Sticky: DUBCC's Sports Hall of Fame

[OG Hack Wilson]

How can anyone say Boston has the better franchise?

i don't know.

The BOSTON CELTICS (going into 2007):

16 NBA Championships
10 NBA MVP winners (Bill Russell 5, Larry Bird 3, Bob Cousy 1, Dave Cowens 1)
3 Sixth-Man of the Year winners (Kevin McHale 2, Bill Walton 1)
31 Hall-of-Famers (not counting Pierce and Garnett ofcourse)
122 All-Star Game Selections
74 All-NBA selections
33 All-Defensive Team selections (BTW, the league started naming defensive teams only in Russell's final season - of course, he was on the first team)
16 All-Rookie Team selections
23 Retired numbers
33 Major Award winners


and they had best coach not named Stan Van Gundy on the planet, Big Red.

[OG Hack Wilson]

<a href="http://7RUdqdvro_E" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://7RUdqdvro_E</a>  about 35 seconds into it this shit gets AWESOME

[Now_Im_Not_Banned]

How can anyone say Boston has the better franchise?

i don't know.

The BOSTON CELTICS (going into 2007):

16 NBA Championships
10 NBA MVP winners (Bill Russell 5, Larry Bird 3, Bob Cousy 1, Dave Cowens 1)
3 Sixth-Man of the Year winners (Kevin McHale 2, Bill Walton 1)
31 Hall-of-Famers (not counting Pierce and Garnett ofcourse)
122 All-Star Game Selections
74 All-NBA selections
33 All-Defensive Team selections (BTW, the league started naming defensive teams only in Russell's final season - of course, he was on the first team)
16 All-Rookie Team selections
23 Retired numbers
33 Major Award winners


and they had best coach not named Stan Van Gundy on the planet, Big Red.

Okay? And who had more dynasties? Who kept the winning tradition on a more consistant basis? Who had more trips to the finals? Celtics were great, but the Laker franchise is killin it...PeACe

[Now_Im_Not_Banned]

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/EikTSa-QIbY" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/EikTSa-QIbY</a>

[OG Hack Wilson]

all that needs to be said is that the Celtics had a dynasty that lasted a damn decade

lets see LA ever do that lol

[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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

[SGV]

^It's a lose lose with Celtic Haters. They win 11 rings in 13 years, Celtic Haters say "Oh well that's all just one era." Showtime Lakers win 5 wins in 80s and they're the greatest team ever... Celtic Haters...

[Now_Im_Not_Banned]

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.

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.

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.

LOL! Wilt was a better center than Russell, the Celtics were streaking madly. Obviously, Russell had a much stronger supporting cast in Boston than Wilt did in Phili...and some of those Laker teams that lost to the Celtics in the finals were even said to be better.


P.S...Russell would have to be a power forward in the 80s...hahaha. Kareem=GOAT center.

[Now_Im_Not_Banned]

^It's a lose lose with Celtic Haters. They win 11 rings in 13 years, Celtic Haters say "Oh well that's all just one era." Showtime Lakers win 5 wins in 80s and they're the greatest team ever... Celtic Haters...

LOL...the era that the Celtics played in for their 11 rings was NOWHERE NEAR the era that the Showtime Lakers played in... which is another reason those 11 rings in 13 seasons put them FAR BEHIND what the Lakers have done throughout the years. Once again, THROUGHOUT THE YEARS.


I'd understand if you were a Celtic fan, as Hack Wilson is...but you're just a Laker hater.

[SGV]

Celtic Haters... Just can't get over the fact that the Lakers never had a squad that could win 11 rings in 13 years.

[Now_Im_Not_Banned]

yea...i still have nightmares about it.