Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject

    In Response to Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject:
    In Response to Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject : So how many NBA championships do the Lakers have as of June 23, 2011?
    Posted by Fiercest34


    Well, don't ask me. Ask yourself. You counted the Lakers' NBL season.
     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject

    In Response to Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject:
    In Response to Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject : I'm telling you now! The Lakers have 17 NBA championships. You don't believe me?
    Posted by Fiercest34


    I only believe in the corner you painted yourself into: you counted the Lakers' NBL season...
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Red-16Russ-11. Show Red-16Russ-11's posts

    Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject

    In Response to Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject:
    In Response to Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject : Do you have reading comprehension problem? Obviously you do. I said: "You know John Wooden wasn't even #3 in championships in college sports?" # championships won in college: #1 - Al Scates (19), John McDonnell (19) Dan Gable had 15. So there are at least 3 people ahead of Wooden. Any other questions? Of course,  if someone is going to count BC and BU's 9 hockey championships, then Al Scates' 19 championships at UCLA would blow them away...
    Posted by MajicMVP


    But he is #1 in college basketball championships - so who the heck cares about Al Scates?  Pat Summit is #2, by the way!
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject

    In Response to Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject:
    In Response to Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject : But he is #1 in college basketball championships - so who the heck cares about Al Scates? 
    Posted by Red-16Russ-11


    The people who want to count non-basketball championships certainly should.

    How do people count 33 titles in Boston? Did Boston win 33 titles in basketball?
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Red-16Russ-11. Show Red-16Russ-11's posts

    Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject

    In Response to Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject:
    In Response to Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject : The people who want to count non-basketball championships certainly should. How do people count 33 titles in Boston? Did Boston win 33 titles in basketball?
    Posted by MajicMVP



    Don't care, and your response has nothing to do with John Wooden, which my comment addressed............dont' bother, you just don't get it, and I just don't care what you think anyway!
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from rampageimt23. Show rampageimt23's posts

    Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject

    In Response to Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject:

    In Response to Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject : You know we are not just counting college sports, just the two sports with big national following. Wait until the Frozen Four can rival the Final Four in terms of ratings, then we can talk. Otherwise, you would have lost big time. You know John Wooden wasn't even #3 in championships in college sports? The winner is another coach in LA. And you take away Anaheim while counting Foxborough and Holy Cross as Boston? See, consistency is never your strong suit...
    Posted by MajicMVP

    Um you were the one counting the Patriots and Holy Cross not I.  So I guess it was your inconsistency there d i c k h e a d.  I simply added 9 championships to the ones you already provided.  Wow...you are a bigger m o r o n than I thought.  Thanks for playing though.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from rampageimt23. Show rampageimt23's posts

    Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject

    In Response to Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject:
    In Response to Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject : That's one way to ask it, using a FACT to mislead. Who's more successful? a team that went 17-48 or a team that went 16-47? Right, it's a tie.  You can't change history or twist this fact. End of thread.
    Posted by MajicMVP


    There you go again with you mind numbing twisted facts.  Didn't I tell you to stop that already.  I simply asked who has more NBA championships.  The only correct answer is the Celtics because they have 17 and the next closest team has 16.  In math 17 is greater than 16.  Just like if I asked what is 2 plus 2.  The answer is 4.  That is a fact.  There was no misleading anywhere.   I know it is hard for you to comprehend simple questions like that so forgive me if I belittle you dumb answers.  But you deserve it.  Because you are dumb.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from DoctorCO. Show DoctorCO's posts

    Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject

    Lakers avenger, all the laker little boys let me school you....

    1. After bird what happened to boston...OK...heres the answer.....GAston the older who owned the team loved the celtics but he passed soon after the last title. The team was given to his son. WHO DIDNT LIKE SPORTS....Thats like buss's son...How do you blame boston for ownership who DIDNT LIKE SPORTS...he wanted to get paid the money an nba owner gets and field a bad team. HE looked at the cs as an asset. NOT as a real asset where when you have a team who wins....it makes you more money..........Gastons son was like the clippers owner in my mind...to make the point to you laker fans. To explain the fans in that period I was there...But would the avg. fan stick around when the owner just didnt care. And looked at the cs as an asset a money making tool and not a team.

