115 replies to this topic

[Lakers_55]

You seriously hate the C's i love it

No, I actually love them. The reason is I can bash them so much, and it's easy because I see the whole story.

Look, the two most annoyng fan bases in the world are:
1) New York Yankees. I have met plenty who belive if the Almighty Himself went up against a New York team, He would lose.
2) Boston Celtics: They live exclusively in the past.

I suppose we are in contention for #3. but that isn't the point. In my life, I have known in person, plenty of #1's and #2's. I won't deal with the New York fans in this thread. I actually like the Knicks, a lot, and have always respected them. To me, the Lakers Knicks rivalry 1970-73 was incredible, two wonderful teams. I will have no problem if the Knicks turn it around and start winning titles, hopefully not against us.

I came in at the tail end of the Lakers Celtics rivarly. I was in 7th-8th grade in 1967-69 when we lost our last two series to Russell's teams. It was at this point in my life I hit puberty, well ahead of my classmates, and enjoyed an incredible height advantage. I was one of the best basketball players at school, for awhile, until they caught up to me. No one could get a rebound away from me. No one could stop me by the basket. One of my good friends, and a better player, was a big Lakers fan. If not for him, I may not have become a Lakers fan, hadn't really heard of them, I was more into the Dodgers and the Angels. I didn't even watch the Lakers on TV or listen to them on the radio until 1969-70. So, the last two losses to Boston were something I just read about in the newspaper, as usual. What got me really into the Lakers was the night in 1969 when Wilt went down to a likely season ending injury. I tuned in on the radio that night and poor Chick Hearn was simply devasted. From that point on, I watched or listened to every game I could, to see how the Lakers would do without their big man. Been a loyal fan ever since.


During high school, there was no Lakers/Celtics rivalry, Boston ducked us in 1972, and 1973. After that, it took until 1984 to get it going again, plus a couple more seasons where Boston tanked to avoid losing to the Lakers. It was at this point in my adult life that I started meeting, mostly through work and school, plenty of Celtics fans. All they could do is harp on us for the 60's. Boston fans didn't really hate the Lakers that much until 1985, when little brother grew up and we started beating them. Signs were showing in the early 80's they were starting to despise us because we had a great team and they were second fiddle to the Sizers, who we beat 2 of 3 finals. Anyway, we sent them into oblivioon in 1987 and the hate from them started to grow. We dominated the 80's and they didn't.

In 2008, the old Celtics fans rejoined the bandwagon and plenty of new ones came aboard. They thought beating us again was to be expected, as they had done so many times years ago. As my signature shows, the head to head could be closer if they were as good as they think they are, but they aren't. Celtics fans love to cherry pick, selecting only what they want to. I know before we beat them in 2010, one C's fan was going on how Kobe had never beat the Celtics, only Kareem and Magic could. My response was where was Boston when Kobe was winning his other 4 rings? Of course, 2002 Boston ducked us, but other than that, they were fishing.

Celtics fans can only dwell on the past. Few fans are alive today that witnessed Boston's glory years. You have to be at least 67 to have seen it all, and even thought of remembering any of it. Median age in the USA is about 37, meaning half the Celtics fans were born after 1974 and remember 1 Celtics title, 2 if they are lucky. However, they have seen countless Lakes titles, and grandpappy always told them Celtics were better than the Lakers. Why wasn't it happening now? That translates to Lakers hate. Call it envy, call it whatever. Reality is, we are the better franchise.

Beyond those 17 banners, Boston Celtics history is a walking disaster.

Since Russell left:
13 times missed playoffs, including a recent 6 year in a row spell.
13 times lost series with home court advantage. Larry Bird accounts for 7 of them, pathetic!
9 first round playoff losses.
6 titles, but no back to back.
Countless seasons with very few wins.
Ducked Jordan's Bulls, only beat him before he got teammates
Dominated/Outshown in the Bird era by Sixers up front, Pistons at end, and Lakers throughout. In fact, in the modern era, the Lakers have a 10-4 title advantage!

No one cars what Boston did in hte stoneage. Those 11 Russell titles don't hold up anymore for a claim for them to be best. Yes, it's most titles, but those titles aren't worth as much as one earned today. I have asked plenty of Celtics fans in real life and on line, would they trade those Russell titles with the Lakers current ones if they still had 1 17-16 title advantage and 10-4 in the modern era? They won't answer, not a single one. Why? Because it proves my point, those Russell era titles aren't worth much. Of course they would trade them, but admitting they would trade them proves my point. They can't say no either because they are left holding that worthless stoneage fabric. So, they don't answer. That also proves my point.

Yep, i love the Celtics and their delusional fans. Bring them all to me, I'll take care of them set them straight. Little brother grew up and the NBA is the Lakers league, and has been for years.

Edited by Lakers_55, April 02, 2011 - 05:26 PM.

[LakerGirl24]

No, I actually love them. The reason is I can bash them so much, and it's easy because I see the whole story.

Look, the two most annoyng fan bases in the world are:
1) New York Yankees. I have met plenty who belive if the Almighty Himself went up against a New York team, He would lose.
2) Boston Celtics: They live exclusively in the past.

I suppose we are in contention for #3. but that isn't the point. In my life, I have known in person, plenty of #1's and #2's. I won't deal with the New York fans in this thread. I actually like the Knicks, a lot, and have always respected them. To me, the Lakers Knicks rivalry 1970-73 was incredible, two wonderful teams. I will have no problem if the Knicks turn it around and start winning titles, hopefully not against us.

I came in at the tail end of the Lakers Celtics rivarly. I was in 7th-8th grade in 1967-69 when we lost our last two series to Russell's teams. It was at this point in my life I hit puberty, well ahead of my classmates, and enjoyed an incredible height advantage. I was one of the best basketball players at school, for awhile, until they caught up to me. No one could get a rebound away from me. No one could stop me by the basket. One of my good friends, and a better player, was a big Lakers fan. If not for him, I may not have become a Lakers fan, hadn't really heard of them, I was more into the Dodgers and the Angels. I didn't even watch the Lakers on TV or listen to them on the radio until 1969-70. So, the last two losses to Boston were something I just read about in the newspaper, as usual. What got me really into the Lakers was the night in 1969 when Wilt went down to a likely season ending injury. I tuned in on the radio that night and poor Chick Hearn was simply devasted. From that point on, I watched or listened to every game I could, to see how the Lakers would do without their big man. Been a loyal fan ever since.


During high school, there was no Lakers/Celtics rivalry, Boston ducked us in 1972, and 1973. After that, it took until 1984 to get it going again, plus a couple more seasons where Boston tanked to avoid losing to the Lakers. It was at this point in my adult life that I started meeting, mostly through work and school, plenty of Celtics fans. All they could do is harp on us for the 60's. Boston fans didn't really hate the Lakers that much until 1985, when little brother grew up and we started beating them. Signs were showing in the early 80's they were starting to despise us because we had a great team and they were second fiddle to the Sizers, who we beat 2 of 3 finals. Anyway, we sent them into oblivioon in 1987 and the hate from them started to grow. We dominated the 80's and they didn't.

In 2008, the old Celtics fans rejoined the bandwagon and plenty of new ones came aboard. They thought beating us again was to be expected, as they had done so many times years ago. As my signature shows, the head to head could be closer if they were as good as they think they are, but they aren't. Celtics fans love to cherry pick, selecting only what they want to. I know before we beat them in 2010, one C's fan was going on how Kobe had never beat the Celtics, only Kareem and Magic could. My response was where was Boston when Kobe was winning his other 4 rings? Of course, 2002 Boston ducked us, but other than that, they were fishing.

Celtics fans can only dwell on the past. Few fans are alive today that witnessed Boston's glory years. You have to be at least 67 to have seen it all, and even thought of remembering any of it. Median age in the USA is about 37, meaning half the Celtics fans were born after 1974 and remember 1 Celtics title, 2 if they are lucky. However, they have seen countless Lakes titles, and grandpappy always told them Celtics were better than the Lakers. Why wasn't it happening now? That translates to Lakers hate. Call it envy, call it whatever. Reality is, we are the better franchise.

Beyond those 17 banners, Boston Celtics history is a walking disaster.

Since Russell left:
13 times missed playoffs, including a recent 6 year in a row spell.
13 times lost series with home court advantage. Larry Bird accounts for 7 of them, pathetic!
9 first round playoff losses.
6 titles, but no back to back.
Countless seasons with very few wins.
Ducked Jordan's Bulls, only beat him before he got teammates
Dominated/Outshown in the Bird era by Sixers up front, Pistons at end, and Lakers throughout. In fact, in the modern era, the Lakers have a 10-4 title advantage!

No one cars what Boston did in hte stoneage. Those 11 Russell titles don't hold up anymore for a claim for them to be best. Yes, it's most titles, but those titles aren't worth as much as one earned today. I have asked plenty of Celtics fans in real life and on line, would they trade those Russell titles with the Lakers current ones if they still had 1 17-16 title advantage and 10-4 in the modern era? They won't answer, not a single one. Why? Because it proves my point, those Russell era titles aren't worth much. Of course they would trade them, but admitting they would trade them proves my point. They can't say no either because they are left holding that worthless stoneage fabric. So, they don't answer. That also proves my point.

Yep, i love the Celtics and their delusional fans. Bring them all to me, I'll take care of them set them straight. Little brother grew up and the NBA is the Lakers league, and has been for years.

You speak the truth! What I hate most about Celtic fans is that they live in the past as you said... but I didn't start hating them until I moved to Boston for grad school two years ago. I've been a diehard Laker fan since I was 9 years old, and that just so happens to be when Kobe came into the league. If you do the math, I was born in 1987 when we "sent (the Celtics) into oblivion." Ever since I was born, we have only faced the Celtics three times in the finals. We beat them twice and lost once, but other than that we've won five other rings and they've won... zero. My dad used to tell me about the Lakers-Celtics rivalry back in the day, and I knew that I was supposed to hate them as a Laker fan, but honestly they were completely irrelevant to me until 2008. All of a sudden Boston was acting like they were the superior team all along, but still I've only witnessed ONE year of this so called "superiority" in my entire life! Even though we won the chip in 2009 and beat the Celtics in 2010, they still somehow think they're the better franchise! In my opinion, the Celtics have no right calling themselves our rivals. That rivalry died a looong time ago, and I fully expect Boston to go through another dry spell after this year. Then in 20+ years, they'll finally make it back to the finals and they'll once again act like they had been there all along. Buck Foston!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Lakers_55]

You speak the truth! What I hate most about Celtic fans is that they live in the past as you said... but I didn't start hating them until I moved to Boston for grad school two years ago. I've been a diehard Laker fan since I was 9 years old, and that just so happens to be when Kobe came into the league. If you do the math, I was born in 1987 when we "sent (the Celtics) into oblivion." Ever since I was born, we have only faced the Celtics three times in the finals. We beat them twice and lost once, but other than that we've won five other rings and they've won... zero. My dad used to tell me about the Lakers-Celtics rivalry back in the day, and I knew that I was supposed to hate them as a Laker fan, but honestly they were completely irrelevant to me until 2008. All of a sudden Boston was acting like they were the superior team all along, but still I've only witnessed ONE year of this so called "superiority" in my entire life! Even though we won the chip in 2009 and beat the Celtics in 2010, they still somehow think they're the better franchise! In my opinion, the Celtics have no right calling themselves our rivals. That rivalry died a looong time ago, and I fully expect Boston to go through another dry spell after this year. Then in 20+ years, they'll finally make it back to the finals and they'll once again act like they had been there all along. Buck Foston!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Great, post, thanks. Yes, the Celtics are not our rivals. They were when basketball was a new sport. They are just lucky Red Auerbach figured the game out well ahead of everyone else. Today, the Spurs and Suns are our real rivals, and you could make a case for a number of teams as well. As far as measuring franchises goes, who says most titles is best? As I pointed out, if this is true, then the Princeton Tigers are far and away the greatest collegiate football program of all time. Sorry, NOT. If an election is close, a recount is done. 17-16 is close, and a closer look shows just about every advantage comes up Lakers. I beat to a pulp one annoying Celtics fan in this debate two years ago. His logic was flawed, hypocritical, and just plain wrong. I'll summarize that epic battle soon. Boston used to be the best franchise but when they went into a deep sleep, we passed them up.

[Real Deal]

You've definitely earned my respect, Lakers_55. Huge props, not only in the way you argue your points, but sharing info most of us are too young to know from a personal experience (and I'm saying that at 27 years old, haha). Good stuff.

[L.A.K.E.R]

Lakers_55, you're a living encyclopedia for anything Lakers/Celtics. Love your posts, full of so much information. You're a huge asset for all us younger fans on here.

[Carpe Diem]

You've definitely earned my respect, Lakers_55. Huge props, not only in the way you argue your points, but sharing info most of us are too young to know from a personal experience (and I'm saying that at 27 years old, haha). Good stuff.

youre 27?

[True Lakers Fan]

youre 27?

No he just saying that to say that LoL

[Carpe Diem]

And in 1969, Lakers were to be champion. I hate how we lost and that stupid injury Chamberlain got. Grrr. same as in 66.

[Lakers_55]

Since this thread is now about how Boston is over-hyped today, (at least by Celtics fans) based upon their domination over the Lakers in Russell's era, I thought I would clear a few things up,.

