View Single Post
Old
03-23-2013, 03:35 PM
  #113
NorthStar4Canes
Registered User
 
NorthStar4Canes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,322
vCash: 500
Quote:
blogofmikeWhich is good for you. I`m of the opinion that Muhammad Ali was a greater fighter than Rocky Marciano. So is most of the world who has ever heard of them.

Marciano went 49-0 and retired as undisputed World Heavyweight Champion. Ali was 56-5. Ali is almost always ranked ahead of Rocky AINEC. The difference is `what`s behind the wins.
Uh, the parallel you would be drawing by using the "best fighter" between Ali/Marciano would be 'Who was the best team" between the Isles/Oil. That is NOT the question asked in the poll. Is it that you wish the question to be "Who was the best team" so badly why you can't seem to wrap your head around the one that actually was; Which was the greater dynasty? `

Quote:
This one is closer than Ali-Marciano, but it is still worth looking into silly little things like quality of opposition when determining what dynasty is greater.
Oh, by all means go ahead and "look into it" even though you're mostly answering a "best team" question in doing so. Some of us were there watching all those teams and playoffs. We knew the teams and players including the losers, not just the winners. And yes, I do seem to remember people debating "the quality of opposition" as one of many obvious factors to the very same question, but thanks anyway. Also, since those 2 dynasties weren't separated by decades but ran back to back, it wasn't like it was difficult research to do, and therefore, not very difficult to develop opinions on at the time. Why on earth would something you do now be more worthy than watching and living the entire picture then when it comes to forming an opinion?

And to reiterate, the opinion we're talking about here is "what was the greater dynasty".

IMO, after careful consideration of all factors including the strength of opposition (and thanks again for that Mr. Obvious. I hadn't forgotten it since 30 years ago but thanks all the same) the fact that the Oil lost after 2 Cup wins, and never won more than 2 in a row/couldn't defend its championship more than once each time represents vulnerability to it's dominance that was exploited. The Islanders managed 4 wins/3 defences before someone exploited theirs. If the Oil had won 4 in a row to match that record, or if the 2 dynasties were seperated by any great length of time, then other factors might carry more weight. But as it was, the Oil proved vulnerable in only half the time the Islanders were shown to be. To me, being more vulnerable and losing does NOT equate to being "greater", and any notion of weakness you attempt to assign other teams 25 to 30 years after the fact isn't going to turn losing into some sort of psuedo-win for the Oilers.

In my book, a bona fide winning streak of 4 Championships represents unblemished dominance and therefore a greater dynasty than a couple repeats separated by losing does.


Last edited by NorthStar4Canes: 03-23-2013 at 03:42 PM.
NorthStar4Canes is offline   Reply With Quote