The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

7 Championships in 10 years not to include the C's, Pats, and Sox being contenders the years they didnt win...

It has been a good run and I am lucky to have grown up a boston sports fan and witness this amazing accomplishment by are teams!!

I just dont see this ever happening again..

Whats your opinions?   

I'm jealous.

Yeah, you're probably right.

No argument here.  I doubt you'll ever see this much success from one city over a decade again.   Especially not from all 4 major sports.  I can see some team 6-peating or something, while another team also gets 2 championships, but not this spread out, no.

No.  Why will you say "of all time" and then only mention the past 10 years?

Overall, I think NY still has more championships.  Which sucks to admit unless someone can prove me wrong but if you say "OF ALL TIME" there's no arguing with that.

Las Vegas is the best sports city of all time.   :)   :P  

edite for - NOW if you say "Best sports city in the past decade" then of course...no question.

I assumed that he meant THIS Boston is the best city.  As opposed to the 1920s New York teams, or what have you.

We had a thread about this many years ago, being "Which sports city was the best top to bottom?"  At the time, I believe it was Miami.  The HEAT and Marlins had both won championships recently, the Dolphins hadn't hit rock bottom yet, and the Panthers were your average crap team, but not in the cellar.

Now, there's no question.

Best sports city of all time?  Great, then all of you Boston A-holes that live down here in central FL can go move back up there and take your sports teams with you ;)

F**k Boston

F**k New York

That is all...

Of All Time................NOT EVEN CLOSE!

In recent years.........YES they are on a nice run

Could be something brewing in Chicago. Bulls and Blackhawks should both be pretty relevant over the next 5 years or so and even the White Sox have assembled a decent team even though it seems to underperform every year. Bears aren't too far away either. It's possible you could see World Championships from all 4 sports from '05 to '15 in Chicago.

And then there's always the Cubbies....

This thread is EXACTLY why I was rooting for the Canucks.

I agree with Maine, Boston doesn't get all time.

But they get the THE BEST DECADE OF ALL TIMES.  From Feb '02 (or Sept 01) thru June 11, the city has seen a level of success no other city has seen.


 

Um Maine - the Pats won three superbowls - one in 2001, 2003 and 2004

So I have a question:

When comparing "the best sports city of all time," how many Stanley Cups is an NBA Finals worth?

From 1977-1986 (an actual 10-year-span, not 11 like 2001-2011), NY won 3 World Series, 1 Super Bowl, and 4 Stanley Cups.

Really, this thread could be titled "New York has has bad basketball teams for a long time" and left as is.

It's also too bad that LA lost their NFL teams (specifically, the Rams), as they would have been singing this same song in 2007 after the Ducks won.

Maine, the Giants have been two the superbowl twice in the 2000's 1-1  (lost to the Ravens,and beat the Patriots) to update your stat sheet...


I'll second that...
My thoughts are based on...."Boston the best sports city of all time"
I think basing it on "titles won in each sport" tends a bias towards the larger east coast teams (that have tended to be around the longest,or the oldest teams in the leagues)

I think total titles in the big 4 sports.Basketball,football,baseball,and hockey would be a better measuring stick..(even if they don't have one of the sports). Rather than quantifying it with winning at least one title in each sport...I mean Dallas would make a good argument,but technically they don't have a baseball team,the Rangers (are they rally Dallas?),and haven't won a title either...Places like Denver,recently got a baseball team,and get handicapped in this type of discussion IMO.

Even taking total titles doesn't take into account, making it to title games and losing...

Just the way I see it...flame away....

The difference is that in one decade all four major sports teams won their respective championship.

In that span not all the sports fans got to celebrate.   

Every sport, every team.    Jets fans didn't celebrate the Superbowl. 

So wait... if you have more than one team per sport, then every team has to win at least once so that all the fans (in that city) get to celebrate, in order for it to "count"?

