Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Point taken I just want to point out the whole message was actually directed at the guy who wrote the second response to my original post I only mentioned the Brazil thing as a joke you were not the one who called me a high school student. I just thought saying no one should regard my opinion because I'm a high school student when I'm not was kindve a pompous thing to say and i just gave a blunt response back. You seem like a knowledgeable person about both areas and stated your opinion in a respectful way so I just wanted to apologize if u thought that was intended for you. Look truthfully I respect the industries and academia in Boston and despite my comments about weather what I hated about growing up was the whole M******* mentality which was prevalent in the area I grew up and I always found it extremely uninviting because my family is all from the west coast and the only reason I grew up there was my dad's job. Bottom line I love it out here and would encourage every young person if they can to at some point experience LA
... Championships: Los Angeles: NBA: 17 (Lakers 17, Clippers 0) NFL: 0 (no teams in the city presently) MLB: 7 (Dodgers 6, Angels 1) NHL: 1 (Kings 0, Ducks 1)
Boston: NBA: 17 NFL: 3 MLB: 7 NHL: 5
...
if new england counts as a boston team then they should have 4 championships. i think they only have 1 as the boston patriots.
Championships: Los Angeles: NBA: 17 (Lakers 17, Clippers 0) NFL: 0 (no teams in the city presently) MLB: 7 (Dodgers 6, Angels 1) NHL: 1 (Kings 0, Ducks 1)
Boston: NBA: 17 NFL: 3 MLB: 7 NHL: 5
But for real though, Boston had that game won until the last quarter, they gave it away so easily... that was a bad game for both teams but a good win for LA. (I supported LA, so I'm content with the aftermath)
Might wanna add two for championships for the Kings now, and the Kings and Ducks are the two favorites to come out of the West next year. Wouldn't be surprised if either team won the Cup in 2016.
Dodgers and Angels are also contenders this year as well.
If it weren't for the Lakers, pretty much every team in LA is a contender, but its the Lakers, they're coming off years of consistency and contention and they're probably the greatest NBA franchise. That is absolutely crazy.
Boston has fallen on hard times now. Celtics and Red Sox are bottom dwellers, and the Bruins most likely will be next year considering their new GM is virtually dismantling their team. Chara is aging as well. All they have are an aging Patriots team.
Lakers have 16 NBA championships, 5 of which were won while in Minnesota.
And, strictly speaking, one of their titles in MN was not an NBA championship. They won the championship for one of the two regional leagues that later combined to form the NBA. The NBA officially counts these in a club's total of championships. The NFL does the same thing for AFL titles during the period when the AFL existed as an independent league that had not yet merged with the NFL.
That may be the official record, but I think it's debatable whether you should really count such championships in a club's total, in informal discussions. After all, those teams did not win championships at the top level for their entire sports.
There are several questions to ponder when counting championships. Does a club start fresh when it moves to a new city? The situations with the Ravens (NFL) and Thunder (NBA) complicate things for those saying that a club's entire history counts when the club has played in more than one city.
On that subject, in addition to the Lakers' five titles (one in the regional league and four in the NBA) as the Minneapolis Lakers, one of the Dodgers' World Series wins came in Brooklyn.
The flip side of the question about counting championships won in cities where the club has been in the past is how you regard titles won by clubs that have moved on from the city in question. The Raiders and the Rams each one a championship in L.A. (Super Bowl for the Raiders, pre-SB NFL title for the Rams). Does the fact that neither club now plays in L.A. take away from the memories of those who enjoyed pulling for those teams in those title seasons?
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanley-88888888
if new england counts as a boston team then they should have 4 championships. i think they only have 1 as the boston patriots.
Yeah, this thread is five years old, and the post listing the championships showed up long before the Patriots' most recent title. You can add one for the Sox as well, since that post listing the cities' championships.
Zero titles for the Boston Patriots, by the way. I'd say "New England" counts as "Boston" though. We seem to be talking metro areas here, including the Anaheim teams with L.A., etc. I'd suggest that a metropolitan area all functions as a single huge city anyway, but that's more a discussion for the Urban Planning forum. Certainly the fans across the entire local area--in some cases even states and regions--follow these teams, not just the fans in the cities where the teams actually play their games.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeattleorPhiladelphia
If it weren't for the Lakers, pretty much every team in LA is a contender, but its the Lakers, they're coming off years of consistency and contention and they're probably the greatest NBA franchise. That is absolutely crazy.
Boston has fallen on hard times now. Celtics and Red Sox are bottom dwellers, and the Bruins most likely will be next year considering their new GM is virtually dismantling their team. Chara is aging as well. All they have are an aging Patriots team.
Every club has its ups and downs over the years. The way it's going at present, or might go in the near future, has nothing to do with the total number of championships over the years.
Of course it can get kind of silly to get worked up about that total number (though, gee, l just gotta question your description of the Lakers as "probably the greatest NBA franchise," if you look at total championships and legendary players and moments associated with the Celtics over the years). Aside from bragging rights, do I really care about a championship one of my teams won when I was in diapers . . . or not even born yet?
As for the assessment of Boston's teams at present, it's true that the Celtics overall have not had great success under the current management. They had that one championship in '08, but have not done so well year in and year out since the end of the Bird/Parrish/McHale era. The Bruins have their ups and downs, sometimes being decent but rarely being serious contenders.
The Sox are funny under the current ownership. It seems to be all or nothing for them these days. This team you describe as "bottom dwellers" won the World Series just two years ago, and are tied for the most championships this century (and went into the playoffs as favorites in all three championship years, unlike the Giants, who have kind of sneaked in all three times). But then the Sox have had some awful years between those titles.
As for that "aging Patriots team," it's mostly the QB who's getting up there in years (for a pro athlete). Under the current ownership, that club arguably (pretty clearly, actually) has the best organization in the NFL, and they keep bringing in fresh blood and fielding good teams year after year. A key question is whether this club's management is deft enough at finding the talent they need so they can get their hands on another premier QB whenever Brady fades. Whatever other talent an NFL team has, it's tough to win a championship without a top signal caller.
Boston is pristine in the core (Beacon Hill / Back Bay / South End / Downtown), dirty and gritty in the inner-neighborhoods (Allston / Dorchester / Roxbury / JP / Cambridge / Somerville), and then clean but suburban in its outer neighborhoods / cities (Newton / West Roxbury / Roslindale / Chestnut Hill).
LA's dirty and gritty just about everywhere, even on most of the Westside.
Quick clarification. the only outer neighborhood of Boston that is clean in entirety is West Roxbury.
JP Cambridge and Somerville are clean and pristine compared to Mattapan and half of Roslindale. Much of Roslindale is truly ghetto, the part near Hyde Park and Mattapan.
Most Boston neighborhoods arent dirty outside of Roxbury Dorchester and parts of the South End, because of the rain. They just are gritty and can be surprisingly isolated and divested in.
if you're gonna post a list... can we at least have the correct numbers?
for the galactically detail oriented; here it is;
Championships: Los Angeles: NBA: 17 (Lakers 17, Clippers 0) NFL:1 (no teams in the city presently) MLB: 7 (Dodgers 6, Angels 1) NHL:3 (Kings 2, Ducks 1)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
, l just gotta question your description of the Lakers as "probably the greatest NBA franchise," if you look at total championships and legendary players and moments associated with the Celtics over the years). Aside from bragging rights, do I really care about a championship one of my teams won when I was in diapers . . . or not even born yet?