First, in response to silly Celtics trolls, who are nervous the Lakers are going to catch and surpass Boston in total titles, and thus attacked the validity of the Lakers counting the titles won in Minneapolis, I went right after their manhood, the Bill Russell titles in this thread:

http://lakernation.c...ell-era-titles/

If you look at the Russell era, you will find the Lakers lost 7 times to them, 1959, 1962, 1963, 1965, 1966, 1968, and 1969. Before I discuss that, let me explain this era was more about Russell versus Chamberlain than about the Celtics versus the Lakers. Bill and Wilt met 8 times in the playoffs, 1960, 1962, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969, with Boston winning all except 1967. See, as far as the the league went, there was no player who even came close to the talent Wilt had, period. There was no comparable big man to Wilt. Chamberlain was the GOAT and number 2 in NBA history wasn't even close. As Chamberlain put it: "I would always beat the pants off Russell, but his 4 guys would beat my 4 guys". If you refer to my thread above, you will see why, the Celtics were stacked against the league, far more so than any team in NBA history. Now, consider for a moment the NBA from 2000-2003. In essence, the WCF was pretty much the defacto finals in each of those years, the east had no chance, whatsoever. Well, for most of the Russell era it was exactly like that as well. Whoever won the east was going to have HCA and win the title. Russell didn't have the skills to take Wilt down on his own, he needed help and he had it. Therefore, a bunh of little David's slew Goliath. Suppose for a moment, the NBA was one division all those years. It would have come down to a Celtics versus Wilt finals more often than not. Doubtful if the Lakers ever make the finals until 1969. We probably would have lost a few series against Boston before the finals, and we would have lost a few to Wilt. But the stigma attached to the Lakers for always losing to the Celtics, and the value of those wins by Boston over us would be greatly diminshed. Just from that scenario alone it clearly shows the era is Russell over Wilt, not Celtics over Lakers. When you realize professional basketball was still in its infancy, the value of this era goes down quite a bit. There have been few Wilt Chamberlains since, a man well ahead of his time.

Now, as far as those 7 finals losses go, 1958, the Lakers had no business being there. 33-39 regular season record and upset the St. Louis Hawks in the WCF who had won 16 more games than the Lakers. After that, the 6 finals losses are unfortunate, and all except 1969 were expected. However, the Lakers did manage to take those Celtics to 7 games several times, led primarily by Jerry West and Elgin Baylor. Think of the 2009 first round series where Chicago took Boston to 7. Remember how exciting that was? Lakers did it 3 times. Wilt did it many times as well. Boston should have been sweeping every year with the lineups they had, they didn't. I say Boston didn't live up to their expectations year in and year out, 11 titles be damned.

I'll continue the Lakers Celtics history soon.

[Lakers_55]

I meant to mention in my post above that Chamberlain's teams were favored against Russell's in 1966-1969, but only won once. For the most part, I believe this can be attributed to the fact the the Russell Celtics knew how to win, no other team did. However, it all worked out for the best for us. If Wilt's Sixers keep that 3-1 1968 ECF finals lead with HCA they had over Boston, Chamberlain never gets traded to the Lakers. Yeah, Boston gets two more titles they wouldn't have, and two more wins against us in 1968-69, but Wilt's Sixers probably keep winning through the mid 70's. Chamberlain likely would have plyed another 5-8 years, he was in condition for it. Kareem may never come to the Lakers, no Magic, and so on. So Boston, you beat us too many times, now you're getting your comeuppance.

[Lakers_55]

The Lakers Celtics rivalry lay dormant for the next 10 years. There were two potential matchups, in 1972-73, but Boston lost the ECF twice, both times with HCA. The Lakers or the Celtics were in the finals 5 of 7 seasons from 1970-76. The Knicks were called basketball's next dynasty, then the Bucks were a year later. Lakers surprised the world in 1972, winning it all, and that incredible 33 game win streak. Some "experts" even picked the Sonics to win the Pacific.So, no dynasties. No one won back to back until the Lakers did in 1988. There were some potential repeats though.

In 1970 and 1971 while the Celtics were missing the playoffs and rebuilding, the Lakers played and lost the finals in 1970. As mentioned, Chamberlain missed nearly the entire year. He wasn't expected back, but defied the expert and was there. Certainly, there were chances to win that title. With the series tied 1-1 Jerry West tied things up with his 59 footer at the buzzer, only for the Lakers to lose in OT. Next game went OT again, but the Lakers prevailed. Game 5 was where we missed our golden opportunity. Willis Reed went down to injury and we had about a 15 point lead in the 3rd quarter. Then New York started a comeback. I still remember the frustration as Elgin Baylor, on consecutive plays, was dribbling the ball upcourt and had it stolen from him by Walt Frazier, who broke away for layups. We won game 6 in a blowout, but the famous game where Reed returned followed, and the Knicks shot lights out. 1971 Baylor missed all but 2 games. He was in uniform, and on the bench at the end, and might have played if we made the finals, but Jerry West was lost late in the year and we lost in the ECF to the Bucks.

