In YOUR mind the facts and arguments that you have made are compelling. They are all true but you still dismiss the most important part. Head to Head. Thats what matters when we talk about Celtics v Lakers. Not who else each team beat those numbers are irrelevant in THIS ARGUMENT. But in your world they make since.. 
I believe that the Celtics have the better overall franchise period. Even if the Lakers do win another title. Heck, the Lakers WILL win another title and this could very well be the last hoorah for a while with the Celtics. One thing I do want to address is, the whole "ducking" thing. For reals player????
No team would purposly lose in the CF so that they wouldnt have to play another team.... 
That statement makes you sound somewhat dellusional regarding the Celtics and therefore hurts your other arguements. You are obviously very respected here on this board and you have done your research, for that, good for you. But when you say a team, let alone the Celtics ducked your team for a chance to win another title that just sounds homerish..... it's not true and again dellusional. For the record, I have said it before somewhere here, I do believe the Lakers are the class franchise in the modern era. Celtics had it early, Lakers and Celtics shared it in the 80's and Lakers have had it mostly since then, throw in a few other teams..Spurs. So this year is an opportunity for the Celtics to put their name in the hat. Great history lesson about the 2 teams though, minus the homerism.. 
Well, your opinion is noted.. However, you have not done a single thing to back up your claim other than to "Cherry Pick". If you are analyzing two franchises, you have to look at everything. This is why I am RIGHT and you and others who think along the same lines are WRONG. It has nothing to do with what my MIND thinks. Let me repeat a bit of what I have already said, along with a few twists.
Ok, understand the median age in the USA is 37. This means half the Celtics fans were born in 1974 or sooner. It is not unreasonable to assume a male becomes interested in basketball about the age of 13. This is when competitive games are scheduled in physical education, and a boy has grown quickly. Early sports interests for boys in the USA are far more likely to be baseball, football, or soccer. You can't tell me a 6 year old in 1980 followed the NBA loyally through the entire Bird/Magic era and can discuss what they witnessed in any intellignet detail. . At any rate, about half the current Celtics fans started following the NBA in 1987, or sooner. Depending on their age, they have witnessed anywhere from a Lakers 7-1 titles advantage over Boston to a 1-1 split. Now, the older half saw more Celtics titles than the younger half with the total number depending on their age. It's going to require Celtics fans who were older than I , and I was born in 1955, before a part of your fanbase has witnessed more Celtics titles than Lakers titles.
So, we have two age group categories of Celtics fans, the young and the old. I have debated both of them, and those from Boston are as annoying as you can imagine. The younger ones simply don't know history. Last year, Club Lakers got assaulted with a bunch of teenagers from Boston throwing 9-2 in our face. They all disappeared, but not before I smacked them around a bit with how pathetic their franchise is beyond those 17 titles. then there is the other group, the older ones. I mentioned Celtics_55 above, and this guy was off his rocker. He had a couple of "Cherry Picking" followers, and older like him, who simply don't want to even acknowledge the bad years the Celtics had. The more they pushed me, the more I pushed back. I'll have more to say about Celtics_55 in time, suffice it to say, he disgraced your franchise attempting to argue with me, and I can and will prove it. One thing the older Celtics fans have over the younger ones is they witnessed history. My entire argument proves when Boston stopped winning titles in 1986, the 21 seasons that followed relegated them to 2nd best franchise. when Boston finally became relevant in 2008, they still had a title and head to head advantage over the Lakes and the last thing they expected was a Lakers fan, of all people, to burst their bubble of supremacy, and that's exactly what I did. Even the young ones thought I was nuts for my smack.
As I have noted, I do talk smack in an attempt to get any Celtics fan to step into the debate and prove me wrong. Guess what, no one has because they can't. When I posted my article last year about the weak value of the Russell era titles, all the Celtics fans could say was it gave them a chuckle, I was wrong. They couldn't say any reason why, all they could do was attack me. They ganged up on me and reported every post I made at Fox Sports until I was banned. Celticsblog banned me as well. Kind of tells you something right there, doesn't it? Funny how not a single one will answer my query that if they believe most titles always means best, then they must consider the Princeton Tigers the greatest collegiate football program. They also won't answer my qustion "Would you trade those Russell era titles with the Lakers in order to enjoy a 10-4 title advantage in the modern era and still be ahead 17-16?" Of course thay can't answer, either choice proves my point is correct.
Let me make an anaolgy, which I will use in this debate shortly. My favorite movie of all time is Immortal Beloved, starring Gary Oldman as Ludwig von Beethoven. The movie is a haunting love story as the executor of his estate travels Europe interviewing Beethoven's former mistresses to find Beethoven's Immortal Beloved, because she is the sole heir to his estate. You would have to watch the DVD and listen to the director commentary to see everything, but the writer/director essentially challenged any Beeethoven scholar to prove his choice for the Immortal Beloved was wrong. It can't be done. His choice made perfect and logical sense.
Ok, onto my ducking smack. Yes, it's primarliy smack and Iexplained why I talk smack. Your fans provoked me, and I fought back. However, like the analogy to Immortal Beloved, I have made a compelling case that it is possible that Red Auerbaach tanked series in 1953, 1954, 1972, 1980, 1982, 1988, and 2002 to avoid playing the Lakers. Adding to that, there is evidence he tanked other series to avoid losing to teams he didn't want to lose to. If those eastern teams actually beat the Lakers, and the only time they did was 1973, I wouldn't have much of a case. Therefore, the Lakers showed up to play the Celtics constantly. The Celtics didn't when the Lakers were the better team. The reasons why Red may have tanked consistently reappear. When you consider Boston held HCA in many of these playoff series, the possibility becomes more credible as true. That leaves us one other alternative, We really have only one other alternative, and that is the Boston Celtics franchise just isn't as good as people think it is. note, these two outcomes are not mutually exclusive. Like immortal Beloved, you can't prove me wrong whether or not Red tanked. Blame that on Celtics fans who simply won't just throw in the towel and say "Yeah, good job Lakers_55, you're the better franchise now. I guess we need to go back to the drawing board and take that honor back". Funny, I do recall you last year admitting the Lakers easily were the better franchise, now you have changed your mind. Oh well, you also said last year was the Celtics last chance. Now you promise a Boston title in 2011.
Also, look back at those early meetngs between the Lakes and Celtics. 8-9 teams in the league and the two premier franchises. No wonder they met 7 times in 11 years! Funny how only 5 pairings occured in the next 42 years, isn't it? Of course, Boston ducked us plenty of times so take that as you will. Bottom line is, those Russell titles and their value have little meaning today.
I don't think my attacks on Red or the Celtics make me look delusional at all. This is the mentality the Celtics fans at Fox Sports had. You, like them, can't provde a shred of evidence to refute a single thing I have said. All you can do is "Cherry Pick" and attack me.Just admit it, I'll say it again. The last thing in the world you expected was a Lakers fan who could do what I have done, and you have no answers. The Lakers of the 1960's fought the best they could. Those Lakers teams since have fought better. I own your fans and your arguments by a greater margin than you had over us in the 1960's. time to admit it, it will do you good.
You still haven't answered my questions in your thread "Congrats on the win, but..." As far as me being a homer goes, well, I'm a Lakers fan, but I am not blind. You are the homer. You also appear to be a bandwagon fan because you jump ship when the Celtics slip.Y ou did it last year, you did it again this year. Just about every prrediction you made in that thread proved to be way of the mark. But, heck, I said in that thread you smply bought into the false Celtics hype. Your work in the east is way tougher this year than last.
Edited by Lakers_55, April 07, 2011 - 03:25 PM.
