PDA

View Full Version : More impressive: Lakers (3 in a row) or Spurs (4 in 9 years)?



MoBASS
10-14-2008, 03:38 PM
What is the more impressive accomplishment?

You can argue that winning 3 in a row is an incredible feat, but..

It's also rare to be a solid, competing team year in and year out for an entire decade like the Spurs have. HOWEVER at their peak they weren't dominant enough to win 2 in a row.

G-Funk
10-14-2008, 03:40 PM
only 3 teams have won 3 in a row, but 4 rings is better, Lakers can still win 4 within 9 years.

heyman321
10-14-2008, 03:41 PM
As a Raptors fan, I must say that winning 3 in a row is more impressive. It mean you are the best of the league for 3 straight years, dominating everything. Consistency is good, but the Spurs weren't strong enough to REPEAT, and I think that's important in building a dyansty. Although, I must say, the Spurs should not have made it to the 07 Finals, the Suns should have.

MiamiHeat
10-14-2008, 03:41 PM
3 in a row is pretty amazing
but 3 rings or 4 rings?
I take 4 rings :)

Ansy
10-14-2008, 04:01 PM
I chose the Lakers because I feel the league was better during their dominance than it was during some of the Spurs' championships. Those old school Kings had possibly the deepest team in the history of the league and the Blazers were truly sick with Pippen, Sheed, Sabonis, Mighty Mouse and a great supporting cast.

That's not to say the Spurs had it easy; they've beaten some tough ballclubs too, but the Lakers made some seriously great teams lose their mark on history, the same thing the Bulls did to the Knicks and Suns.

JordansBulls
10-14-2008, 04:11 PM
3 in a row is better, but I'd rather be the Spurs since 1999 because they have made it to at least the Semifinals every year that Duncan played in the playoffs.

CowboysKB24
10-14-2008, 04:14 PM
Lakers winning three in a row is more impressive.

JayW_1023
10-14-2008, 05:33 PM
It's both impressive...Duncans Spurs won in two completely different periods in his career...but Shaq/Kobe Lakers winning three championships in a row is something that is pretty impressive too.

I'd give a slight edge to three in a row...this coming from a Spurs fan. But it's both impressive.

Hawkeye15
10-14-2008, 06:39 PM
Spurs, because their era of dominance was much longer, hence harder to sustain. But 3 in a row is nothing to laugh at. Shaq in his prime was the most physically dominant player of all time.

Lakersfan2483
10-14-2008, 07:05 PM
3 yrs in a row is more impressive. It's hard enough to win one title, let alone two, but three in a row has not been done by many teams. The Bulls and Celtics were able to accomplish this. Not many teams have won "3 straight titles"

$KnicksAndKobe$
10-14-2008, 07:07 PM
3peat

bogdanrom
10-14-2008, 07:11 PM
While both are amazing feats I will go with the Spurs by a little. 4 rings

Fool
10-14-2008, 07:20 PM
As said above, I'd take 4 rings over 3 rings, however 3 rings in a row is more impressive.

BoltLakerPadre
10-14-2008, 08:00 PM
As said above, I'd take 4 rings over 3 rings, however 3 rings in a row is more impressive.

My feelings exactly. Four>Three. But when you couldn't win back to back, not even once, well a three peat becomes more impressive. Especially since you have to play both the second and third seasons with the Champions bullseye on your back the whole season.

Spurs 4 is impressive
Lakers three peat is just more impressive.

AIMelo=KillaDUO
10-14-2008, 08:05 PM
I'd rather win 6 in 8 years like Mike.

WillisLovechild
10-14-2008, 08:27 PM
3 in a row is far more impressive IMO. They also had the chance to win 4 in 5 years, and then they traded Shaq and started to rebuild, which eliminated any chance for more rings within the next few years.

MTar786
10-14-2008, 08:33 PM
3peat for sure.. they almost had a 4peat and if they had won with malone and payton it woulda been 5 in a row. but never the less it was 3. n just so everyone knows.. if the lakers win this year it will also be 4 in 9 yearss. n that includes rebuilding which id consider more impressive. laker 4 in 9 INCLUDING a rebuilding phase where as the spurs 4 in 9 had no rebuilding.. just additions

ARMIN12NBA
10-14-2008, 08:45 PM
Spurs, because their era of dominance was much longer, hence harder to sustain. But 3 in a row is nothing to laugh at. Shaq in his prime was the most physically dominant player of all time.

:laugh2: Harder to sustain??? Obviously winning a championship every year for three years straight is much much harder to sustain. They aren't taking any years off and always had a bulls-eye on their back while going deep every year. Even TD and Pop have said that trying to win two years in a row is hard to do because of the physical and mental wear and tear. Three? Now that is just amazing.

BTW--I think the Lakers still have a chance of doing 4 in 9 years. If they win the championship this season then they would've won 4 in 9 years WITH a three-peat. Where amazing happens...