Using that logic, if a city like Green Bay, Edmonton, or San Antonio wins, and they have no other team, that's just as good as what Boston has done!  Every fan in that city celebrated.

I still think it's rather absurd that we're talking about the best sports city OF ALL TIME with "all time" being reduced to "any single 11-year window."  The best sports city OF ALL TIME (if you're going by winning) is NY by a long shot.

Boston probably is the most title-winning city in the USA in the history of recorded sports results. I'll give them that.

Too many of their fans are still very high on the douche-o-meter though...

Let's break this down, city by city:

Time Frame: January 1, 2000 - Today

City | SB Appearances | SB Wins | NBA Finals | NBA Titles | World Series | World Series Championships | Stanley Cups | Stanley Cup Trophies | Total

Boston: 4 + 3 + 2 + 1 + 2 + 2 + 1 + 1 = 16
Los Angeles: 0 + 0 + 7 + 5 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 12
New York: 2 + 1 + 0 + 0 + 5 + 2 + 0 + 0 = 10
Detroit: 0 + 0 + 2 + 1 + 1 + 0 + 3 + 2 = 9
Pittsburgh: 3 + 2 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 2 + 1 = 8
Philadelphia: 1 + 0 + 1 + 0 + 2 + 1 + 1 + 0 = 6
San Antonio: 0 + 0 + 3 + 3 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 6
Chicago: 1 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 5
Miami: 0 + 0 + 2 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 0 + 0 = 5
Tampa: 1 + 1 + 0 + 0 + 1 + 0 + 1 + 1 = 5
Charlotte: 1 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 2 + 1 = 4
St. Louis: 1 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 2 + 1 + 0 + 0 = 4
Dallas: 0 + 0 + 2 + 1 + 0 + 0 + 1 + 0 = 3
Indianapolis: 2 + 1 + 1 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 3
Denver: 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 1 + 0 + 1 + 1 = 3
New Orleans: 1 + 1 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 2
Phoenix: 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 1 + 1 + 0 + 0 = 2
San Francisco: 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 1 + 1 + 0 + 0 = 2
Green Bay: 1 + 1 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 2
Baltimore: 1 + 1 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 2
Seattle: 1 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 1
Houston: 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 1 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 1
Atlanta: 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 0
Cleveland: 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 0
Minneapolis: 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 0
Buffalo: 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 0
Cincinnati: 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 0
Washington, D.C.: 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 0
San Diego: 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 0

* Note: New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles totals count for all sports teams of all 4 major sports cities (e.g. Los Angeles includes the Lakers and the Clippers - not that it fucking matters in that example).

** Note: Championship rounds and titles won in the year 2000 for seasons starting in 1999 count (e.g. Dallas Stars = appeared in the Stanley Cup in the year 2000, even though the season started in 1999).

*** Note: Fuck Cleveland.

Boston has 34 titles across MLB, NFL, NBA, and NHL.
New York has 33 35 titles in MLB alone.

It is not close.

Boston is the best sports city of all time!

...since 2000.

P.S. Why did you make a disclaimer about 2000 championships following the 1999 season and then give STL zero SB wins?

^^^ Not that it really matters but you missed a Super Bowl appearance for Phoenix!!!!  :P

Include the previous CENTURY in your totals and then MAYBE we can include the words "All time" in this thread. ::)

NY also has two baseball teams, two football teams, two hockey teams and if you want to count the Nets, two basketball teams.

Boston (New England really) has one baseball, one football, one hockey (since Hartford left) and one basketball.

That is why I say that Boston had the best single decade of sports of all time. 

Do we want to go back to the Bill Russell era? 9 in a row? 11 in 13 years?

Spider covered that with the 34 total titles Boston has won in entirely.

Yankees + football Giants + Rangers + Knicks (i.e. the senior NY clubs in each sport) puts NY at 36.  Try again.

