Defining "Dynasty": Who Makes The Cut?

Duncan will probably go down as the greatest power forward of all time, but his lumbering style and passive attitude are generally cited as the chief reasons why the Spurs have yet to repeat as champs.  The guy has simply never exhibited the fire and drive needed to go after it, year after year.  It takes a cold-blooded leader to repeat, and Duncan—while many things—is not that.  Spurs proponents would argue that a miracle three by Derek Fisher in 2004 and Dirk Nowitzki’s historic three-point play in 2006 are the only things standing between San Antonio and five straight titles.  And they would have a point, except there’s no room for “coulda, woulda, shoulda” when talking dynasty.

I’ll argue that San Antonio’s three titles combined with those plays merit them the moniker of “team of the decade,” but a dynasty?  No.

This is where it gets interesting, because at the beginning of the decade we saw a bona fide dynasty in the Shaq/Kobe Lakers.  Three straight crowns starting with the 1999-00 season.  A loss in the 2004 Finals to the chippy Detroit Pistons—with the additions of Gary Payton and Karl Malone no less—cost the Lakers their shot at being the team of the decade.  That is unless they grab another one in '09…

Now let’s trek back to the 80s, a magnificent era that featured what I must deem a “co-dynasty.”  Magic’s Lakers and Bird’s Celtics won eight of nine NBA titles beginning with the 1979-80 season.  While LA had the upper hand (winning five rings to Boston’s three and two of the three head-to-head showdowns), there’s no doubt that Magic isn’t Magic without Bird and vice-versa.  Same goes for their teams.  The iconic franchises fed off one another, spawned a fervent bicoastal fan base and permanently embedded the sport in American culture.  For that reason the 80s Celtics are the only team to warrant the dynasty tag despite a failure to repeat (they won three of six from ‘81 to ‘86 and appeared in five Finals during that span).

If we’re talking dynasties and iconic players, the argument begins and ends with one man.  Michael Jordan.  The greatest, most prolific champion of the modern era.  His Bulls three-peated from ‘91 to ‘93, and again from ‘96 to ‘98.

He took a break (for reasons still not completely determined) and played baseball for a year and half in between, and his team became mortal without him.  After a truncated return in ‘95 and a second straight loss in the Eastern Conference playoffs for the Bulls, MJ made it clear that the glory days were again on the horizon, and he lived up to his word.  When it was over Jordan had essentially gone six-for-six in his prime, a surreal stretch of individual dominance in what was historically believed to be a team game.

The dynasty debate is one of the great ongoing discussions in sport.  While it will continue to live on—in locker rooms, through the media, around the dinner table—the '90s Bulls are the greatest dynasty in recent American sports history.

Any beef?

You're currently logged into Facebook

Do you want to share your Bleacher Report activity on Facebook?