In Response to Re: Celtic Dominance:


Please don't count Minnesota titles as ours. I didn't jump up and down with glee when Minnesota won them. Obviously our organization doesn't really want to take credit either or there would'nt be a flag with more than 1 title on it. I think our organization put the asterisk on those titles long before Celtic fans did.

to Laker67.....that 6-9 center was named the greatest player in league history several years back (actually he was 6-10 compared to DH who is listed at 6-10 to 6-11)

Big Bill had to go head to head with "Goliath" (aka Wilt Chamberlain, who was listed at 7-1 275)......he also matched up with Thurmond (6-11), Bellamy (6-11), Hayes (6-9), and Reed (6-9) to name a few....by the way, they are all in the Hall of Fame..

why don't you take a look at the competition big George faced in the late '40's through the mid '50's.....five of your team's titles came before the shot clock..which forced Mikan to leave the game at age 31 because he couldn't play the game under the new rules (slow, limited mobility, and infamous for being afflicted with "white man's disease").....no wonder Laker ownership waited over 40 years before they recognized that team from another city....and one banner just about sums it up as far as how little the franchise considered those titles....it was to give the new generation of fans a chance to catch Boston...and you really think that history is not an issue in this ongoing thread?....man, wake up....it is all about history...or we wouldn't be having this conversation...why don't you  go over to the Yankee board and try telling those fans that their history should not be celebrated...you know...Ruth & Gehrig...Dimaggio & Mantle......I mean, c'mon....at least face the facts that have led to this debate...I can't help it if you weren't around to see the era that the Celtics dominated...both teams were superpowers in the '80's (Boston just had better competition in the East)....the '90's finally saw the Celtics not winning a title for the first time in history (don't think losing Bias & Lewis had anything to do with that...along with injuries to Bird and McHale? ...guess again)...by the way, the Lakers didn't win anything either but that was not as big a story....I'll give you the first decade of the millenium...but as of right now we are both contenders, as it shoud be...

In Response to Re: Celtic Dominance:

Laker trolls say the Lakers have 16 championships. But why only 12 championship banners hanging?

In Response to Re: Celtic Dominance:


It is in fact true the Lakers have 16 championships.  Why would they have 12 banners and not 16 or just 11 if they show the ones in LA only(as maybe they should).

Regarding our 1 title in 25 years, At Least ALL of our titles are in Boston while the Lakers claim 5 from Minneapolis from 1949-1952 and their other 11 from 1972-2010 in tinsel town.
 

Laker NBA Championships (16)    
1949 1950 1952 1953 1954 1972 1980 1982 1985 1987 1988 2000 2001 2002 2009 2010

Ah, yes, head to head 12  NBA finals...Boston 9-Lakers 3

Year    Winner    Series
1959    Boston Celtics    4–0
1962    Boston Celtics    4–3
1963    Boston Celtics    4–2
1965    Boston Celtics    4–1
1966    Boston Celtics    4–3
1968    Boston Celtics    4–3
1969    Boston Celtics    4–3
1984    Boston Celtics    4–3
1985    Los Angeles Lakers    4–2
1987    Los Angeles Lakers    4–2
2008    Boston Celtics    4–2
2010    Los Angeles Lakers    4–3

Boston SPAHTS TEAMS DOMINATE, THAT IS A FACT. THE 2008 title for the Celts is worth more than the past 5 that the Lakers have won. No one denies this. Everyone knows the Celtics have been the more dominant team than the Fakers in the past 20 years. If it wasn't for the REFS SCREWING US, Boston would have won EVERY YEAR. Remember that Faker fans. I know all my Celtic and CHOWDA eating brethren agree with me!

How is it that 5 titles in the 2000s decade have less value than 1 for Boston? Totally illogical, irrational.  :)

Championships are what count, not games won for the season, not playoff wins--titles, championships! And by that fact alone Boston has been irrelevant until McHale came to the rescue, delivering Garnett for that 1 itty bitty title in 2008. You should kiss McHale's feet every time he's in town; otherwise, you wouldn't even have that 1 title to pin on your chests over the past 25 years.

That is a sad commentary, a sad legacy for the dynasty that existed in the 1960s during the "ice age" where only 8 NBA teams were the NBA, the dinosaur era. An organization consumed with futility and failure in the contemporary period. To win today with the bigger, faster, stronger players, with some 30 teams and the advances achieved world-wide players participating in the NBA, and with the establishment of the luxury tax system speaks volumes about any organization that can win a title today.

The Lakers have won 5 in the 2000s to the Celts 1. That's what counts. Championships!

that 8 team league you speak of is no different than MLB....the National League fielded an 8 team league....then the upstart American league did the same...after much infighting the two leagues agreed to form an alliance whereby each league champion would meet in the newly constructed World Series....the best of the best played baseball this way for well over 60 years and it worked just fine....then MLB began to gradually expand (just like the NBA did)....it was ok at first but over 40 years later the league is huge (as are many of it's roided up players) and the product has been watered down....there are so many minor league quality players today it is unbelievable....guys struggle to pitch over 200 innings yet they are bigger and stronger...sure, agents and big money play a part...but these athletes are pampered beyond belief....

the NBA would need to contract up to one half of it's franchises in order to make each team truly competitive.....there are players from all around the world competing in the NBA....and yet there are at least a dozen teams that cannot compete because their rosters are so bad....guys with terribly limited ability can hang around making millions for 10 years or more.....contract the league and these guys would need to find jobs somewhere else...

Remember, your team won 5 titles before the league adopted the 24 second shot to speed up the game (and save the league) back in the early '50's.....yet you certainly count those titles in order to compete with the Celtics' history....I realize that athletes are bigger, stronger, and faster than those of other generations....but that doesn't mean that the basketball is any better now...in fact the rules are almost disregarded when it comes to the stars (the "Jordan Rules").....traveling, double dribbling, "up & down", palming.....nothing is called....it is a joke.....I assume that you are a student of the game that has grown up with this generation of players...I can understand your thinking...but the stars of the 60's through the '80's would be stars today.....

this discussion is not about which team is better or more relevant today....in another post I gave you my opinion that the Lakers have been much better since the turn of the mellenium....this discussion is and always has been about which team has been more successful during their histories....and it was started by a Laker fan who cited an article by Hollinger proclaiming the Lakers as #1.... 

This post has been removed.

In Response to Re: Celtic Dominance:

This post has been removed.

In Response to Re: Celtic Dominance:


I copy and paste from your above post....

"Championships are what count, not games won for the season, not playoff wins--titles, championships!

That's what counts. Championships!"

The Discussion Title/Heading is Celtic Dominance and no reference to a time frame, last 5 years, last 25 years, era etc.but inference to inception ... so with 17 Championships we dominate the league in this category and Laker fan, in 12 head-to-head NBA finals...winner becomes the Champion, we HAVE WON 9 CHAMPIONSHIPS AND LA 3...I would say that's Celtic Dominance with emphasize on your chosen repetitive word, Championships...  end of discussion !!!
 
 

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

In Response to Re: Celtic Dominance:

This post has been removed.

In Response to Re: Celtic Dominance:


My fellow Lakers fan embarass me.  I guess that is why they come to this site along with me,  to learn about real championship teams on all levels.

In Response to Re: Celtic Dominance:

http://www.nba.com/2011/news/features/steve_aschburner/03/15/different-eras-in-nba/index.html

the modern era.....the NBA has been devided into two eras....pre shot clock and post shot clock...

In Response to Re: Celtic Dominance:


Thanks Duke!
Real Laker fans like Tommy, Dfurywhatever, GK, LA Fan, Go Green,  we all appreciate the knowledge you bestowe upon us.  Thats why we are here,  to learn from the best!!!