So NY vs. Boston is a pointless argument, but let's try something a little more innovative:

LA vs. Boston

Boston has a significant advantage in that like many large northeast cities, Boston is old.  In many sports, LA didn't even get a team until 20-30 years after Boston.

If you start the clock after both cities had a team in each major sport (1968, when LA got the Kings), the count is:

LA- 16
Boston- 16

(keep in mind that LA hasn't had a football team for over 15 years)

I don't know why are you so pissy, Its my opinion. Get over it....Grow up! And sorry Boston having a run of a nice decade dosen't make them titletown of all time.  Right now that still belongs to NY. Granted they have the most teams but they hold that title when you have 29 World Series between the Mets/Yanks alone (not counting Brooklyn or Giants)...4 Super Bowls...2 NBA championships...8 Stanley Cups. The Celtics (17) Red Sox (7) and Bruins (6) championships all together is just one more than the Yanks/Mets combined total! But they have more teams so believe what ya want. You are just wrong!  ;D

But I will make a comparsion of a region. City of Dallas, 20 year stretch (1991-2011) using a MAJOR college team as well as they draw more fans to games than most pro teams so I count it in my book

3 Super Bowls from 92,93, 95
Stanley cup in 1999
UT 2006 National Champs in Football
Mavs 2011 NBA Champs
UT Baseball 2002, 2005 National Champs

That's not counting a stanley cups they lost, a world series they lost, and a final four they lost. That city has had a nice run of getting to the "BIG GAME"

P.S....FOR THE RECORD, nobody is or was knocking the city of Boston either, so get off your 2nd city mentality and get over it!

How did you determine these to be senior? As an Isles fan, they have just as many cups.

^^^ I think he just meant to pluck one team out of every sport in order to debunk the "NY has 2 of every sport" point.

The senior team is the team that existed first.

What's a "2nd city mentality"?

Since MikeO has breached the sunject, do you count NCAA titles too? Boston vs LA in NCAA titles  woud be interesting too

A term used for a fan who KNOWS their team is inferior to another team so they go above and beyond to prop their team up by whatever means necessary. So as not to come off as 2nd best.

The original term was that Chicago was/is refered to for years as the "2nd city"....size wise to NYC. Then they lost that title to L.A at some point in the past as LA grew population wise and went past Chicago. And Chicago people were furiou about being passed by and tried to hold onto thier "2nd city" nickname and they got upset when another city (LA) was refered to as the "2nd city". Hence, "2nd city mentality". Chicago was unable to accept they were passed by.

It's a term that carried over into other walks of life over the years. Sports being one of them. Some "fans" just can't accept being anything less than #1 in anything. Hence the term "2nd city Mentality".

It REALLY picked up a life of its own in 1969. When the New York Mets overcame the Chicago Cubs 9 1/2 game lead and New York’s mayor, John Lindsay, stated that, "Chicago is still the second city."

Well UCLA Basketball blows everything away. And USC Football (even if you don't count the tainted championship recently).

In Boston you have nothing. Boston College is a fine school, but they have won almost nothing major. And the fans in the Boston area really don't care much for BC sports. It is a distant 5th behind all the major pro teams in the area.

I think even UCLA football and USC basketball are better than BC?  Can't say I care enough to be sure.

edit: Here's the answer:

Basketball- UCLA is best ever by a mile, USC and BC are comparable (BC leads in NCAA appearances 18-16 and many more 8/16 finishes, but has never made Final Four; USC has been in Final Four twice)

Football- USC is significantly better than the other two, UCLA is significantly better than BC (17 to 1 in conference titles, 1 to 0 in national titles)

Baseball- USC is best ever by a mile (they have twice as many nat'l championships as the next closest team), UCLA is slightly better than BC (BC leads in CWS appearances 4-3 but UCLA leads in NCAA appearances 17-7)

In football/basketball/baseball, it would be hard to argue that is LA is not the greatest college sports city of all time.

