Some of these dynasties experienced their success without other dominant teams in the NBA. These dynasties include the Minneapolis Lakers of the 1950s, the Boston Celtics of the 1960s, the New York Knicks of the early 1970s and the Chicago Bulls of the 1990s.
We witnessed a rivalry between the Los Angeles Lakers and Boston Celtics in the 1980s, as well as one between the Lakers and San Antonio Spurs from 1999-2010. In both of these cases, it is generally considered that the Lakers franchise was more dominant, as the team won the most championships and more head-to-head meetings in the playoffs.
However, trying to compare the dynasties from different eras proves difficult because they did not play each other directly.
Take Magic Johnson’s Lakers teams and Michael Jordan’s Bulls, for instance. Even though they met in the 1991 NBA Finals with Chicago being victorious, one cannot easily proclaim Jordan’s teams to be more dominant.
First, one of the main staples of the Lakers dynasty—Kareem Abdul-Jabbar—had retired a few seasons earlier. Second, the Bulls were on the rise while the Lakers were clearly in the twilight years of the dynasty.
As part of the NBA Debate Series on Bleacher Report, featured columnists Rich Fernandes and Ethan S. compare and contrast various elements of the two dynasties.
Feel free to express your opinions in the comments section. Which writer has put together stronger arguments? Which dynasty overall do you feel was the better team?
Begin Slideshow
...
Article Source: Bleacher Report - Los Angeles Lakers
