Chicago Blackhawks a dynasty?

[Sunstroke]

Contrary to the Gospel of MikeO, the term "dynasty" means whatever each person thinks it does. Some people obviously think that winning two in a row means dynasty. Others think that a more prolonged period where you win 3-4 titles is a dynasty. Others, like Brian, think the word should be forever stricken from our lexicon.<g>

It's a word like "awesome"...there is no hard and fast definition. What one person considers awesome, another person may consider merely great, and still others might feel isn't impressive at all. Thank God we live in a world where all have a right to their opinion.

[Tenshot13]

I think if you win one championship it's a dynasty

[Sunstroke]

I think if you believe you're a winner 4 days a week, you have an ongoing dynasty in life...

[Tenshot13]

My mom used to love the show Dynasty.

[bsmooth]

Dictionary
dynasty
      noun dy·nas·ty \ˈdī-nə-stē also -ˌnas-tē, especially British ˈdi-nə-stē\
: a family of rulers who rule over a country for a long period of time; also : the period of time when a particular dynasty is in power

: a family, team, etc., that is very powerful or successful for a long period of time

[Pappy13]

I'm glad this spurred a nice little debate. There is of course no right answer, just what each person thinks which is why it's a fun question. The only issue I have with MikeO's insistance on back to back is that it completely negates whatever else happens. The Blackhawks nearly won 3 cups in a row and probably would have if the LA Kings hadn't beaten them in overtime of Game 7 in the Western Conference finals last year. Back to back is great, but you got to look at the whole picture and not stick to some hard and fast rule and simply throw out everything else. The Celtics absolutely were a dynasty and yes Mike you can have 2 dynasties at the same time. The Lakers and Celtics proved that.

[MikeO]

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.

That's cherry picking because the Lakers DID win back to back!! 87 and 88. Boston doesn't qualify as a dynasty because the Lakers WERE the dynasty of that decade over the same period of time

[Fau Teixeira]

I removed a bunch of personal squabbling .. knock it off

if you guys want to have some serious one on one time, then go get a room somewhere .. this isn't the place.

[Tenshot13]

I think if you believe you're a winner 4 days a week, you have an ongoing dynasty in life...

Only if those 4 days are consecutive...

[Spider-Dan]

That's cherry picking because the Lakers DID win back to back!! 87 and 88.

It's not cherry picking; it's a historical perspective.

What you are claiming is that at the start of the 1988 NBA Playoffs, one must have believed that neither Magic's Lakers nor Bird's Celtics were dynasties (even though they had 4 and 3 rings, respectively) because neither had won two in a row.  This claim is at odds with what people at the time DID believe.

[MikeO]

It's not cherry picking; it's a historical perspective.

What you are claiming is that at the start of the 1988 NBA Playoffs, one must have believed that neither Magic's Lakers nor Bird's Celtics were dynasties (even though they had 4 and 3 rings, respectively) because neither had won two in a row.  This claim is at odds with what people at the time DID believe.

But once the Lakers won the next championship that next year it ended the debate. Don't see how you can't understand that. You can't have 2 dynasty's in the same sport at the same exact time. Once the Lakers went back to back and got another title they laid claim to being the dynasty! Celtics weren't. At the start of the 1988 playoffs NEITHER were a dynasty!

Whatever, this debate has become boring.

[masterfins]

You can't have 2 dynasty's ... at the same exact time.

Exactly!  That's what has me so upset about Chinese history, they have multiple dynasty's at the exact same time.  I mean they call the Later Zhou period from 951-960 a dynasty, c'mon 9 years makes a dynasty??  While at the exact same time from 907-1125 the Liao Dynasty was in place, that's 218 years.  Personally, I think you have to have a minimum of 250 years to be a dynasty, now the Ming Dynasty that lasted 276 years, THAT was a Dynasty!

[Sunstroke]

...now the Ming Dynasty that lasted 276 years, THAT was a Dynasty!

No championship trophies, but they did make some wicked vases...

[Spider-Dan]

At the start of the 1988 playoffs NEITHER were a dynasty!

I don't think you can find anyone who agrees with this.

[MikeO]

I don't think you can find anyone who agrees with this.

Whatever. I'm over this debate. Time to put it to bed.

Believe what you want. You aren't changing my mind or opinion. I think the vast majority of intelligent sports fans would agree with me.