    I love how laker fans say the celtics dont matter???....lol....they so wish....The celtics are the green bay packers of the nba in a way....Between the afl titles and bowls the pack lead the nfl in most title wins. The pack have the greatest coach...9 rings in 11 years...What did phill do in 11 years???.....The lakers are the cowboys of the nba...The team with the most flash...While boston has substance. Saying both teams dont matter??...lol...look at the ratings...the 2008 finals and last years finals were ratings winners...While when the celtics were out of the finals and not good teams..The finals were ratings loosers.

    21st and laker fan 67, Whats up with the era argument??...Before 1978, before 1962 before 1951 blah blah blah..IT MAKES NO SENSE...and it makes you look like cry babies...Heres why...The league didnt appear with 30 teams, products and leagues have TO GROW...The LEAGUE GREW ON RUSSEL AND WILT....If it wasnt for them the NBA WOULD NOT HAVE EXPANDED...if no one cared for them...THERE WOULD NOT BE A LEAGUE TODAY...They were the engine, the foundation of the nba...How can you have something without a foundation...So the league just started in 1987?..lol.......really so it started when your teams win..AND NOT WHEN THE LEAGUE started...keep trooling..tools...Also back then the nba wasnt around to market to black people. Im not black..but the nba at that time went to black areas and broke racial prejudice then. TO DISCOUNT THAT shows a lack of IQ.

    And when you trolls say SINCE THE MERGER...ill just say to you..IS that the name of a league?.....My league and every one elses. and the games on tv say THE NBA...not since the merger...

    Grow up faker fans
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from jam757. Show jam757's posts

    Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject

    Really, realy, STUPID thread but I will say that they are both great franchises. I'm a huuuuuuuuuuuuuge C's fan and even so I must admit the Lakers have been the better franchise in the last 10 years. The Celtics need to rebuild quickly and not fall off the map as they did last time. Whatever it takes to get D12. If the Celtics had beaten the Lakers in 1987 it would have been 4-4 in the 80's. That is the one that I will always remember because it hurt. Why can't fans appreciate both teams???
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from genaro008. Show genaro008's posts

    Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject

    In Response to Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject:
    Really, realy, STUPID thread but I will say that they are both great franchises. I'm a huuuuuuuuuuuuuge C's fan and even so I must admit the Lakers have been the better franchise in the last 10 years. The Celtics need to rebuild quickly and not fall off the map as they did last time. Whatever it takes to get D12. If the Celtics had beaten the Lakers in 1987 it would have been 4-4 in the 80's. That is the one that I will always remember because it hurt. Why can't fans appreciate both teams???
    Posted by jam757

    They only see laundry not the players thats why. I love it when the lakers are at their best as a Celtic fan. Nothing beats a LA Boston Final.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from lakersavenger. Show lakersavenger's posts

    Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject

    In Response to Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject:
    Lakers avenger, all the laker little boys let me school you.... 1. After bird what happened to boston...OK...heres the answer.....GAston the older who owned the team loved the celtics but he passed soon after the last title. The team was given to his son. WHO DIDNT LIKE SPORTS....Thats like buss's son...How do you blame boston for ownership who DIDNT LIKE SPORTS...he wanted to get paid the money an nba owner gets and field a bad team. HE looked at the cs as an asset. NOT as a real asset where when you have a team who wins....it makes you more money..........Gastons son was like the clippers owner in my mind...to make the point to you laker fans. To explain the fans in that period I was there...But would the avg. fan stick around when the owner just didnt care. And looked at the cs as an asset a money making tool and not a team. I love how laker fans say the celtics dont matter???....lol....they so wish....The celtics are the green bay packers of the nba in a way....Between the afl titles and bowls the pack lead the nfl in most title wins. The pack have the greatest coach...9 rings in 11 years...What did phill do in 11 years???.....The lakers are the cowboys of the nba...The team with the most flash...While boston has substance. Saying both teams dont matter??...lol...look at the ratings...the 2008 finals and last years finals were ratings winners...While when the celtics were out of the finals and not good teams..The finals were ratings loosers. 21st and laker fan 67, Whats up with the era argument??...Before 1978, before 1962 before 1951 blah blah blah..IT MAKES NO SENSE...and it makes you look like cry babies...Heres why...The league didnt appear with 30 teams, products and leagues have TO GROW...The LEAGUE GREW ON RUSSEL AND WILT....If it wasnt for them the NBA WOULD NOT HAVE EXPANDED...if no one cared for them...THERE WOULD NOT BE A LEAGUE TODAY...They were the engine, the foundation of the nba...How can you have something without a foundation...So the league just started in 1987?..lol.......really so it started when your teams win..AND NOT WHEN THE LEAGUE started...keep trooling..tools...Also back then the nba wasnt around to market to black people. Im not black..but the nba at that time went to black areas and broke racial prejudice then. TO DISCOUNT THAT shows a lack of IQ. And when you trolls say SINCE THE MERGER...ill just say to you..IS that the name of a league?.....My league and every one elses. and the games on tv say THE NBA...not since the merger... Grow up faker fans
    Posted by DoctorCO


    Greenbay, 2 titles in 44 years. Celtics, 1 title in 25 years. Yeah, you're right, the Cs are very much the Packers of basketball, which is they both had their heyday once, but became nothing afterward. Unlike the Lakers, who never seem to have significant downtimes. Are you aware that the Lakers are the only team to be relevant decade after decade in ANY SPORT?
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from hardright. Show hardright's posts

    Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject

    The Minneapolis Lakers' titles don't count (different city, pre-shot clock).

    17-11 is the actual total.

    That said, good fortune certainly has shined on the Lakers much more often since 1979 (starting with winning the Magic Johnson coin flip prior to the '79 draft) than it has the Celtics.

    Still, things were even-steven (3 titles apiece from 1980-86) until the Len Bias thing.

    After that, nothing but bad luck in Boston for the next 20+ years; and nothing but good fortune in LA over the same period.

    But these things still do tend to go in cycles.

    The Celtics had a 30-year cycle of good luck from 1956-86, and then it ended on June 19, 1986.

    The Lakers had a 30-year run of good luck, basically from 1980-2010.

    Is Jackson's departure the beginning of the end of that lucky streak?

    Time will tell.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from rampageimt23. Show rampageimt23's posts

    Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject

    In Response to Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject:
    In Response to Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject : Greenbay, 2 titles in 44 years. Celtics, 1 title in 25 years. Yeah, you're right, the Cs are very much the Packers of basketball, which is they both had their heyday once, but became nothing afterward. Unlike the Lakers, who never seem to have significant downtimes. Are you aware that the Lakers are the only team to be relevant decade after decade in ANY SPORT?
    Posted by lakersavenger


    There goes another Laker troll ignoring history to make his team look better.  Only 1 title in 25 years.  While your statement is true you are forgetting about the other 16 they won and 8 straight.  I am going to ignore history too and say the Los Angeles Lakers only have 11 titles since 5 of them were won in Minneapolis.  Since all of you Laker trolls just love to ignore anything historically I am going to as well.  That just makes your team look even more weak that you are 6 titles still behind us.  Your Fakers won't catch the C's in your lifetime.  You should be proud they will always be the 2nd best franchise for years to come.  Carry on toolbag.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from rampageimt23. Show rampageimt23's posts

    Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject

    In Response to Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject:
    In Response to Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject : Greenbay, 2 titles in 44 years. Celtics, 1 title in 25 years. Yeah, you're right, the Cs are very much the Packers of basketball, which is they both had their heyday once, but became nothing afterward. Unlike the Lakers, who never seem to have significant downtimes. Are you aware that the Lakers are the only team to be relevant decade after decade in ANY SPORT?
    Posted by lakersavenger


    Oh snap....I just read your last sentence and literally spit out my water on my computer in laughter.  Let me rephrase that last sentence....hold please while I laugh some more....OK I am good.  So your quote is as follow:

    Are you aware that the Lakers are the only team to be relevant decade after decade in any SPORT? Bwahahahahahahahahaha....OK...let me school you young boy.  The 50's I will give you because the Lakers won 4 championships from 1950 to 1959 even though it was Minneapolis.  Now let's take a look at the 1960's for a minute shall we....How many titles did the Lakers win from 1960 to 1969?  The answer is none.  The Celtics dominated that decade son.  They won 9 championships out of 10.  The Lakers were relevant though.  They did go 0-6 in the Finals that decade.  By my calculation that is a winning percentage of roughly .000.  Oh and every time they lost it was to the Celtics.  Let's take a look at the 70's for a minute.  How many championships did they win from 1970 to 1979?  The answer is 1.  The Knicks and the Celtics each won 2 in that decade.  The Lakers did go 1-2 in the NBA Finals that decade so that is slighly better than the 0-6 the decade before.  The 80's were dominated by the Lakers and Celtics with the Lakers having the edge 5-3 in championships.  No argument there.  Let's take a look at the 90's now.  The Lakers won zero championships that decade.  They made it to the Finals once and then weren't heard from again until 2000.  From 2000 to 2009 the Lakers won 4 championships and were absolutely relevant.  They have started out this decade on a good note winning 1 championship but we have 8 more years to go after this year.  So every decade huh?  Try the 50's, 80's, 2000 - 2010.  I would hardly say they were relevant the other decades unless you meant relevant for being other teams whipping boys.  Nice try though.  Thanks for playing.  No go get your f'n shinebox.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject

    In Response to Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject:
    In Response to Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject : Um you were the one counting the Patriots and Holy Cross not I.  So I guess it was your inconsistency there d i c k h e a d.  I simply added 9 championships to the ones you already provided.  Wow...you are a bigger m o r o n than I thought.  Thanks for playing though.
    Posted by rampageimt23


    Jason Koebler of "US News & World Report" counted the suburbs, which makes sense, same would apply to Auburn Hills, Irving, Meadowland. If Patriots and Holy Cross are added, how aren't Anaheim added?

    Your feeble attempt to exclude Anaheim simply shows your desparation and ignorance.

    If you want to count the non-major college sports, then Al Scates simply blow you away. Hey, your logic.

    I simply don't count the non-major college sports.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject

    In Response to Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject:
    In Response to Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject : There you go again with you mind numbing twisted facts.  Didn't I tell you to stop that already.  I simply asked who has more NBA championships.  The only correct answer is the Celtics because they have 17 and the next closest team has 16.  In math 17 is greater than 16.  Just like if I asked what is 2 plus 2.  The answer is 4.  That is a fact.  There was no misleading anywhere.   I know it is hard for you to comprehend simple questions like that so forgive me if I belittle you dumb answers.  But you deserve it.  Because you are dumb.
    Posted by rampageimt23


    Well, you are getting desparate. Now you have to resort to personal attack?

    The point is, you can ask a FACT to drive your point. I can also ask a FACT to refute your point, like which team suffer more failures? Are the Celtics 48 failures more than the Lakers' 47? You are cooked.

    Is 48 bigger than 47 or not? you dare answer it?

    See, all people use fact to make their arguments. You don't think you are the only one who knows this trick, do you?


     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from DoctorCO. Show DoctorCO's posts

    Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject

    lakers avenger,

    What league do you watch?....The after the merger league or the legue which my team is the best....oh wait you dont count all of the titles in the league your team plays for which is the NBA.....................

    And with green bay...how were the ratings of this years supperbowl....Pretty good ....huh the team with the most combined titles in the sports history....That bowl did better than dallas....or any of the flash and not substance teams....
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject

    In Response to Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject:
    The Minneapolis Lakers' titles don't count (different city, pre-shot clock). 17-11 is the actual total.


    Neither should Boston's early titles. Different era, a minor league, a much smaller pool of athletic talents, players have to get other jobs in the off-season...

    Glad that you add qualifiers to counting titles. That's what I always say, the Lakers are leading the Bulls 10-6.

    Don't worry, Celtics aren't in 2nd place. Knowing you guys detest being in 2nd place, that should make your day...

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject

    In Response to Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject:
    In Response to Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject : There goes another Laker troll ignoring history to make his team look better.  Only 1 title in 25 years.  While your statement is true you are forgetting about the other 16 they won and 8 straight.  I am going to ignore history too and say the Los Angeles Lakers only have 11 titles since 5 of them were won in Minneapolis.  Since all of you Laker trolls just love to ignore anything historically I am going to as well.  That just makes your team look even more weak that you are 6 titles still behind us. 
    Posted by rampageimt23


    Not so. You said it yourself, you are going to "ignore history TOO". Notice the "too". That means you agree that we both ignore history.

    Counting the NBA since the golden/big-time era, it's 10-6, Lakers over the Bulls.

    Don't worry, Celtics aren't in 2nd place. And that should comfort you folks because many of you detest finishing 2nd...
     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject

    In Response to Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject:
    In Response to Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject : Like I said, MajicTROLL, it's just your trick. No matter what you say or do Dr. Jerry Buss will not add 1 more banner on the rafters of Staples.  And are the Lakers and Celtics hanging up banners for the number times they failed to win a championship?  If you can show me 48 banners on the rafters of the Garden and 47 banners on the rafters of Staples then you win. Other than that, it's just your trick.  By the way, you got A jok in the Draft last night? HAHAHA!!!
    Posted by Fiercest34


    I don't care whether Buss adds it or not. As long as you recognize the 1947-48 title, we have one agent on the other camp working for us...

    And now you want to show banners for failing to win a championship? Looks like you are losing your mind, or do you see many such banners from 1987-2007 that make you a Celtic diehard (er Laker agent)?



     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject

    In Response to Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject:
    In Response to Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject : Another one of your "I say" arguments? I mean, really? You're just a troll! But if it helps you sleep better at night then, if you say so, TROLL!  Man, it sux to be you. I mean every time you wake up in the morning you still realize the Lakers are 1 short of 17. HAHAHA!!!
    Posted by Fiercest34


    No so, because he agreed with me. He is going to ignore history "too". So it's not something only "I say".
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from rampageimt23. Show rampageimt23's posts

    Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject

    In Response to Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject:
    In Response to Re: Celtics vs. Lakers - Thread to end all Threads on this subject : Well, you are getting desparate. Now you have to resort to personal attack? The point is, you can ask a FACT to drive your point. I can also ask a FACT to refute your point, like which team suffer more failures? Are the Celtics 48 failures more than the Lakers' 47? You are cooked. Is 48 bigger than 47 or not? you dare answer it? See, all people use fact to make their arguments. You don't think you are the only one who knows this trick, do you?
    Posted by MajicMVP


    I am only playing the game you created when you replied to my posts.  If you read my first post to start this thread I laid out the HISTORY of the Celtics and Lakers.  I didn't omit anything important.  Heck the Lakers even won a few categories.  I didn't ignore anything historical that pertained to my argument.  Your replies ignored the facts I laid out and then you twisted them in favor of your own team.  And just to be clear about this 48 and 47 number of failures you keep throwing out.  To have a chance to win an NBA title you have to be in the playoffs right?  The Lakers have been to the playoffs 58 times and only won 16 championships.  That means they failed 42 times.  The Celtics have been to the playoffs 49 times and have won 17 championships.  So they failed only 32 times.  The number 42 is greater than 32 so the Lakers have failed more times than the Celtics in the playoffs.  That is your logic backfiring right back in your face.  So to recap I started this thread and laid out the historical facts.  You twisted some of those facts in your teams favor.  I twisted them back in your face and at the end of the day the Celtics will have more championships than the Lakers.  So give me another one of your twisted facts so I can blow it out of the water.  I will get you every time.  I will follow you all around this message board blasting your lame posts until you take your ball and go home.  Eventually you will give up like the Lakers did against the Mavs this year.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share