What is more historic?

[Now_Im_Not_Banned]

you decide.


 

[Chamillitary Click]

the 3peat is more impressive, but ill take 4 rings within a 10 year period.

4>3

[Now_Im_Not_Banned]

so if one girl impressed you more than the other, you'd take the less impressive one?


you're a brilliant man.

[.:DaYg0sTyLz:.]

stupid poll. For one, you have more Laker fans then any other team on here. So of course they will pick 3 peat. If the Lakers were dominant for 10 yrs and won 4 titles....and the Spurs were only great for 3 years and had a three peat, all the Laker fans would say 10 yrs of dominance> 3 years.

As a fan, I would rather watch my team be a bonified contender every year for 10 yrs strait....and win 4 titles during that time then see them be great for 3 years, and fall off after that.

[Now_Im_Not_Banned]

stupid poll. For one, you have more Laker fans then any other team on here. So of course they will pick 3 peat. If the Lakers were dominant for 10 yrs and won 4 titles....and the Spurs were only great for 3 years and had a three peat, all the Laker fans would say 10 yrs of dominance> 3 years.

As a fan, I would rather watch my team be a bonified contender every year for 10 yrs strait....and win 4 titles during that time then see them be great for 3 years, and fall off after that.

How were the Lakers only great for 3 years when we made the Finals in 5 out of 10 seasons, and the Spurs were dominant for 10 years when they only made the Finals 3 times in that span? LMAO. Step it up.

[OG Hack Wilson]

hmm


4 > 3

[Now_Im_Not_Banned]

hmm


4 > 3

yes, we know, crack. 4>3...but is 4/10>3 in a row?

[Not Likely]

3Peat, and I don't even watch hoops anymore or had/have a favorite team.

that Lakers team reminded me more of a team with great young upside, while the Spurs reminded me of a team with consistent brilliance. one team was more like a short term juggernaut while the other was built for long term success.

the Lakers' only downside at that time was having 2 huge ego driven players (Shaq and Kobe). they probably could've won as many as the Bulls did in Jordan's span. Shaq and Kobe were just 2 different people at 2 different stages in their lives.

[herpes]

two three peats in 8 years >>>> 4 titles in 10 seasons >>>> one single 3peat.

[thisoneguy360]

4 is obviously higher than 3 but 3 wins in a row obviously means they were completely dominant. Spurs were a great team too but not as dominant.

[M Dogg™]

I like 5 titles in 8 years myself

[Now_Im_Not_Banned]

I like 5 titles in 8 years myself

 

[The Big Bad Ass]

I'd be happy with either, but to be honest, I'd probably rather have a 3 peat. No matter what happens afterwards, the word dysnasty is always attached to that span. You don't really hear that word kicked around much about the other.

[Turf Hitta]

i'll take one of each

[Teddy Roosevelt]

hmm


4 > 3

Well if you want to be technical about the math: 3/3 > 4/10

Seriously though, I can't decide. 3peat is more historic, but 4 wins is 4 wins.