Discuss?

I say no.

I think you can. Spurs are about to win their 4th in 9 seasons, just like the 49ers did in the '80s, and everyone agrees that the Montana-led Niners were a dynasty. The one difference is that the Niners did get a back-to-back, at the end of their championship run. But if they had won in '87 and '89, instead of '88 and '89, who would have cared, in terms of whether they were a "dynasty" or not? In fact, that would given them the exact same 9-year pattern as the Spurs: winning in years 1, 5, 7, and 9. As it turned out, SF won the Super Bowl in years 1, 5, 8, and 9. I don't see why that constitutes a difference of any significance.

I say yes.

__________________

When you factor in division titles, regular season records and the award selections of the key players, you can build a compelling case.

If a team came from nowhere, won 3 straight titles and sank back into the middle of the pack, I'm not sure that is a dynasty. The key thing about a dynasty in my mind is that it spans more than one generation (Montana => Young).

In this regard, the Spurs qualify going from Johnson, Robinson, Elliott, Duncan to Duncan, Parker, Ginobili, Bowen.

In my mind, there are only 4 NBA dynasties. The Spurs, The Bulls, The Celts and the Lakers.

__________________
Momma was queen of the mambo, Poppa was king of the congo, deep down in the jungle, I start banging my first bongo
Every monkey like to be, in my place instead of me, cause I'm the king of bongo baby, I'm the king of bongo bong
-Manu Chao

I think you do need a back to back. The Spurs are an excellent team, but a GREAT team....a dynasty team needs a back to back IMO.

I'd say that is a pretty big difference with respect to this discussion.

and the 99' title is a pretty weak one.

Also football has even shorter career spans and is more difficult to win due to single elimination/injuries being more common/shorter careers/more players per team/etc.

This is why I wanted the Pistons to win this year or even the Mavs if they had got there to put an end to all that Spurs Dynasty talk. I like the Spurs ( and love Barb San Ant) but it's something about David Robinson sitting on the sidelines grinning or Horry, Genobli and Bowen getting away with rough play that irks me about them. That is another reason why I wanted the Cavs to win at least a couple of games so this talk wouldn't get out of hand. Right now the Spurs are 15-5 in their four finals series with only the 2005 Pistons giving them the most trouble with 3 of those 5 losses.

Speaking of the Lakers Dynasty, I am assuming you are talking about the Magic led Lakers of 80's that sailed 5 Ships in 9 years and not the Shaq and Kobe 3 and done Lakers the at the beginning of this century that faked out superior competition in the western conference finals only to roll over the weaker competition the east thru up those three years.

Or the earlier (Minn/LA) Laker teams that went to 10 Finals in 15 years. They only won a single title, but that is a very impressive run. Transitioning from Elgin Baylor to Wilt Chamberlain.

__________________
Momma was queen of the mambo, Poppa was king of the congo, deep down in the jungle, I start banging my first bongo
Every monkey like to be, in my place instead of me, cause I'm the king of bongo baby, I'm the king of bongo bong
-Manu Chao

I would think that it is not a necessity to win back-to-back, but it has to be at least 3 titles and the team has to be successful over the period of time. I agree that 3 and done Lakers do not qualify.

A title is a title. 4 titles from the same team led by one guy (Duncan) has got to be a dynasty. It's a level of excellence not seen by any other team besides the "big three".

A better way to ponder this question would be to ask yourself, if Detroit had done what San Antonio has done, would you feel they were a dynasty?

My answer is yes.