P.S. MikeO, UT is Austin, not Dallas (Austin is ~200 miles away from Dallas).  Dallas' university would probably be considered SMU, or maybe Baylor (but Baylor is ~100 miles away).

I have never heard of LA as "second city". That title is still Chicago's as far as I know.

F boston and new england, i'm so sick of them winning everything and having to live up here during this run of dominance.  please go back to sucking terribly at sports again

You can't count UT wins for Dallas.  UT is in Austin, 180 miles from Dallas (about the same distance between NYC and Boston). 

As I said, SMU (or maybe Baylor) would be the local university for Dallas.  I'm sure there are UT fans in Dallas (just as there are UF fans in Miami), but UT is not really Dallas' local team.

edit: TCU is also within the DFW metroplex.

I wanna see you convince UT fans in Dallas of this. :)

UT is not a Dallas university.  Sure, there are plenty of UT fans in Dallas, along with plenty of OU and Nebraska fans.  Having a big fan base in a city doesn't mean it's the same "sports region".  Before the Marlins, the Braves were the "local" team for S. Florida; but you wouldn't expect Miami claim them as a team. 

Austin and Dallas are as far apart physically and culturally as New York and Boston.  Austin is a major city in it's own right (14th largest by population in the US), with a greater population than Boston.  I've lived in Austin for the past 15 years and find it insulting to be grouped in with Dallas (no offense to the posters from Dallas, just standing up for my adopted city).   I can see grouping Dallas and Ft. Worth together, and considering TCU the local team.   Beyond that......nope.

^^I'm really sorry that you're insulted, but I think you may be insulting a few people as well. I'm not one of them, so I won't argue with you, but I know there are people who would in Dallas. Just saying.

Well I'm not really insulted, just making a point that I'm proud of my city in it's own right and feel absolutely no connection to Dallas (other than flying through DFW every couple of weeks)

SMU is in Dallas and TCU is in Fort Worth if I'm not mistaken.  If anything, those two should be considered the Dallas colleges.   

UT, however, has a huge fan base and it wouldn't surprise me if a large number of them reside in the Dallas area.

Well, to use an analogy, Arkansas and Oklahoma are both "Dallas Cowboys country," but that doesn't mean that Tulsa gets to claim credit for 5 Super Bowls.

So in the context of "best sports city," Dallas does not get to claim credit for UT's wins.

Full disclosure:  I talked to a few of my UT friends and while they love UT, they agreed with you that it's not a DALLAS school. They were not offended by your comments, in fact they agreed with you. I stand corrected. :)

I would include Conn as being part of Red Sox nation but it when the lady Huskies win a basketball tournament it doesn't get credited as a win for Boston. 

I guess...except the area of CT that Uconn is actually in is really more Yankee land than Red Sox land. 

Okay fair enough...but NYC doesn't get credit for it either.  I wouldn't count a UMASS Amherst victory either towards Boston either and that is solidly in Red Sox territory. 

no it's not!  it was when i first moved up here (2002), but since then, with new england's decade of dominance, the greater hartford area now has definitely swung towards the boston teams more.

^^^So it's a "Fairweather Johnson" region.

^^^^ You get that in boarder areas.  Dolphins win the SB and Orlando will be Dolphin country.  Bucs win the superbowl and Orlando is Bucs territory.  If both teams are doing well or both are crap its mixed.  Right?   

Orlando has always been mixed with Bucs & Dolphins fans. I don't think Orlando is a good example. There is quite a bit of mouthing between the two factions (usually good natured though). CF is about the only person I know personally that has any real affection for the other side if I can call it that.

^^^And Hartford has always been a mix between Yankees and Red Sox.  When the Sox are doing well you see more folks wearing Sox clothing, flags in front of houses etc than Yankee.  When the Yankees are doing well reverse that.

I don't think the total numbers change that much from year to year, but who puts on the bigger display does.     

Good points.  The numbers of the diehard fans don't change, however, if you have a very succesful team then it also brings out the bandwagoners and part-time fans.