Some historical perspective

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

    Re: Some historical perspective

    In Response to Re: Some historical perspective:
    In Response to Re: Some historical perspective : Yes, 15 - 20 names would be different.  Not everyone is stuck in the past like Celtics fans are.  If you read the initial post, I stated that I did not necessarily agree that they would all deserved to be in the top 50 (I especially don't think Kidd and Reggie Miller belong), but the accomplishments of all those players I listed are much more publicized and entrenched in the minds of the general public.  If it were the 50 best in MLB history, 90% of the names would be from pre-1980, but the NBA is progressive.  If you don't like it, go watch something else.
    Posted by MrvAlbertsBra


    THREE of your names would be on there - THREE maximum.
    Who cares what you think anyway?  The list is done, has been since 1996.  Tell me the 15-20 names that would come off the list
    You are a total joke, marv - THREE maximum - koME, Iverson and Duncan......maybe Dirk, but not yet - all the others wouldn't get a sniff.
    Thus endeth the lesson!
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from MrvAlbertsBra. Show MrvAlbertsBra's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    The '96 list include Shaq after only 4 years, and you seriously think that Lebron (who is handed the MVP every November) and Dwayne Wade would not be on a new list?  I don't know if you're ignorant or just stubborn.  Arizin, Bing, DeBusschere, Lenny Wilkens, Bill Sharman, Mikan, Schayes and Archibald would all easily be bumped off.  Worthy, Parish, Walton and Cunningham would likely be casualties.  After that, it gets tricky, but the NBA is not crippled by tradition and won't have any problem ousting some early pioneers for more relevant players.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from RUWorthy. Show RUWorthy's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    You're a Laker fan, and would have Mikan bumped off the list? What rational do you have for that opinion. The man dominated the league in his era. Yes it was his era, it was nothing like 'modern' basketball. But the fact is he dominated it. That can't be swept aside because it was a different game.

    Anyone who dominates their era the way Mikan did deserves continued recognition for their acomplisments. I honestly don't believe he'd compete at all in today's league. But that doesn't matter.

    We live in a world of 15 second sound grabs and instant news and instant celebrity. Players can be made out to be much better than what they actually are by the media. And people will believe it. Just because we live in this era doesn't mean we should ignore the past. We have to learn and understand that greatness can trancend time and should continue to be applauded, even decades after the events.

    This applies especially to the MN Lakers, Early Celtics and one team from Philli in 1967 that did actually beat a Russell lead Celtics team.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    here here darlin.....man, you are wise beyond your years....
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from MrvAlbertsBra. Show MrvAlbertsBra's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    In Response to Re: Some historical perspective:
    You're a Laker fan, and would have Mikan bumped off the list? What rational do you have for that opinion. The man dominated the league in his era. Yes it was his era, it was nothing like 'modern' basketball. But the fact is he dominated it. That can't be swept aside because it was a different game. Anyone who dominates their era the way Mikan did deserves continued recognition for their acomplisments. I honestly don't believe he'd compete at all in today's league. But that doesn't matter. We live in a world of 15 second sound grabs and instant news and instant celebrity. Players can be made out to be much better than what they actually are by the media. And people will believe it. Just because we live in this era doesn't mean we should ignore the past. We have to learn and understand that greatness can trancend time and should continue to be applauded, even decades after the events. This applies especially to the MN Lakers, Early Celtics and one team from Philli in 1967 that did actually beat a Russell lead Celtics team.
    Posted by RUWorthy


    Of course you have to respect Mikan and other early players.  This is not meant to be a debate of who any one particular person believes should be added or bumped off the list of 50.  Everyone has their own opinions, but the NBA is much closer to the NFL's handling of history than MLB.  Red Grange and YA Tittle won't lead any current list of NFL's greatest players.  Mikan and other early pioneers will always be recognized, but the days are quickly passing when they would wrongly be considered the greatest players in "history" simply because they were the founding fathers.  There is obviously a generation gap here, and you old-timers simply fail to acknowledge the truth until it hits you in the face. 
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from BirdandCowens. Show BirdandCowens's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    In Response to Re: Some historical perspective:
    You're a Laker fan, and would have Mikan bumped off the list? What rational do you have for that opinion. The man dominated the league in his era. Yes it was his era, it was nothing like 'modern' basketball. But the fact is he dominated it. That can't be swept aside because it was a different game. Anyone who dominates their era the way Mikan did deserves continued recognition for their acomplisments. I honestly don't believe he'd compete at all in today's league. But that doesn't matter. We live in a world of 15 second sound grabs and instant news and instant celebrity. Players can be made out to be much better than what they actually are by the media. And people will believe it. Just because we live in this era doesn't mean we should ignore the past. We have to learn and understand that greatness can trancend time and should continue to be applauded, even decades after the events. This applies especially to the MN Lakers, Early Celtics and one team from Philli in 1967 that did actually beat a Russell lead Celtics team.
    Posted by RUWorthy


    Did you see where he'd bump Worthy, too?

