Bryant: "Lakers-Kings No Longer a Rivalry"

VF21

#KingsFansForever
Staff member
#61
Okay, let me see if I have this straight...

Laker fans are seeking out a Kings message board. They come to the board because they don't consider us rivals and, in fact, want to make sure we understand we're not their rivals. Yeah...

If some of us think there's a rivalry and some Laker fans think there's a rivalry, there is - most likely - a rivalry, at least as far as the collective we is concerned. And as Bricklayer pointed out above, we're not alone in the feeling. Virtually every broacaster of either team or at the national level has called it a rivalry. But if rivalry bothers you so much, why don't we just call it "parsnip"?

For the record, the "parsnip" existed before the fight between Christie and Fox. It started back in 1999, when the upstart Kings had the unmitigated gall not to simply fall down and die before the feet of the mighty Lakers. We actually had the nerve to entertain the possibility of beating said Lakers. And we gave them a run for their money more than once.

So, to this day, the parsnip flourishes. One part may not be equal to the task any longer - and I suspect that's the real reason the parsnip is being denied.

;)
 
#62
That's an interesting use for parsnip. You even made me look up the meaning of the word. It's some kind of plant that is edible.

To the definition of the word rivalry that was quoted by one of the posters, I don't think there was one. When it comes to the subjective meaning of the word, perhaps it was a rivalry.

It might have been a rivalry because of the fierce competition between the two teams and as per Brick, the ratings would suggest it was a rivalry.

If that's the case, why did it die when Jackson and Shaq left, before we've actually seen what type of competition there is going to be? Is it then the hatred that you equate to the rivalry?

I'm sure of one thing though - it's not a rivaly because we Laker fans are here to talk hoops.
 

Bricklayer

Don't Make Me Use The Bat
Staff member
#64
KA_2 said:
It's a rivalry among hardcore fans of both teams based solely on a preseason fight between Christie and Fox and all the stuff said off the court. The rivalry often had little to do with play on the basketball court except for the 2002 WCF, where the end result was still the same. This "rivalry" was probably the most overblown rivalry of the past 20 years, though nothing can top the "rivalry" of the Red Sox and Yankees. And no, Sox-Yankees is not a real rivalry, it's just hate among fans. Yes, because the Yankees win every time, it's not much of a baseball rivalry, just one hell of an off the field and media-hyped rivalry.

You know you understand the viewpoint Brick, you just don't want to admit that any rivalry with the same income isn't much of a true rivalry.

And in case you're wondering, here's what rivalry means:

1 a : one of two or more striving to reach or obtain something that only one can possess b : one striving for competitive advantage
2 obsolete : COMPANION, ASSOCIATE
3 : one that equals another in desired qualities : PEER
Odd that you would quote something which supports my viewpoint, but hey, whatever. As mentioned, it really is the worst sort of childish self-aggrandizement to announce that no, there is no rivalry, when the entire rest of the planet recognizes it, and relishes it. Heck, you'd probably be strung up by your shoelaces and hung from the second deck in EITHER Boston or New York if you tried to bring that weak stuff into THE rivalry that roughly 99% of the non-self serving world recognizes. They love it. Wallow in it. And for the most part have the guts and smarts to admit its existence. Looking to redefine the word rivalry is beyond pointless -- it was what it was regardless of the tag you want to put on it, and there really isn't a thing you can do about it no matter how much you blather. You could say that the games were all *****-slappings if you want, and the rest of the basketball world will just smile at you and say "whatever kid" and then promptly go back to ignoring you.

In any case, its that very arrogance and swarminess you now show which develops rivalries in the first place. Ironically the very effort to deny them is the best sign they do indeed exist. Unfortunately the word of a Laker fan is not enough to respawn the beastie. There never was a rivalry with Lakers fans -- an inferior breed of late arriving cell phone addicted face timers posing as fans if there ever were any. That was a true blowout (NOTE: I just did the same thing to you). Its got to be on the court. And right now nobody has any history, the teams aren't striving for the same goal (the Kings still have title hopes, the Lakers will do well to just make the playoffs), and the animosity meter on court is quite low. All we're left with is a few lonely internet trolls pissing in the wind and thinking they look anything but pathetic trying to rewrite history as NBATV repeatedly shows Kings/Lakers clashes from the past 5 years as part of Rivalry Week.

