The questions have seemed endless in the days leading up to the creshendo that was the Spurs 4th title in 9 years last night. Are they a dynasty?
To understand if they are or not, we must first understand what a "dynasty" is.
Webster defines "dynasty" as a succession of rulers of the same line of descent, or a powerful group or family that maintains its position for a considerable time. The world of sports obviously uses the second definition when throwing around such a powerful word. Are the Spurs a dynasty? They are not even close according to Webster.
The key phrase in this definition is "maintains its position for a considerable time". The Spurs have never even maintained their position as champions for two consecutive seasons. San Antonio supporters may point out the overall depth and toughness of the West as support for their claim. The mere fact that they've won the West so many times should count for something shouldn't it? It does count toward their historical significance in NBA lore, but a dynasty they are not.
Sports fans and writers throw this word around as if it meant, "really good for more than a couple of seasons". That only cheapens the few real dynasties the sports world has seen. These are the only true dynasties in sports history:
1 - 1956-1969 Boston Celtics won 13 championships in a 15 year span including eight in a row from 1958-1966. Loaded with Hall of Fame players, and the NBA head coach of all coaches, the Celtics defined dynasty for the NBA for all time.
2- 1936-1943 New York Yankees won 6 championships in eight years. This stretch saw the end of Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig, and the beginning of Joe DiMaggio. Featuring Murder's Row and legendary pitching, the Yankees claimed the fans of New York from the Giants and Dodgers, never to give them back.
3- 1947-1962 New York Yankees won 10 titles in 16 years including five in a row from 1949-1953. This era of Yankee dominance brought about Mickey Mantle, Maris' 61, Larson's no-hitter, and other moments that live forever in the annals of baseball history.
4- 1964-1975 UCLA men's basetball cut the nets down 10 times in a 12 year span including seven consecutive titles from 1967-1973. Jabbar, Walton, Johnson, Wooden, and others decorate the college basketball history books like no one has before or since. They tought the people of Lexington, KY and the rest of the country what dominance really was.
5- 1956-1960 and 1976-1979 Montreal Canadians won five and four straight Stanley Cups respectively. "Toe" Blake led the early version to success behind legends like Rocket Richard, Jacques Plante, and Henri Richard. Scotty Bowman raised the Cup behind the "new blood" of Guy LeFluer, Ken Dryden, and Rick Chartraw. The Canadians and Yankees are the team with the best arguement of haveing two seperate dynasties, since some of the players carried over for the Yankees.
That's it. That's the list. Any attempt to include others only lessons the greatness of the aforementioned teams. Many will try to include the Bulls of the 1990's, but the arguement would be better to support Jordan as an individual more than the team. The two great Houston teams between their three-peats eliminates them from the conversation. The Rockets were great in the middle, thus ending their run of a "considerable time".
(Information was gathered from nhl.com, nba.com, mlb.com, and ucla.edu)
Hey, bro, impassioned write. I understand why you're peeved, however, as I said earlier, even Robert Horry says the Spurs need one more title to be considered a dynasty. Back to back would be nice.
Hey, the Bulls won 6 titles in 8 years. What are your feelings on their run?
What about the Lakers 5 in six years back in the infancy of the NBA and no way can you count the Bulls out 6 rings in 8 years, it could be argued that they would've won 8 possibly if Jordan hadn't retired, the Lakers 3 straight counts in my book too. The reason the sportswriters are quick to call this a dynasty is because this is as good as it gets...with so much money to be maid and blockbuster trades, free agency, abundance of teams in all of the leagues for a team to win 3 out of 5 years and have the best win percentage in all sports for the last 10 years constitutes as remaining on top....dynasty maybe not in the classic sense but yeah in this day and age
Mean - The Bulls are really close. However, "You can never underestimate the heart of a champion"! The Rockets dominance the two years in the middle disqualifies them in my opinion. Jordan may be an individual dynasty, but not the Bulls. I would put them as the first team off the list.
DP - My criteria is at least 4 in a row. The three-peat has been done multiple times. Dynasties have to be special, and 4 in a row is special. If every president, no matter how bad, "reigns" for four years, then a dynasty should at least last that long!