    Hey Marv, want to bump Jim Brown from the 50 greatest football players list?  How about taking Babe Ruth off the baseball list?
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    OK....you make a good point....Red Grange and Bronko Nugurski were great but not in todays conversation.....but for each league....go back at least 50 years and look at the names...

    MLB:

    Mays
    Musial
    Snider
    Mantle

    NFL:

    Brown
    Tittle
    Huff
    Hornung

    NBA:

    Russ
    Wilt
    Baylor
    West

    man, the greats of the '50's and on were every bit as good as today's players

    ...going back even more....Ruth, Gehrig....Van Brocklyn, Waterfield....and yes....George Mikan
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from BirdandCowens. Show BirdandCowens's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    In Response to Re: Some historical perspective:
    The '96 list include Shaq after only 4 years, and you seriously think that Lebron (who is handed the MVP every November) and Dwayne Wade would not be on a new list?  I don't know if you're ignorant or just stubborn.  Arizin, Bing, DeBusschere, Lenny Wilkens, Bill Sharman, Mikan, Schayes and Archibald would all easily be bumped off.  Worthy, Parish, Walton and Cunningham would likely be casualties.  After that, it gets tricky, but the NBA is not crippled by tradition and won't have any problem ousting some early pioneers for more relevant players.
    Posted by MrvAlbertsBra

     

    Wade?  NO WAY!!
    I am neither ignorant nor stubborn..YOU , on the other hand, think you know more than the rest of us, want the list ripped up, and YOU to pick the next list.
    ALL the players you underlined are a joke, but you lose ALL credibility with Wilkens, Parish and Worthy...................I urge no one to respond any further to this.......ignorant and stubborn person!  IGNORE
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from RUWorthy. Show RUWorthy's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    I'm NOT an old-timer.

    And questions raised in regards to the MN banner and the general lack of respect my team shows towards the MN days have yet to be answered. Just a continual commentary on how todays players are so obviously better than the earlier generations.

    It's like saying that General Patton wouldn't be a great general if he was in the army today. Yes tactics and hardware change. But he'd still have the same mindset and ability.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from KB24RULZ. Show KB24RULZ's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    When you go to the Staples Center you do not see 16 Banners hanging there. You see 11 full sixe one and this microscopic blue one with 5 titles on it.

    The answers simple:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kc0n3QTlh7E

    I'll post later if you can't figure it out!

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from RUWorthy. Show RUWorthy's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    We still should have individual banners for MN championships. And retire their numbers. It doesn't change the fact that they are short changed. 

    I hate to think that potentially in twenty years people will be dissing the legacy of the Showtime era. That team would dismantle our current side with ease. Not just ease but with, ridiculous ease. 

    On the video, I love it, Baba O'Riley is a great song. Amuses me that some people don't know the name of the song! Like who doesn't know The Who? Sheesh. The whole Lakers intro gives me goose bumps. 


     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    Well I just viewed the video......yawn........no one is addressing the question of why the Lakers waited over 40 years (allegedly) to recognize the Minny championships.....
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from BirdandCowens. Show BirdandCowens's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    In Response to Re: Some historical perspective:
    Well I just viewed the video......yawn........no one is addressing the question of why the Lakers waited over 40 years (allegedly) to recognize the Minny championships.....
    Posted by Duke4


    My theory:

    No one cared when we grew up in the 70's and 80's. 
    After 3-peating (not a real word) in the 90's, the lakers  thought they were the best franchise ever.
    TheOldPerv is obsessed with catching and passing the Celtics, so.........
    in a lazy effort to get closer, without actually doing the work (I'm a HS teacher, so this is common - give me an "A", I don't deserve it, but I want it)
    they "recognized" the MN titles and TOOK them - adding 5 to the total.
    Naturally Weasel Stern didn't object, Buss OWNS him, so it went from 10-15 just like that.
    RU Worthy is also correct.  IF the day ever comes when the LA franchise surpasses Boston, that banner will come down so fast it will make your head spin.
    It's phony, Buss is phony, the whole concept is phony.
    And while I will not post on "Tainted Championship", because they are not tainted, this one and the Gasol trade (not the trade but the actual NEED for the trade) I will fight for.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from KB24RULZ. Show KB24RULZ's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    In Response to Re: Some historical perspective:
    In Response to Re: Some historical perspective : My theory: No one cared when we grew up in the 70's and 80's.  After 3-peating (not a real word) in the 90's, the lakers  thought they were the best franchise ever. TheOldPerv is obsessed with catching and passing the Celtics, so......... in a lazy effort to get closer, without actually doing the work (I'm a HS teacher, so this is common - give me an "A", I don't deserve it, but I want it) they "recognized" the MN titles and TOOK them - adding 5 to the total. Naturally Weasel Stern didn't object, Buss OWNS him, so it went from 10-15 just like that. RU Worthy is also correct.  IF the day ever comes when the LA franchise surpasses Boston, that banner will come down so fast it will make your head spin. It's phony, Buss is phony, the whole concept is phony. And while I will not post on "Tainted Championship", because they are not tainted, this one and the Gasol trade (not the trade but the actual NEED for the trade) I will fight for.
    Posted by BirdandCowens


    Wow, the Lake Show 3-peated in the 90s. I must have missed that lmao. Oh, as for the word 3-peat, you needn't worry, you guys can't even go back to back unless of course you go back to the age of JFK lol.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from genaro008. Show genaro008's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    The lakers should have hung thise MN Laker Banners way back when the moved. It was the organization it self at that time who wanted to detach from the MN history and build thier own. When the Giants and Dodgers moved to San Fran and LA they took the tradition with them. I do find it odd that over the last 2 decades LA added 5 championships to there total.

    If you wanted them to count do like the Dodgers and the Giants carry on the old tradition from day 1 

    Tainted championchips = 5 when you only added them for bragging rights and not the rich historical reverence they should have been treated with in the 1st place.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from genaro008. Show genaro008's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

  17. Point 1 Can these guys get thier own banner instead of sharing one.  
  18. 99 George Mikan,
  19. 17 Jim Pollard,
  20. 19 Vern Mikkelsen,
  21. 22 Slater Martin,
  22. 34 Clyde Lovellette,
  23. Point 2 in 30 years will you think these Lakers and the show time Lakers will be not worthy when your grand kids are watching a new era in basketball?
 
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from KB24RULZ. Show KB24RULZ's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    So glad your worried about Laker banners and our history. The Laker Nation however does not give a toss about Boston's.

    But thanks all the same!  Wink
     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from genaro008. Show genaro008's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    I guess Jackie Robinson is not a Dodger great and Willie Mays is not a Giants great. I bet id you took a poll around her 90% of us respect the lakers as our rival and are basketball fans and genuine sports fans who love sport and the rich history that comes with it.
     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from EliasB. Show EliasB's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    Well I just viewed the video......yawn........no one is addressing the question of why the Lakers waited over 40 years (allegedly) to recognize the Minny championships.....
     
    THE DUKE


    Duke, the Lakers waited over 40 years because Lakers fans don't really care about the ancient past 50's and 60's when basketball wasn't what it is today. Back then there were only 2 seven footers and 8 or 9 teams. The NBA took an awfully long time to mature, more so than other sports. It wasn't until the expansion happened in the 1970's that basketball became more and more popularized. Then the 80's happened and the rest is history.

    Lakers fans are always going to be about winning today which is why we are back-to-back champs, it's what is expected. Nobody expected the Celtics to win a title but you did. Wonderful and Great. But no one expects you guys to win it again for another 20 years.

    The Lakers fans expect more. We don't just look to the past IN FACT we hardly ever look to the past except when we're on Celtcs discussion boards. We the fans as well as our ownership are always looking forward. The Celtics are always looking back. It is a symptom that plagues your organization as seen in the recent signing of a 38 year old has been.




    Cool

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from KB24RULZ. Show KB24RULZ's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    In Response to Re: Some historical perspective:
    Well I just viewed the video......yawn........no one is addressing the question of why the Lakers waited over 40 years (allegedly) to recognize the Minny championships.....   THE DUKE Duke, the Lakers waited over 40 years because Lakers fans don't really care about the ancient past 50's and 60's when basketball wasn't what it is today. Back then there were only 2 seven footers and 8 or 9 teams. The NBA took an awfully long time to mature, more so than other sports. It wasn't until the expansion happened in the 1970's that basketball became more and more popularized. Then the 80's happened and the rest is history. Lakers fans are always going to be about winning today which is why we are back-to-back champs, it's what is expected. Nobody expected the Celtics to win a title but you did. Wonderful and Great. But no one expects you guys to win it again for another 20 years. The Lakers fans expect more. We don't just look to the past IN FACT we hardly ever look to the past except when we're on Celtcs discussion boards. We the fans as well as our ownership are always looking forward. The Celtics are always looking back. It is a symptom that plagues your organization as seen in the recent signing of a 38 year old has been.
    Posted by EliasB



    Brilliant post! Your right, boston does look backwards but in their defense their abysmal record in the last 24 years is almost Clipper-like. The Lake Show record is indicative of a franchise that desires to achieve excellence not only in the now, but in the future. For that reason alone, no team can exude a record like the Lakers since the NBA went global.