Feel free to type in "Kings/Lakers" & rivalry in google if you'd like to educate yourself and catch up on one of the biggest stories in the NBA in the new millenium. But you're here. So you must already know.
 
Last edited:

Bricklayer

Don't Make Me Use The Bat
Staff member
#66
Lamar_Odom said:
If that's the case, why did it die when Jackson and Shaq left, before we've actually seen what type of competition there is going to be? Is it then the hatred that you equate to the rivalry?
Yes it is the hatred that fuels any rivalry. And the old story is simple enough -- you hate what you fear. What has hurt you, or can hurt you.
 
#67
Kobe can go to hell, as far as I'm concerned...I have no problem acknowledging the facts about his game, and being one of the top 3 players in the league, but he's a little b--ch for dogging all his boys out after the world found out about what kind of person he REALLY is...and its not just the trial, either, he was innocent, and I thought that all along, but the fact that he is an idiot that wants people to think of him as angelic and almost above everyone else in the world is just a farse. Everyone has skeletons, and 'Showbe' is no different than anyone else.
 

Bricklayer

Don't Make Me Use The Bat
Staff member
#68
sloter said:
I don't know Brick, I wouldn't be too surprised if the Lakers ended up having a better regular season record than the Kings.
Anything's possible. Not likely. But possible. Too many holes on that team. Will win 40+. But 50+? Unlikely.
 
#70
Bricklayer said:
Yes it is the hatred that fuels any rivalry. And the old story is simple enough -- you hate what you fear. What has hurt you, or can hurt you.
Got it. In short, your definition of rivaly is driven by hatred, not necessarily by competition.
 

Mr. S£im Citrus

Doryphore of KingsFans.com
Staff member
#71
Do you mean to imply that the matchups weren't competitive? :rolleyes:

Two of the three times the Kings and Lakers met in the playoffs, the series went the maximum number of games. The final outcome does not make the series any less competitive, and to suggest otherwise is just plain conceit.
 
#73
Mr. S£im Citrus said:
Do you mean to imply that the matchups weren't competitive? :rolleyes:

Two of the three times the Kings and Lakers met in the playoffs, the series went the maximum number of games. The final outcome does not make the series any less competitive, and to suggest otherwise is just plain conceit.
Whatever it was, it was competitive, extremely. However, a lot of fans, and even "experts" have dismissed the "rivalry" because Jackson and Shaq are both gone, without even seeing the kind of competition this "new" Lakers might be able to offer. This is a suggestion that since Shaq and Jackson are gone, the Lakers won't even come close to competing with the Kings.
 

Bricklayer

Don't Make Me Use The Bat
Staff member
#74
Lamar_Odom said:
Got it. In short, your definition of rivaly is driven by hatred, not necessarily by competition.
Sure. But there is no hatred without competition. Without fear of losing. Without bragging rights being up for grabs. There is simply no way that either of our teams ever develops hatred/a rivalry with the Atlanta Hawks unless the Hawks get really good and become a threat to us in the Finals.

Now perhaps after the bad blood is first generated it can linger for a while, but it simply cannot start in the first place without the competition. Portland was a great rival of the Lakers for a while based on the 2000 WCF. And it lingered. For several years afterward there was still bad blood even as Portland faded. But it never gets started in the first place if they don't almost, almost beat the Lakers in a series which started the mini-dynasty.
 

Bricklayer

Don't Make Me Use The Bat
Staff member
#75
Lamar_Odom said:
Whatever it was, it was competitive, extremely. However, a lot of fans, and even "experts" have dismissed the "rivalry" because Jackson and Shaq are both gone, without even seeing the kind of competition this "new" Lakers might be able to offer. This is a suggestion that since Shaq and Jackson are gone, the Lakers won't even come close to competing with the Kings.
Its more than that. It is the suggetion that without all of the various Lakers personalities which have left (Shaq, PJ, Fox, Horry, Fisher) etc. it may nto matter if the teams are comeptitive or not. All of that built up instituional hatred is gone.

Every good team is not a rival. It may eventualy get there if you keep on clashing, but even the Spurs really aren't a "rival" of the Kings except in a distant sense. We have been two of the elite teams in the West. But there's no real passionate dislike.

You know a good sense of a rivalry? Its when the fans root against the other team even when they're not playing them. Celebrate their misfortunes. Few Kings fans do that with the Spurs. And while here wil always be some of that with the Lakers (lingering dislike) its a lot harder to root for something to go terribly wrong for Rudy T and Vlade than it is for PJ and Shaq.
 
#77
Bricklayer said:
Odd that you would quote something which supports my viewpoint, but hey, whatever. As mentioned, it really is the worst sort of childish self-aggrandizement to announce that no, there is no rivalry, when the entire rest of the planet recognizes it, and relishes it. Heck, you'd probably be strung up by your shoelaces and hung from the second deck in EITHER Boston or New York if you tried to bring that weak stuff into THE rivalry that roughly 99% of the non-self serving world recognizes. They love it. Wallow in it. And for the most part have the guts and smarts to admit its existence. Looking to redefine the word rivalry is beyond pointless -- it was what it was regardless of the tag you want to put on it, and there really isn't a thing you can do about it no matter how much you blather. You could say that the games were all *****-slappings if you want, and the rest of the basketball world will just smile at you and say "whatever kid" and then promptly go back to ignoring you.

In any case, its that very arrogance and swarminess you now show which develops rivalries in the first place. Ironically the very effort to deny them is the best sign they do indeed exist. Unfortunately the word of a Laker fan is not enough to respawn the beastie. There never was a rivalry with Lakers fans -- an inferior breed of late arriving cell phone addicted face timers posing as fans if there ever were any. That was a true blowout (NOTE: I just did the same thing to you). Its got to be on the court. And right now nobody has any history, the teams aren't striving for the same goal (the Kings still have title hopes, the Lakers will do well to just make the playoffs), and the animosity meter on court is quite low. All we're left with is a few lonely internet trolls pissing in the wind and thinking they look anything but pathetic trying to rewrite history as NBATV repeatedly shows Kings/Lakers clashes from the past 5 years as part of Rivalry Week.

Feel free to type in "Kings/Lakers" & rivalry in google if you'd like to educate yourself and catch up on one of the biggest stories in the NBA in the new millenium. But you're here. So you must already know.
Translation; you can't make your point, so you ad-hominem your way to the conclusion that "Since ESPN and people I know say it's a rivalry, it is a rivalry and therefore you are ignorant". Yeah, those ESPN guys sure know what they're doing. With guys like SAS anchoring their NBA analysis, who needs to use their own brain?

And by your definition, a rivalry is any team that can beat (in my case) the Lakers. But wouldn’t that mean there is a rivalry between the Pistons and Lakers? Are you really going to tell me that Pistons and Lakers fans consider their matchups a rivalry? No, not without all the off the court BS that “rivalries”, as the media would define them, always have. Ah, but that would mean your argument that I'm wrong because the majority agrees with you would fall flat on its face, since no Piston or Lakers fan in their right mind considers the current Pistons and Lakers teams rivals.
 
#78
Heck, going through your proceeding posts, you pretty much admit that a rivalry can't be started unless it has the necessary off the court antics, even if all teams involved are about as good as the other.
 
#79
My thought would be that if this "rivalry" is to continue, it will almost have to start anew with this new group of Lakers. Kobe really is the only holdover from the big, bad Lakers that the Kings so desired to vanquish over the past four years or so. Speaking for myself, I know I won't be watching the Lakers - Kings games as closely this year as I have in recent years.

And speaking of rivalries, do the Kings and Mavericks have a rivalry?
 
#80
Oh, and as far as the rivalry...I think TRUE Kings fans will never stop thinking of this as a rivalry...and as long as Bryant is on the team, the catalyst is there to keep this rivalry going, no matter if Vlade is on the team or not. I still love Vlade for what he helped build here in Sac, but the LA-SAC rivalry will always be in effect...at least until the Kings finally win a title.(hopefully in my lifetime)
 

Bricklayer

Don't Make Me Use The Bat
Staff member
#81
KA_2 said:
Translation; you can't make your point, so you ad-hominem your way to the conclusion that "Since ESPN and people I know say it's a rivalry, it is a rivalry and therefore you are ignorant". Yeah, those ESPN guys sure know what they're doing. With guys like SAS anchoring their NBA analysis, who needs to use their own brain?

And by your definition, a rivalry is any team that can beat (in my case) the Lakers. But wouldn’t that mean there is a rivalry between the Pistons and Lakers? Are you really going to tell me that Pistons and Lakers fans consider their matchups a rivalry? No, not without all the off the court BS that “rivalries”, as the media would define them, always have. Ah, but that would mean your argument that I'm wrong because the majority agrees with you would fall flat on its face, since no Piston or Lakers fan in their right mind considers the current Pistons and Lakers teams rivals.
You seem to have a little problem with reading comprehension. Let's blame it on the smog, and try again slowly:

a) there are many good teams out there
b) NOT all good teams are rivals
c) what makes some teams rivals is hatred, passion that stretches beyond the game
d) hatred is caused by fear and resentment -- either something they have done to you in the past, or something you fear they will do to you in the future
e) such passion MAY be generated solely by competition, but normally has a little extraneous help (geography, excessive yapping, a fight etc.)
f) competition alone does NOT always generate a rivalry
g) extraneous factors alone also do NOT always cause a rivalry (although they come closer) -- normally if a player on a terrible team starts something in a 30pt blowout the hate is directed at that player individually, not the entire team.
h) the two together almost always cause a rivalry (in fact I cannot imagine them not). It is when a normal competition spills over and exceeds the bounds of the game that a rivalry begins.
i) if the entire world calls it a rivalry, but you do not, you are pissing in the wind. You can have your own personal definition of a rivalry if you like -- it is just a word. But no matter how you try to weasel and twist, it was what it was, passion, hatred, and one of the best, most competitive playoff series in league history. If the rest of the world calls that a rivalry, and you and a handful of fellow L.A.ites want to waste your time trying to deny it, it is you who is out of step. Perhaps you need to invent a new word that is not already in use. Then you could say that even though the entire world THINKS it was a rivalry, what all those fools are overlooking is that it wasn't actually a "snaggledoo". :rolleyes:

Now today the Kings/Lakers have lost almost all of the extraneous stuff (with the departure of the principals), and quite likely the competitive stuff for a few years as well. However, there are still memories, and geography makes the teams natural rivals. It will not take much to reopen old wounds.

P.S. the Pistons just slapped down the Lakers. The Lakers did not hate the Pistons. They hated themselves. And they promptly disbanded, making it extraordinarily unlikely the Pistons will pose any threat to anything the Lakers will be doing for years. The Pistons aren't concerend about the Lakers returning. And the Lakers aren't concerned about the Pistons at this point.
 
Last edited:
#83
Hmmmm . . . :rolleyes:

Main Entry: ri·val
Pronunciation: 'rI-v&l
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin rivalis one using the same stream as another, rival in love, from rivalis of a stream, from rivus stream -- more at RUN
1 a : one of two or more striving to reach or obtain something that only one can possess b : one striving for competitive advantage

. . . which means all teams are RIVALS.

Then there's . . . :rolleyes:

Main Entry: en·e·my
Pronunciation: 'e-n&-mE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -mies
Etymology: Middle English enemi, from Old French, from Latin inimicus, from in- 1in- + amicus friend -- more at AMIABLE
1 : one that is antagonistic to another; especially : one seeking to overthrow, or confound an opponent

. . . this may be an appropriate word especially how players and definitely we the fans of both teams, express our support for our respective teams.

But then again, we're only "enemies", or treat ourselves as one, when we talk about our teams.

;)
 
J

joethecrow

Guest
#84
How long has the NYY / BOS rivalry been around?

I am sure the rosters have changed many times since it's initial beginnings.

What has been the one constant?

The fans.

Rivalries are generally born, and hardly die with the changing of the guard...as long as there is animosity towards another team by the fans...there will be a rivalry.

See how far you can walk in Los Angeles next time your down there, being in Kings gear, without catching comments from some of the locals. And vice versa.

And then tell me the rivalry is dead.
 
#85
4cwebb said:
My thought would be that if this "rivalry" is to continue, it will almost have to start anew with this new group of Lakers. Kobe really is the only holdover from the big, bad Lakers that the Kings so desired to vanquish over the past four years or so. Speaking for myself, I know I won't be watching the Lakers - Kings games as closely this year as I have in recent years.

And speaking of rivalries, do the Kings and Mavericks have a rivalry?
I'd more say the Kings and Minnesota have a budding rivalry, rather than the Kings and Mavs.
 
#86
joethecrow said:
See how far you can walk in Los Angeles next time your down there, being in Kings gear, without catching comments from some of the locals. And vice versa.

And then tell me the rivalry is dead.
I read that a fan in a Webber's jersey yelled "Kobe's a rapist" during the Nat'l Anthem and got ejected. Rivalry!
 
#87
joethecrow said:
See how far you can walk in Los Angeles next time your down there, being in Kings gear, without catching comments from some of the locals. And vice versa.

And then tell me the rivalry is dead.
I've seen fans in Kings jersies before but nobody really harassed them. Do Lakers fans get harassed in Sacramento if they dare to wear Laker jersies?
 
#88
I know a lot of people who have traveled to Staples for a game. Each and every one of them has an interesting story or two on how they were treated. I've seen laker fans receive some pretty rude treatment in ARCO, as well. Don't try to make it sound as if only the Kings fans are the ones doing the harrassing.;)

In fact, I certainly don't park next to the obvious laker fans when we meet at ARCO anymore. I did once, because they were next to the spot I usually park in. The Kings won, and when I came out, one of the flags on my car was busted off and my back window (which had a Kings logo) was smashed in.
 
#89
Bricklayer said:
You seem to have a little problem with reading comprehension. Let's blame it on the smog, and try again slowly:

a) there are many good teams out there
b) NOT all good teams are rivals
c) what makes some teams rivals is hatred, passion that stretches beyond the game
d) hatred is caused by fear and resentment -- either something they have done to you in the past, or something you fear they will do to you in the future
e) such passion MAY be generated solely by competition, but normally has a little extraneous help (geography, excessive yapping, a fight etc.)
f) competition alone does NOT always generate a rivalry
g) extraneous factors alone also do NOT always cause a rivalry (although they come closer) -- normally if a player on a terrible team starts something in a 30pt blowout the hate is directed at that player individually, not the entire team.
h) the two together almost always cause a rivalry (in fact I cannot imagine them not). It is when a normal competition spills over and exceeds the bounds of the game that a rivalry begins.
i) if the entire world calls it a rivalry, but you do not, you are pissing in the wind. You can have your own personal definition of a rivalry if you like -- it is just a word. But no matter how you try to weasel and twist, it was what it was, passion, hatred, and one of the best, most competitive playoff series in league history. If the rest of the world calls that a rivalry, and you and a handful of fellow L.A.ites want to waste your time trying to deny it, it is you who is out of step. Perhaps you need to invent a new word that is not already in use. Then you could say that even though the entire world THINKS it was a rivalry, what all those fools are overlooking is that it wasn't actually a "snaggledoo". :rolleyes:
And yet you still prove my point. "Rivalries" are far more defined by off the court BS than anything else. The media feeds off of this, and it predictably gets fans of both teams going (apparently you were one of them).

However, anyone who has thought it through realizes that a real, on the court rivalry is the only thing that should matter in a basketball conversation. And in terms of basketball, the Bulls-Pistons of the 90's or Celtics-Lakers of the 80's or Spurs-Lakers of this decade were all actual rivalries, and all had different outcomes in the end.

You can call it a rivalry if you want, I have no problem with that. Just realize that the actual definition of rivalry applies to all teams that have more or less the same abilities. Which means you need that off the court stuff for your "It's a rivalry, just ask ESPN!" BS to be true. And yes Brick, according to your friends and precious ESPN, the Kings-Lakers had a great rivalry. Unfortunately for you, it was mostly off the court.
 
Last edited:
#90
Geoff said:
I'd more say the Kings and Minnesota have a budding rivalry, rather than the Kings and Mavs.
Just because of one playoff series? The Kings and Mavs have the last three years to fall back on, and it's not as if the Kings have just dominated the matchups, either. Of course, neither the Kings nor the Mavs have competed in the NBA Finals, so how much of a rivarly is it really when neither team is obtaining the ultimate prize (same could be said of the Twolves)?