The rest of January

[Laker Fan]

I don't know about that definition of rivalry. In the 10 times the Celtics won the Finals from 1959-1969, they Faced the Lakers 7, once before they moved to LA and 3 time back to back, one of those was a 3peat. Only once were they swept, when they were in Minneapolis, only once after that did it go less than 6 games and 3 times the full 7.

That may not seem like a rivalry to the Celtics who won every series, but I was old enough to remember at least the last 2 or 3. and although at that age I was a far bigger baseball fan than NBA fan, you can't tell me at least the Lakers considered it a rivalry, 7 trips to the Finals to be beaten by the same team every time is rivalry of epic proprtions to the losing side.

Boston versus Philly was no way a rivalry, based on the criteria mentioned earlier. Russell and Chamberlain may have been rivals but again, based on the criteria mentioned earlier, Boston had no rivals in the 60's, it didn't matter that Boston met the Sixers something like 4 or 5 staight times and lost to them only once, so if that is a rivalry, the Lakers/Celtics of the '60 is ABSOLUTELY a rivalry.

I would even say the Kings/Laker were a rivalry, albeit a shortlived one that only led to JoMal's drinking problem, but there was definately something there, maybe more fan based than team based but still...

[westkoast]

It's only a rivalry when the teams beat each other in the playoffs 

I know what you mean.  The West/Baylor (and later Chamberlain) Lakers were never really rivals to Boston except for 1 year during the latter 50s and entire 60s decade.

 

As much as you are trying to take jabs I actually do agree for the most part.  The Lakers got beat up by the Celtics but they did actually beat them. 

Portland and Sacramento never beat the Lakers in the 2000s.   Sacramento/LA def was a rivalry.   I don't think anyone can say otherwise.  JoMaL is still upset about it and we are fast approaching 2010 the year of the flying car.   Even though they never beat the Lakers they were def a team the Lakers loved to hate.  I don't fully agree with what I said or what Kobe actually said (WOW he was the one who said it in jest).  I just wanted to shake things up a bit.   Personally I'd love to see Ziggy post 10x as much as he normally does.  If that requires some bait to get his statistical break down, so be it!

[Lurker]

WoW made a decent list of rivalries.

For Spurs fans our rivalries over the past couple decades are as follows.  Some though were unrequited by the fans of other teams.  Mostly they don't rise to the level of true rivalries IMO because as a small market team the Spurs have never captured the national media.

80's Lakers - Spurs had the A-Train and Iceman.  Anyone who doesn't know who the Lakers had should leave the board.  In many ways overshadowed by the great Magic/Bird rivalry in the minds of Laker fans and most casual fans.  The Spurs kept trying to get past the Lakers but never could.  Shakiest rivalry on the list.

90's Jazz - Robinson/Elliot vs Stockton/Malone for division championship year after year.  And mix in a few classic playoffs to get a true rivalry.

1999-2004  Lakers - IMO this rivalry outshone the Kings/Lakers one.  But of course in the media driven world of LA LA land it was better press to bash an upstate opponent than one that many still saw as a small market upstart.

2004-current  Mavs - Too bad the Mavs wussed out last year in the playoffs.  I think another Mavs/Spurs series would have rivaled the 2006 seven game series decided in OT.

Spurs and Pistons are close to being a rivalry.  I would love to see another championship series pitting these two teams this year.  I think if the Pistons would have beat the Cavs last year then meeting for the second time in 3 years for the title would have helped define these teams as rivals.



Funny thing is many fans still don't see SA as having a solid history.  However there is only one team with more playoff appearances (Lakers) and only 3 teams with more titles (Lakers, Celtics, Bulls).  The Spurs have only missed the playoffs 4 or 5 times in their history.

[Laker Fan]

The rivalry between the Jazz and Spurs actually prompted SA to build their team specifically to beat the Jazz, THAT is a rivalry!

[WayOutWest]

Russell and Chamberlain may have been rivals but again, based on the criteria mentioned earlier, Boston had no rivals in the 60's, it didn't matter that Boston met the Sixers something like 4 or 5 staight times and lost to them only once, so if that is a rivalry, the Lakers/Celtics of the '60 is ABSOLUTELY a rivalry.

..Boston met the Sixers something like 4 or 5 staight times and lost to them only once...rivalry.

That's ALL it takes, if you beat them ONCE, it's a rivalry.  If you beat the other team ZERO times, no matter how close, it is NOT a rivalry.

IMO the Celts had only ONE rival in the 60's and that is Philly, everybody else is just a team THEY beat.

IMO the Spurs/Mavs is a rivalry cause they beat each other, the Mavs just didn't get the prize. 

[Skandery]

As much as you are trying to take jabs I actually do agree for the most part.

I'm not trying to take jabs, I was being facetious.  WOW's assertion that a team needs to beat the other team at least once to validate the rivalry is preposterous.  I believe the Lakers WERE the Celtics rivals in the 60s.  New York never beat Chicago until Michael Jordan left, but they were a rivalry.  The Jazz-Spurs of the 90s were definitely a rivalry, I remember them going at it nearly every year.  I believe the Kings-Lakers were a rivalry. 

