Is the rivalry back?
- Thread starter sauce-26
- Start date
Bballkingsrock
All-Star
Simply, NO.
No Shaq and no Horry and no fisher equals no rivalry.
No Shaq and no Horry and no fisher equals no rivalry.
Insomniacal Fan
Starter
I think it's possible we'll be jousting with the Lakers for the final spot in the playoffs, that'll add some rivalry.
F
Fillmoe
Guest
theres no rivalry..... just look at the teams.... we are both alot different now.... lakers have no shaq,fisher,horry etc etc..... we dont have vlade,webber,christie..... far too many pieces missing for the rivalry to still be at the height it was once.............
Circa_1985_Fan
All-Star
As long as that ego-idiot Kobe is on the team, there is dislike! I had no problems with Shaq or Phil, and still dont...but Kobe can go to hell as far as I'm concerned!*L*
Is the rivalry back? Not so much the rivalry itself but the chance of a real rivalry again.
Does having Phil Jackson back with the Lakers restore some of the emotions? Oh yeah. Big time!
Sorry, Bball - but I strongly disagree about no Horry, no Shaq, no Fisher meaning no rivalry. It's the name on the front, not the name on the back. It's just that there's not much of a rivalry when one team doesn't even make the playoffs and the other makes an early exit.
With Jackson back, however, everything changes. You know he'll find a way to insult us even if his team doesn't manage to win a game all year. And we will love to spew venom in his direction.
Sometimes, life is just good.
Does having Phil Jackson back with the Lakers restore some of the emotions? Oh yeah. Big time!
Sorry, Bball - but I strongly disagree about no Horry, no Shaq, no Fisher meaning no rivalry. It's the name on the front, not the name on the back. It's just that there's not much of a rivalry when one team doesn't even make the playoffs and the other makes an early exit.
With Jackson back, however, everything changes. You know he'll find a way to insult us even if his team doesn't manage to win a game all year. And we will love to spew venom in his direction.
Sometimes, life is just good.
Circa_1985_Fan
All-Star
Well, anyone that would lie outright about being poisened by a hotel as an excuse, when he was actually drinking the night before and got alchohol poisoning at the Esquire Grill, just really shows that he has no class whatsoever. Hence the reason why the Lakers are no longer staying at the Hyatt anymore since then, the hotel had every right not to let them stay with them anymore. That whole team back then showed a big lack of class, but Shaq actually was the one with the class out of that bunch, even with all his shots at our 'Queens'...the man still found the time to go sit in Capitol Park and sign autographs for kids for 3 nonstop hours in 95 degree weather unannounced. Kobe isnt nearly as considerate to the human race, he thinks he is above all other people and that the world revolves around him. Anyways, now that I got that outta my system...its been a while since I've ranted about Kobe , or as he likes to be called, 'Showbe', like that.*LOL*chelle said:ouch! Don't believe in holding anything back, do ya?I guess we know how you feel.
Not to be a downer but it wasn't really ever much of a rivalry. To me a real rivalry needs to be two sided. The Lakers and Celtics for instance. The Kings never knocked the Lakers out of the playoffs, which is what would have really cemented it as a rivalry.
Right now I'm not concerned with the Lakers at all, but rather with what moves Petrie will (hopefully) make to improve the Kings.
Of course, I still dislike the Lakers and will continue to root for whoever plays them on any given night.
Right now I'm not concerned with the Lakers at all, but rather with what moves Petrie will (hopefully) make to improve the Kings.
Of course, I still dislike the Lakers and will continue to root for whoever plays them on any given night.
Just_Lurkin
Bench
The rivalry between kobe and phil? i'll give it a few months.
Circa_1985_Fan
All-Star
Cute, but even THAT isnt a rivalry...Phil wins that one hands down.Just_Lurkin said:The rivalry between kobe and phil? i'll give it a few months.
KP
Starter
funkykingston said:
ri·val·ry
n. pl. ri·val·ries 1. The act of competing or emulating.
2. The state or condition of being a rival.
ri·val 1. One who attempts to equal or surpass another, or who pursues the same object as another; a competitor.
2. One that equals or almost equals another in a particular respect.
The Kings only got one shot at them in the playoffs when we had a good enough team to contend, I think overtime of game 7 (+them needing a screw job by the refs) was at least some competition. In the last 20 games the two teams played the W/L was almost dead even. Who knows what would have happened had we faced them in 03? It just wasn't meant to be. We will both be fighting with each other to even make the playoffs next year, the rivalry never left for me, but it will definately heat things up with Phil back in LA.
Last edited:
A
AriesMar27
Guest
no fox, no christie..... no rivalry.... the chin check is what made it a rivalry... before that it was just the lakers beating the kings... okay there was that one playoff series but that doesnt count... they werent rivals at the time.... shaq was talking ish like he always does and the lakers won another ring.... there was never much of a rivalry to begin with....
kings-mavs..... now thats a different story.... too bad nash is in phoenix.... i'd rather watch a kings-mavs series than a kings-laker series... as long as the lakers lose to whoever they were playing....
kings-mavs..... now thats a different story.... too bad nash is in phoenix.... i'd rather watch a kings-mavs series than a kings-laker series... as long as the lakers lose to whoever they were playing....
Hey KP,
I'm not sure, but were you posting the definition to prove that the Kings DID have a rivalry with the Lakers?
