"even though your own arguments seem weak at best to me."

hmm. And I'M the one using superlatives?


"Also, I wouldn't use superlatives like never and all, because it's really hard to defend a stance based on superlatives - like the Lakers and the Celtics never had any trouble - yeah I'm sure it was always a walk in the park for them without any problems whatsoever."

Boston Celtics 17 championships

Lakers 15 championships

Please stop nitpicking my argument. You know what I mean when I say they "never had trouble". Unless you can tell me a super bowl team with 17 rings.



And all of the Nfl network, all the analysts, all the players, all the coaches, and all

When NFL network and it's analysts, players, and coaches(including ones from who help write the rules books) get together to make a show called [b]TOP TEN DYNASTIES[b], then the majority of them probably all agree on dynasties.

Once again stop nitpicking me.


"there are 82 games in the NHL regular season"

There's 162 games in baseballs regular season.
There's 82 games in basketball.

"Sorry, but that to me is just ignorant. There are no players in the NHL that are just fighters, and if you knew about the sport, you'd know that the fights are about more than just giving the audience something to cheer about. They are very important strategical tools, which can be used to sway the momentum away from the other team, and in that way they can affect the whole outcome of the game."

Please. If hockey was an actual "strategic tactic" or was in the rulebooks then we'd see little kids in their elementary school hockey punching each other. Why don't we see that? Cause it's not part of the sport. We see kids tackling in peewee football. That's because that's an actual part of the sport. "Sway momentum"? You sway momentum because you just crippled the other team. It's the same thing as saying that beating up the other guy in golf is a strategic tool. It just happens to be legal in hockey.



"Also, there are 82 games in the NHL regular season and a team could potentially have to play in 28 playoff games to win the Stanley Cup if all of the playoff series went to the max 7 games. So, that's a total of 110 games in a winning season, and that's in within the timespan of 180 to 190 days (it varies a bit from year to year). So, 110 games in 190 days means that you have more game days than days off - tell me again how that's not that hard as opposed to football?! And, I'd even argue that the hits the players dish out and receive in the NHL can be more violent than they are in the NFL because of the speed of the game, which allows players to use the skating momentum to launch themselves into other players."

It's not hard because the players aren't getting much workout in the actual sport.

Who cares about the skating momentum? That sounds pretty lazy imo. You're not even running. You're skating across a small 200 ft rink(as opposed to a 100 yard field). You're basically having momentum do the work for you.


"And, I'd even argue that the hits the players dish out and receive in the NHL can be more violent than they are in the NFL because of the speed of the game"

The problem with that is players aren't SUPPOSED to do that. They're supposed to get the puck. Not the player. Football players are supposed to SUPPOSED to hurt each other. Not to mention that hockey players only sometimes hit each other. In football, 3 guys could be getting hit every 10 seconds. And it's much harder.
Clearly you haven't seen many punt returns. The players in football with how fast they run make hockey players look like snails. There's your momentum right there.
Plus I have something better than momentum. It's called gravity.
None of the hockey players can JUMP on each other. D players jumping at o players is common.



"To your point about touchdowns. It really isn't a valid argument and I just can't understand why you persist on using it?! Naturally, there was a time when no one had ever seen what a touchdown was like, but that was clearly in a time before they started to play for Super Bowls (1967). And your definition of a dynasty in football has been based on winning Super Bowls, so why would we even discuss a concept that has no bearing on the game as it is today or has been at least since 1967? That's all about the history of the game, and it among its rules developed the way they did because of the people involved and the events that unfolded, but naturally they could've developed another way - a way in which touchdowns were in fact worth 20 points."

You persist me to stop using touchdowns as an argument but then screw up with football knowledge so why should I?

Football has been around since 1876(WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY before super bowls). That's not the point.
You persist that I'm not listening to your arguments but you continue to ignore my argument and this statement right here is proof of that....



"And your definition of a dynasty in football has been based on winning Super Bowls, so why would we even discuss a concept that has no bearing on the game as it is today or has been at least since 1967?"

I'm not talking about that.
I'm talking about the fact that you just keep making up your own opinions on what a "dynasty" is.


If you can do that NOW, then what exactly would have stopped a minor group back then from saying "hey touchdowns are 20 points"? if the circumstances changed?

You're a minor group right now with this dynasty talk. It's widely accepted in football what a football dynasty is. Michael Vick just made a comment about how he thinks the eagles could have one.

Dynasty is an unofficial term but so is tailgating, fan,etc.

Officially the saints had a bounty, but we all know the truth.






"This last part is a very good example of why it's probably best that we just let this thing lie as it is, because you seem to favor other tactics, than presenting valid arguments, to try and win the debate. I don't know if you are trying to refer to the fact that English isn't my native language or that I don't know enough about football to make arguments against your stance, but in either case, this seems like a lost cause."

This right here is just sad.

1. Nitpicking my words and twisting them to make me look like some close minded elitist is not a "valid argument".

2. I didn't even know that you were foreign.

3. I asked if you sounded "mad" about the term "dynasty" because that's been a common thing on this thread. What do you think I've been talking with black about this whole time? Many on here assume "dynasty" is just a term to make other teams have a bigger ego. It's not.

4. I used "sack" and "collision" as examples of how football makes simple things sound cool.

What was just 2 guys hitting each other has now become cool words like "SACK" AND "COLLISION". I was not referring to whether or not you knew nothing about football.

5. I've met people from Finland. And I'm sure they'd be disappointed that you're somehow using your nationality(which is not needed anyway) to twist my words and make me out to be a hater or something.

6. And when I say WE. I meant the rulebook(the same thing you've been preaching FOR). Are you saying you call it something other than a sack?

The end.

P.S.

I don't hate hockey. I actually enjoy it at times. But it's not football and it never will be to me.

Oh, and I apologize to my fellow Finns for the disappointment I've caused them!

Scapegoating your own nationality for no reason and not caring? That's pathetic. I bet you're not even Finnish.

Honestly just stop. I'm THIS close to reporting you.

Oh, please. I won't even degrade myself by answering to you...

That ship may have already sailed.

Oh, please. I won't even degrade myself by answering to you... all I was doing was laughing at your insanity.

Here's another gem of a laugh-o-riot from your reply to x626xBlack:








Tell me, are you a comedian by trade or is it just something that comes naturally to you?

A sports dynasty is a team that dominates their sport or league for multiple seasons or years, but in many cases, whether a team has achieved a dynasty is often subjective, and can be a frequent topic of debate among sports fans.

Per wiki:

A sports dynasty is a team that dominates their sport or league for multiple seasons or years, but in many cases, whether a team has achieved a dynasty is often subjective, and can be a frequent topic of debate among sports fans.

Ya'll are all wrong!

Exactly, and that was my original point - I don't personally see a dynasty as was initially given as the definition for it in this thread. I was only trying to get my definition across without necessarily saying that the other definitions were wrong - just that I don't agree with that definition.