Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

THEE NYG SWAG THREAD

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Morehead State View Post
    Happens all the time. As has been previously discussed, real sports "Dynasties" last over many, many years, usually well more than 10 and can even stretch over decades. Fake dynasties (with low standards) are 4 or 5 years with 3 championships. To me thats a good run. The Montreal canadians of the fifties thru the seventies, the Boston Celtics of the 50's and 60's, or the Yankees from the 20's thru the early sixties.
    You kids today drive me nuts!!!
    as you said, this has been previously discussed...

    I forgot the specifics maybe you could enlighten us on the topic, I was pretty sure that in "thee thread" a dynasty was of course 3 championships in a short period of time?

    Also perhaps we could discuss the topic of Champions and "reigning" Champs?

    Comment


    • I misspoke yesterday....although the Yankees had one of the most impressive runs in baseball of the past 50 years, the Chicago Bulls were the last true Dynasty in my eyes.
      The only thing that could stop the 90-98 Bulls...? Michael Jordan retiring twice.....
      Oderint Dum Metuant

      It's too bad, I'm too good....

      Comment


      • Originally posted by byron View Post
        f-bomb said the new rankings have to do with penis size
        sounds about right...
        https://www.facebook.com/groups/TheeBloodSport/

        Comment


        • Originally posted by DavenIII View Post
          as you said, this has been previously discussed...

          I forgot the specifics maybe you could enlighten us on the topic, I was pretty sure that in "thee thread" a dynasty was of course 3 championships in a short period of time?

          Also perhaps we could discuss the topic of Champions and "reigning" Champs?
          Thats because in most aspects of life, pop culture has lowered the standards for just about everything. A true sports dynasty must come over an extended period of time. To me, the closest thing recently was the 20 year run of the 49'rs. But in my view it still fell short. 3 championships in 4 years is a great run. The Bulls of the 90's was a great run. But a true dynasty is a far greater accomplishment.
          There have really only been a very few true sports dynasties. The Yankees from the 20's into the 60's, the Canadians from the 50's into the 70's, the Celtics of the 50's and 60's and UCLA basketball in the John Wooden era.
          If the Sox managed to win 3 more championships over the next 15 years, while maintaining a high level of play, that would qualify in my book. If the Giants managed to do the same, with the 2 championships we already, that would too. But in today's mediocre standards, there will be those who will continue to refer to short runs of success as "dynasties". And they will mostly be Democrats.
          Hahaha!!!!!
          Admit nothing. Deny everything. Make counter accusations.

          Comment


          • but what about free agency morehead, dynasty's can't be expected to last like they have in the past, you can't have Mickey Mantle for 17 seasons anymore...it just doesn't work.

            same in every sport.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Morehead State View Post
              Thats because in most aspects of life, pop culture has lowered the standards for just about everything. A true sports dynasty must come over an extended period of time. To me, the closest thing recently was the 20 year run of the 49'rs. But in my view it still fell short. 3 championships in 4 years is a great run. The Bulls of the 90's was a great run. But a true dynasty is a far greater accomplishment.
              There have really only been a very few true sports dynasties. The Yankees from the 20's into the 60's, the Canadians from the 50's into the 70's, the Celtics of the 50's and 60's and UCLA basketball in the John Wooden era.
              If the Sox managed to win 3 more championships over the next 15 years, while maintaining a high level of play, that would qualify in my book. If the Giants managed to do the same, with the 2 championships we already, that would too. But in today's mediocre standards, there will be those who will continue to refer to short runs of success as "dynasties". And they will mostly be Democrats.
              Hahaha!!!!!
              no way...the sox would have to win like 5 more championships to compensate for their irellevance as of late. and thats just not in your deck of cards right now. i would not consider that a dynasty at all.
              the yankees of the 30s thru the 60s, sure....i think it was like 16 championships in 30 years...thats pretty diesel. 2 more championships in the 70s....but thats 4 spread over 20 years, so i dont count that.
              I do consider the Bulls a dynasty. sorry....unstoppaBULL
              Oderint Dum Metuant

              It's too bad, I'm too good....

              Comment


              • Originally posted by DavenIII View Post
                but what about free agency morehead, dynasty's can't be expected to last like they have in the past, you can't have Mickey Mantle for 17 seasons anymore...it just doesn't work.

                same in every sport.
                thats what I said.
                I mean, baseball WOULD be the only sport to be able to pull it off because theres no cap...but, its highly unlikely that one team is going to pay someone that long, like you just said.
                Oderint Dum Metuant

                It's too bad, I'm too good....

