Comparing Championship Titles Across Sports

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you are delusional if you think there are 4 major sports

[/ QUOTE ]

or you live in Canada, like op does

or you live in Philadelphia, New York, Detroit, and so on. STFU.

[/ QUOTE ]

what if you live in indianapolis?

i'm not saying that hockey should definitely not be a major sport; i think if you include it, you've gotta include some kind of auto sport. why is hockey "major" and auto racing, golf, or tennis are not?

[/ QUOTE ]

When people say "4 major sports" they mean "4 major team sports" and its implied.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you are delusional if you think there are 4 major sports

[/ QUOTE ]

or you live in Canada, like op does

or you live in Philadelphia, New York, Detroit, and so on. STFU.

[/ QUOTE ]

what if you live in indianapolis?

i'm not saying that hockey should definitely not be a major sport; i think if you include it, you've gotta include some kind of auto sport. why is hockey "major" and auto racing, golf, or tennis are not?

[/ QUOTE ]

Team sports v individual sports, LDO. And no, the rest of us don't think of Nascar as a team sport, otherwise we'd compare team championships and not driver championships.

My arbitrary line for the "modern team sport era" is 1970. I'd like to see what this list looks like from that point forward.

[gusmahler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you are delusional if you think there are 4 major sports

[/ QUOTE ]

or you live in Canada, like op does

or you live in Philadelphia, New York, Detroit, and so on. STFU.

[/ QUOTE ]

what if you live in indianapolis?

i'm not saying that hockey should definitely not be a major sport; i think if you include it, you've gotta include some kind of auto sport. why is hockey "major" and auto racing, golf, or tennis are not?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because we're talking about team sports, not individual sports.

[Triumph36]

Clark -

Since 1970, I think Dallas and Pittsburgh are tied with 5 Super Bowl wins. As I look it up, the Niners also have 5. Yankees have 6 World Titles. Canadiens have 7 Stanley Cup wins. The LA Lakers have 9 titles.

I don't know if this is coincedence (seems to be), but the Yankees are the only team who looks close to a championship - and baseball is the only sport without a salary cap.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
Clark -

Since 1970, I think Dallas and Pittsburgh are tied with 5 Super Bowl wins. As I look it up, the Niners also have 5. Yankees have 6 World Titles. Canadiens have 7 Stanley Cup wins. The LA Lakers have 9 titles.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. I like the Lakers out of this since they not only have the most but did it more consistently over a longer time period. The only real detractor is that basketball is the easiest to do it in for obvious reasons - I just think it's counterbalanced by such a long and consistent run.

[kidcolin]

The Lakers run is very impressive. From the '70-'71 season until the catastrophic Shaq fire sale, they only missed the playoffs 3 times. They played in the Finals 15 times (not to mention the myriad of Finals losses to the Celtics in the previous decade).

[Triumph36]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Clark -

Since 1970, I think Dallas and Pittsburgh are tied with 5 Super Bowl wins. As I look it up, the Niners also have 5. Yankees have 6 World Titles. Canadiens have 7 Stanley Cup wins. The LA Lakers have 9 titles.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. I like the Lakers out of this since they not only have the most but did it more consistently over a longer time period. The only real detractor is that basketball is the easiest to do it in for obvious reasons - I just think it's counterbalanced by such a long and consistent run.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Canadiens had a pretty solid run from 1970 to around 1998 - in a sport where it's harder to stay on top. However, the last 10 years have been mediocre - they've finished no higher than 3rd in their division, and that only once.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]

Since 1970, I think Dallas and Pittsburgh are tied with 5 Super Bowl wins. As I look it up, the Niners also have 5. Yankees have 6 World Titles. Canadiens have 7 Stanley Cup wins. The LA Lakers have 9 titles.


[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the list. It makes me change my stance some on the Canadians. The Yankees with 6 titles is the most impressive, especially since most happened in the late 90's. I still think the Pats most recent three are more impressive than the Dallas, Pitts, and Niners teams, but its close. Lakers with 9 is a crazy amount too, but I still think Basketball was so skewed up until the mid to late 80's that I am less impressed.

[capone0]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Since 1970, I think Dallas and Pittsburgh are tied with 5 Super Bowl wins. As I look it up, the Niners also have 5. Yankees have 6 World Titles. Canadiens have 7 Stanley Cup wins. The LA Lakers have 9 titles.


[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the list. It makes me change my stance some on the Canadians. The Yankees with 6 titles is the most impressive, especially since most happened in the late 90's. I still think the Pats most recent three are more impressive than the Dallas, Pitts, and Niners teams, but its close. Lakers with 9 is a crazy amount too, but I still think Basketball was so skewed up until the mid to late 80's that I am less impressed.

[/ QUOTE ]

In Basketball if you have an "immortal" player you can win titles. Other than Detroit's title teams, the winning teams over the last 25 years or so have had a player who many would consider a top 10 player all time, or even more than 1.

Bird, Magic/Kareem, MJ, Kobe/Shaq, Duncan. In other sports that isn't true. Some of the best have never won a title and most teams win b/c their team is good especially football, although primarly the QB needs to be "immortal" to seem to win in football. In baseball, pitching seems to be the key although their is no hard or fast rule in baseball with winning e/c spending I guess. Back to football, D seems to win titles. But your D doesn't need to have an "immortal" player. In Hockey, a hot goalie seem to be the key to winning it.

I guess the NE championships can be looked as being "special" since it's in the Salary Cap / Free Agency era and they won 3 titles in 4 years with relative unknowns e/c Brady and a big time head coach. I know we all know Seymour, Law, etc. but the average fan probally wouldn't. I just think comparing titles between eras and between sports is pretty silly considering their totally different constructions within the different sports and even the sports own different construction between ERAs. Is it harder to win repeated titles with a salary cap, probally. It is harder repeated titles with free agency, probally, but I don't think you can so easily discount the other teams titles of the past, b/c they were winning within their own rule era.

Another heavy change is the money issues. Today players make a rediculous amount in comparison to previous generations. Teams like the Celtics had a domination of talent in comparison to the rest of the league. Hell, the 9ers in the 80s had Steve Young, a future HOFer, on the bench for a couple of years.

Honestly I think it's harder now then ever to have dynasties, but I don't easily discount past teams' accomplishments.

[Clarkmeister]

The Pats had a 4-year run out of this arbitrary 37 year timeframe, including one totally luckbox run. Let's not get carried away.