1971-72 is interesting for the Lakers/Celtics rivalry because Boston suddenly ran away with the best record in the east, and was favored to make the finals. However, all the talk was about the Lakers and the Bucks, two 60+ win teams. Everyone talked about that series as the defacto finals, whoever won it, would win the finals. No one, I repeat no one, spoke about the possibility of the Celtics beating the Lakers because of past history if that matchup happened. With Willis Reed out with an injury it certainly seemed Boston would make it, but they ducked us. I still firmly believe they honestly ducked us, and tanked. It was obvious the Lakers were going to win the title if they made the finals, and no way did Boston want to be our victim. Celtics lost first two games to the Knicks in a H-A-H-A-H-A-H format, won game 3 at home, and lost the last two. The Lakers had convincingly beaten them 4 of 5 games in the regular season.

1973 is a curious case. Once again Boston ran away with the east, nearly matching our then record 69 wins with 68 of their own. to make matters worse, we only won 60 games, but lost all 4 games we played to them in the regular season. Once again, Boston choked in the ECF to the Knicks, who now had Willis Reed. True, they lost Havlicek for game 7, but they still fell short. Matter of fact, they fell behind 3-1 and had to fight back to tie it. Did they duck us? I say they did, No way does Boston beat us missing their best player, and they knew it. Red Auerbach was a sneaky guy, and a coward in this case. Boston also knew we would excorcise the demons of the 60's and whip them if we played. They cost us a title, but we did have HCA versus the Knicks, we just blew that series, badly.

In 1974, Wilt was gone, Jerry West was hurt at the end, and we almost didn't even make the playoffs. West retired after and we missed the playoffs next two years. Boston had the best record next 3 years in the east., and lost ECF in 1975. 1974, Boston had some luck in the finals as Milwaukee was missing starting guard Lucius Allen. Strange series, Bucks had HCA but the road team won 5 games, including the last 3. In 1975 Boston would have held HCA against Golden State, but they lost the ECF. In 1976, Boston caught a break when the 42-40 Phoenix Suns upset the Warriors who had the best record in the league. Boston had some trouble putting Phoenix away, they were lucky the Warriors choked, or Golden State probably would have repeated. After 1976, Boston faded and went into rebuild mode, where they did find Larry Bird. Lakers parlayed our young guys into Kareem and Gail Goodrich turned into Magic Johnson. Lakers managed 4 WCF appearances, and scored 3-1. Celtics managed 5 ECF appearances and managed 2-3. This period seems virtually even, with the Celtics getting one more title. However, those 3 ECF's lost with HCA are a big mark against Boston, those are series they should have won, and it cost them a shot at 3 more titles. The Leprachaun was clearly dead. Edge in the 70's to the Lakers. We also made the WCF in 1977 and as noted, Boston missed the playoffs two more seasons. We should have had 2 finals wins against them, and one more title.

I'll cover the 1980's next.

Edited by Lakers_55, April 03, 2011 - 06:44 PM.

[Carpe Diem]

In the 70s, 8 different teams won it. No one dominated that era.

In the 80s, we all know lakers MURDER the NBA. 8 finals/ 5 championships to Boston 5 finals/3 champions. Also we won it back to back.

90 is on us, 2000 is on us. Boston sucks. 22 years away from the finals. How can u call it greatest franshice? Even lakers made it to the finals Every era.

16 champions
31 finals
41 WCF
28 division titles
5 missed playoffs

In 62 seasons..It's quality over quanity
Men lie, women lie, numbers don't - jay z

Edited by Carpe Diem, April 03, 2011 - 09:35 PM.

[Lakers_55]

In the 70s, 8 different teams won it. No one dominated that era.

In the 80s, we all know lakers MURDER the NBA. 8 finals/ 5 championships to Boston 5 finals/3 champions. Also we won it back to back.

90 is on us, 2000 is on us. Boston sucks. 22 years away from the finals. How can u call it greatest franshice? Even lakers made it to the finals Every era.

16 champions
31 finals
41 WCF
28 division titles
5 missed playoffs

In 62 seasons..It's quality over quanity
Men lie, women lie, numbers don't - jay z

Nice recap, I'll go into detail. Boston calls themselves the greatest franchise and it all has to tie into the Russell era and their finals advantage over us, both of which are vastly overrated. Again, it's the Lakers dominance since that provides the reason they hate us so much. If they were truly so much greater than us, they wouldn't hate us, period.

The claims I made above that the Celtics may have intentionally ducked us by tanking in 1972 and 1973 are my opinion, and I just thought of them yesterday as I was making my posts. They actually make perfect sense. You have to realize what that Lakers team did in 1971-72 was absolutely incredible. Imagine, 33 consecutive wins! All the Lakers had to do was win the west and it was an automatic finals win, period. If Boston makes the finals, they are going to be forever attached to that Lakers legacy. Auerbach, at the time, was still a step up on the league and knew he had a title contending team. Let them lose a couple of years while the Lakes age (Wilt and West were getting up there). Red also had to figure without Havlicek, he had no chance against the Lakers in 1973, and the attachement to 1972 would still be the same. What a coward. Red had one more rebuilding trick up his sleeve. Unfortunately, the guy he made the maddest in the 60's became Lakers general manager and simply out manuevered him. Red beat Jerry too many times, and West proved to be his superior in the end. Note: Guess who the losing coach was when the Minneapolis Lakers won their first title? It was one Arnold "Red" Auerbach, Somehow, that stat gets overlooked, lucky for him.