                Comment


                • Originally posted by DavenIII View Post
                  but what about free agency morehead, dynasty's can't be expected to last like they have in the past, you can't have Mickey Mantle for 17 seasons anymore...it just doesn't work.

                  same in every sport.
                  Then its much harder to have a real dynasty. Just because we have free agancy doesn't mean the definition of a dynasty changes. One has nothing to do with the other. It could very well be that there will be no more sports dynasties because of what you are suggesting.
                  Admit nothing. Deny everything. Make counter accusations.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by JPizzack View Post
                    no way...the sox would have to win like 5 more championships to compensate for their irellevance as of late. and thats just not in your deck of cards right now. i would not consider that a dynasty at all.
                    the yankees of the 30s thru the 60s, sure....i think it was like 16 championships in 30 years...thats pretty diesel. 2 more championships in the 70s....but thats 4 spread over 20 years, so i dont count that.
                    I do consider the Bulls a dynasty. sorry....unstoppaBULL
                    Championships are certainly a major component, but its also a consistent excellence as well. These "down" years for the Sox are still winning seasons. 90-72 and 89-73 are not losing seasons. The Giants have been 8-8 twice recently. It would be tough to call the Giants a true dynasty if they won 2 or 3 more in the next 10 years unless they play better than they have in the regular season. Quite honestly, what we got in 2 championships came in 2, 4 game runs in the playoffs. Both those regular seasons were very up and down.
                    And you can call the Bullsa dynasty if you want, but they aren't be my standards. No one would argue that those were great teams, but the time was very short.
                    Admit nothing. Deny everything. Make counter accusations.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Morehead State View Post
                      Then its much harder to have a real dynasty. Just because we have free agancy doesn't mean the definition of a dynasty changes. One has nothing to do with the other. It could very well be that there will be no more sports dynasties because of what you are suggesting.
                      I disagree here, I think if you are using the term Dynasty in a sports context, if "sports" change then the definition of what a Dynasty is "in that context" also changes.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by DavenIII View Post
                        I disagree here, I think if you are using the term Dynasty in a sports context, if "sports" change then the definition of what a Dynasty is "in that context" also changes.
                        A sports dynasty is what it is. It is what its always been. Because conditions in today's sports leagues have changed, doens't mean that the definition of a sports dynasty changes.
                        A sports dynasty is still an excellence and dominance over a long period of time. Unless the definitions of "long period of time" or "excellence and dominance" change with the rules of the games, your point is moot.
                        The reality is that its just a lot harder to have a sports dynasty anymore. You can't move the goal posts closer Daven. Or are you one of those guys who thinks everyone should get a trophy even if they finish last?
                        "Its harder to have a sports dynasty...so lets change the definition"..... I reject that.
                        Admit nothing. Deny everything. Make counter accusations.

                        Comment


                        • thanks matt, just waiting for dthe old name to be approved. Didnt know it took a few days....
                          Lawl, if you dont like your new name or want your old name back, email the giants board and tell them your old email address. Should work.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by antimorehead View Post
                            thanks matt, just waiting for dthe old name to be approved. Didnt know it took a few days....
                            Lawl, if you dont like your new name or want your old name back, email the giants board and tell them your old email address. Should work.
                            "Imgrate" is the best name on the Giants boards. Why would anyone want to change it.
                            Admit nothing. Deny everything. Make counter accusations.

                            Comment


                            • So we are still waiting for Lawl, Sharrick, Daven and I don't know who the 12th guy is.
                              Admit nothing. Deny everything. Make counter accusations.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Morehead State View Post
                                A sports dynasty is what it is. It is what its always been. Because conditions in today's sports leagues have changed, doens't mean that the definition of a sports dynasty changes.
                                A sports dynasty is still an excellence and dominance over a long period of time. Unless the definitions of "long period of time" or "excellence and dominance" change with the rules of the games, your point is moot.
                                The reality is that its just a lot harder to have a sports dynasty anymore. You can't move the goal posts closer Daven. Or are you one of those guys who thinks everyone should get a trophy even if they finish last?
                                "Its harder to have a sports dynasty...so lets change the definition"..... I reject that.
                                I think the definition of a long period of time in sports HAS changed, that's what I'm getting at.

                                you say a sports dynasty is what it is and what it's always been...you say just because the condition in today's sports leagues have changed doesn't mean that the definition should/can change.

                                but that's an opinion, not a statement of fact.

                                our constitution is constantly changing (not that it's something I like but it is) if that's changing whose to say the definition of dynasty can't, in fact most words mean different things now then they meant years ago.

                                I think the definition of Dynasty can change to fit today's conditions.

                                you say you can't move the goal closer, but suppose for some reason the force of Gravity some how got stronger...wouldn't you have to lower a basketball hoop to make it fair? you can move the goal closer if conditions warrant it.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X