Hawkeye15
10-14-2008, 08:54 PM
:laugh2: Harder to sustain??? Obviously winning a championship every year for three years straight is much much harder to sustain. They aren't taking any years off and always had a bulls-eye on their back while going deep every year. Even TD and Pop have said that trying to win two years in a row is hard to do because of the physical and mental wear and tear. Three? Now that is just amazing.

BTW--I think the Lakers still have a chance of doing 4 in 9 years. If they win the championship this season then they would've won 4 in 9 years WITH a three-peat. Where amazing happens...

I would expect nothing less of you my man. It was my opinion. Get over it. Being a top 3 team for 10 years, when you sprinkle 4 rings on there, is harder than winning 3 straight, then being a whatever for the remainder. Sorry. And Shaq is gone. They don't win 4 in 9 years. Kobe can't do it

SAVAGE CLAW
10-14-2008, 09:57 PM
None
the most impresive feats ever are

1 Bostons Ring Winning lovefeast on the 60s, what was it 11 out of 13?

2 Jordans A New Hope,Benny Strikes Back ,Return of the Airmaster, The Sox Menace,Clone Jazz Wars,Revenge of #23 trilogies.

3 Lakers win 5 out of 10 with 8 finals and are the only team to win rings in the west for more than 15 years.

Hawkeye15
10-14-2008, 09:59 PM
None
the most impresive feats ever are

1 Bostons Ring Winning lovefeast on the 60s, what was it 11 out of 13?

2 Jordans A New Hope,Benny Strikes Back ,Return of the Airmaster, The Sox Menace,Clone Jazz Wars,Revenge of #23 trilogies.

3 Lakers win 5 out of 10 with 8 finals and are the only team to win rings in the west for more than 15 years.

agree, except MJ's Bulls are #1. They played in an era with more than 10 teams. But right on dude.

SAVAGE CLAW
10-14-2008, 10:03 PM
^ precisely the less teams therere are the more talent each team has the more difficult it is to win.

think it this way if there wer 16 teams on the sixties and now there are 30 some of the 7th and 8th men then would be the Best player ro second option on some of todays teams.

Ill stick with boston.

Hawkeye15
10-14-2008, 10:12 PM
^ precisely the less teams therere are the more talent each team has the more difficult it is to win.

think it this way if there wer 16 teams on the sixties and now there are 30 some of the 7th and 8th men then would be the Best player ro second option on some of todays teams.

Ill stick with boston.

agreed. Half the league wouldn't be playing back then. You would only have the top 185 players, vs the top 400 now. Huge difference. I still think modern day basketball is more impressive, but I won't argue any further, you make a good point

kobe24>jordan23
10-14-2008, 10:12 PM
hawkeye15 y are u always so negative on the lakers?

Hawkeye15
10-14-2008, 10:15 PM
hawkeye15 y are u always so negative on the lakers?

many of my posts are not. I just get a little tired of Laker fans on this board. That being said, they are a great team, and have been since I was born. They have a chance, albeit a small one, to win a couple of rings in the next few years. It is just so hard to win. Everything has to come together. I respect Phil Jackson, and I like Derek Fischer, Sasha, and Farmar. I am not a big Kobe fan, though I do realize he is a top 1-2 player in the world, no doubt. Sorry, I am the voice of reason in my own mind, and sometimes come off as an idiot.

ARMIN12NBA
10-15-2008, 12:10 AM
I would expect nothing less of you my man. It was my opinion. Get over it. Being a top 3 team for 10 years, when you sprinkle 4 rings on there, is harder than winning 3 straight, then being a whatever for the remainder. Sorry. And Shaq is gone. They don't win 4 in 9 years. Kobe can't do it

Not according to Timmy D and Pop. I'll go with Timmy D and Pop. Two guys who could never get the back to back titles and absolutely know how hard it is to get them as it has alluded them up to this point. If they say it is nearly impossible to get 2 in a row then I trust those guys when they say it is extremely difficult. Let alone three in a row.

Beno7500
10-15-2008, 12:57 AM
Spurs

SAVAGE CLAW
10-15-2008, 01:27 AM
^ uh what a shock!!!! Hahahahahahahah

I wonder how people can be so biased, I hate the celtics but i
give them their dues when is time to and dont go saying that Lakers has a better history for example.

Now i see Crooner coming with his damm Long theory of why lakers are best than Celtics.......

Afridi786
10-15-2008, 01:45 AM
Spurs because they were (well still are) in title contention every single year.

#1Mavericksfan
10-15-2008, 01:46 AM
Lakers man I don't think Spurs have ever one back to back titles and winning back to back NBA titles is hard to do these days.

LAKERS 24/7
10-15-2008, 03:05 AM
^ uh what a shock!!!! Hahahahahahahah

I wonder how people can be so biased, I hate the celtics but i
give them their dues when is time to and dont go saying that Lakers has a better history for example.

Now i see Crooner coming with his damm Long theory of why lakers are best than Celtics.......

Nice subtle jab at his grammar :)