Before I get into the 80s, there is one important point to make as to how Celtics fans overrate their team against ours. It happened then, it happened in 2008. Celtics drew first blood against us. This of course once again leads to the overrating of their series advantage over us. Plus, we had to endure torment from their fans until we settled the score. I can't tell you how grand 1985 and 1987 were for me, when we ripped the heart right out of that team and I was able to shove the smack right back into many a chowderhead's face.

The 1980's changed the NBA forever due to the entrance of Larry Bird and Magic Johnson into the league, ushering in the modern era of basketball. They not only saved the league from going broke, they paved the way for every great who came after due to it's popularity. The fact that one went to the Lakers and the other to the Celtics revived the 60's rivalry which was still fresh in many fans minds.Magic and Bird had tehir own rivalry already, having met in the spring of 1979 in the NCAA basketball finals. We all know Magic's Michigan State Spartans, beat Larry's Indiana State Sycamores. However, having lived through it, I can add just a bit. Bird had already been drafted by Boston, in 1978 since he had redshirted a season. (There was very little mentioned about this, plus Boston was irrelevant at the time). Magic came to the NBA early, skipping a couple of years of eligibilty, but he was ready. What's most important about that NCAA season, as far as hype goes, it all went to Larry Brid. As I recall it was close to 100% for him. Here was a white player, having an incredible year, and leading a small school to an undefeated season. This was Cinderella at her best. Bird was expected to win it all. I remember a discussion at work, it was all Bird. Someone mentioned Magic Johnson during lunchtime and a few people didn't even know who he was! The hype Bird got was comparable to the attention paid to LeBron last summer for "The Decision" except it was all positive!

When the Bird/Magic era closed, Johnson won it, and by a much larger margin than you may think. I'll get to that next.

Edited by Lakers_55, April 04, 2011 - 10:12 AM.

[LakerGirl24]

Lakers_55, you are officially my favorite Laker fan

[Lakers_55]

Thanks for the comments about my posts friends!

Much of which follows I have said elsewhere already, but it bears repeating. Effectively, the Bird/Magic era lasted 12 seasons. Larry played one more year. So, from 1980 to 1991 the Lakers played in 10 WCF's, 9 finals and won 5 championships. Boston played in 8 ECF's, 5 finals and won 3 championships.One argument for Celtics supremacy, I refuted on Celticsblog itself, and posted here back in 2009. The argument is Boston had to play Dr. J.'s Sixers, the Bad Boy Pistons, and MJ's Bulls, while the Lakers didn't have any sustained rival in the west. Therefore if Boston played in hte west, they would have about 10 more titles. This is absolutely ridiculous. I won't go into detail but defy any Celtics fan to show what seasons they would be clear cut favorites to win it all, let alone even get to the finals in years they didn't.

Let's break Bird's part of the era into thirds, 1980-1983, 1984-1987, 1988-1991. Boston was only east dominant in the middle third, and equal to the Lakers in titles during that span! First, Larry was the only real piece to a championship in place in 1980, but he still led the Celtics to the best league record, and won rookie of the year. Everyone knows if they held the vote until after the playoffs, Magic runs away with it. McHale and Parish arrived in 1980-81, Dennis Johnson in 1983-84, and Bill Walton in 1985-86, All shrewd and well crafted deals and steals.

In 1980-83, Dr. J's Sixers beat Bird's Celtics 2-1. Those Sixers that beat Boston lost to the Lakers. In 1983, Boston ducked the Sixers in Moses Malone's first year by getting swept with HCA by the Bucks. Do you see a pattern here? It's happening quite often, and there will be more!
In 1984-87, Bird's Celtics beat Dr. J;s Sixers in 1985 and we beat those Celtics! Boston did beat the Bad Boy Pistons, barely in 1987, thanks to Larry Bird's steal end of game 5. Otherwise it's back to Detroit down 3-2. Maybe Boston comes back,. However, we still beat those Celtics! During this time, Boston was beating Jordan's Bulls, but sans Scottie Pippen and Phil Jackson!
1988-1991. Boston lost 3 times to the Pistons, twice with HCA! In 1990 Boston got up 2-0 on the Knicks, had HCA and lost the last 3 games. Why? Winner played none other than the Detroit Pistons! The capper was 1991 when they, get this, ducked Jordan's Bulls with both Piippen and Phil Jackson in place. Now, the Lakers played those same Pistons twice, and split. Maybe we beat them in 1989 if Magic and Scott don't go down. Riley's last year, we had best NBA record and lost in round 2. We would have had a great shot to take them down had Riley not lost the team. Against Chicago, we lost James Worthy and did what we could. Not making excuses for our losses, but at least we showed up to play and didn't duck anyone! By now, I think it's pretty obvious either 1) Boston ducks teams, 2) Boston isn't as good as they think they are. 3) All of the above. I chose 3).