If two teams have a nice run of meeting each other in the playoffs in successive years, it constitutes a rivalry.  A rivalry to the magnitude of Lakers-Celtics of the 80s or Piston-Bulls of late 80s/early 90s, No, but a rivalry nonetheless.     

[WayOutWest]

As much as you are trying to take jabs I actually do agree for the most part.

I'm not trying to take jabs, I was being facetious.  WOW's assertion that a team needs to beat the other team at least once to validate the rivalry is preposterous.  I believe the Lakers WERE the Celtics rivals in the 60s.  New York never beat Chicago until Michael Jordan left, but they were a rivalry.  The Jazz-Spurs of the 90s were definitely a rivalry, I remember them going at it nearly every year.  I believe the Kings-Lakers were a rivalry. 

If two teams have a nice run of meeting each other in the playoffs in successive years, it constitutes a rivalry.  A rivalry to the magnitude of Lakers-Celtics of the 80s or Piston-Bulls of late 80s/early 90s, No, but a rivalry nonetheless.     

It might have been a rivalry to the teams who lost but the WINNING team never felt the pain of losing so how can you call it a rivalry.  If only one team wins it is NOT IMO a rivalry.  If you are going to REDUCE the meaning of the term "rivalry" as it applies to the NBA, and sports in general, then you have a bunch of other one-sided playoff victims suddenly become "rivals".

In the 2000's:
Lakers/Portland
Lakers/Wolves
Lakers/Kings
Lakers/Pacers
Lakers/Sixers
Laker/Nets
Spurs/Wolves
Spurs/Suns
Kings/Mavs
Pistons/Pacers
Suns/Lakers

Either the term rivalry is lacking when talking about the Lakers/Celtics, Spurs/Lakers, Bulls/Pistons, Celtics/Pistons etc...or it's overkill when referring to one sided arse kickings as noted above.

[Skandery]

Lakers/Portland  --  I don't remember if that one 7-game series was the only one they played, eh, semi-rivalry.
Lakers/Wolves --  No.  They only ever saw each other once and the outcome was never questioned.
Lakers/Kings --  Definitely.  I remember for 3 years going, "if the Kings get past L.A., they'll coast in the Finals."
Lakers/Pacers -- No.  See Lakers/Wolves
Lakers/Sixers -- No.  See Lakers/Wolves
Laker/Nets -- No.  See Lakers/Wolves
Spurs/Wolves -- No.  I don't even remember the series.
Spurs/Suns  -- Yes.  And if they see each other this year, tell me the court won't be drenched in bad blood.
Kings/Mavs  -- No.  But I'm not for sure--how many times did they meet up.
Pistons/Pacers -- No.
Suns/Lakers  -- Yes.  A rivalry is sort of developing and I know plenty of Laker fans chomping at the bit to see them for a 3rd straight year.

[westkoast]

Lakers/Portland  --  I don't remember if that one 7-game series was the only one they played, eh, semi-rivalry.

They saw them one more time in the first round and got rid of them fairly quickly.

Lakers/Wolves --  No.  They only ever saw each other once and the outcome was never questioned.

Actually there was a bit of a scare.

 

Lakers/Kings --  Definitely.  I remember for 3 years going, "if the Kings get past L.A., they'll coast in the Finals."

No doubt about this one.  The Lakers/Kings was a rivalry even though the Kings never beat the Lakers in the playoffs.  Like I said JoMaL is still upset about the Lakers and it's almost 2010.

Lakers/Pacers -- No.  See Lakers/Wolves
Lakers/Sixers -- No.  See Lakers/Wolves
Laker/Nets -- No.  See Lakers/Wolves

Agreed

Suns/Lakers  -- Yes.  A rivalry is sort of developing and I know plenty of Laker fans chomping at the bit to see them for a 3rd straight year.

Technically its a rivalry on our side but I don't know if up until 2 weeks ago that the Suns or their fans were even worried about the Lakers like that.

[Lurker]

Spurs/Wolves -- No.  I don't even remember the series.

This was a divisional rivalry of sorts...didn't really capture the national attention.  Tough to dfo with 2 small market teams...especially with the Wolves lack of history.  But the KG/TD matchup was awesome to watch 4 times a year.  Faded when the league realigned the divsions.  SA was the measuring stick (divsion titles/playoff success) that the Wolves were using.

[WayOutWest]

Spurs/Wolves -- No.  I don't even remember the series.

This was a divisional rivalry of sorts...didn't really capture the national attention.  Tough to dfo with 2 small market teams...especially with the Wolves lack of history.  But the KG/TD matchup was awesome to watch 4 times a year.  Faded when the league realigned the divsions.  SA was the measuring stick (divsion titles/playoff success) that the Wolves were using.

I remember KG comming into his own going up against TD and the Spurs in the playoffs even though KG never came out on top.  Wasn't there a year where the Wolves were the only team that made the Spurs break a sweat?