Register now to remove this ad

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 16

Thread: Greatest Major League Sports Dynasties in the USA

  1. #1
    Deity moonslav59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Sugar Land, Texas
    Posts
    83,217

    Greatest Major League Sports Dynasties in the USA

    I got hooked onto some website named newarena.com that lists the top sports dynasties. I did not agree with their choices, at all.

    The selected:
    1) SF 49'ers '81-'94 (5 championships in 14 years)
    2) New England Patriots '01- '18 (6 in 18 yrs)
    3) NY Yankees '47-'62 (10 in 15 years)
    4) Chicago Bulls '00-'09 (6 in 8 yrs)
    5) Pittsburgh Steeler '74-'79 (4 in 6 years)
    6) LA Lakers '80-'88 (5 in 9 yrs)
    7) Edmonton Oilers '84-'90 ( 5 in 7)
    8) SA Spurs '99-'14 (5 in 16)
    9) NY Yankees '96-'00 (4 in 5)
    10) Boston Celtics '57-'69 (11-13)
    11) LA Lakers '00-'02 (3 in 3)
    12) Green Bay Packers '61-'67 (5 in 7)
    13) Boston Celtics '81-'86 (3 in 6)
    14) Oakland A's '72-'74 (3 in 3)
    15) NY Islanders '80-'83 (4 in 4)
    16) Cincinnati Reds '75-'76 (2 of 2)
    17) Montreal Canadians '65-'79 (10 of 15)
    18) Detroit Red Wings '97-'08 (4 in 12)
    19) LeBron (WTF?) '12-'16 (3 in 5) (Why not Brady, then?)
    20) Dallas Cowboys '92-'95 (3 in 4)
    21) Chicago Blackhawks '10-'15 (3 in 6)
    22) SF Giants '10-'14 (3 in 5)

    My List (as you can tell, I rely mostly on rings):
    1) Celtics (11 in 13) and I'm not even a Celtics fan
    2) Yankees (10 in 15)
    3) Canadians (10 in 15)
    4) Bulls (6 in 8)
    5) Packers (5 in 7)
    6) Edmonton (5-7)
    7) Yankees (4 in 5)
    8) Steelers (4 in 6)
    9) Islanders (4 in 4)
    10) Lakers 5 in 9
    11) Patriots 6 in 18
    12) 49'ers 5 in 15
    13) Spurs 5 in 16
    T14) Lakers 3 in 3, A's 3 in 3, Yankees 3 in 3
    17) Cowboys 3 in 4
    18) Red Sox (4 in 15) Homer pick.




    Last edited by moonslav59; 02-26-2023 at 04:06 PM.
    When you say it's gonna happen now
    When exactly do you mean?

  2. #2
    Deity Bellhorn04's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Halifax
    Posts
    48,503
    That article must have been written years ago, because it only credits the Patriots with 5 titles.

    Their ranking of the Celtics 11 in 13 is pretty absurd, alright.
    Championships since purchase by John Henry group: Red Sox 4 Yankees 1

    The Red Sox are 8-1 in their last 9 postseason games against the Yankees.

  3. #3
    Deity moonslav59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Sugar Land, Texas
    Posts
    83,217
    Quote Originally Posted by Bellhorn04 View Post
    That article must have been written years ago, because it only credits the Patriots with 5 titles.

    Their ranking of the Celtics 11 in 13 is pretty absurd, alright.
    I went back and edited. I'm not sure if others need editing.

    Yes, the list seems to value more recent dynasties more highly. I can understand thinking the leagues were smaller, back then, so easier to repeat as champs, but to out the Celtics 13th when they clearly belong at #1 was crazy. Also, calling LeBron a dynasty and not Brady or Reggie or ... is also puzzling.

    When you say it's gonna happen now
    When exactly do you mean?

  4. #4
    Super Moderator Jasonbay44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    19,067
    Isn’t dynasty supposed to refer to a single team? I get Lebron is great but how is he is own dynasty on two teams? And why would it stop there? As an individual has been on an absurd run for 20 years and has 4 rings during that time.

    Warriors should probably be up there, 4 rings since 2015, and it could’ve been 5 if Durant and Klay didn’t tear their ACLs in the finals.
    Last edited by Jasonbay44; 02-28-2023 at 06:05 PM.

  5. #5
    Deity moonslav59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Sugar Land, Texas
    Posts
    83,217
    Quote Originally Posted by Jasonbay44 View Post
    Isnít dynasty supposed to refer to a single team? I get Lebron is great but how is he is own dynasty on two teams? And why would it stop there? As an individual has been on an absurd run for 20 years and has 4 rings during that time.

    Warriors should probably be up there, 4 rings since 2015, and it couldíve been 5 if Durant and Klay didnít tear their ACLs in the finals.
    Agreed, the list was a joke.

    Of all the players to choose, why LeBron? Russell, Brady, Jordan...

    Was it because of multiple teams? How about Brady, Jabbar, Reggie...?
    When you say it's gonna happen now
    When exactly do you mean?

  6. #6
    TalkSox Ascended Master mvp 78's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    68,311
    Cleveland Browns 2015-17
    Quote Originally Posted by Old Red View Post
    I get MV Pee.

  7. #7
    Deity
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    43,496
    Quote Originally Posted by moonslav59 View Post
    I went back and edited. I'm not sure if others need editing.

    Yes, the list seems to value more recent dynasties more highly. I can understand thinking the leagues were smaller, back then, so easier to repeat as champs, but to out the Celtics 13th when they clearly belong at #1 was crazy. Also, calling LeBron a dynasty and not Brady or Reggie or ... is also puzzling.

    The whole thing about calling an individual player a dynasty is stupid. Unles it’s in an individual sport. I could see Tiger or Tyson as better choices than LeBron…

  8. #8
    Deity
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    43,496
    Quote Originally Posted by Jasonbay44 View Post
    Isn’t dynasty supposed to refer to a single team? I get Lebron is great but how is he is own dynasty on two teams? And why would it stop there? As an individual has been on an absurd run for 20 years and has 4 rings during that time.

    Warriors should probably be up there, 4 rings since 2015, and it could’ve been 5 if Durant and Klay didn’t tear their ACLs in the finals.
    My thoughts on why LeBron was added - to create a controversy resulting in web traffic and clicks. It was a plan to foster further discussion. Like when ESPN did their top 100 athletes of the 20th century and included Secretariat…

  9. #9
    Deity Bellhorn04's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Halifax
    Posts
    48,503
    Quote Originally Posted by notin View Post
    My thoughts on why LeBron was added - to create a controversy resulting in web traffic and clicks. It was a plan to foster further discussion. Like when ESPN did their top 100 athletes of the 20th century and included Secretariat…
    "newarena.com" isn't exactly The Athletic. The content appears to be all listicles.
    Championships since purchase by John Henry group: Red Sox 4 Yankees 1

    The Red Sox are 8-1 in their last 9 postseason games against the Yankees.

  10. #10
    Deity moonslav59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Sugar Land, Texas
    Posts
    83,217
    Quote Originally Posted by Bellhorn04 View Post
    "newarena.com" isn't exactly The Athletic. The content appears to be all listicles.
    It certainly looks like one of those click bait web sites, but I thought it would be interesting to start a discussion on which were the best and in what order.

    I have to think, as much as I dislike the Celtics, it has to start with them as number 1. I can't see any logical debate, other than a claim that the league was smaller and easier to win, but 11 in 13 is too good to deny them their rightful place.

    The number two slot is more up for debate. One could argue the Bulls winning 6 of 8 in a bigger and tougher league passing the Yanks and Canadians (10 in 15.) I'm partial to the Packers of the 60's, as I lived there and watched them win some of their 5 in 7, but 3 of those championships were pre Super Bowl.

    I see a drop off after 5 or 6, but certainly that is debatable.

    If the Sox made it 5 in 16, where would they be placed? 13th/14th?

    When you say it's gonna happen now
    When exactly do you mean?

  11. #11
    Deity
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    43,496
    Quote Originally Posted by Bellhorn04 View Post
    "newarena.com" isn't exactly The Athletic. The content appears to be all listicles.
    Do they have message boards under every listicle?

  12. #12
    Deity moonslav59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Sugar Land, Texas
    Posts
    83,217
    I was kind of curious how others would rank the top 5 or 10 dynasties.
    When you say it's gonna happen now
    When exactly do you mean?

  13. #13
    Deity Bellhorn04's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Halifax
    Posts
    48,503
    Quote Originally Posted by moonslav59 View Post
    I was kind of curious how others would rank the top 5 or 10 dynasties.
    Good luck getting a big response from us deadbeats.
    Championships since purchase by John Henry group: Red Sox 4 Yankees 1

    The Red Sox are 8-1 in their last 9 postseason games against the Yankees.

  14. #14
    Deity moonslav59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Sugar Land, Texas
    Posts
    83,217
    Quote Originally Posted by Bellhorn04 View Post
    Good luck getting a big response from us deadbeats.
    I figure, all New Englanders will (rightfully) put Celtics #1 and probably over rank the Pats dynasty spread out over 18 years.
    When you say it's gonna happen now
    When exactly do you mean?

  15. #15
    Deity Bellhorn04's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Halifax
    Posts
    48,503
    To me, the numbers speak for themselves.

    The SA Spurs' 5 in 16 is not a dynasty, any more than the Red Sox's 4 in 15.

    That's what you call a "really nice run". But not a dynasty.

    There are only a few real dynasties.
    Championships since purchase by John Henry group: Red Sox 4 Yankees 1

    The Red Sox are 8-1 in their last 9 postseason games against the Yankees.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •