View Single Post
03-20-2013, 11:48 PM
Registered User
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 29,850
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by NorthStar4Canes View Post
Consecutive championships trumps non-consecutive every time when it comes to "dynasty". Remaining on top after reaching the top is as fundamental as it gets to the question no matter how much you wish otherwise or try to imply those that disagree with you are stupid. If the Oil had won 4 straight, then you'd have a starting point for the rest of your argument down the route you want (where you're trying to prove the Oil was a better team or something. that's a different question). As it stands, their unblemished streak of Cups doesn't match the Isles.
I'm not claiming that anyone who disagrees with me is stupid. I'm claiming that anyone who stops thinking at the consecutive part in an effort to keep it simple. I think it's stupid because it forces you to accept that the '55-60 Habs were a "better" dynasty than the '75-79 Habs because not only is consecutive better, but obviously more, consecutively, is automatically better. It's that simple, right? And obviously the Leafs' dynasty of '61-64 is automatically, without debate, better than the Detroit dynasty of '49-55, right, because 3 consecutive Cup trumps the fact that the Detroit squad only managed consecutive Cups once out of their 4?

Yeah, there are enough examples for me to conclude that simple counting of Cups in a row is stupid as an attempted be-all, end-all argument for comparing dynasties.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote