@@Aubtoonice17 not the title implies that marz said the spurs weren't a dynasty at all. I think Marz problem with this is that they want them to be top 5 and marz disagrees. Now u can say they're not top 5 that's up to interpretation. But marz never said they weren't a dynasty
@@Ebonyinvasionpart2 Nah, Marz wasn't being a jerk this time lol. He really was trying to understand the logic. Ox was being sensitive for no reason, but I'm noticing that he's like that.
Sitting there acting like a baby because you disagree with someone then not giving the room to debate you about what you think on a debate platform is goofy put someone up there who’ll engage in the show and not act like a child. Just my opinion.
To put Spurs dynasty over 2000s Lakers dynasty when Lakers had a 3peat and a back to back while wooping the Spurs is because of Kobe hatred 😂😂😂 it has to be
@@Ghost-rb6cw Marz mentioned how the panel was recognizing all of the 5 chips as a dynasty for Duncan (even tho they were far apart) but when it came to Kobe someone said they only wanted to count the first 3 chips as a dynasty but not his 5. It’s funny too because Kobe won in a shorter time frame, 5 in 11 years with 7 finals appearances while Duncan won 5 in 16 with 6 appearances. It’s hypocritical and hate because Kobe beat the Spurs on his way to most of those and he really went off in those series to be specific. Duncan and Kobe both had different core teammates in those teams too so you can’t say it’s coo for Duncan to start with Robinson as his go to for the first 2 and then have Manu and Parker in between and Kawhi at the end of it, but it’s not coo for Kobe to start with Shaq and end with Pau for your last two. Also Chill is known to discredit Kobe and as you can see in this video he (and the panel) has a hard time accepting the truth on how more impressive the Lakers were with obvious evidence and with Kobe obviously being a superstar on all of those championships. They were unusually quiet in this one when they are usually way more vocal (especially Chill who heard facts and got cooked by Marz but was super reluctant to acknowledge them and especially when he talks about Hakeem who btw is not better than Kobe lmao 🤣. And Ox didn’t want to talk all of a sudden 👀). When someone goes unusually quiet when discussing someone great it’s usually because of animosity and trying to throw shade. It’s not like they would admit it lol..But hey that’s life.
In no order 1. Russell's Celtics 2. Mikan's Lakers 3. Jordan's Bulls 4. Showtime Lakers 5. 2010s Warriors Spurs are a dynasty but Marz is arguing they arent a top 5 Dynasty
Mikan's Lakers are not over Duncan Spurs, and I'd personally have Kobe Lakers and Duncan Spurs over 2010's Warriors. Kobe Lakers 5 chips in 10 years. Spurs had 4 chips in the same amount of time that Warriors did. But, Spurts got their 5th later on, and Warriors are still on their 4th. You can't say Warriors is a better Dynasty than Spurs. There's a reason everyone has Duncan higher all time than Curry, why does Marz also have Duncan higher?
@@MarzTalksSports They're the creators of both Dynasties as the #1's on their respective teams. Duncan had less talent, his team was way more home-grown (pretty much all the starters for all their chips), and Duncan led the team to more championships so far. The dynasty argument is the argument on why Duncan gets rated higher than Curry. If you believe Curry created the better Dynasty like Marz, then how is Duncan rated so much higher on all time lists as well as on Marz's? The answer is simply, that Duncan is greater because he created the greater Dynasty. This is very simple.
I want to clarify since the title kinda implies im saying something im not. i think the spurs ARE a dynasty. i also think they have a case (a pretty compelling one) to be top 5. my disagreement and whole reason for this debate was the notion that they are a shoe in top 5 dynasty of all time. i think its debatable as i laid out in the segment. 15:10 is pretty much my whole opinion on this
the debate was over when you highlighted kobe's dynasty was present during the same years and achieved more success during that time (3 peat and back to back), in a less amount of time, with a better head to head record. nothing really more to discuss in my opinion
@@BIGdawg-m4i lmao bruh the spurs only won when Kobe and Shaq were at the end of there run and before the lakers got pau congratulations. Whenever Kobe had a championship squad around him Duncan never beat him
@ lol I could have sworn Kobe and shaq we both the best players in la in 99 and in 03 shaq was mvp candidate in 03 so was Kobe quit fucking making excuse Duncan’s got the shaq and Kobe lakers twice
My top 5 dynasties Criteria: CHAMPIONSHIPS, 3+ titles, 3-peat and/or repeat, defending your title, finals record/appearance, dominates in playoffs/season, competition. IMO 1. 91-98 Bulls (6 titles in 8 yrs, two 3-peats, 6-0 in finals, average title season 64 wins) 🔁2. 2. 57-69 Celtics (era tax😅) (11 titles in 13 yrs, 8-peat & repeat, 11-1 in finals, average title season wins 55 wins)🔁1. 3. 00-10 Lakers (5 titles in 11 years, one 3-peat & one repeat, 5-2 in finals, average title season 60 wins)🔁4. 4. 80-88 Lakers (5 titles in 8 years, one repeat, 5-3 in finals, average title season 61 wins)🔁3. 5. A) 15-22 Warriors (4 titles in 8 years, one repeat, 4-2 in finals, average title season 61 wins)🔁 5. (B) 99-14 Spurs (5 titles in 16 years, 5-1 in finals, average title season 60 wins)🔁
Naw that weak lockout chip takes them down. I’ll take the warriors over them. Also with your own criteria the spurs are disqualified. They never won back to back.
@@Kalinbuggs they never defended their title. Kobe MJ did it twice. In the modern era. Tim and spurs never did it. They’re not a top 5 dynasty. The warriors are. I know this is off topic, but the reconstruction of Tim Duncan’s legacy needs to be studied. He was a center 80 percent of his career. Yet he’s the greatest PF ever??? KG, Webber, Rasheed, Malone, Dirk Amare were the PF of his era. He’s credited for the culture of the spurs. While he never talked to Tony Parker his rookie year. Stephen Jackson his teammate said he would pick Kobe over Tim to start a franchise. Also Larry Bird said he would pick Kobe
@ fam in a Kobe guy lol I understand your point. That’s why I got them 5 B😂😂 I’m just saying they’re the weakest dynasty outta the key 6. They still have an argument is all I’m saying
@@Kalinbuggsbro the bs you had to go through just to say they not top 5 is crazy 😂😂. The reason the Spurs never repeated was because of the comp in their conference.
Bro the spurs had 3 main players. If you win championships with 3 of you're main core players multiple times that even includes if it result in a loss, they are a dynasty it has nothing to do with longevity, although they were pretty dominant for a very long time.
it would be similar to the kobe shaq era. you add a couple years where they had 50 win (60% win pct) seasons before and after their titles. it spans 17 years with 5 championships spurs spans 20 years with 5 championships the biggest difference is the regular season win rate. where the spurs won on average 71% of their games for 20 years straight (58 wins per season) lakers won 65% on average for 17 years straight (53 wins per season)
I think something to note is that not only did the Spurs never go back-to-back they also never made 3 straight finals: Russel’s Celtics and Jordan’s bulls obviously speak for themselves on that front. Kobe-Shaq 3-peated but what people forget is that the Kobe-Pau lakers made it to 3 straight finals as well winning the latter two. The warriors made 5 in a row (that’s basically the equivalent of playing a whole extra regular season over those 5 years). Showtime lakers made 3 in a row on 2 separate occasions (83-85 and 87-89). I think the spurs not going as deep into the postseason as consistently as those other dynasties does ding them. It also puts their elite regular seasons into context: easier to have great regular seasons compared to those other teams, when you have fresher legs. With that said, maybe the greatest floor of any dynasty ever.
spurs might have never went back to back but they did something none of those dynasties you mentioned did which is win a champioship in 3 different decades
ox? i think hes such an irrelevant part of the show. he never really gets into discussions. he just agrees strongly or disagrees strongly and never goes into detail about anything.
@@Y_dz1nah he adds a hoopers perspective to it. He usually talks when they have current basketball discussions when they were having the luka discussion, when they start goin into historical stuff he kinda falls back
@@ctrlawpdelete8266thats what op is saying, he cant articulate himself and he does not have much knowledge to go into detail to anything, its less of a hooper perspective and more of casual hoop talk. Unless your saying hoopers are casuals lol
youre missing his point, what makes a great dynasty is sustainability and longevity, most dynasties you guys say are better than spurs fall off in 6-7 years
Ox was being a FEMALE in this clip… Never really seen him act like that to this extent. Anyone got context to this episode?? Was he just mad cause they brought up the spurs?
@@MarzTalksSportsIf Chill is giving the Spurs credit for their playoff losses…The Bulls should get credit for the years before they started winning chips.
Chill, your argument is just bad. @22:57. The Warriors lost TWO of their best players to injury, and you hold that against the Warriors for not making the playoffs in that covid year.
Not to mention that the Warriors in 2021 were the 8th seed and would've made the play-offs literally any year prior. They still lost both of their play-in games, though, so it definitely still counts as missing the play-offs.
Spurs won every other year in 5 years. 03, 05, and 07. I’m not t trying to hear the “they never went back to back” argument. Spurs were definitely a dynasty.
Bill’s Celtics, Showtime Lakers, MJ’s Bulls, Shaq-Kobe Lakers (if you wanna include the 2 Kobe rings that’s fine too but I’m speaking mainly 3 peat here), are all definitively greater than the Spurs dynasty. After that you can debate Steph’s Warriors, debate Bird’s Celtics. Spurs dynasty is either 5 or 6 for me in terms of greatest NBA dynasties. And as much as I respect the game, I’m not putting Mikan’s Lakers over the Spurs man lmaoo that’s just too early to have a real ranking in the top 5-7.
Man gtfo that’s a terrible take. Tim Duncan was the system. If all it took was the right system how come the Spurs stopped making the playoffs with the same coach?
Ox is so boring to the show we hear for opinions and he don’t want to express himself I disagree with chill a lot but at least he explains himself same with Ron like we can’t be on a talk show like I’m not gonna explain myself I don’t wanna argue…. Cool then stop taking up a spot
That’s nasty work Marz saying 5 chips in 20 years.. after 07 the dynasty run was over . 14 was the outlier championship. I like the spurs dynasty from 99-07 tho
Agree and disagree with Marz. Agree with Marz that dynasties are predicated on championships solely, but the Spurs 99-07 run is what cemented them as Top 5 Dynasty. Btw the dynasty definition is subjective. Because to me, a dynasty is a organization who wins at least 3 championships in a short period of time.
Spurs wasn't a dynasty. They never won back to back. That matters. Cant be a dynasty if u could never successfully defend the championship at least once
@@allengreene9954bruhh stop tryna overlook factual evidence😂 every top 5 dynasty team should be able to defend their chip spurs couldn't so they outta there they fasho 6th tho
@@soslime6082yea well both 00s Lakers and 80s Lakers got 5 chips with repeats/3peat in half the time. That’s more impressive. The less time it takes to win chips is better than taking a long time.
@@JT-km6th Yeah but spurs lasted longer than them yeah they didn’t get 5 rings as quick but to go 20 years 3 different decades and be able to maintain being a top 3-5 team in the league the whole way through for different eras and different play styles with different set of legends from Vince Carter Kobe Bryant Shaq to lebron dwade melo bosh cp3 to kd harden curry idc that puts them in my top 5
Usually just watch and don’t comment, but Ron and Ox looked insanely goofy in this video lol. Not trying to debate on a debate show is crazy af all because you feel some kinda way 🤦🏾♂️. Then Ron discrediting the 60-70’s AND the Warriors is insane lol.
The ACTUAL Spurs dynasty is either 2003-2007 OR 1999-2007. They were not dynastic the moment Grizzlies beat them in round 1 and they were notoriously getting cooked by Lakers.
Duncan is 5th in points, 3rd in rebounds, and 1st (by 90) in blocks in the playoffs. The Spurs Big 3 has won more playoff games than any trio in nba history. Spurs 2014 teams is one of the greatest TEAMS of all time. Largest margin of victory ever in a finals. That was Lebron Heat that they smoked. 5 chips in 15 years with one finals loss. Come on man...
So how is the spurs 5 titles in 20 years when they won their last one in 2014 which was 15 years from their first, but the warriors is considered 4 titles in 7 years, cuz their last win was in 2022. Or the bird Celtics is 3 championships in 5 years?
@ and for some reason it’s better to lose in the finals than earlier in the playoffs, but he’s calling the spurs a dynasty for 20 years cuz they made the playoffs, where the other 5-7 year dynasties didn’t last as long cuz they missed the playoffs. Which means he thinks losing in the playoffs is worse than not making it
british guy is probably too young to understand and have watched how impressive the spurs dynasty run was with the competition they faced for 2 decades of the duncan era. Only dynasty team to win a championship in 3 different decades with less top 75 players than other teams.
And context matters, saying the warriors missed the playoffs in between is a bit disingenuous. Golden State missed the playoffs when their star players missed an entire season. Most teams would falter under those circumstances. Had they been healthy during those years they would have easily made the playoffs.
You can’t count the entire 20 years as the dynasty as if they were going to the finals over the course of that entire 20 years. You can make the finals 6 years straight and lose and not be considered a dynasty. I think from 03 to 07 is the best case they have but winning in 99 and then being 4 years removed isn’t really a dynasty. Look at the buffalo bills when they lost 4 straight. That’s not a dynasty. The winning in succession is a big factor in what we consider a sports dynasty.
Saying any team before 85 having a dynasty is wrong. Strength of competition matters. Celtics and lakers dominated when they were the only 2 teams that were good and the only 2 teams that had money to pay for players. It’s only impressive when you’re comparing the 2. But comparing it to the rest of the league is insane. Spurs are definitely a top 3 dynasty ever.
@ also im taking the lakers who consistently beat the spurs and won as many rings as the spurs in less time and had a 3 peat and a repeat which the spurs never had either
@@OfficialTyrellPyea true so 1 sounds more like a great organization n team but they never had the league in a headlock I think a dynasty u need tht DOMINANCE . They made the playoffs every buy lost n never even won back to back thts not DOMINANCE n it took 20yrs to win 5 thts just a great organization.
Chill's argument is horribly weak, even though i believe the Spurs are a top 5 dynasty. A dynasty is winning the most chips in the least amount of time and being efficient at it. Calling what yne bulls and warriors did a run in defense of 5 in 20 years is nastybwork.
How do you consider a team a dynasty that completely misses the playoffs during the time you’re counting towards a dynasty? The 2000 Lakers didn’t even make the playoffs in 05 so that should disqualify them, the Warriors didn’t in 2020 and 2021, what are we talking about?! The Spurs might not have went back to back but through those years they never missed the playoffs and never went under 50 wins, y’all are tripping
Marz took them boys to school. The spurs never repeated while not only did the Lakers 3 peat. They then went back to back again. Spurs ahead of Lakers is just wild
Marz just completely taking the context of WHEN the Spurs dynasty took place. Yes, the Spurs won 50+ games for 20 years and only made the Finals 6 times. But the Spurs played in statiscally the strongest conference of all time. This is not debatable. The Spurs had elite competition to beat just to make it to the Finals. That's why their record was so good in the Finals. Because the West was just that much better than the East. The Spurs are a top 5 dynasty no debate.
Why are we giving the Spurs 20 years , but Kobe 10 years? Duncan won from 99-14. That’s 15 years! You can’t stop Kobe’s dynasty when Kobe gets his last championship. But run Duncan’s dynasty past his championship.
Because they beat the Lakers twice on their way to 2 of those championships and beat the Pistons the year after the Lakers lost to the Pistons. So the carved out credible space in the argument.
@@RLSmith-jt8qjand the Lakers beat them the year after they beat the pistons in the finals after the pistons went back to the finals. The spurs aren’t a better dynasty than the Kobe Lakers
The reason they missed the playoffs wasn’t bc the dynasty wasn’t good enough they were riddled with injury’s missing the playoffs bc of injuries that came out of nowhere doesn’t take away the fact they dominated the west and never lost a series during there run in the west
Marz killed y’all this episode had ox not even wanting to engage.😭😭 Ron talking out his ass and chill doing what he can but damn. Somebody send the SOS for low.
Chill’s logic is inconsistent. He said the Lakers won 3 straight which is a different type of dominance but the bulls won 3 straight twice but for some reason that’s merely a “Run” lol
This isn’t even an opinionated topic, if you win more in a less time + having a better roster you’re a better dynasty. Also the Warriors missed the playoffs because of injury, and losing key pieces to free agency and retirement. Still kept their very core pieces rebuilt their supporting cast and now look.
It sounds like chill is saying only teams that won throughout 15+ years are a dynasty and that's not true, if a team wins 5 chips in 5 years thats a dynasty, if the franchise never wins again that team is still a dynasty
If two dynasties won the same/similar amount of rings, what were they both doing In the years they didn’t win the title? That should be the separated, no?
I dnt think anything in basketball can be based on just championships. It wouldn’t be 30 fukin teams and 82 regular season games if it was just about championships
It's basic math, the spurs won 20% of the available titles in their run, the warriors won over half. And fyi, the warriors are number one in the west at around 15 games in the season with the entire west either injured or missing vital talent they had in previous years.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
Ngl whoever made this title did Marz dirty he just said they weren’t a top 5 dynasty
Its called clickbait
Still not helping
So who's the top 5 🤔
For real tho
Crazy thing is what i said was they arent a GUARANTEED top 5 dynasty. they can be top 5 i just disagreed with the idea that its not debatable
title is false Marz said the Spurs just aren't a clear top 5 dynasty not that they aren't a dynasty
The spurs not a top 5 dynasty ? 🤨
Still asinine
You still not helping
Bro they not listening they hearing what they wanna hear
@@Aubtoonice17 not the title implies that marz said the spurs weren't a dynasty at all. I think Marz problem with this is that they want them to be top 5 and marz disagrees. Now u can say they're not top 5 that's up to interpretation. But marz never said they weren't a dynasty
Bro the whole point of the panel is to debate. Ain’t shit pointless about debating basketball on a show about debating basketball😂🤦🏾♂️
Yeah, ox being feminine in that.
Dude on the top right was silly AF. Said he wasn’t there to debate or argue anything..then he ended up raising his voice lol. What are you on? 😂
I hear y’all but we can also acknowledge Marz was being a jerk about it as well
@@Ebonyinvasionpart2 na, he wasn't. He was just giving his take. Ox was getting sassy.
@@Ebonyinvasionpart2 Nah, Marz wasn't being a jerk this time lol. He really was trying to understand the logic. Ox was being sensitive for no reason, but I'm noticing that he's like that.
Old boy said "I'm not gonna argue" lol its a debate show, if you don't like to debate then why are you on the show? Get this guy outta here please..
Sitting there acting like a baby because you disagree with someone then not giving the room to debate you about what you think on a debate platform is goofy put someone up there who’ll engage in the show and not act like a child. Just my opinion.
Then complain about ppl over talking when you and your buddy are the worst at it is crazy work lol
To put Spurs dynasty over 2000s Lakers dynasty when Lakers had a 3peat and a back to back while wooping the Spurs is because of Kobe hatred 😂😂😂 it has to be
Clearly lol. Dudes had nothing for that argument. We know Chills a Kobe hater
What Kobe hatred? No spoke about Kobe. 🤡
@@Ghost-rb6cw Marz mentioned how the panel was recognizing all of the 5 chips as a dynasty for Duncan (even tho they were far apart) but when it came to Kobe someone said they only wanted to count the first 3 chips as a dynasty but not his 5. It’s funny too because Kobe won in a shorter time frame, 5 in 11 years with 7 finals appearances while Duncan won 5 in 16 with 6 appearances. It’s hypocritical and hate because Kobe beat the Spurs on his way to most of those and he really went off in those series to be specific. Duncan and Kobe both had different core teammates in those teams too so you can’t say it’s coo for Duncan to start with Robinson as his go to for the first 2 and then have Manu and Parker in between and Kawhi at the end of it, but it’s not coo for Kobe to start with Shaq and end with Pau for your last two. Also Chill is known to discredit Kobe and as you can see in this video he (and the panel) has a hard time accepting the truth on how more impressive the Lakers were with obvious evidence and with Kobe obviously being a superstar on all of those championships. They were unusually quiet in this one when they are usually way more vocal (especially Chill who heard facts and got cooked by Marz but was super reluctant to acknowledge them and especially when he talks about Hakeem who btw is not better than Kobe lmao 🤣. And Ox didn’t want to talk all of a sudden 👀). When someone goes unusually quiet when discussing someone great it’s usually because of animosity and trying to throw shade. It’s not like they would admit it lol..But hey that’s life.
In no order
1. Russell's Celtics
2. Mikan's Lakers
3. Jordan's Bulls
4. Showtime Lakers
5. 2010s Warriors
Spurs are a dynasty but Marz is arguing they arent a top 5 Dynasty
Mike bulls have 2 dynasties better than spurs
Mikan's Lakers are not over Duncan Spurs, and I'd personally have Kobe Lakers and Duncan Spurs over 2010's Warriors. Kobe Lakers 5 chips in 10 years. Spurs had 4 chips in the same amount of time that Warriors did. But, Spurts got their 5th later on, and Warriors are still on their 4th. You can't say Warriors is a better Dynasty than Spurs. There's a reason everyone has Duncan higher all time than Curry, why does Marz also have Duncan higher?
Naw spurs over warriors
@@bobross4616whats duncan vs steph as players gotta do w dynasties?
@@MarzTalksSports They're the creators of both Dynasties as the #1's on their respective teams. Duncan had less talent, his team was way more home-grown (pretty much all the starters for all their chips), and Duncan led the team to more championships so far. The dynasty argument is the argument on why Duncan gets rated higher than Curry. If you believe Curry created the better Dynasty like Marz, then how is Duncan rated so much higher on all time lists as well as on Marz's? The answer is simply, that Duncan is greater because he created the greater Dynasty. This is very simple.
Lol I don’t know how Marz debates with these dudes, debating people that don’t understand how to is just frustrating
That’s why I miss low and the guy that was close with chill. The 3 of them carried low key
@@notfamousalex145facts
@@notfamousalex145what happened to low and ticket and dub and them?
…
@@elijahrincon3586 they all just parted ways for their own reasons
I want to clarify since the title kinda implies im saying something im not. i think the spurs ARE a dynasty. i also think they have a case (a pretty compelling one) to be top 5. my disagreement and whole reason for this debate was the notion that they are a shoe in top 5 dynasty of all time. i think its debatable as i laid out in the segment.
15:10 is pretty much my whole opinion on this
the debate was over when you highlighted kobe's dynasty was present during the same years and achieved more success during that time (3 peat and back to back), in a less amount of time, with a better head to head record. nothing really more to discuss in my opinion
@@Y_dz1your opinion is invalid
@@Bonedupshorts says you? A nobody?
@@Bonedupshorts the beauty of an opinion is that your input is invalid
Great debate…Until LeBron was mentioned!!!
All I know is, the better dynasty doesn't let another team in their same conference come in and 3-peat and then go back-to-back 7 years later lol
And the other team doesn’t let them win 5 either not to mention beat them before and after the 3 peat
@@BIGdawg-m4i lmao bruh the spurs only won when Kobe and Shaq were at the end of there run and before the lakers got pau congratulations. Whenever Kobe had a championship squad around him Duncan never beat him
@ lol I could have sworn Kobe and shaq we both the best players in la in 99 and in 03 shaq was mvp candidate in 03 so was Kobe quit fucking making excuse Duncan’s got the shaq and Kobe lakers twice
@@moman36. Even with that the Lakers would have won that series if Big Shot Bob didn’t miss that three in Game 5.
Ngl bringing up the warriors bein too overpowered to downplay em as a dynasty is crazy considering the 80s lakers were op asf,
"They did it through the draft" but nah nah,we been saying that out here but you dum dums in the NBA Community say Bron started super teams😂🍻🍺
@@duffman1876weather it’s the draft or FA is irrelevant
Strongly disagree with the guys on the top of the screen. Marz killed them all and with their own logic. Made no sense the entire time.
Exactly absolute stupidity and bob to acting like a damn baby makes this show hard to watch IDK how tf marz does it
Ron is chatting. Dynasties are definitely reliant on titles
Always have been
That’s what make them dynasties lol Ron really doesn’t know what he talking about
The 90's Buffalo Bills were a dynasty!!!
-Ron
Ron’s argument was predicated of trying to discount or not consider 3 of the 6 teams in this debate
Makes literally no sense
Ron is not very smart
My top 5 dynasties
Criteria: CHAMPIONSHIPS, 3+ titles, 3-peat and/or repeat, defending your title, finals record/appearance, dominates in playoffs/season, competition. IMO
1. 91-98 Bulls (6 titles in 8 yrs, two 3-peats, 6-0 in finals, average title season 64 wins) 🔁2.
2. 57-69 Celtics (era tax😅) (11 titles in 13 yrs, 8-peat & repeat, 11-1 in finals, average title season wins 55 wins)🔁1.
3. 00-10 Lakers (5 titles in 11 years, one 3-peat & one repeat, 5-2 in finals, average title season 60 wins)🔁4.
4. 80-88 Lakers (5 titles in 8 years, one repeat, 5-3 in finals, average title season 61 wins)🔁3.
5. A) 15-22 Warriors (4 titles in 8 years, one repeat, 4-2 in finals, average title season 61 wins)🔁
5. (B) 99-14 Spurs (5 titles in 16 years, 5-1 in finals, average title season 60 wins)🔁
Naw that weak lockout chip takes them down. I’ll take the warriors over them. Also with your own criteria the spurs are disqualified. They never won back to back.
@@reggielewis4196 I meant more so like going back to back helps your case on the list
@@Kalinbuggs they never defended their title. Kobe MJ did it twice. In the modern era. Tim and spurs never did it. They’re not a top 5 dynasty. The warriors are. I know this is off topic, but the reconstruction of Tim Duncan’s legacy needs to be studied. He was a center 80 percent of his career. Yet he’s the greatest PF ever??? KG, Webber, Rasheed, Malone, Dirk Amare were the PF of his era. He’s credited for the culture of the spurs. While he never talked to Tony Parker his rookie year. Stephen Jackson his teammate said he would pick Kobe over Tim to start a franchise. Also Larry Bird said he would pick Kobe
@ fam in a Kobe guy lol I understand your point. That’s why I got them 5 B😂😂 I’m just saying they’re the weakest dynasty outta the key 6. They still have an argument is all I’m saying
@@Kalinbuggsbro the bs you had to go through just to say they not top 5 is crazy 😂😂. The reason the Spurs never repeated was because of the comp in their conference.
marz is right but his british accent makes it sound condescending....lol..plus he is very logical and articulate which heaps coal on everything
i am condescending to be fair
@@MarzTalksSports you always cook them with a very low voice, on low heat
Spurs being a top 5 organization as a whole might be a better conversation
think they’re comfortably 3rd behind the lakers and celtics
Heat?
@@KennyHunxho they’re prolly 6th or 7th tbh I’m taking the bulls and warriors before them then it’s a toss up between the heat and pistons
@@twinnyhardaway9336the spurs are ahead of the pistons and heat in terms of chip count and even all-time player count
You’d have a better argument with the four championships in nine years for the Spurs, longevity hurts more than helps the argument in my opinion.
How they never realized this is insane…
This is dumb bc in the longevity they still had all 50+ wins conference finals and championships in btwn
Bro the spurs had 3 main players. If you win championships with 3 of you're main core players multiple times that even includes if it result in a loss, they are a dynasty it has nothing to do with longevity, although they were pretty dominant for a very long time.
Are you more comfortable saying Tom Brady had two separate dynasties, or a 19 year patriot dynasty?
it would be similar to the kobe shaq era. you add a couple years where they had 50 win (60% win pct) seasons before and after their titles.
it spans 17 years with 5 championships
spurs spans 20 years with 5 championships
the biggest difference is the regular season win rate.
where the spurs won on average 71% of their games for 20 years straight (58 wins per season)
lakers won 65% on average for 17 years straight (53 wins per season)
Ox crying for nothing it’s a debate show
I think something to note is that not only did the Spurs never go back-to-back they also never made 3 straight finals:
Russel’s Celtics and Jordan’s bulls obviously speak for themselves on that front. Kobe-Shaq 3-peated but what people forget is that the Kobe-Pau lakers made it to 3 straight finals as well winning the latter two. The warriors made 5 in a row (that’s basically the equivalent of playing a whole extra regular season over those 5 years). Showtime lakers made 3 in a row on 2 separate occasions (83-85 and 87-89).
I think the spurs not going as deep into the postseason as consistently as those other dynasties does ding them. It also puts their elite regular seasons into context: easier to have great regular seasons compared to those other teams, when you have fresher legs.
With that said, maybe the greatest floor of any dynasty ever.
💯 percent agree
spurs might have never went back to back but they did something none of those dynasties you mentioned did which is win a champioship in 3 different decades
@@July9326so? id rather win back-to-backs then 3 in different decades😂
@@TeeFrmJack most people I've spoken to said winning one in multiple decades is more impressive due to longevity but good on you buddy
@@July9326 winning back-to-backs and multiple back-to-backs in MULTIPLE yrs is also longevity, but good on you buddy
Ox was crying 😆
Great clip because Mr “I’m too inarticulate to explain myself” was quiet for most of it
ox? i think hes such an irrelevant part of the show. he never really gets into discussions. he just agrees strongly or disagrees strongly and never goes into detail about anything.
@@Y_dz1nah he adds a hoopers perspective to it. He usually talks when they have current basketball discussions when they were having the luka discussion, when they start goin into historical stuff he kinda falls back
@@Y_dz1I’m glad you’re not the one who runs pc
@@ctrlawpdelete8266thats what op is saying, he cant articulate himself and he does not have much knowledge to go into detail to anything, its less of a hooper perspective and more of casual hoop talk. Unless your saying hoopers are casuals lol
@@Ebonyinvasionpart2 if you enjoy him just sitting in the background saying “I disagree let’s move on” then good luck to you
Ron can’t read and he think 5/20 is better than 4/7. He’s cooked
youre missing his point, what makes a great dynasty is sustainability and longevity, most dynasties you guys say are better than spurs fall off in 6-7 years
@jamesrecord4244 5/20 is not more impressive then 4/7 it's not at all not even close.
Ox was being a FEMALE in this clip… Never really seen him act like that to this extent. Anyone got context to this episode?? Was he just mad cause they brought up the spurs?
He thinks Marz is a troll
@@Rman237i am a troll,i wasnt trolling here for the most part but i am a troll
@@MarzTalksSportsIf Chill is giving the Spurs credit for their playoff losses…The Bulls should get credit for the years before they started winning chips.
It’s a conversation about championships and his team knows nothing about that 😂
Chill, your argument is just bad. @22:57. The Warriors lost TWO of their best players to injury, and you hold that against the Warriors for not making the playoffs in that covid year.
Thank youu
Not to mention that the Warriors in 2021 were the 8th seed and would've made the play-offs literally any year prior.
They still lost both of their play-in games, though, so it definitely still counts as missing the play-offs.
Thank you marz cook chill. Losing in the finals is worst than the first round 😂😂😂😂 wtf
0:22 Chill genuinely disappointed in Marz 😂
😂😂😂 “Marzz”
Btw my Top 5 is…
1. Boston Celtics 57-69
2. Chicago Bulls 91-98
3. Golden State 15-22
4. Los Angeles Lakers 00-10
5. San Antonio Spurs 99-07
Spurs won every other year in 5 years. 03, 05, and 07. I’m not t trying to hear the “they never went back to back” argument. Spurs were definitely a dynasty.
They were a dynasty just not top 5
@@TopTierHater Not top 5
If you count that, then mike hss 2 dynasties better...in the 90s lol
Warriors aren't top 5
@@211BGTV that’s your opinion but it’s a better argument than the spurs
Never going back to back, is not a dynasty
I’ll take the “LeBron Dynasty” over the Spurs Dynasty based off of the logic Chill uses.
Bron never made a Dynasty 😂😂😂😂
@@afroabe520
He was the dynasty. 9 finals in 10 years and 4 chips
Bill’s Celtics, Showtime Lakers, MJ’s Bulls, Shaq-Kobe Lakers (if you wanna include the 2 Kobe rings that’s fine too but I’m speaking mainly 3 peat here), are all definitively greater than the Spurs dynasty. After that you can debate Steph’s Warriors, debate Bird’s Celtics. Spurs dynasty is either 5 or 6 for me in terms of greatest NBA dynasties. And as much as I respect the game, I’m not putting Mikan’s Lakers over the Spurs man lmaoo that’s just too early to have a real ranking in the top 5-7.
Spurs have no back to backs and on average win their rings in 3/4 year gaps. Continuity with your players dont always translate to a better dynasty.
Did a 14 year old type this?
@@demonreacts7816 Probably if you were unable to comprehend it. I’ll write like an 8 year old next time specifically just for you.
@@thund3r682 I think even an 8 year old who’s barely old enough to remember COVID will probably squint at this and say ur wrong
@@thund3r682I agree because Tim Duncan is overrated he was a system player
Man gtfo that’s a terrible take. Tim Duncan was the system. If all it took was the right system how come the Spurs stopped making the playoffs with the same coach?
Ox is so boring to the show we hear for opinions and he don’t want to express himself
I disagree with chill a lot but at least he explains himself same with Ron like we can’t be on a talk show like I’m not gonna explain myself I don’t wanna argue…. Cool then stop taking up a spot
Now its boring but when a certain person was doing what you want you wanted him off the show lol
Russel celtics , mj bulls , magic lakers , Shaq & Kobe lakes & warriors all these teams won back to back
LeBron is a dynasty also
@@dparks2856Not with a 3-5 Finals record in that time span.
3-5 in the finals plus getting swep 3 times? Hell no@@dparks2856
@@dparks2856no he isnt a dynasty tf😂
@TeeFrmJack
10 finals and 4 chips is a dynasty
If you say the spurs were a dynasty explain how in the early 2000s the lakers were smoking them and won 3 rings in a row while they were a “dynasty”
The spurs also beat the Lakers twice
You realize there were 2 simultaneous dynasties in the 80’s right? Celtics and Lakers were both beating each other
Are you forgetting when the spurs also beat the lakers big guy
@@ctrlawpdelete8266 after the lakers ran off 3 straight and the year after the spurs beat them
They came right back and sent them home again
@@RLSmith-jt8qjthey beat the lakers in 1999 before the lakers were a dynasty. In the 00s lakers beat them 4-1 (01, 02, 04 & 08)
Spurs never had to add a KD to their core. Their core won 5 titles with no added Kobe's, LeBrons, or other tops 5 players.
That’s nasty work Marz saying 5 chips in 20 years.. after 07 the dynasty run was over . 14 was the outlier championship. I like the spurs dynasty from 99-07 tho
They were the ones valuing 5 rings if they want to say 14 doesnt count thats fine
@ understandable
Agree and disagree with Marz. Agree with Marz that dynasties are predicated on championships solely, but the Spurs 99-07 run is what cemented them as Top 5 Dynasty. Btw the dynasty definition is subjective. Because to me, a dynasty is a organization who wins at least 3 championships in a short period of time.
Spurs wasn't a dynasty. They never won back to back. That matters. Cant be a dynasty if u could never successfully defend the championship at least once
To say 3 Rings in 5 years is not a dynasty is moronic.
@@HopefulNihilistit's not you just a fan
@@malikwilson7387. Dude how bad takes are you gonna have.
@@allengreene9954bruhh stop tryna overlook factual evidence😂 every top 5 dynasty team should be able to defend their chip spurs couldn't so they outta there they fasho 6th tho
@ Shit sign me up for 5 Titles in 15 Years. Some teams don’t even win ONE Title🤦🏿🤦🏿🤦🏿🤦🏿
"I said what I said" in a sports debate is wild😂😂😂😂😂
Idc 20 years with 5 rings and never winning under 50 games in the process in one of the hardest eras in nba history top 5 in my opinion
And also with a 5-1 finals win loss record
@@soslime6082yea well both 00s Lakers and 80s Lakers got 5 chips with repeats/3peat in half the time. That’s more impressive. The less time it takes to win chips is better than taking a long time.
@@JT-km6th Yeah but spurs lasted longer than them yeah they didn’t get 5 rings as quick but to go 20 years 3 different decades and be able to maintain being a top 3-5 team in the league the whole way through for different eras and different play styles with different set of legends from Vince Carter Kobe Bryant Shaq to lebron dwade melo bosh cp3 to kd harden curry idc that puts them in my top 5
Usually just watch and don’t comment, but Ron and Ox looked insanely goofy in this video lol. Not trying to debate on a debate show is crazy af all because you feel some kinda way 🤦🏾♂️. Then Ron discrediting the 60-70’s AND the Warriors is insane lol.
There is a difference between debating and arguing, especially when its a DEBATE show. Just wish people understood the difference 😂
The ACTUAL Spurs dynasty is either 2003-2007 OR 1999-2007. They were not dynastic the moment Grizzlies beat them in round 1 and they were notoriously getting cooked by Lakers.
Damn ox. You definitely was in your feelings on this one. I wasn’t expecting that out of you.
These guys says "definitively" and all hell breaks lose smh
Duncan is 5th in points, 3rd in rebounds, and 1st (by 90) in blocks in the playoffs. The Spurs Big 3 has won more playoff games than any trio in nba history. Spurs 2014 teams is one of the greatest TEAMS of all time. Largest margin of victory ever in a finals. That was Lebron Heat that they smoked. 5 chips in 15 years with one finals loss. Come on man...
5 champions in 15 years sign me up rn
Facts, I’m always in contention for FIFTEEN YEARS. I’ll take that
So how is the spurs 5 titles in 20 years when they won their last one in 2014 which was 15 years from their first, but the warriors is considered 4 titles in 7 years, cuz their last win was in 2022. Or the bird Celtics is 3 championships in 5 years?
That’s what I’m saying he was gassing that 20 years argument
@ and for some reason it’s better to lose in the finals than earlier in the playoffs, but he’s calling the spurs a dynasty for 20 years cuz they made the playoffs, where the other 5-7 year dynasties didn’t last as long cuz they missed the playoffs. Which means he thinks losing in the playoffs is worse than not making it
Marz wasn't saying the big 3 spurs aren't a dynasty he just saying they're not a top 5 dynasty which I agree with him
british guy is probably too young to understand and have watched how impressive the spurs dynasty run was with the competition they faced for 2 decades of the duncan era. Only dynasty team to win a championship in 3 different decades with less top 75 players than other teams.
And context matters, saying the warriors missed the playoffs in between is a bit disingenuous. Golden State missed the playoffs when their star players missed an entire season. Most teams would falter under those circumstances. Had they been healthy during those years they would have easily made the playoffs.
5 champion rings 22 years straight making playoffs, 6 final
You can’t count the entire 20 years as the dynasty as if they were going to the finals over the course of that entire 20 years. You can make the finals 6 years straight and lose and not be considered a dynasty. I think from 03 to 07 is the best case they have but winning in 99 and then being 4 years removed isn’t really a dynasty. Look at the buffalo bills when they lost 4 straight. That’s not a dynasty. The winning in succession is a big factor in what we consider a sports dynasty.
Saying any team before 85 having a dynasty is wrong. Strength of competition matters. Celtics and lakers dominated when they were the only 2 teams that were good and the only 2 teams that had money to pay for players. It’s only impressive when you’re comparing the 2. But comparing it to the rest of the league is insane. Spurs are definitely a top 3 dynasty ever.
I agree with marz i find 4 rings in 8 years with a repeat more impressive as well 5 rings in 10 years with a 3 peat
Not when you add in context one of those organizations didn’t miss the playoffs during that time while the other missed it twice
@ if the spurs were decimated by injuries like the warriors in 2020 and 21 they would’ve missed the playoffs too
@ also im taking the lakers who consistently beat the spurs and won as many rings as the spurs in less time and had a 3 peat and a repeat which the spurs never had either
@@OfficialTyrellPthe warriors were injured 😂, u can’t hold tht against em
@@OfficialTyrellPyea true so 1 sounds more like a great organization n team but they never had the league in a headlock I think a dynasty u need tht DOMINANCE . They made the playoffs every buy lost n never even won back to back thts not DOMINANCE n it took 20yrs to win 5 thts just a great organization.
