Robceltsfan wrote:I think sustained greatness over a long period is far more difficult than winning back-to-backs. On that front, I'll give Duncan all the credit in the world. The run of sustained excellence that the Spurs are on is unparalleled in any sport in the modern era.
It really is. And I think that trumps any "well he didn't repeat at any time" mantras.
It shows duncan was not as dominant a player. Most of his rings were won when the dominant team of that period ran out of gas - 99 after bulls dynasty, 2003 after 3 peat lakers, 2013 after heats back to back.
Robceltsfan wrote:I think sustained greatness over a long period is far more difficult than winning back-to-backs. On that front, I'll give Duncan all the credit in the world. The run of sustained excellence that the Spurs are on is unparalleled in any sport in the modern era.
The only examples of extended sustained success that I can think of that extended as far as Pops's Spurs in the last 50 years:
Boston Bruins:
30 consecutive playoff appearance until missing in 1997. BUT they only won 2 Stanley Cups.
Detroit Red Wings:
24 consecutive playoff appearances and 4 Stanley Cups
Robceltsfan wrote:I think sustained greatness over a long period is far more difficult than winning back-to-backs. On that front, I'll give Duncan all the credit in the world. The run of sustained excellence that the Spurs are on is unparalleled in any sport in the modern era.
The only examples of extended sustained success that I can think of that extended as far as Pops's Spurs in the last 50 years:
Boston Bruins:
30 consecutive playoff appearance until missing in 1997. BUT they only won 2 Stanley Cups.
Detroit Red Wings:
24 consecutive playoff appearances and 4 Stanley Cups
Yeah...but hockey...
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are dumber than that.
Robceltsfan wrote:I think sustained greatness over a long period is far more difficult than winning back-to-backs. On that front, I'll give Duncan all the credit in the world. The run of sustained excellence that the Spurs are on is unparalleled in any sport in the modern era.
The only examples of extended sustained success that I can think of that extended as far as Pops's Spurs in the last 50 years:
Boston Bruins:
30 consecutive playoff appearance until missing in 1997. BUT they only won 2 Stanley Cups.
Detroit Red Wings:
24 consecutive playoff appearances and 4 Stanley Cups
A couple of caveats there...
MOST teams made the playoffs during that Bruins run. For example, when it started... 8 of 12 times made it. When the league expanded to 16 teams... 12 teams made it. When it expanded to 21 teams, it expanded to 16 playoff teams. You get the picture... All that tells me is that the Bruins were not one of the 4 WORST teams in the league. Puts it in different perspective a bit.
The Spurs aren't eking into the playoffs. The team's WORST season during Duncan's run is 50 - 32.
[Note: For the record, I'm not championing Duncan over Magic. I'm just refuting points I think are slightly flimsy from those definitely championing Magic.]
y2ktors wrote:
I speak of winning back to back championships. It's easier to win 1 than to win consecutive. Successfully defending one's crown is definitely a plus in my book.
Is winning back-to-back more impressive than winning 2 out of 3? Why?
If anything, you're just winning with the same team against the same other teams. Never bought into that argument. Never will. Oddly enough, it's ONLY used when people are championing a specific player with back-to-back rings vs. one without a repeat... conveniently enough.
Because defending a crown another accomplishment. And it's silly to say that is the same team beating the same teams over again. Not only is that simplistic but it's not true.
Abe is correct and I think your argument is crap frankly. There is nothing inherently superior in winning back to back than winning two out of three. That's contrived bullshit. Period.
Is winning back-to-back more impressive than winning 2 out of 3? Why?
If anything, you're just winning with the same team against the same other teams. Never bought into that argument. Never will. Oddly enough, it's ONLY used when people are championing a specific player with back-to-back rings vs. one without a repeat... conveniently enough.
Because defending a crown another accomplishment. And it's silly to say that is the same team beating the same teams over again. Not only is that simplistic but it's not true.
Abe is correct and I think your argument is crap frankly. There is nothing inherently superior in winning back to back than winning two out of three. That's contrived bullshit. Period.
Then why is more rare to win back to back than to win 1 single championship? Because it's bullshit??? Essentially, that's what you're doing when you win 2 of 3 With no repeats.
Macrotus wrote:I always said able to defend the crown is more impressive...I believe coaches and players also said that.
It's like having a winning streak...
It's bullshit. It's a contrived argument that simply doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. For the feeble minded frankly.
so you saying winning b2b has no merit?
It has no more merit than winning two out of three. It's a contrived argument. Which would be more impressive, two straight or two out of three would depend on the circumstances surrounded each of the victories. It's an argument for the intellectually lazy.
vcsgrizzfan wrote:
It's bullshit. It's a contrived argument that simply doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. For the feeble minded frankly.
so you saying winning b2b has no merit?
It has no more merit than winning two out of three. It's a contrived argument. Which would be more impressive, two straight or two out of three would depend on the circumstances surrounded each of the victories. It's an argument for the intellectually lazy.
so I guess to you 3peat is not impressive either...huh? what about 4peat, 5peat, 6peat?
y2ktors wrote:
Because defending a crown another accomplishment. And it's silly to say that is the same team beating the same teams over again. Not only is that simplistic but it's not true.
Abe is correct and I think your argument is crap frankly. There is nothing inherently superior in winning back to back than winning two out of three. That's contrived bullshit. Period.
Then why is more rare to win back to back than to win 1 single championship? Because it's bullshit??? Essentially, that's what you're doing when you win 2 of 3 With no repeats.
Do you any idea how stupid that argument is? Seriously?
y2ktors wrote:
Because defending a crown another accomplishment. And it's silly to say that is the same team beating the same teams over again. Not only is that simplistic but it's not true.
Abe is correct and I think your argument is crap frankly. There is nothing inherently superior in winning back to back than winning two out of three. That's contrived bullshit. Period.
Then why is more rare to win back to back than to win 1 single championship? Because it's bullshit??? Essentially, that's what you're doing when you win 2 of 3 With no repeats.
That's the rub. We're not talking about one championship. We're talking about one player with multiple championships. Whether he gets 2 back-to-back or 2 in 3 years or 2 in 7 years... is all largely irrelevant.
As long as he wins each one and is a HUGE guy in helping his team win... a title is a titles. And multiple titles are better than one solitary one.
Macrotus wrote:
so you saying winning b2b has no merit?
It has no more merit than winning two out of three. It's a contrived argument. Which would be more impressive, two straight or two out of three would depend on the circumstances surrounded each of the victories. It's an argument for the intellectually lazy.
so I guess to you 3peat is not impressive either...huh? what about 4peat, 5peat, 6peat?