Josh Q - I don't care what Steeler fans think! The NFL cannot see real dynasties because of the physical nature of the game. You may redefine dynasty for the NFL, then add some teams, but then wouldn't that defeat the whole purpose of this post?
I would say the Spurs are a dynasty, because they have four titles that were won by the same cast of characters. ie Tim "Mr. Personality" Duncan and co.. He's the Jordan of power forwards.
Easy PF. He's not the Jordan of anything. He's a great player, but how can it be a dynasty without ever going back to back. All champions say the hardest thing to do is repeat. It's so hard that the Spurs have never done it. They aren't even in the second tier of greatest NBA teams. They aren't the Celtics and Lakers of the 80's, Bulls of the 90's or Lakers of the early 2000s.
What difference does it make in the whole scheme of things? Most players never have a chance to win one title let alone multiple ones. How many "great"
athletes are in halls of fame having never won a championship? Should they still be considered great? All this talk is to cheapen what a team or a person has done that someone else wanted to do but couldn't. Give credit where it's due and realize whether you or I like it history is being made. Taking nothing from the Celtics but there were far fewer teams in the league when they had their streak and didn't they play the Lakers multiple times during that era? This Spurs team has beaten various opponents and though they've never repeated i know none of us that are not spurs fans would reject a championship cuz it wasn't four in a row. Bottom line they are the champs of this season and will return next year to defend it.
Ant - To answer your question, it doesn't make any difference in the grand scheme of things. However, if that's your view, then sports blogging may not be your thing bro. None of this matters in the grand scheme of things!
My view is that this team should be given credit for winning..that's the reason you compete as an athlete. When they won it in the strike year everyone's sez oh it's the asterik season..well didn't each team play half the season..but it's tainted bcuz it's the spurs and not the lakers. As a person that's been playing ball since 14 till now 47 I can appreciate the game at it's highest level and when any team wins a championship it's doing just that. I'm a Spurs fan by choice Piston fan by birth but i love the game of basketball almost more than females(told a girlfriend when you can dunk like julius i'll stop watching him and watch you)-no loving that night by the way. The Spurs deserve more than critcism that's all i'm saying my man.
You forgot these teams that are a dynasty
Dallas Cowboys - 5 Super Bowl Titles
Pittsburgh Steelers - 5 Super Bowl Titles
San Francisco 49ers - 5 Super Bowl Titles
Chicago Bulls - 6 NBA Titles
Los Angeles Lakers - 11 NBA Titles
I would even put the Spurs 4 NBA titles in the mix, however 1 more would solidify them. You make the point that they havent won two in a row. However no team has been deeper in the playoffs for 9 straight seasons as the Spurs have. The Spurs very easily could have won 5 in a row with a small change of circumstances. However they are dangerous year after year Why? Because they are a DYNASTY and people fear them.
Last edited by RealDeal1977 on June 16th at 2:03 PM.
Fellas, fellas, fellas, the Spurs not being a dynasty doesn't mean that they aren't a great team. However, dynasty means to be the best for a long, sustained period of time. You guys are giving examples of teams who won once or twice, lost a few years, then won again. THAT IS NOT THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD DYNASTY. I don't know how to make it any clearer.
Well you are entitled to your opinion...however I disagree. There is no way that you can say the Jordan led Bulls were not a dynasty. With all of the expansion in the various leagues and free agency--teams don't stay together and its hard for a team to remain at the top 4 or 5 years straight. So I respectfully disagree with you the Spurs are indeed a dynasty over the past 5 years they've been on the cusp of winning every year. The thing is the SPURS never get any credit or hype surrounding them although they have been an elite team for quite some time. For each of their championships they weren't considered the team to beat, they never are meanwhile they just continue to win.
Proud NGS II finalist. My run to the sweet 16 was short but. . . (from the department of redundancy department) sweet.
I love all sports. The Seattle Seahawks are my main passion. I've loved them since I can remember. My teams of choice in other sports are the New York Yankees and Rangers, and the Arkansas Razorbacks. As far as the NBA, I'm just a drifter. However, I do love this game!
