Would you consider the Spurs a dynasty?

[Chubby Chaser]

I think the term "Dynasty" gets thrown around to liberally now a days. The word dynasty is used to define a succession of rulers during a period of time. I'll admit that the Tim Duncan led spurs are a great team. I do not think of them as a dynasty however. I feel that a dynasty is a team that have won the championship for a successive amount of years. I don't even feel a back to back would grant a team the right to deem themselves as a "dynasty". A three peat at the very least should be used to define a team as a dynasty. A dynasty should be a powerhouse team that cannot be defeated for a significant amount of time. The spurs, although a good team, has won rings sporadically. Taking nothing away from their accomplishments, I just don't feel like they should be considered a dynasty when they have never defended their championship.

[Texas Longhorns]

Yes, we have been over this many times. The Spurs are a dynasty, just like Patriots are one.

[Chubby Chaser]

You can't be a dynasty if you've only reigned for one year.

[greenbeans]

anybody who says no has no idea what theyre talkin about. these nutjob realgmers will be the only people im sure holding onto this claim 10 years from now when Timmy will be chillin like Russ.

[Texas Longhorns]

Hey, they have won 4 championships in 9 years. I think that's a dynasty. If you have a problem with my opinion, you can kiss my ass.

[tnayrbrocks]

I agree with chubby. I think there is a difference between a team owning an era and a dynasty. Jordan's Bulls, Shaq's Lakers, Russell's Celtics were all dynasties. But teams like Magic's Lakers, Bird's Celtics, Duncan's Spurs were dominant over a long period of time without that consistent domination like the previous mentioned teams.

[Chubby Chaser]

Hey, they have won 4 championships in 9 years. I think that's a dynasty. If you have a problem with my opinion, you can kiss my ass.

Yes they are a good team. But they're no dynasty. They haven't defended their championship even once. That's not a dynasty. A dynasty doesn't define a team that wins here and there. It defines a team that ruled for a significant amount of time. And they have failed to do that.

[Lake Dynasty]

dynasty for sure, but not as good as C's, Lakers or Bulls

[Texas Longhorns]

-= original quote snipped =-



Yes they are a good team. But they're no dynasty. They haven't defended their championship even once. That's not a dynasty. A dynasty doesn't define a team that wins here and there. It defines a team that ruled for a significant amount of time. And they have failed to do that.

In my books, the Spurs are a dynasty. End of argument.

NBA

* Minneapolis Lakers of the 1950s (5 championships between 1949 and 1954)
* Boston Celtics (1956 to 1986 16 NBA titles in 30 years overall. 26 winning seasons, 20 division titles, 18 conference titles, including 11 championships in 13 years from 1957-69)
* Los Angeles Lakers of 1979 to 1991 (5 NBA championships, 10 Division titles, 9 conference championships, 12 winning seasons)
* Chicago Bulls of the 1990s (6 NBA championships in 8 seasons, 8 Division titles, including the best regular season record in NBA history (72-10))
* Los Angeles Lakers of the 2000s (3 championships in a row ('00, '01, and '02), including the best postseason record in NBA history (15-1) and four appearances in the NBA Finals in five years.
* San Antonio Spurs of the 2000s [4 NBA championships (1999, 2003, 2005, 2007) in 9 seasons] are considered a dynasty by many, [1] [2] but not by others [3] [4] because they have yet to win consecutive titles.

[ss1986v2]

-= original quote snipped =-



Yes they are a good team. But they're no dynasty. They haven't defended their championship even once. That's not a dynasty. A dynasty doesn't define a team that wins here and there. It defines a team that ruled for a significant amount of time. And they have failed to do that.

who says? you? well, that would also be an opinion, would it not? where is it defined that a dynasty has to win back-to-back?

now, for the record, before someone jumps down my throat with the "homer" calls, no, i dont think the spurs are a dynasty. but again, thats just my opinion.

[greenbeans]

-= original quote snipped =-



Yes they are a good team. But they're no dynasty. They haven't defended their championship even once. That's not a dynasty. A dynasty doesn't define a team that wins here and there. It defines a team that ruled for a significant amount of time. And they have failed to do that.

so we now have the laker fan excuse du jour to dampen the spurs current run.

[Texas Longhorns]

-= original quote snipped =-


who says? you? well, that would also be an opinion, would it not? where is it defined that a dynasty has to win back-to-back?

now, for the record, before someone jumps down my throat with the "homer" calls, no, i dont think the spurs are a dynasty. but again, thats just my opinion.

Wikipedia defines it as the following:

In sports, the term dynasty is often used to refer to a team that dominates their sport for a period of time. Such dominance is usually recognized only after a team has won many consecutive championships in a given time. The exact requirements for the label is a frequent topic of debate among sports fans.

[DelaneyRudd]

Yes, they have had numerous championships with a single core. I don't like 'em too much but yes.

[lebronmj88]

Just because they didn't win their titles all in a row doesn't mean they're not a dynasty. They've won 50+ games every year and have won 4 out of the last 9 years. That's a dynasty IMO

[Rooster]

Chubby Chaser, I could get into dynasties (actual ones, of rulers, like you mentioned) who didn't necessarily all rule in a line but I won't for the sake of this board. Needless to say, 14th-century Germany wasn't all fun and games.

I would absolutely consider the Spurs a dynasty. Four titles in nine years does it.

Also, what's with the third option that's blank? Might wanna remove that. (I voted Yes, not blank, btw.)

[DEEP3CL]

Yes, we have been over this many times. The Spurs are a dynasty, just like Patriots are one.

No they're not as much as people want to say they are. Horry even said so him self when asked about it. The Spur have never ONCE DEFENDED their titles.

[Texas Longhorns]

Let me ask you a question Chubby, did you make this thread so that you could disagree with everyone that said the Spurs are a dynasty?

[Chubby Chaser]

-= original quote snipped =-

No they're not as much as people want to say they are. Horry even said so him self when asked about it. The Spur have never ONCE DEFENDED their titles.

I agree. You can't be a dynasty if you haven't at least defended your championship. This is what I mean by saying that the term "dynasty" gets thrown around so freely now a days. They're a good team, but not a dynasty.

[DEEP3CL]

Let me ask you a question Chubby, did you make this thread so that you could disagree with everyone that said the Spurs are a dynasty?

And who are you ? Some young skud who thinks your opinion should be the law ?

I don't care if they won 4 titles in 9 years, one comes with a asterisk that will never be removed. And as far as Chubby goes he has the right to argue his point which is right by my account also they are not a dynasty period.

[Texas Longhorns]

Wow Deep to the rescue. Man is the GB fight central now?

I am just saying that every has their own opinion and he is basically telling everyone they are wrong. Well he can't really say that. He asks the question, people answer it with their opinion, you can't just come out and say well no they aren't a dynasty. That's great that you think they aren't a dynasty, I think they are along with most of the people that have posted in this thread so far. Deal with it.