two in a row in Golf isn't. Finally, winning again even after major roster overhauls is a Dynasty, because it's more about the evolution of the franchise (kingdom) then anyone person...which is the literal meaning of the word. But to be sure, it has to be consectutive. All this considered, Bulls were a dynasty, as were the Shaq lead Lakers....prior to that, I think you have to go back pretty far.
If three titles, and another finals appearance gets you a dynasty - surely the Celtics and the Lakers in the 80s FAR surpass that.
not if their titles weren't consecutive. Showtime was definitely better the Shaq-time, but Shaq time was the dynasty - which is about absolute control and domination, no matter how good or bad you are relative to another era.
Doesn't that seem a little silly though? The 80's Celtics and Lakers were title contenders for over a DECADE - the Shaq-lead lakers were title contenders for what? 6-7 years? The main reason the Lakers/Celtics didn't get a bunch of consecutive championships is because the other team was in the league.
Yeah, I agree, so maybe dynasty's are moot, but it's like saying you can be a back-to-back champion without winning back-to-back titles. That's even more silly, and so it goes, a dynasty has to be at a few back-to-backs. at least one....it's about domination and owning the throne over a period time, not just for a moment.
Jesus, where did the Wilford Brimley's taint reference come from? Happy as i am, reading a Kelly Dwyer post, and whammo, Wilford Brimley time. What in Betty White's saggers is that?
Whether or not they were a dynasty doesn't change the fact that they were one of the greatest squads ever put together. No one's saying that the recent Spurs or Lakers could hold their jock. Evan
Bill Simmons had an interesting take in today's mini-column, talking about how the "year after" has to be taken into consideration when talking about the best one-time champs. His example was the 1983 Sixers, who lost in the first round the next season, and how history seems to overrate them. I agree with the premise, just not the Sixers reference. I'd move to include the "year before" in the discussion, and rate it just as highly as the year after. Nobody remembers the 1990 Pistons killing the Trail Blazers in five games, but they do remember them losing in seven to the Lakers in 1988. The Sixers of the late 70s/early 80s were the third-best team every year.
I pulled this from answers.com to have an arbitrary and boring point of view...the disclaimer at the end is the most hilarious thing...but basically it seems that conventional wisdom says a dynasty is just a period of domination, nothing about consecutive titles. But I am not sure the 80's Celtics dominated for a significantly long enough period.... http://www.answers.com/topic/dynasty In sports, the term dynasty may refer to a team that enjoys a period of dominance over the sport, generally gauged via championship titles. NBA Boston Celtics of the 1960s Los Angeles Lakers of the 1980s Chicago Bulls of the 1990s NFL Packers of the 1960s Steelers of the 1970s 49ers of the 1980s Washington Redskins of the 1980s and 1990s Cowboys of the 1990s NE Patriots of the 2000s NHL Toronto Maple Leafs of the 1940s Edmonton Oilers of the mid to late 1980s Montreal Canadiens of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s New York Islanders of the early 1980s MLB Boston Red Sox of the early 20th century New York Yankees from 1921 to 1964 New York Yankees of the late 1990s San Francisco Giants NLL Philadelphia Wings of the 1990s Toronto Rock of the late 1990s-2000s AFL Detroit Drive of the late 1980s-early 1990s Tampa Bay Storm of the 1990s This incomplete list requires further research and clarification.
