Lifestyle > Sports & Entertainment
Sticky: DUBCC's Sports Hall of Fame
Now_Im_Not_Banned:
So you got most of your rings in the span of a decade...I still fail to see how that makes you better than a franchise that's been consistantly on top.
SGV:
So winning 8 rings in a row isn't an amazing feat? In a 13 year span, they won 11 rings. No team can say that. And no team ever will. Not even the Showtime Lakers. Speaking of which, take away the 5 titles the Lakers won in the 80s and they're down to only 9 rings (That's including the Shaq/Kobe three peat). Take away the 60s from the Celtics and they still have 7 rings and that's without winning any ring after 86.
In more or less 59 years, the Lakers have won 14 rings, the Celtics have won 16. It took the Lakers about 52 years to compile that many. The Celtics racked those up in give or take 37 years. Even with 22 years of the Celtics not winning titles (the Lakers have won 5 since the last time the Celtics won one), the Lakers still haven't surpassed the Celtics. Keep in mind, the Lakers won 5 rings before the Celtics even had 1. So from 1957 to 1986 (The time in which the Celtics won all of their rings), the Lakers only won 4 rings. 16 to 4. So in those 29 years, the Cetics were the most dominant team out. The Lakers were not.
The way the Celtics are playing now, they'll probably rack up another ring and put that stat up to 17 rings. The fact that they won most of their rings in a span of a decade proves their dominance. And the simple fact that they haven't won a ring in over 20 years and nobody has beaten their amount of rings, again, proves their dominance. Lakers are a great dynasty. They've had some great teams. But none can say they're as great as 1957-1969 Celtics.
Now_Im_Not_Banned:
--- Quote from: SGV: R.I.P. To Pimp C on January 08, 2008, 02:21:00 AM ---So winning 8 rings in a row isn't an amazing feat? In a 13 year span, they won 11 rings. No team can say that. And no team ever will. Not even the Showtime Lakers. Speaking of which, take away the 5 titles the Lakers won in the 80s and they're down to only 9 rings (That's including the Shaq/Kobe three peat). Take away the 60s from the Celtics and they still have 7 rings and that's without winning any ring after 86.
In more or less 59 years, the Lakers have won 14 rings, the Celtics have won 16. It took the Lakers about 52 years to compile that many. The Celtics racked those up in give or take 37 years. Even with 22 years of the Celtics not winning titles (the Lakers have won 5 since the last time the Celtics won one), the Lakers still haven't surpassed the Celtics. Keep in mind, the Lakers won 5 rings before the Celtics even had 1. So from 1957 to 1986 (The time in which the Celtics won all of their rings), the Lakers only won 4 rings. 16 to 4. So in those 29 years, the Cetics were the most dominant team out. The Lakers were not.
The way the Celtics are playing now, they'll probably rack up another ring and put that stat up to 17 rings. The fact that they won most of their rings in a span of a decade proves their dominance. And the simple fact that they haven't won a ring in over 20 years and nobody has beaten their amount of rings, again, proves their dominance. Lakers are a great dynasty. They've had some great teams. But none can say they're as great as 1957-1969 Celtics.
--- End quote ---
Again...the Celtics won most of their rings in one era. Lakers have been the more historic and celebrated franchise overall. Nothing you say can change this. You're purely arguing that cuz you're a Laker hater. Even if I wasn't a Laker fan, I'd be able to realize that the Lakers have a much more storied franchise than the fucking Celtics...LOL.
Showtime Lakers>>>>>1957-1969 Celtics. :-*
PS...Lakers have 15 rings.
SGV:
So 5 rings > 11 Rings ? I think the correct term here would be Celtic Hater.
I don't hate the Lakers. I used to love the Showtime Lakers. But I was never a fan. I probably will never be.
By the way, the Lakers only have 14 rings in the NBA :-*
OG Hack Wilson:
--- Quote from: Now_I_Know on January 08, 2008, 11:49:00 AM ---
--- Quote from: SGV: R.I.P. To Pimp C on January 08, 2008, 02:21:00 AM ---So winning 8 rings in a row isn't an amazing feat? In a 13 year span, they won 11 rings. No team can say that. And no team ever will. Not even the Showtime Lakers. Speaking of which, take away the 5 titles the Lakers won in the 80s and they're down to only 9 rings (That's including the Shaq/Kobe three peat). Take away the 60s from the Celtics and they still have 7 rings and that's without winning any ring after 86.
In more or less 59 years, the Lakers have won 14 rings, the Celtics have won 16. It took the Lakers about 52 years to compile that many. The Celtics racked those up in give or take 37 years. Even with 22 years of the Celtics not winning titles (the Lakers have won 5 since the last time the Celtics won one), the Lakers still haven't surpassed the Celtics. Keep in mind, the Lakers won 5 rings before the Celtics even had 1. So from 1957 to 1986 (The time in which the Celtics won all of their rings), the Lakers only won 4 rings. 16 to 4. So in those 29 years, the Cetics were the most dominant team out. The Lakers were not.
The way the Celtics are playing now, they'll probably rack up another ring and put that stat up to 17 rings. The fact that they won most of their rings in a span of a decade proves their dominance. And the simple fact that they haven't won a ring in over 20 years and nobody has beaten their amount of rings, again, proves their dominance. Lakers are a great dynasty. They've had some great teams. But none can say they're as great as 1957-1969 Celtics.
--- End quote ---
Again...the Celtics won most of their rings in one era. Lakers have been the more historic and celebrated franchise overall. Nothing you say can change this. You're purely arguing that cuz you're a Laker hater. Even if I wasn't a Laker fan, I'd be able to realize that the Lakers have a much more storied franchise than the fucking Celtics...LOL.
Showtime Lakers>>>>>1957-1969 Celtics. :-*
PS...Lakers have 15 rings.
--- End quote ---
showtime lakers didnt win as many as the 57-69 Celtics, so you can't say their better
Bill Russel made Wilt Chamberlain his personal bitch. He'd do the same to Kareem.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version