The disregard for past Celtic championships(57 to 69)

[Lord of Mikawa]

Why do you think people in basketball media are so quick to act like the Celtic championships won during 50s/60s don't count? I know the common excuses such as "The league wasn't fast paced" or "There wasn't any talent in the league". Those same people seem to let the Laker early championships count when they weren't even played in the shot clock era.

[Donoghus]

How many people in the legitimate media are saying this?

I can see some "out-there" bloggers and message board posters saying this stuff but I haven't really seen any "main-stream" or reputable media saying this stuff.

[Lord of Mikawa]

How many people in the legitimate media are saying this?

I can see some "out-there" bloggers and message board posters saying this stuff but I haven't really seen any "main-stream" or reputable media saying this stuff.

Whenever I see the standard for championships, it's usually Jordan's 6 or Magic's 5. People rarely ever mention what the C's did back in the day. I do understand that what Jordan did against his competition is more relevant to today's basketball fan but [dang]. The only guy who ever spoke of it was Kobe when he said he was trying to move up the Bill Russell scale of excellence.

[colincb]

Most analysts know the Cs won 17 and the LAL's 16.  I do think the 50's and 60s championships are discounted too much.  The 50s were still seeing integration and Russell was pretty much unchallenged until Wilt came into the league in the 1959-60 season.  However, the 1960s NBA had plenty of talent and integration.

[European NBA fan]

I think there is some truth in this, but the problem (for the media) is that the Celtics set the standard so high. It seems impossible than anyone can build that kind of dynasty ever again. Let alone have one guy as the cornerstone in 11 championships.

For Celtics it is "The Golden Age", for others it is "The Dark Ages"

[Lord of Mikawa]

I think there is some truth in this, but the problem (for the media) is that the Celtics set the standard so high. It seems impossible than anyone can build that kind of dynasty ever again. Let alone have one guy as the cornerstone in 11 championships.

For Celtics it is "The Golden Age", for others it is "The Dark Ages"

The 70s seems to get pegged with the Dark Ages thing.

[ACF]

If only we had more footage from those years...

[mmmmm]

Most analysts know the Cs won 17 and the LAL's 16.  I do think the 50's and 60s championships are discounted too much.  The 50s were still seeing integration and Russell was pretty much unchallenged until Wilt came into the league in the 1959-60 season.  However, the 1960s NBA had plenty of talent and integration.

Minor quibble:  The "Lakers" have won 16.  The "Los Angeles Lakers" (i.e. "LAL") have won 11.

Five of the Laker championships came when the team was in Minneapolis.

I wonder what percentage of LA Laker fans even know who George Mikan was?  

[ACF]

Lakers championships, Stern Rule: 8
Lakers Finals appearances, Stern Rule: 12

[footey]

Most analysts know the Cs won 17 and the LAL's 16.  I do think the 50's and 60s championships are discounted too much.  The 50s were still seeing integration and Russell was pretty much unchallenged until Wilt came into the league in the 1959-60 season.  However, the 1960s NBA had plenty of talent and integration.

IMO, this is not a minor quibble, this is a major quibble.

Minor quibble:  The "Lakers" have won 16.  The "Los Angeles Lakers" (i.e. "LAL") have won 11.

Five of the Laker championships came when the team was in Minneapolis.

I wonder what percentage of LA Laker fans even know who George Mikan was?  

[Celtics17]

The Celtics' titles of those years are discounted simply due to time. It's like, I think it was Bob Ryan, wrote " you hear the word athleticism so much today that you would think the players of the past couldn't run or jump". Imagine if you told a young person today that a player was coming into the league who is over seven feet tall, can bench press over 500 pounds, has very close to a 50 inch vertical and will score 50 a game for a season. Noone would believe it, just as they don't believe that the C's so thoroughly dominated the game in the period discussed.

In 30 years, or less, there will be a player come along who will make MJ look no better then Dominque or Barkley. That player may not really be as good as MJ, or for that matter Dominique but people will have forgotten how good MJ was. How many people thought Shaq would destroy Wilt? If you don't think that is a fair comparison, think again.

[xmuscularghandix]

I've never heard anyone say this...

maybe i just talk to, and listen to, smarter people than you guys. 

[dtrader]

I think it's about age more than intelligence.  Basketball is a young mans game.  Its mostly played (and watched) by people under 35.  Those people probably have only watched live basketball from the early 80s on (at the most).  Beyond that, all you have is spotty footage and heresay about the players.  On top of that, the old footage that IS available makes the game appear to be on an entirely different level athletically.  Footage from the 80s shows a game very similar to today, so its easy to relate to it, and credit it as being up to todays standard. 

Analysts and commentators may talk about the championships from the 50s and 60s because 1- theyre older, and 2- they have a sheet of facts in front of them to use as talking points.  Basketball players and fans under 35 really only care about what their team has done as far as they can remember.  Honestly, if we hadn't gone through such a long losing period, I doubt the banner count would mean anything to most fans, because then we'd have more recent stuff to take pride in.

[BigGovy]

Two things. First off the game in 60's was not slower than it is today. I am not saying they had the athletic ability of todays player. What I am saying is when the rebound was pulled down in Celtic basketball the first thought and normally action was pass up floor to mid court a few dribbles and as many shot attempts you could get up. There was no pounding of the ball and standing around or setting up for the half court game and pulling it back. Ball travels twice as fast with the pass than the dribble. Secondly all these folks can talk about repeats and 3peats...try 8 Straight and shove it up your nay saying asses

[dtrader]

Two things. First off the game in 60's was not slower than it is today. I am not saying they had the athletic ability of todays player. What I am saying is when the rebound was pulled down in Celtic basketball the first thought and normally action was pass up floor to mid court a few dribbles and as many shot attempts you could get up. There was no pounding of the ball and standing around or setting up for the half court game and pulling it back. Ball travels twice as fast with the pass than the dribble. Secondly all these folks can talk about repeats and 3peats...try 8 Straight and shove it up your nay saying asses

I've seen a decent number of clips of early celtic basketball, and to me...it was slow. Considering that all the clips still around are the highlights...and it was STILL slow, I think that says something.  The players were slower.  The passes were slower. The dribbles were slower, and more deliberate.  The Lakers showtime period looks like todays fast break...old 60s celtics play does not.

If you tell a casual basketball fan that the celtics won 8 straight titles, they'll say "who was on the team"?  Out of every player that ever wore celtic green over that period, maybe 3 or 4 names will be somewhat familiar.  There wont be any familiarity with their game.  There wont be any "Oh...I remember watching him". They'll just be names they heard  somewhere before.  They have no connection to todays fans.  But if you talk about the spurs, rockets, bulls, lakers, etc...fans know those teams.  They have a personal connection to those titles, because they watched them, and grew up with those players.  Thats relevant.  Thats why those titles "mean more" today.