good dolphin wrote:
Nardi wrote:
good dolphin wrote:
Crick Ramp wrote:
good dolphin wrote:
I flipped on the radio on the way home to hear Speigal and Bernstein arguing how we need to adjust how we define dynasty for Lebron in this new era of player control of their situation
I think I found a replay of right wing radio that was more entertaining.
They weren’t arguing that dynasty needs to be redefined as much as dynasty in the traditional sense does not adequately encapsulate what Lebron has accomplished.
Which I think is accurate.
Yes they were. Well, at least Dan was.
Lebron's work isn't dynastic. Dan wants it to be dynastic. Therefore, Dan thinks we need to reconsider dynasty.
I kinda get it, I think. Did he mention Tiger Woods? He's dynastic.
I didn't hear it from the beginning but I think they correctly noted that the word dynasty is usually reserved for at least two generations of success from the same franchise. Contemporary use of the word is that it means just sustained success.
Tiger Woods can't be dynastic unless his son is also a great golfer.
I think you can say the Jordan Bulls were a dynasty because of the difference in the makeup between the first three and the second three but I wouldn't argue with you if you said it wasn't a dynasty.
I think the Yankees are a true dynasty with Ruth passing to Gerig passing to Dimaggio and almost passing to Mantle
Cubs are a dynasty of suck
John Daly and LJ Daly perhaps?
There's a story Daly tells:
After a round, Daly sits down with some sponsors to drink. He invites Tiger. Tiger says he wants to go hit a few balls. 3 hrs later, obviously Daly is still there and invites him again for a drink. Tiger declines, he's hitting the weight room. Another hour and half passes and Daly makes his 3rd invite. Tiger says, "Listen JD, if I had your talent, I'd be doing exactly what you're doing now".