Chill's argument is horribly weak, even though i believe the Spurs are a top 5 dynasty. A dynasty is winning the most chips in the least amount of time and being efficient at it. Calling what yne bulls and warriors did a run in defense of 5 in 20 years is nastybwork.
take ox out cause hes not trying to debate on a debate show
5 championships in 15 years. Not 5 in 20 years.
How do you consider a team a dynasty that completely misses the playoffs during the time you’re counting towards a dynasty? The 2000 Lakers didn’t even make the playoffs in 05 so that should disqualify them, the Warriors didn’t in 2020 and 2021, what are we talking about?! The Spurs might not have went back to back but through those years they never missed the playoffs and never went under 50 wins, y’all are tripping
I busted out laughing when Chill said “its not ridiculous” again 😂😂
Marz was cooking lol
Not to harp but Kobe’s Lakers won 5 chips in 11 years
By their logic yeah
Yo this is Comedy the way chill brings Ox into the convo knowing he Fuming is PURE COMEDY 🤣🤣
So wait they hated on the bill russells era cause it was so easy but now its a top 5 dynasty i dont understand these shows man
Marz cooked
Saying they are not a dynasty is flat out ridiculous heard it all
Marz took them boys to school. The spurs never repeated while not only did the Lakers 3 peat. They then went back to back again. Spurs ahead of Lakers is just wild
Marz right the rest of the panel is wrong
This title is bait and Marz’s actual take is facts.
Using Mikan’s Lakers as a point in his favor is hilarious tho lol.
Marz just completely taking the context of WHEN the Spurs dynasty took place. Yes, the Spurs won 50+ games for 20 years and only made the Finals 6 times. But the Spurs played in statiscally the strongest conference of all time. This is not debatable. The Spurs had elite competition to beat just to make it to the Finals. That's why their record was so good in the Finals. Because the West was just that much better than the East. The Spurs are a top 5 dynasty no debate.
The fact that Chill fell for Marz’s troll is crazy. A single player cannot be a dynasty.
Why are we giving the Spurs 20 years , but Kobe 10 years? Duncan won from 99-14. That’s 15 years! You can’t stop Kobe’s dynasty when Kobe gets his last championship. But run Duncan’s dynasty past his championship.
Lakers dynasty were greater than the spurs . How can you even argue otherwise
Because they beat the Lakers twice on their way to 2 of those championships and beat the Pistons the year after the Lakers lost to the Pistons. So the carved out credible space in the argument.
@@yahiaali4059 which Lakers dynasty?
@@Jay_draco 2000s lakers
@@RLSmith-jt8qjand the Lakers beat them the year after they beat the pistons in the finals after the pistons went back to the finals. The spurs aren’t a better dynasty than the Kobe Lakers
@reggielewis4196 didn't say that they were. Said they had an argument
7:08 bro ain’t no way 💀💀💀
11:08 12:08 15:15 27:58 haymakers
Saying that The Spurs isn’t a dynasty is the same thing as saying The Patriots aren’t a dynasty.
The reason they missed the playoffs wasn’t bc the dynasty wasn’t good enough they were riddled with injury’s missing the playoffs bc of injuries that came out of nowhere doesn’t take away the fact they dominated the west and never lost a series during there run in the west
Marz killed y’all this episode had ox not even wanting to engage.😭😭 Ron talking out his ass and chill doing what he can but damn. Somebody send the SOS for low.
Chill’s logic is inconsistent. He said the Lakers won 3 straight which is a different type of dominance but the bulls won 3 straight twice but for some reason that’s merely a “Run” lol
This isn’t even an opinionated topic, if you win more in a less time + having a better roster you’re a better dynasty. Also the Warriors missed the playoffs because of injury, and losing key pieces to free agency and retirement. Still kept their very core pieces rebuilt their supporting cast and now look.
More success in less time is a more impressive dynasty than less success over a long period of time.
Why they keep calling 99-14 20 years lol
5 grown men arguing about a scripted sport they wasn’t good enough to b in is pathetic
I’m glad the dynasty lack of parity era is over loool.
Russ celtics, jordans bulls, showtime lakers, shaq kobe lakers, and warriors. In that order.
My Top 5 NBA Dynasties (no order)
1.) Russell's Celtics
2.) Jordan's Bulls
3.) Showtime Lakers
4.) Duncan's Spurs
5.) Shaq/Kobe Lakers or Bird Celtics (either or)
It sounds like chill is saying only teams that won throughout 15+ years are a dynasty and that's not true, if a team wins 5 chips in 5 years thats a dynasty, if the franchise never wins again that team is still a dynasty
Ron and Ox deadass just be on the panel
If two dynasties won the same/similar amount of rings, what were they both doing In the years they didn’t win the title? That should be the separated, no?
1. Celtics
2. Spurs
The rest up for debate.
You have to go back to back to be a dynasty. Technically 3peat but with that said, Kevin Durant made the warriors a dynasty.
I dnt think anything in basketball can be based on just championships. It wouldn’t be 30 fukin teams and 82 regular season games if it was just about championships
99-14 is not 20 years. That being said I can put Lakers over Spurs..
The better topic would be dynastys vs. powerhouses!
Chill was straight bugging here
4 chips in 7 years is EASILY better than 5 in 17
Chill is insane for saying it’s not about chips, basketball is becoming a sport about losers, the praise for not winning is ridiculous.
It all started when a kid from Cleveland came into the league in 2004….
Dude with the dreads and black hoodie is mad illogical 😂
It's basic math, the spurs won 20% of the available titles in their run, the warriors won over half. And fyi, the warriors are number one in the west at around 15 games in the season with the entire west either injured or missing vital talent they had in previous years.
Ox couldn’t prove and he just got mad😂