If so, the definition doesn't really change my opinion, since the literal context (at least for this definition) is clearly different than what is implied in a basketball sense.
Because from the definition the Kings didn't try to emulate the Lakers (unless you consider the small Triangle inspired wrinkles in the offense) but clearly they competed against them. Of course, they also competed against the other 27 (now 28) teams as well. Are they all rivals?
I'm not sure, but were you posting the definition to prove that the Kings DID have a rivalry with the Lakers?
If so, the definition doesn't really change my opinion, since the literal context (at least for this definition) is clearly different than what is implied in a basketball sense.
Because from the definition the Kings didn't try to emulate the Lakers (unless you consider the small Triangle inspired wrinkles in the offense) but clearly they competed against them. Of course, they also competed against the other 27 (now 28) teams as well. Are they all rivals?
I was wondering about this too. Is it a rivalry again with Phil back? I think when the Kings and Lakers face each other in the playoffs again, some of those emotions will come back. And if there's enough drama (and the playoffs can get pretty dramatic) then probably I'd say the rivalry is back.
And no it wasn't much of a rivalry compared to the Yankees-Red Sox, but maybe we should check in again in 50 years and see. That's a lot of history to contend with.
And no it wasn't much of a rivalry compared to the Yankees-Red Sox, but maybe we should check in again in 50 years and see. That's a lot of history to contend with.
Circa_1985_Fan
All-Star
I think that a Kings/Warriors rivalry is about to start up, both teams should be VERY competitive this next season, GS has a squad now.
So this thread is going to become about whether or not there was a rivalry? Just checking...
Sorry, BigO, but just because you didn't think it was a rivalry, there are a lot of people who would disagree. And not all of them are Kings fans. I know a number of Laker fans who called it a rivalry and who got more up for Kings-Lakers games than virtually any other games. We talked smack to each other and made ridiculous bets on the outcome. We insulted each others teams and wore our respective colors proudly. I don't know what you'd call that - but we sure called it a rivalry.
Sorry, BigO, but just because you didn't think it was a rivalry, there are a lot of people who would disagree. And not all of them are Kings fans. I know a number of Laker fans who called it a rivalry and who got more up for Kings-Lakers games than virtually any other games. We talked smack to each other and made ridiculous bets on the outcome. We insulted each others teams and wore our respective colors proudly. I don't know what you'd call that - but we sure called it a rivalry.
funkykingston said:
For the record, you could say the Kings tried to emulate the winning ways of the Lakers NOT the particular style of play they used.
We get it. You don't think it was a rivalry. Do you really think you're going to change the mind of those of us who loved the rivalry and will again?
Of course I did. I only wish the Kings had smashed them a few more times, especially in the playoffs. I remember seeing the Kings record against the Lakers from 99 to 2004 both regular and post season and it wasn't pretty.
I never said I didn't hate that incarnation of the Lakers (I still dislike today's version more than is healthy) or that I didn't consider them enemy #1. The problem is that the Lakers broke Kings fans hearts on more than one occasion. It never went the other way.
Although I guess the Red Sox have a rivalry with the Yankees despite not winning for 86 years. It certainly would be nice if the Kings could end their championship drought soon and especially sweet if they could go through the Lakers to do it.
Circa_1985_Fan
All-Star
Yeah, agreed about ending our Championship drought...up to 55 years almost...OUCH! We're the Cleveland of the West Coast, it seems.funkykingston said:
funkykingston said:
Precisely!
Just like my high school had a heated rivalry with another high school even though they mercilessly kicked our butts in virtually every single sport. We did beat them on occasion, however, (never in a playoff or championship game) and it was cause for joy and celebration throughout the land - until the next defeat.
Just stating my opinion.
I had the same kind of conversation last week with a friend over whether the Spurs could be considered a dynasty if they win another title. Words like dynasty and rivalry have very abstract (and often individually arrived at) meanings especially in a sports setting.
Sorry if you think I'm hijacking the thread. To answer the original question, no I don't think the animosity between the two teams will reach the same levels. They simply aren't playing with the same high stakes. Now if both teams return to championship contenders, then sure. As it is, I think Phil will be tossing the bulk of any pointed barbs at Phoenix or San Antonio.
Circa_1985_Fan
All-Star
'As it is, I think Phil will be tossing the bulk of any pointed barbs at Phoenix or San Antonio.'
Dont forget Dallas.*L*
Dont forget Dallas.*L*
:: snorts ::
Feh; some of us never actually stopped hating the Lakers. I never got the memo that I wasn't supposed to hate them any more; I hated the Lakers from the day I became a basketball fan almost seventeen years ago, which predates Shaq/Kobe/Phil by a bit, so I didn't even think twice about continuing to hate them after they left.
Whether the players, coaches, or anyone else, for that matter, continue to hate the Laker or consider it a rivalry is no concern of mine; as long as the Lakers franchise is in the NBA, I will hate them.
Feh; some of us never actually stopped hating the Lakers. I never got the memo that I wasn't supposed to hate them any more; I hated the Lakers from the day I became a basketball fan almost seventeen years ago, which predates Shaq/Kobe/Phil by a bit, so I didn't even think twice about continuing to hate them after they left.
Whether the players, coaches, or anyone else, for that matter, continue to hate the Laker or consider it a rivalry is no concern of mine; as long as the Lakers franchise is in the NBA, I will hate them.
Similar threads
