Chicago Blackhawks a dynasty?

[Spider-Dan]

So prolonged success over a decade and a half is a "joke," but a 4-year span of being really good means that you are an all-time legend?

The Cowboys won three titles in the '90s.  The Celtics won three titles in the '80s.  The Celtics were unquestionably a better team in their era, with a better winning percentage, more conference championships, and the same number of rings.  But because their titles weren't back to back, they are a footnote while the Cowboys are a dynasty?

[Brian Fein]

A dynasty is an era of dominance in which no other power is recognized.

I think, to be a dynasty, you have to win 10 titles in a row.

[Spider-Dan]

Brian, you are tough but fair.

While you are correct that there are no TRUE dynasties, I would say that UCLA and the Celtics winning 9 of 10 may be called "semi-dynasty."  Agreed?

[MikeO]

The Cowboys won three titles in the '90s.  The Celtics won three titles in the '80s.  The Celtics were unquestionably a better team in their era, with a better winning percentage, more conference championships, and the same number of rings.  But because their titles weren't back to back, they are a footnote while the Cowboys are a dynasty?

Exactly!! Now you got it, also because the Celtics weren't the dynasty in there era, the Lakers were! The Spurs winning in 2007 and then again in 2014 and saying its part of the same "dynasty" is a joke. Sorry it is!

The Lakers in the 80's were a dynasty and the team of that decade and the dynasty of that era (Celtics in the 80's were not, sorry). The Celtics in the 60's were a dynasty. Steelers football in the 70's...dynasty, 4 titles in 6 years. Pats winning 3 in 4 years..dynasty. NY Islanders winning 4 Stanley Cups in a row and losing only 3 finals games in 4 years...DYNASTY!! UCLA winning 10 championships between 64-75'..DYNASTY!!  The Spurs winning a couple championships then 7 year later winning another doesn't build a "dynasty" resume.  

[MikeO]

Brian, you are tough but fair.

While you are correct that there are no TRUE dynasties, I would say that UCLA and the Celtics winning 9 of 10 may be called "semi-dynasty."  Agreed?

Yankees from 1947 to 1956 winning 7 titles including 5 in a row. Montreal Canadians from 1953-1960 winning 6 Stanley Cups as well is a dynasty. Those 2 with the Celtics and UCLA are the 4 best dynasty's ever probably (not counting woman's sports)

[Spider-Dan]

Exactly!! Now you got it, also because the Celtics weren't the dynasty in there era, the Lakers were!

So if you win 4 titles in ten years, you are not a dynasty, but if you win 3 titles in 10 years and two are back to back, then you are.

The Heat have won 3 titles in the last 10 years and 2 were back to back.

[MikeO]

So if you win 4 titles in ten years, you are not a dynasty, but if you win 3 titles in 10 years and two are back to back, then you are.

The Heat have won 3 titles in the last 10 years and 2 were back to back.

Yep. More of a dynasty than the Spurs. Because they had a 2 year run of dominance over the sport. Spurs didn't have that back to back seasons of dominance over the sport like the Heat did. When you rule the sport for 2 full years and win back to back titles that is special. Winning a title every other year or every 3 years, its nice. It's a great run, its just not a dynasty!

[Brian Fein]

a 2 year run of dominance is a dynasty?

2 years? 

That's all you need these days for a fake talking-head buzzword to be applied to your team?

Wow, standards have dropped...

[Phishfan]

Yawn

[MikeO]

a 2 year run of dominance is a dynasty?

2 years? 

That's all you need these days for a fake talking-head buzzword to be applied to your team?

Wow, standards have dropped...

2 years alone isn't, but 2 years and if you have gone to 4 straight finals or super bowls. Or if you win 3 championships in 4 years and have a back to back title run...yes having the back to back is what cements the dynasty!

[MikeO]

Yawn

nobody put a gun to your head and made ya read this thread or post in it.

Keep it movin!

[Phishfan]

Thanks for passing the test MikeO. Being a moderator means I do look in on threads, especially argumentative ones to make sure things stay civil. I just wanted to see who here likes to argue so much that they would address my post. You passed with flying colors.

[Spider-Dan]

So again, Miami's loss-win-win-loss in the Finals qualifies them as a dynasty, but Boston's win-loss-win-loss in the Finals does not?  And right up until the Lakers beat the Pistons in '88, neither Bird's Celtics (with 3 rings) or Magic's Lakers (with 4) were dynasties, because neither one had won back-to-back?

Total nonsense.

[Phishfan]

I'm not sure that I'm ready to call the Blackhawks a dynasty. There is no criteria I'm going to argue over, just my gut feeling. They definitely are a dominant team though.

[Fau Teixeira]

i consider the spurs a dynasty