Now, let's look at the Lakers year by year. First the Lakers had a full huge step up on Boston. Kareem, Wilkes, and Nixon were already in place when Magic joined us, and Cooper had barely played in 1979. Effectively, he was rookie team material, but not eligible.

1980 Beat Sixers who beat Boston
1981 Lost round 1 to Rockets 1-2. Magic was hurt most the year and clearly affected us, he wasn't 100%. We could have taken down either Sixers again, or Boston. Crazy year, all the best western teams lost. Bottom two seeds at 40-42 played in WCF to be the third team with a losing record to face the Celtics in the finals.
1982 Beat Sixers who beat Boston.
1983. Lost to Sixers. We were banged up, but it was Philly's year. Boston ducked Sixers.
1984 Lost to Celtics. Yeah, we lost. That toughened us up. Even Bird said we should have swept them, but that's water under the bridge
1985 We beat Boston who beat Sixers.
1986. We lost to Rockets in WCF.Don't blame this on Ralph Sampson's turnaround buzzer beater. If it misses we still go to over time down 1-3 in games. Blame it on losing HCA in game 2, and not inning it back in games 3 or 4. Someone once told me Lakers ducked the Celtics that year. I say no, they were lucky we lost. True it was Boston's best team of Bird's era, and they only lost 1 game at home, but 1984 still needed payback, just as 2008 still does, 2010 notwithsstanding. Since the Lakes were clearly the better team in just about every season, I like our chances.
1987 Beat Boston
1988 Beat the Pistons who beat Boston
1989 Lost to Pistons who beat Boston. A sad ending for Kareem when Magic and Scott went down.
1990 Lost to Phoenix. Riley lost the team, he pushed them too far.
1991 Manned up and lost to Bulls, unlike Celtics, who ducked them.

From my thread where I pooped all over the value of the Russell era titles, in case you missed it: http://lakernation.c...ell-era-titles/

I made a list comparing the Lakers vs. the Celtics year by year, to see who did better. I don't buy the rule you count just championships. If you're comparing franchises, you look at everything. Naturally, Boston fans don't buy this because it kills their argmeunt for supremacy. They would rather "Cherry Pick". Hint: Denial is not a river in Egypt!

Here's how the Bird/Magic era played out:

1979-80: Lakers: Won F; Celtics: Lost ECF, Edge Lakers
1980-81: Lakers: Lost WC 1st Round; Celtics: Won F, Edge Celtics
1981-82: Lakers: Won F; Celtics: Lost ECF, Edge Lakers
1982-83: Lakers: Lost F; Celtics: Lost ECSF Edge Lakers
1983-84: Lakers: Lost F; Celtics: Won F, Edge Celtics
1984-85: Lakers: Won F; Celtics: Lost F, Edge Lakers
1985-86: Lakers: Lost WCF; Celtics: Won F, Edge Celtics
1986-87: Lakers: Won F; Celtics: Lost F, Edge Lakers
1987-88: Lakers: Won F; Celtics: Lost ECF, Edge Lakers
1988-89: Lakers: Lost F; Celtics: Lost EC 1st Rd, Edge Lakers
1989-90: Lakers: Lost WCSF; Celtics: Lost EC 1st Rd, Edge Lakers
1990-91: Lakers: Lost F; Celtics: Lost ECSF, Edge Lakers

That's a 9-3 edge, Lakers over Celtics. Does that 9-3 count look familiar? Anyway, the one time aside from Russell's era that the Celtics were actually relevant for a sustained period of time, the Lakers proved to be far and away a few classes ahead of them. Let me ask you, what's most impressive, the Celtics 7-0 record over the Lakers in the stoneage, or the Lakers 9-3 thrashing of the Celtics at te dawn of the modern era? Answer is a no brainer, unless you have been polluted by a diet of shamrocks and clam chowder!

Boston fans will tell us if Len Bias hadn't have died in 1986, they win 5 more titles. Bunk, Lakers would have adjusted. Besides, I can play that game too, giving us plenty of titles earlier, and after. Suppose Magic didn't contract HIV? I like the Lakers chances to take the Bulls down in 1992. then maybe Phil Jackson gets fired, leaves the league, we never get him, Shaq, or Kobe. I'll take things as they are. Eat LA, Boston!

