Comparing Championship Titles Across Sports - Page 4

ThaSaltCracka · #31 08-16-2007, 03:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The Celtics won 11 titles in 13 years, which is better than 4 titles in 10 years. So give the Celtics credit for that. But the Spurs won in a much tougher enviroment, so they get credit for that also. How you balance the achievements of those teams is what this thread is about

[/ QUOTE ] Precisely, so with these statements in mind, which I agree with, how can you honestly say that teams with championships from older generations are as impressive as modern teams championships? When the competition is better, the talent is better, and the margin of errors smaller, what is there to really argue?

gusmahler · #32 08-16-2007, 04:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Celtics won 11 titles in 13 years, which is better than 4 titles in 10 years. So give the Celtics credit for that. But the Spurs won in a much tougher enviroment, so they get credit for that also. How you balance the achievements of those teams is what this thread is about

[/ QUOTE ] Precisely, so with these statements in mind, which I agree with, how can you honestly say that teams with championships from older generations are as impressive as modern teams championships? When the competition is better, the talent is better, and the margin of errors smaller, what is there to really argue?

[/ QUOTE ]
So are you saying a 1-off team, like the 2006 Heat is better than the 1957 to 1969 Celtics? Obviously, the Heat is a better team, but shouldn't the Celtics get some credit for being so dominating for so long?

EDIT: No one is trying to say that those old teams are better on an absolute scale. They're just better *relative to their level of competition* than some of today's dynasties.

Football is an extreme example because of the size gains from better "nutrition". The 75 Steelers DL would be so undersized that even the Texans OL would have no trouble with them. On an absolute scale, the 75 Steelers (moved to today via time machine) could probably not even beat a mediocre 2006 NFL team. But when someone says the late 70s Steelers are "better" than the 2006 Raiders, they mean that they were more successful.

So the question we are asking is what is a bigger success: 13 titles in 11 years in 60s, or 4 titles in 10 years in the 00s? What's better: 28 MLB titles or 26 NHL titles?

It's supposed to provoke debate and discussion. Not mere writing off of all 20+ year old teams.

Thremp · #33 08-16-2007, 04:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Celtics won 11 titles in 13 years, which is better than 4 titles in 10 years. So give the Celtics credit for that. But the Spurs won in a much tougher enviroment, so they get credit for that also. How you balance the achievements of those teams is what this thread is about

[/ QUOTE ] Precisely, so with these statements in mind, which I agree with, how can you honestly say that teams with championships from older generations are as impressive as modern teams championships? When the competition is better, the talent is better, and the margin of errors smaller, what is there to really argue?

[/ QUOTE ]

They were more dominant than a team which wins a crapshoot in modern day sports?

ThaSaltCracka · #34 08-16-2007, 05:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Celtics won 11 titles in 13 years, which is better than 4 titles in 10 years. So give the Celtics credit for that. But the Spurs won in a much tougher enviroment, so they get credit for that also. How you balance the achievements of those teams is what this thread is about

[/ QUOTE ] Precisely, so with these statements in mind, which I agree with, how can you honestly say that teams with championships from older generations are as impressive as modern teams championships? When the competition is better, the talent is better, and the margin of errors smaller, what is there to really argue?

[/ QUOTE ]

They were more dominant than a team which wins a crapshoot 3 or 4 times in modern day sports?

[/ QUOTE ]FYP.

Dudd · #35 08-16-2007, 05:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So the question we are asking is what is a bigger success: 13 titles in 11 years in 60s, or 4 titles in 10 years in the 00s?

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly adding an additional year to the 60s along with two extra titles is more impressive. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

MEbenhoe · #36 08-16-2007, 06:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Saying the Packers have 12 titles seems misleading to me, since the vast majority are pre NFL.

[/ QUOTE ]

ummmm what?

[ QUOTE ]
You could probably make a good argument that the Pats most recent success is more impressive than the Packers 12 titles.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol

Kneel B4 Zod · #37 08-16-2007, 06:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

They're also the favorite to win the Super Bowl this year. I hate the Patriots more than anyone but their run is pretty incredible when you factor in how the NFL salary cap works.

[/ QUOTE ]
The Pats run could have easily been the Eagles run (if McNabb stayed healthy) or the Colts run. Especially when you consider there first SB was a complete luckbox.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you just proved the original point - it's incredibly hard to win 3/4 in the NFL these days. some said impossible. 1 or 2 key things go wrong and your chance is gone. I agree that the Pats 1st win had a lot of luck in it, but both the 2003 and 2004 teams were incredibly injured, far more than other recent SB wins had been. plenty went wrong in those 2 years, possibly enough to counter the good luck they had in 2001. it's just that people tend to forget everything that went wrong b/c of how the results ended up.

and as is clear, the Pats run is far from over. They have another solid 3-4 year window to be a SB threat.

edit:

COMPARING THE CHAMPIONS

Games lost by starters of the last 10 Super Bowl champions (written last year by Rick Gosselin):

Year Champion Games
2005 Pittsburgh 16
2004 New England 55
2003 New England 87
2002 Tampa Bay 17
2001 New England 26
2000 Baltimore 21
1999 St. Louis 11
1998 Denver 14
1997 Denver 29
1996 Green Bay 25

those weren't minor injuries either - there were plenty games lost by Richard Seymour, Ty Law, etc. so if you're going to discount 1/3 SB titles b/c they got lucky, you should give extra credit to the 2003 and 2004 teams for being unlucky wrt injuries.

Kneel B4 Zod · #38 08-16-2007, 06:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Saying the Packers have 12 titles seems misleading to me, since the vast majority are pre NFL.

[/ QUOTE ]

ummmm what?

[ QUOTE ]
You could probably make a good argument that the Pats most recent success is more impressive than the Packers 12 titles.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol

[/ QUOTE ]

The Packers won 11 championships over a 28 year period, and for most of those years there were 10 teams in the league. keeping 1 team together was a lot lot easier than today. talent was more more diluted than it was today, and many of the teams were jokes. in 1934 the Cincinnati-St. Louis Reds-Gunners scored 34 points and surrended 304. The Pittsburgh team that year allowed 4 times as many points as they scored. that kind of stuff just doesn't happen anymore.

the Patriots won 3/4 in an era of parity where keeping a team together is near impossible, and there were 32 teams in the league.

ThaSaltCracka · #39 08-16-2007, 06:59 PM

I don't want to be mean, but I think a lot of people fail to understand how little todays current leagues resemble leagues in the past.

BadBoyBenny · #40 08-16-2007, 08:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

They're also the favorite to win the Super Bowl this year. I hate the Patriots more than anyone but their run is pretty incredible when you factor in how the NFL salary cap works.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have some evidence that Pittsburgh had higher salaries than the league average in the 70's or that San Franciso had higher salaries in the 80's? It's not like either the Steelers or the Niners won their Superbowls with free agent talent. I guess you could say the Niner's brought in Deion, Haley, and Norton to get past Dallas for their 5th but other than that all of their championships and all of the Steelers' were won by superior drafting and superior coaching just like the modern Pats.