In Response to Re: Celtic Dominance:


Ya know...your fellow Laker fan, Lakerfan67, in a previous post cited that Championships are the only thing that matters, not games won, playoff wins, conference titles etc. but solely championships.

I copy & paste from my previous post below...don't know why Laker fan 67 didn't respond but you have mentioning engagements the Celtics missed/lost. Did any Celtic fan list all the Laker misses/losses ??? Again, refer to the Discussion Title.
 
"The Discussion Title/Heading is Celtic Dominance and no reference to a time frame, last 5 years, last 25 years, era etc.but inference to inception ... so with 18 Championships we dominate the league in this category and Laker fan, in 12 head-to-head NBA finals...winner becomes the Champion, we HAVE WON 9 CHAMPIONSHIPS AND LA 3...I would say that's Celtic Dominance with emphasis on your chosen repetitive word, Championships...  end of discussion !!!"

PS...by the way, Laker fan 67 said games didn't matter but in case you are interested, total games played between the Celtics and Lakers are 276 and the record is in our favor, 153 to 123 !!!

In Response to Re: Celtic Dominance:


No, almost all experts agree that the modern era really began during the NBA's 1979-80 season when the 3 point shot was introduced. It revolutionized the game so much so that the game is essentially unrecognizable from what it was. The mid-range shot is now only shot by some power forwards and centers, but even that is changing with 7 footers now becoming some of the best from beyond the arc. It was said earlier by someone here, and correctly so, that because the Celtics did not adapt, it proved their demise. The Lakers on the other hand proved to be a consistent juggernaut with the introduction of a great giant point guard who could do it all and spearheaded the Los Angeles Lakers into the greatest basketball force the world has ever known. They are in the finals half the time and win one out of every three titles since the modern era began. That's what prompted Stern to say the best finals matchup would feature the Lakers vs the Lakers. Year after year the question is the same : Who will beat the Lakers? You also have to remember that the pre-modern era featured a given quota of black and white players, where such a preponderance of them were white, similar to the time of Babe Ruth in baseball. Todays players and teams would totally obliterate the pre-modern players in basketball, with the exception of Wilt Chamberlain, who was generations ahead of his time. In fact, even an 8th seed today would crush the Celtics of old in a 7 game series, that's how revolutionized it has become. Can you imagine Russel's teams having to face a powerhouse loaded team featuring Howard, Gasol, Bryant and Nash? It's laughable to even think of such a thing.

If you want confirmation of how wide-spread the agreement is on just what constitutes the modern era, all you have to do is google "nba modern era" and you'll see that almost all opinions refer to the modern era as beginning after 1978 with the intro of the 3 pt shot. Sure, you'll have archaic opinions like Duke who will find an old source saying it started with the shot clock bs, but that opinion ie very outdated and only referrs to it when comparing to 1940's to the '60's. Anyway, here is just one random example of a google search:http://espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2012/story/_/id/8068148/nba-playoffs-top-25-performances-ever

In Response to Re: Celtic Dominance:


Can't compare apples to apples as we, you have shown above, have 4 major professional teams, Sox, MLB, Celtics, NBA, Pats, NFL & Bruins(Hockey).
TOTAL 4

Please leave out the college team of USC unless you want to include high school, middle school & grammar school teams too.

LA metro has Dodgers & Angels, 2 MLB, Lakers & Clippers, 2 NBA & Ducks & Kings ( 2 Hockey). TOTAL 6

You have not had an NFL team since Rams left in 1994 and the Raiders were there from 1982-1994.

The closest other city with pro teams to Boston is NYC 225 miles away while San Diego is only 125 miles away. I'm sure many LA metro fans also consider San Diego teams as theirs too but not too much champion success there here.

Sorry fellow Boston fans but I must say this, where I live in San Francisco, we've had a few championship teams too---we basically don't like LA teams either !!!