WWE & TNA Forum
Wrestling News
Loading...


Go Back   WrestleZone Forums > The WrestleZone Forum Archives > Non-Wrestling Archives > Sports Debater's League
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Arcade vBookie

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 01-23-2011, 06:32 PM
Little Jerry Lawler's Avatar
Little Jerry Lawler Little Jerry Lawler is offline
Sigmund Freud On Ritalin And Roids
TNA Champion
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Mississippi
Age: 29
Posts: 3,809
Little Jerry Lawler is getting phone calls from TNA...Little Jerry Lawler is getting phone calls from TNA...Little Jerry Lawler is getting phone calls from TNA...Little Jerry Lawler is getting phone calls from TNA...Little Jerry Lawler is getting phone calls from TNA...Little Jerry Lawler is getting phone calls from TNA...Little Jerry Lawler is getting phone calls from TNA...Little Jerry Lawler is getting phone calls from TNA...Little Jerry Lawler is getting phone calls from TNA...Little Jerry Lawler is getting phone calls from TNA...Little Jerry Lawler is getting phone calls from TNA...
Send a message via AIM to Little Jerry Lawler Send a message via MSN to Little Jerry Lawler
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Megatron View Post
Robinson played in the NL, so they only met when they were in the WS (which did happen quite often). And those are two players.



Many of those players were held down as prospects (such as the Red Sox case) because they were black. 2 AL teams didn't have a black player as late as 1955. They were given a shot, but it wasn't much. The talent pool then isn't as deep as you think (without blacks).



Great dynasties produce great players. The Bulls of the 90s had 2 HOF's and few other solid players, the Cowboys and 49ers both had many great, HOF players during their times. The Packers, as well, produced many great players (plus a coach that the Super Bowl trophy is named after).

Also, there's been just as good of a period of dominance by the Yankees. They won 8 of 9 pennants from 1936 to 1943, including 7 titles. And if we're using the time gap that you used, 1932-1947 (16 seasons) they had 9 titles. So how can a dynasty be considered the greatest if it's own franchise matched it and had two of the greatest players in MLB history on them (Ruth and Gehrig)?

It's not the Yankees fault that black prospects were held back. You said the best players were excluded and I gave you fact that the best were not and most of the great black players were either signed onto teams or were dead/retired.

Either I could have gone with the 1930's and 1940's Yankees or the one I currently with and it would have been better than what you came up with. I went with the one that I felt was better.

EDIT: I forgot about Ernie Banks and Willie Mays
__________________
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-23-2011, 07:12 PM
hatehabsforever's Avatar
hatehabsforever hatehabsforever is offline
Moderator
Mr. Money in the Bank
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Newfoundland and Labrador
Posts: 2,064
hatehabsforever is getting phone calls from TNA...hatehabsforever is getting phone calls from TNA...hatehabsforever is getting phone calls from TNA...hatehabsforever is getting phone calls from TNA...hatehabsforever is getting phone calls from TNA...hatehabsforever is getting phone calls from TNA...hatehabsforever is getting phone calls from TNA...hatehabsforever is getting phone calls from TNA...hatehabsforever is getting phone calls from TNA...hatehabsforever is getting phone calls from TNA...hatehabsforever is getting phone calls from TNA...
Default

I don't really understand how the issue of the exclusion or inclusion of black athletes plays any role whatsoever in terms of assessment of dynasties. There's no question that preventing black athletes from full participation in professional athletics was a terrible thing. It certainly was a violation of their human and civil rights and was a black mark on the history of pro sports. But that has nothing to do with who comprised a dynasty and who did not. A team would be perfectly capable of having a dynasty with or without black athletes, just like another team would be able to disrupt a dynasty, with or without black athletes. This is not a discussion of the morality of roster selection, but a discussion of dynasties. Hardly the venue to introduce racial considerations, that's a separate discussion for a separate thread.

Simple fact of the matter is, the Green Bay Packers run as discussed by Megatron is impressive, but quite simply is nowhere near being significant enough to be considered the greatest ever, in fact I wouldn't even put it in the top ten. I think Megatron is overemphasizing the significance of the coach, much like my friend LSN80 did earlier. I don't really feel like dissecting the post piece by piece, because it can be argued to be an impressive streak. But it pales in comparison to the Celtics, the Bruins, the Bulls, the Yankees, the Oilers, the Islanders, the Canadiens (who I still hate), the Yankees, the Cowboys, and others. All due respect to Megatron, but I have to wholeheartedly disagree with his selection.

Same can be said for the Yankees as well, LJL. An impressive dynasty for sure, in fact I considered them myself. But when put up against the other alternatives, it just left me less impressed than several of the other dynasties. Maybe this is my inherent bias against the Yankees at play, but I just don't see their streak being as impressive as the other dynasties being thrown around.
__________________
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-23-2011, 09:06 PM
newc868's Avatar
newc868 newc868 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 188
newc868 is looking to come up from OCW...newc868 is looking to come up from OCW...newc868 is looking to come up from OCW...newc868 is looking to come up from OCW...newc868 is looking to come up from OCW...newc868 is looking to come up from OCW...newc868 is looking to come up from OCW...
Default

Is it ok if I submit an entry that's late by one day? I've had issues with posting for this due to exam and essay deadlines and I don't really want a third strike.

Thanks.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by D-Man View Post
AJ... Tiny girl, juicy ass. It just doesn't make sense but I don't fucking care.
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-23-2011, 10:22 PM
Megatron's Avatar
Megatron Megatron is offline
Justin Verlander > You
WWE Women's Champion
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 887
Megatron worked a dark match on ECW recently...Megatron worked a dark match on ECW recently...Megatron worked a dark match on ECW recently...Megatron worked a dark match on ECW recently...Megatron worked a dark match on ECW recently...Megatron worked a dark match on ECW recently...Megatron worked a dark match on ECW recently...Megatron worked a dark match on ECW recently...Megatron worked a dark match on ECW recently...Megatron worked a dark match on ECW recently...Megatron worked a dark match on ECW recently...
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boy George Constanza View Post
Either I could have gone with the 1930's and 1940's Yankees or the one I currently with and it would have been better than what you came up with. I went with the one that I felt was better.

EDIT: I forgot about Ernie Banks and Willie Mays
I'd like a reason why instead of shooting them down for no reason.

Look, in football, your career expectancy is less then 5 years. In baseball, there's many players that play at high levels for over a decade. It's not as dangerous of a sport like football is. It's tougher to create a dynasty in football because of how one hit can end a career. That's why 5 titles in 8 years, 6 first place finishes, and only 1 loss (compared to ten wins) in the postseason is something that won't be duplicated ever and has never been accomplished by anyone else (pre or post NFL/AFL merger). The Yankees streak has been accomplished by themselves twice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hatehabsforever View Post
Simple fact of the matter is, the Green Bay Packers run as discussed by Megatron is impressive, but quite simply is nowhere near being significant enough to be considered the greatest ever, in fact I wouldn't even put it in the top ten. I think Megatron is overemphasizing the significance of the coach, much like my friend LSN80 did earlier. I don't really feel like dissecting the post piece by piece, because it can be argued to be an impressive streak. But it pales in comparison to the Celtics, the Bruins, the Bulls, the Yankees, the Oilers, the Islanders, the Canadiens (who I still hate), the Yankees, the Cowboys, and others. All due respect to Megatron, but I have to wholeheartedly disagree with his selection.
How is this selection not significant enough? They're known as the team of the 60's, have won more titles (5) in a single decade then anyone else has. They're the first real team to dominate the postseason the way they did. They had the first real great postseason QB with Starr. And they won the first two Super Bowls, which is now the biggest sporting event that's held annually. I think that's QUITE significant, actually. I'd like an actual reason as to why it doesn't seem like a real dynasty, because it definitely passes the 'eye test' and, when you dig down deeper, looks even more impressive.

And coaching definitely matters. If you have bad coaching, you won't win. Great coaches can get the most out of players and get them to overachieve. Look at a team like the Cowboys from the past year. They have a great deal of talent, but Wade Phillips was so bad he pulled them right out of contention. To say coaching isn't a big deal is ludicris.

EDIT: Also, while the Celtics streak is a top 5 ever, the lack of competition they had in the 50's-60's hurt. Most great players didn't come in until just after their run ended, for other teams, that is. Again, while it could be said (partially) for the Packers with the AFL being active for the most part during their run, they showed in their 2 SB wins that the AFL's best couldn't handle them (both were blowouts).
__________________


Last edited by Megatron : 01-23-2011 at 10:29 PM.
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-23-2011, 10:55 PM
hatehabsforever's Avatar
hatehabsforever hatehabsforever is offline
Moderator
Mr. Money in the Bank
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Newfoundland and Labrador
Posts: 2,064
hatehabsforever is getting phone calls from TNA...hatehabsforever is getting phone calls from TNA...hatehabsforever is getting phone calls from TNA...hatehabsforever is getting phone calls from TNA...hatehabsforever is getting phone calls from TNA...hatehabsforever is getting phone calls from TNA...hatehabsforever is getting phone calls from TNA...hatehabsforever is getting phone calls from TNA...hatehabsforever is getting phone calls from TNA...hatehabsforever is getting phone calls from TNA...hatehabsforever is getting phone calls from TNA...
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Megatron View Post
How is this selection not significant enough? They're known as the team of the 60's, have won more titles (5) in a single decade then anyone else has. They're the first real team to dominate the postseason the way they did. They had the first real great postseason QB with Starr. And they won the first two Super Bowls, which is now the biggest sporting event that's held annually. I think that's QUITE significant, actually. I'd like an actual reason as to why it doesn't seem like a real dynasty, because it definitely passes the 'eye test' and, when you dig down deeper, looks even more impressive.

And coaching definitely matters. If you have bad coaching, you won't win. Great coaches can get the most out of players and get them to overachieve. Look at a team like the Cowboys from the past year. They have a great deal of talent, but Wade Phillips was so bad he pulled them right out of contention. To say coaching isn't a big deal is ludicris.
I think I am giving sufficient credit to the Green Bay Packers and the dynasty to which you refer. I just think they fall well short of what it would take to be considered the greatest dynasty ever.

Sure, they won 5 titles in a single decade. That's impressive. The Celtics won 8 titles in a row. Granted not all in the same decade, but that's irrelevant. 8 in a row still trumps 5 in one decade, even if the 8 spans the end of one decade and the start of the next. And it is incorrect to criticize the Celtics because of their supposed lack of opposition. All Boston could do is play top notch ball against whoever their opponents turned out to be. Plus I don't think you give due respect to whom they played against anyway.

The Chicago Bulls won 6 in the same decade back in the 1990's. Would you find fault with the calibre of their talent as well? The Edmonton Oilers won 5 out of 7 from 1984-1990. The NYIslanders won 4 in a row from 1980-1983. The Montreal Canadiens won 5 in a row in the 1970's. LSN80 cites awesome numbers posted by the UCLA Bruins, as LJL does for the Yankees. Pittsburgh Steelers. Lakers. Spurs. Plenty of teams have compiled dynasties quite comparable to what the Packers did, so I have difficulty considering them the greatest ever. Good, yes, but hardly the best ever.

