To me I think it was a legit win and NOTHING should be taken away from the Spurs.

Its like putting an "*" next to the Rockets because they won 2 championships when MJ wasn't there.

It just bothers me when people say that it shouldn't count and that the Spurs NEED to beat the Nets to prove that they can win a championship.

Do you agree or do you disagree?

I absolutly agree. They won, fair and square, with a very talented team. They didn't cheat, or beat a great team with many injuries, or anything like that. Glad to see that monkey is now off their shoulders.

It was all just someone being stupid and trying to start crap when that was said. They earned the title that year... who cares if the regular season was shortened.

No, Phil is a master at playing with folks minds, and it worked, as the Lakers trounced the Spurs 4-0 in 2000, the year after the Spurs won.

If a season is played, the eventual champion is thus saluted as such.

Never a finer person than David Robinson, and he deserves this, considering the millions of dollars he donates to San Antonio's communities.

All I got to say is this: Spurs better enjoy this, b/c Shaq and Kobe won't let it happen it next year

Originally posted by podstock

All I got to say is this: Spurs better enjoy this, b/c Shaq and Kobe won't let it happen it next year I'd put money against that! :lol:

ONLY if shaq is actually dedicated to win. We all know kobe wants to win, but sometimes i doubt Shaqs intentions. However, i heard he hired some ex-navy person to get him into shape. so we'll see how it goes.

Originally posted by skyracer3
i heard he hired some ex-navy person to get him into shape. Who, David Robinson? :confused:

He was referring to Shaq and the guy he hired is T-Mac's personal trainer.

Putting an asterisk by the first Sprus title is ludacrous...

The Spurs were easily the best team in basketball that year...

It reminds me of MLB trying to put an asterisk on Randy Johnson's 20K performance.... so what if it was in ten innings.... it was still done during one game... so MLB decided to change the 20K record to a performance in a 9-inning game.... just playa hating......

oh, to play devil's advocate....

this Spurs title should also have an asterisk

First, Rick Fox gets hurt, Devean George gets hurt, and Lakers, who depend primarily on 7 guys, end up having no small forward.

Second, Webber got injured, and without him, Kings had no shot

Third, Nowitzki was injured for the last 4-5 games.

Fourth, the Spurs got to play NJ -- a handicap unto themselves

lolol

Originally posted by IggyWH
It was all just someone being stupid and trying to start crap when that was said. They earned the title that year... who cares if the regular season was shortened.

Well Charles Barkley said it on TV so its not like some lunatic who has a big mouth and likes to comment on controversial stuff said it...

I will have to agree with MLB on that Randy Johnson record.

There's a big difference b/t striking out 20 guys in 9 innings, and 20 guys in 10 innings.

Not that one is more legitimate over the other, but it's the fact that one pitcher did it in 9 innings.

Originally posted by pwaldo
Well Charles Barkley said it on TV so its not like some lunatic who has a big mouth and likes to comment on controversial stuff said it...

LOL... I sure hope you were being sarcastic here

Originally posted by IggyWH
LOL... I sure hope you were being sarcastic here

Yeah I was.

I've always liked Charles ever since he joined the Suns but sometimes the guy needs to keep his mouth shut.

I think he just got mad that Duncan and Robinson were able to win a championship while he was not.

lolol...Barkley --- he makes me laugh every time he talks.

He doesn't say much analytically, just opens the mouth, and sh*t flies out.

Originally posted by pwaldo
To me I think it was a legit win and NOTHING should be taken away from the Spurs.

Its like putting an "*" next to the Rockets because they won 2 championships when MJ wasn't there.

It just bothers me when people say that it shouldn't count and that the Spurs NEED to beat the Nets to prove that they can win a championship.

Do you agree or do you disagree?



That season is the only one in the history of the NBA not to have been a full season. Lots of seasons have been played without great players. That Spurs team in 99 or whatever was old and a full season probably would have resulted in injuries that they didn't sustain in a short season. That is why that championship is different from the rest. Has nothing to do with who played and who didn't, simply that the season was different from every other season ever played.

Who cares, it's a dead issue. Spurs won, Spurs will always have the win.