I hope Boston fans are reading this as well. If you know one, send them here!

Edited by Lakers_55, April 04, 2011 - 03:06 PM.

[True Lakers Fan]

do you know this by heart or do you have to go through archives

[Lakers_55]

do you know this by heart or do you have to go through archives

I remember mos of itt, simply because I have been at this (Proving Lakers Franchise > Celtics Franchise) a bit over 2 years. I do double check some things at basketball reference to make certain. http://www.basketbal...ence.com/teams/ If I make an error in history, please advise so I can correct.

Also, I tend to leave things out. Since Celtics fans like only to measure championships, and everything short of that is a failure, (and as stated, I can certainly see their point because of all the disasters they have had, those silly "Cherry Pickers") to close out the Bird/Magic era, let's look at the failures a bit closer, see how those measure up.

Lakers lost in the playoffs 7 times, 3 with home court in the West, and 4 finals without it.
Boston lost in the playoffs 9 times. 7 times with it, and 2 times without it.

Let's look at the Celtics losses a bit closer
1980 Best record in NBA, lost to Sixers in ECF in 5,
1982 Best record in NBA, lost to Sixers in ECF trailed 3-1, lost in 7.
1983 Swept by Milwaukee in 2nd round and held HCA. Wouldn't have had HCA vs. Sixers in ECF.
1985 Lost to Lakers in finals in 6. I remember the hype before game 6, all Celtics: "Boston has never lost a finals game 7 at home!" So glad we let them keep that mark.
1987 Lost to Lakers in finals without HCA
1988 Lost to Pistons in ECF with HCA, Lakers would have had HCA in finals.
1989 Lost to Pistons in round 1 without HCA (Bird injured, tough. See 1981 Lakers with a hobbled Magic for starters, but Boston was already finished, we were just getting started).
1990 Lost to Knicks in round 1 with HCA, 3-2. Once led 2-0. Would not have had HCA against Pistons in round 2
1991 Lost in round 2 vs. Pistons. Would not have had HCA against Bulls.

I'm sorry, but losing 7 playoff series while holding homecourt advantage is as pathetic as it comes. They never won a series without it, and the Lakers won 2, in the finals, 1982, and 1985. This is a huge blemish on Larry Bird's legacy. We all know Magic's Lakers beat him 2 of 3, and he never repeated., but this ranks right up there. Yep, the Leprachaun died when Bill Russell left the game. Remember, even the Havlicek/Cowens/White Celtics lost 3 series with HCA as well. Russell, only once, 1958, his second season.

A bit more about the rivarly during the 1980's.I've already posted this, but it fits in here nicely, the origination of hte BEAT LA! chant. In 1982 Lakers and Celtics each had a title, and both held HCA in the conference finals. We swept the Spurs, but Boston fell behind 3-1 to the Sixers, a team they had recovered from that deficit twice before, including the previous season. I watched those last games. When Boston was closing out game 5 to cut the lead to 3-2, their fans stood up in the Boston Garden and began chanting

"See You Sunday!"
"See You Sunday!"

Sunday would be the date of a game 7 and sure enough, Boston won game 6 in Philly, forcing game 7, on Sunday. Now, all the hype was on a Lakers/Celtics finals, and if you're a delusional Boston fan, you figure "Hey, it's the Lakers, title is ours! Well, Sixers put a number on them and as much as Boston hates Philadelphia and their rivalries with both the Warriors and the Sixers, they hate LA more. So, the BEAT LA! chant was born.

Here's the short version, Bill Russell was one of the announcers, lol.



Here's the longer version, for those who love watching Boston suffer.



And nope, Sixers didn't beat LA.

Our counter "Boston Sucks" as I recall came about in 1985. I went to the victory rallies at both City Hall and the Forum, and placards sayig just that were passed out to all. Check Hearn held one up at the Forum rally, much to the loud approval of the fans.

1984-85 I worked with one Philadelphia expatriate who hated both the Lakers and the Celtics, but hated us more. He would go on and on about 1983, I would counter with 1980, and 1982, and how his Sixers choked in round 1 in 1984. He became a big Boston fan during those finals. When Boston beat his Sixers in 1985, and we did our number on the Celtics, he seemed to age 20 years. He lft that job in shame shortly after.

Anyway, I'll continue with some comments about the 1990's to date, and anything else I may have omitted, soon!

[Carpe Diem]

Well said my mam. I love reading lakers history. Lakers have a rich culture.

[MDI]

Lakers 55 is a big time student of the game and the Lakers. Props.

[Notorious Arab]