And of course coaching is significant, I'm not suggesting it doesn't mean anything, I'm simply saying that great teams, superb dynasties can do so regardless of the coach, and excellent coaches can often not produce dynasties. Lombardi was great, they didn't name the trophy after him for nothing. But it takes more than a legendary coach to take statistics which have been replicated often, as I mentioned above, and translate this into claims of the best ever.
__________________
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-23-2011, 11:24 PM
LSN80's Avatar
LSN80 LSN80 is offline
Registered User
United States Champion
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Age: 35
Posts: 2,680
LSN80 is a United States Champion...LSN80 is a United States Champion...LSN80 is a United States Champion...LSN80 is a United States Champion...LSN80 is a United States Champion...LSN80 is a United States Champion...LSN80 is a United States Champion...LSN80 is a United States Champion...LSN80 is a United States Champion...LSN80 is a United States Champion...LSN80 is a United States Champion...
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hatehabsforever View Post
I don't really understand how the issue of the exclusion or inclusion of black athletes plays any role whatsoever in terms of assessment of dynasties. There's no question that preventing black athletes from full participation in professional athletics was a terrible thing. It certainly was a violation of their human and civil rights and was a black mark on the history of pro sports. But that has nothing to do with who comprised a dynasty and who did not. A team would be perfectly capable of having a dynasty with or without black athletes, just like another team would be able to disrupt a dynasty, with or without black athletes. This is not a discussion of the morality of roster selection, but a discussion of dynasties. Hardly the venue to introduce racial considerations, that's a separate discussion for a separate thread..
While I disagree with Megatron's selection as well, I disgaree here more. You stated in arguing AGAINST my choice, the UCLA Bruins, because they weren't competing in the pro's, against the "best of the best." The same was true in the time frame Megatron was discussing, as most black players weren't included. As a result, the competition wasn't "elite". Hard to be a dynasty without the elite competition that goes with it.

Quote:
Simple fact of the matter is, the Green Bay Packers run as discussed by Megatron is impressive, but quite simply is nowhere near being significant enough to be considered the greatest ever, in fact I wouldn't even put it in the top ten. I think Megatron is overemphasizing the significance of the coach, much like my friend LSN80 did earlier.
I want to state this one more time. 10 titles in 12 years with Wooden, no titles for the next 20. Jordan won no titles his first 6 NBA seasons, and won 6 of 6 in HIS next six seasons with Phil Jackson as coach. Either this is one hell of a coincidence, or the coach really does mean alot.

Quote:
Originally posted by Boy George Constanza

Led by Casey Stengal, the Yankees won 14 AL pennants and 9 World Series titles in 16 years. They had Hall of Famers in Mickey Mantle, Whitey Ford, and Yogi Berra. What I think makes this dynasty even greater is the competition they faced. The Yankees were competing against the Brooklyn Dodgers, Milwaukee Braves, Cleveland Indians, and St. Louis Dodgers and dominated the sport of baseball. The only two times they didn't reach the pennant was in 1959 when they had a barely above .500 record (They went to the World Series from 1960-1964) and in 1954 when they had 103 wins but came in second to Cleveland's 111.

Since that dynasty, only the 1972-1974 Athletics and the 1998-2000 Yankees are the only teams to win three consecutive World Series. 1950's and 1960's baseball was some of the best in the history of the sports and the Yankees stood above everyone else and helped set the benchmark for greatness and why the Yankees are baseball's dynasty.
Best dynasty in baseball. Possibly. Best dynasty in sports history? Hardly. What you don't mention is that while they may have been to 14 World Series during that time, they also lost 5. A 9-5 record in the World Series is very good, but it's not great, so it's hard to consider them amongst the great dynasties.

Quote:
Originally posted by Megatron:

My selection for this question is the Green Bay Packers dynasty that lasted from 1960 to the end of the 1967 season. This team, lead by arguably the greatest football coach ever in Vince Lombardi, went 62-24-4 during those 8 years, an average record of 7.75-3-.5 during that span (during the first 3 years there weren't 14 game regular seasons). What's more important is that they were first in the Western Division 6 of those 8 times, won 5 Championships, including the first two Super Bowls. They lost 1 playoff game during this time, the Championship game versus the Eagles in their first season of this dynasty.

This team, and rightfully so, is thought of as the team of the 60's. A common argument could be that some of the competition was taken away by the AFL during the 60's, but the Packers blew out both AFL teams they played in the Super Bowl anyways. Those AFL teams wouldn't have given the Packers much stress at all, since the NFL was the superior league.
But we don't know this for a certainty, because they didn't play them during this time. Again, if you're not playing all of the competition, it's quite hard to be considered the greatest. Even if they were the superior league, they never proved it. It's not their fault, but it certainly means they're not the greatest dynasty.
__________________
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:53 AM.

monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"
Contact Us - Clear Cookies - Lost Password - WrestleZone Forums - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Top - AdChoices