The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Congratulations to the Chicago Blackhawks on their 3rd Stanley Cup Championship in 6 years. A truly amazing accomplishment.

So do the Blackhawks qualify as a dynasty?

Some numbers in the past 6 years for the Blackhawks.
3 Stanley cups.
4 trips to the Western Conference Finals.
1 Presidents Trophy. (Given to the team with best regular season record)
3 Different Conn Smythe Trophy Winners. (Given to the playoff MVP)

I say yes, but I'm biased. If you think they still need to do more, what do they need to do to be called a dynasty? Win back to back? At least another Stanley cup finals appearance? Stay relevant for another couple years?

Not to be dismissive, I like the topic.  But - who cares?  Why do we - the media specifically - feel the need to label things? 

You'll know whether or not they were a dynasty ten years from now when you think back and remember that time when the Blackhawks were so dominant.  Like the Cowboys in the 90's. 

I feel like this "dynasty" conversation is just a talking head topic, similar to "do you think so-and-so is an elite QB" or "Lebron or Jordan." 

Congrats to the Blackhawks, but I was rooting against them.  The Bolts put up a good showing, and I'm happy for their progress.  I'm also glad that the guy that built that Blackhawks team is now the GM for the Florida Panthers.  We'll see if he can do it twice...   

is that new ? .. did the panthers get a new GM recently or has it been a few years now ?

To be a dynasty you have to have at least one "back-to-back" championship, they don't.

Hence, NOT a dynasty! Team of the decade, on a nice little run, but without the back-to-back they aren't a dynasty!

So Bird's Celtics, who went to 4 Finals in a row and won 3 in 7 years, are not a dynasty, then?  And neither are the Spurs, who haven't won any of their 5 titles with Tim Duncan in back-to-back years?

Back-to-back is a silly criteria to me.  I'd say you should look at titles and title appearances.

If you went 4 years in a row and won 3...you had to win back-to-back championships? But I believe those Celtics only won 2 and not 3....and yes since they weren't back to back they aren't a dynasty. Coming in 2nd place is nice but it isn't winning a championship. Dynasty's are built on CHAMPIONSHIPS. Going to the final game and losing doesn't build your resume

Correct 3 in 7 years isn't a dynasty if none were back to back, and the Spurs were never a dynasty either. Just like the current run the SF Giants are on in baseball isn't a Dynasty either!! You can't have 2 dynasty's at once, during that Celtics run the Lakers were actually WINNING championships, they were the dynasty!!

Jordan's Bulls-Dynasty
Yankees of late 90's-Dynasty
Cowboys of early 90's-Dynasty
Lakers mid 80's--Dynasty

Winning a championship every couple years....isn't a dynasty. Not knocking it, but it isn't a dynasty when you don't have a back-to-back

Bird's Celtics won in '81, '84, and '86.  They lost in '85 and '87 (so the 4 straight were '84-'87).

The Aikman Cowboys won the same number of championships as the Bird Celtics, but were less competitive during the '90s than the Celtics were during the '80s.  The idea that the most important part of being a "dynasty" is determined by a two-year period is silly to me.

During that same time the Lakers WON in 80, 82, 85, 87, 88...and they lost in 83, 84, 89, 91

THAT was the dynasty of the era, not the Celtics! Can't have 2 dynasty's in one era, the Lakers were the dynasty as they won more and had a back-to-back championship.

Booooo Blackhawks!

This thread illustrates why I think this conversation is ridiculous.

Not new, the Panthers hired him before the 2010-11 season, and immediately won their division and returned to the playoffs in 2011-12. HE was nominated for GM of the year that season.  Since then, he has drafted a rookie of the year winner, and has another rookie of the year candidate this year (some say, the favorite to win).  He brought in a top tier goaltender and recruited several useful veterans in free agency.  He has loaded the team and minor league affiliates with tons of youth and prospects, and its just a matter of seeing if the team comes together.

Yes, the Blackhawks are currently a hockey Dynasty. So were the Spurs. If anyone wants to convince me otherwise, please post a link to the official sports dictionary, rather than just saying "I don't think so..."

Nobody in their right mind considers the Spurs a dynasty. Hell Phil Jackson even went public with it last year and said they weren't
 http://www.si.com/si-wire/2014/04/23/phil-jackson-spurs-dynasty

If the Blackhawks win next year they are a dynasty, until t hen they are just a team on the verge of a dynasty but without the consecutive/back-to-back championships they aren't

Nobody in their right mind!  Except, you know, Google.

(http://viperbeam.com/forum/spurs_dynasty.png)

In related news, Kobe Bryant doesn't think Tim Duncan is a better player than he is.  Authoritative!

5 titles in 15 years is now the criteria? Win one every 3 years or so and that's now a dynasty? That's a friggin joke!!!

Sorry, not a dynasty. Too long of a time-span with too few titles. Win 4 in a row like the Islanders. UCLA in college basketball. Yankees in the 50's and late 90's. Montreal Canadians int he NHL multiple times. Pittsburgh Steelers, New England Patriots, Dallas Cowboys....those are real dynasty's.

The Spurs and Blackhawks not even close.

So prolonged success over a decade and a half is a "joke," but a 4-year span of being really good means that you are an all-time legend?

The Cowboys won three titles in the '90s.  The Celtics won three titles in the '80s.  The Celtics were unquestionably a better team in their era, with a better winning percentage, more conference championships, and the same number of rings.  But because their titles weren't back to back, they are a footnote while the Cowboys are a dynasty?

A dynasty is an era of dominance in which no other power is recognized.

I think, to be a dynasty, you have to win 10 titles in a row.

Brian, you are tough but fair.

While you are correct that there are no TRUE dynasties, I would say that UCLA and the Celtics winning 9 of 10 may be called "semi-dynasty."  Agreed?

Exactly!! Now you got it, also because the Celtics weren't the dynasty in there era, the Lakers were! The Spurs winning in 2007 and then again in 2014 and saying its part of the same "dynasty" is a joke. Sorry it is!

The Lakers in the 80's were a dynasty and the team of that decade and the dynasty of that era (Celtics in the 80's were not, sorry). The Celtics in the 60's were a dynasty. Steelers football in the 70's...dynasty, 4 titles in 6 years. Pats winning 3 in 4 years..dynasty. NY Islanders winning 4 Stanley Cups in a row and losing only 3 finals games in 4 years...DYNASTY!! UCLA winning 10 championships between 64-75'..DYNASTY!!  The Spurs winning a couple championships then 7 year later winning another doesn't build a "dynasty" resume.  

Yankees from 1947 to 1956 winning 7 titles including 5 in a row. Montreal Canadians from 1953-1960 winning 6 Stanley Cups as well is a dynasty. Those 2 with the Celtics and UCLA are the 4 best dynasty's ever probably (not counting woman's sports)

So if you win 4 titles in ten years, you are not a dynasty, but if you win 3 titles in 10 years and two are back to back, then you are.

The Heat have won 3 titles in the last 10 years and 2 were back to back.

Yep. More of a dynasty than the Spurs. Because they had a 2 year run of dominance over the sport. Spurs didn't have that back to back seasons of dominance over the sport like the Heat did. When you rule the sport for 2 full years and win back to back titles that is special. Winning a title every other year or every 3 years, its nice. It's a great run, its just not a dynasty!

a 2 year run of dominance is a dynasty?

2 years? 

That's all you need these days for a fake talking-head buzzword to be applied to your team?

Wow, standards have dropped...

Yawn

2 years alone isn't, but 2 years and if you have gone to 4 straight finals or super bowls. Or if you win 3 championships in 4 years and have a back to back title run...yes having the back to back is what cements the dynasty!

nobody put a gun to your head and made ya read this thread or post in it.

Keep it movin!

Thanks for passing the test MikeO. Being a moderator means I do look in on threads, especially argumentative ones to make sure things stay civil. I just wanted to see who here likes to argue so much that they would address my post. You passed with flying colors.

So again, Miami's loss-win-win-loss in the Finals qualifies them as a dynasty, but Boston's win-loss-win-loss in the Finals does not?  And right up until the Lakers beat the Pistons in '88, neither Bird's Celtics (with 3 rings) or Magic's Lakers (with 4) were dynasties, because neither one had won back-to-back?

Total nonsense.

I'm not sure that I'm ready to call the Blackhawks a dynasty. There is no criteria I'm going to argue over, just my gut feeling. They definitely are a dominant team though.

i consider the spurs a dynasty

Contrary to the Gospel of MikeO, the term "dynasty" means whatever each person thinks it does. Some people obviously think that winning two in a row means dynasty. Others think that a more prolonged period where you win 3-4 titles is a dynasty. Others, like Brian, think the word should be forever stricken from our lexicon.<g>

It's a word like "awesome"...there is no hard and fast definition. What one person considers awesome, another person may consider merely great, and still others might feel isn't impressive at all. Thank God we live in a world where all have a right to their opinion.

I think if you win one championship it's a dynasty

I think if you believe you're a winner 4 days a week, you have an ongoing dynasty in life...

My mom used to love the show Dynasty.

Dictionary
dynasty
      noun dy·nas·ty \ˈdī-nə-stē also -ˌnas-tē, especially British ˈdi-nə-stē\
: a family of rulers who rule over a country for a long period of time; also : the period of time when a particular dynasty is in power

: a family, team, etc., that is very powerful or successful for a long period of time

I'm glad this spurred a nice little debate. There is of course no right answer, just what each person thinks which is why it's a fun question. The only issue I have with MikeO's insistance on back to back is that it completely negates whatever else happens. The Blackhawks nearly won 3 cups in a row and probably would have if the LA Kings hadn't beaten them in overtime of Game 7 in the Western Conference finals last year. Back to back is great, but you got to look at the whole picture and not stick to some hard and fast rule and simply throw out everything else. The Celtics absolutely were a dynasty and yes Mike you can have 2 dynasties at the same time. The Lakers and Celtics proved that.

That's cherry picking because the Lakers DID win back to back!! 87 and 88. Boston doesn't qualify as a dynasty because the Lakers WERE the dynasty of that decade over the same period of time

I removed a bunch of personal squabbling .. knock it off

if you guys want to have some serious one on one time, then go get a room somewhere .. this isn't the place.

Only if those 4 days are consecutive...

It's not cherry picking; it's a historical perspective.

What you are claiming is that at the start of the 1988 NBA Playoffs, one must have believed that neither Magic's Lakers nor Bird's Celtics were dynasties (even though they had 4 and 3 rings, respectively) because neither had won two in a row.  This claim is at odds with what people at the time DID believe.

But once the Lakers won the next championship that next year it ended the debate. Don't see how you can't understand that. You can't have 2 dynasty's in the same sport at the same exact time. Once the Lakers went back to back and got another title they laid claim to being the dynasty! Celtics weren't. At the start of the 1988 playoffs NEITHER were a dynasty!

Whatever, this debate has become boring.

Exactly!  That's what has me so upset about Chinese history, they have multiple dynasty's at the exact same time.  I mean they call the Later Zhou period from 951-960 a dynasty, c'mon 9 years makes a dynasty??  While at the exact same time from 907-1125 the Liao Dynasty was in place, that's 218 years.  Personally, I think you have to have a minimum of 250 years to be a dynasty, now the Ming Dynasty that lasted 276 years, THAT was a Dynasty!

No championship trophies, but they did make some wicked vases...

I don't think you can find anyone who agrees with this.

Whatever. I'm over this debate. Time to put it to bed.

Believe what you want. You aren't changing my mind or opinion. I think the vast majority of intelligent sports fans would agree with me.

I agree with this part.

I'd agree that the Blackhawks are a dynasty, as are the San Francisco Giants.  I also believe the Miami Hurricanes were a dynasty from 83-92.  None of these teams won back to back titles.