    Thus the Lakers will not only catch boston in championships after this season, they will surpass them and within 20 years the Lakers will have 20+ championships whilst boston will still be on 17. A scan of the NBA winners since the NBA/ABA merged provides compelling evidence.
     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from paulliu. Show paulliu's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    In Response to Re: Some historical perspective:
    Well I just viewed the video......yawn........no one is addressing the question of why the Lakers waited over 40 years (allegedly) to recognize the Minny championships.....   THE DUKE Duke, the Lakers waited over 40 years because Lakers fans don't really care about the ancient past 50's and 60's when basketball wasn't what it is today. Back then there were only 2 seven footers and 8 or 9 teams. The NBA took an awfully long time to mature, more so than other sports. It wasn't until the expansion happened in the 1970's that basketball became more and more popularized. Then the 80's happened and the rest is history. Lakers fans are always going to be about winning today which is why we are back-to-back champs, it's what is expected. Nobody expected the Celtics to win a title but you did. Wonderful and Great. But no one expects you guys to win it again for another 20 years. The Lakers fans expect more. We don't just look to the past IN FACT we hardly ever look to the past except when we're on Celtcs discussion boards. We the fans as well as our ownership are always looking forward. The Celtics are always looking back. It is a symptom that plagues your organization as seen in the recent signing of a 38 year old has been.
    Posted by EliasB


    So, you're saying that the Lakers have 16 titles but that five of them aren't worth a damn?

    Maybe every time you cite the 16 claimed titles you should insert an astericks--maybe someting at the bottom of the page that says in sum ansd substance: while we claim 16 titles we view the first five as garbage.  Hence we don't honor them in the same way but we still want them counted because that makes it look like we're close to Boston's total.
     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    so again the question.....do the Baltimore Ravens own the Cleveland Browns titles? ....Same franchise....same roster went to Baltimore....same owner moved the team......changing the team name changed everything?  ....Now, of course, I'm being difficult....Model did leave the name (very important) and the team colors...but the "franchise" is the same one that won all the titles....so the titles won in Cleveland move to Baltimore right?  ....that's what the Laker fans are saying.....I think...
     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from MrvAlbertsBra. Show MrvAlbertsBra's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    The Raiders have 3 championships, I can't remember if it's 2 in Oakland and one in L.A. or vice versa.  Either way, people know the "Raiders" have won 3 times.
     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from paulliu. Show paulliu's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    In Response to Re: Some historical perspective:
    so again the question.....do the Baltimore Ravens own the Cleveland Browns titles? ....Same franchise....same roster went to Baltimore....same owner moved the team......changing the team name changed everything?  ....Now, of course, I'm being difficult....Model did leave the name (very important) and the team colors...but the "franchise" is the same one that won all the titles....so the titles won in Cleveland move to Baltimore right?  ....that's what the Laker fans are saying.....I think...
    Posted by Duke4


    I don't think the Laker fans on this thread know themselves what they are saying.

    It began with the title "Some historical perspective." Maybe it should be called "Some hysterical perspective."
     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from MrvAlbertsBra. Show MrvAlbertsBra's posts

    Re: Some historical perspective

    In Response to Re: Some historical perspective:
    Well I just viewed the video......yawn........no one is addressing the question of why the Lakers waited over 40 years (allegedly) to recognize the Minny championships.....
    Posted by Duke4


    Who really knows why the MN titles receive less recognition by being all on 1 banner.  I won’t even speculate about Cooke’s reasons for not celebrating those titles, but I will venture a guess as to Dr. Buss’ reasons.  I think he has always considered those titles part of the Lakers history and tradition, but he did not want the success of the Minneapolis days to define the franchise as he was trying to get the Lakers over the hump.  With all the disappointment from the 60s - 70s, to hang the banners celebrating the MN titles without any of his own would somewhat diminish Buss’ efforts.  Later, when the Lakers got more rings under Buss’ watch than the MN team had, then it became acceptable to embrace that history.  But like most successful people, he has an ego and still wants the attention focused on the 10 banners won under his watch, so the 5 from the MN days share one banner.
     
  • Sections
    Shortcuts

    Share