# Version II : Of Was There At One Time A Rivalry Between The SAC. KINGS / LAL. Lakers?



## CentralCaliGuy (Oct 3, 2006)

Just calling it version 2 because I already asked this identical Post/Poll over on the L.A. Lakers forum.
So it's just a matter of me wanting to gather both sides of this question, to see the majoraties of both, as oppose, to also the differance per capita.

In my oppinion under most circumstances if it weren't for a Pittsburgh Steeler talking trash in a PO game in the late 70's saying; "What Rivalry", when questioned by a member of the media on the team they had just beat -(As to that point atleast the Steelers dominated that particular team); this would be a stupid question.

The next year that same player was asked why he had said that statment. And that's where the rare, yet becoming more common theory, in many unbalanced rivalries amongst teams "both sides have to have taken something from the other, especially when it counted most" came about.

Well I personally like the answer long time member of the Sacramento Kings Organazation -(Has Played Several Roles In The Past 25 Years For A Now Improved Kings) Jerry Reynolds gave on the local FSN channel last summer.

According to Reynolds, these are the most common definations of RIVALRY in the Dictionaries in the English language; which applies to just about every type of rivalry in the American cultural, between the example of sibling rivalry-the likes of Pro. Sports :

MOST COMMON DEFINATION - (#1) A State Or Condition Of Competition Or Antaganism.

This just goes along with the following two definations; during the Kings/Lakers rivalry, they competed against no other teams than when they met up with each other. And although the Lakers probably did more smack talking threw mostly Shaq, the Zen Master, and Rick Fox, Vlade Divac, C-Webb, and other team Captain Mike "Bibbinator" Bibby, turned in antagonising comments torward the Lakers of their own, just alittle less in quanity and were slitely less vocal. lol, Shaq was the most.
Anyway definately not only a state that excelled high in it's conditioning in competition, but much antagonism threw three built up years of dislike torward one another.


SECOND MOST COMMON - (#2)To Compete, Or To TRY To 
Equal.

Well this is the only defination that remotely comes within 10 miles of backing "SOME", not all, few Laker fans theory, as well as the other Rivalries where 1 team hasen't won YET -(Which Every Where From The Yankees/Atheletics in the MLB - Patriots/Colts in the NFL - the Lakers/Blazers -
- Lakers/Kings in the NBA, These Unbalanced Rivalries Make Up Half The Advertised Rivalries In The World Of Sports.) NOTE: All teams listed first, are the ones that atleast in the new rivalry head, 3-4 times met in the post season of play in recent years; proved to be the winner of ever HEAD-HEAD series.
So it starts out with competition. Okay the very fact atleast 1/4 Kings/Lakers meetings in the past four years have been on/in/during RIVALRY week, 2 years played on Christmas day -(T Beleive 2, 1 I Know For Sure.) And the fact that 2/3 PO series went to a decideing GAME 5, and then 7, shows us not only do the Kings compete against the Lakers, but definately condridrict their three what proved eventually to failures; and that is despite loosing all three causes that would eventually prove all three wars lost; THEY TRIED TO EQUALL.
In other words despite it being unbalanced and the Laker fans having bragging rights, it was a rivalry that the Kings full filled both sides of the above defination; en route COMPETED, and TRIEd - TO EQUALL.


RAREIST DEFINATION - (#3) Mutal Disike or excelles to unhealthy discomfort between two.

Well between Phil Jackson and Shaq's record breaking comments directed at the Kings; and Doug Christie starting and honestly winning a brawel in L.A. with Staples Center's fan favorite Rick Fox; and yet in the wake of 6 months after someone in Arco Arena graffitied insults all over Shaq's new milestone Game Ball (With Permanate Marker), and the Maloofs later, and security, discovering only a Kings employee (Not A Player Playing In The Game, Or Even On The Bench) could have walked right past Arco's security Guards -(With The Guards Thinking Nothing Of It) and doing this to the ball. When questioned on this; the more regular vocal owner between the Family Co- Owning brothers Joe Maloof stated, "Well I wish We Could Find Which Of Our Employees Did This, We'd Give Him Or Her A Hansome Pay Raise".
In essance, I beleive both sides together in seperate yet built in duo fashion had mutual dislike torward one another.

I can't remember how Jerry said all this; it's all fresh in my memory though because right after he said it I looked it all up in the Dictionary.
---- I know he left off saying, not even in the examples in the Dictionary does it say anything condradicting a rivalry between the Kings and Lakers. His closing words said something to the affect that "If Rivalry could be an exception in it's use, in Pro. Sports, then all 30 teams would have to be rivals of each other, en route making nothing more intense than it was origionally. But there are numbered rivalries in the NBA, and by the defination in the Dictionary the Kings and Lakers are a Rivalry"!


----------



## CentralCaliGuy (Oct 3, 2006)

lol, since no one has posted in my thread I'll waist one of my own posts to tests and see if my signature turned out well. lol, testing 1,2,3, ! =)


----------



## elcap15 (Aug 8, 2006)

I voted no, just like I did in the Laker forum. I was totally outnumbered there also.

I just dont feel there was enough give and take. We dominated all over the Kings faces for three years and then you guys started rebuilding. The only time there was true back and forth was when Christie fought Fox and even that was pretty weak. Shaq (in street clothes) put a stop to that one much like he did The Kings chances of winning a championship.

Just cause Kings fans are Laker haters doesnt mean there was a rivalry.


----------



## bruindre (Jul 18, 2004)

I voted yes.

Great write up, too, CentralCaliGuy. Rivalries definately are more legit if there's a mutual dislike by the teams (and their fans). And as a guy who's pulled for the Kings in the playoffs this decade _while _ living in the greater Los Angeles area, I can say there's a great dislike for the Kings down here. Heck, last night, color commentator Stu Lance even mentioned that while the Kings/Lakers game was 'only' a preseason game, that it was 'still Kings vs. Lakers', keeping an eye on elbows being exchanged in the post between Andrew Bynum and Brad Miller.

NorCal probably feels it greater becuase....heck, let's face it, NorCal has always been more in touch with their feelings. This is in NO WAY a knock (as I'm reppin' the East Bay 4 life!), but SoCal has an easier time (generally speaking) in dismissing sports disapointments & shortcomings while NorCal has taken every loss even more to heart and every success has had greater feelings of euphoria.

The natural NorCal vs. SoCal rivalry, mixed with a franchise from each area competing for the same goal, mix in some lippage from Shaq & co., a pinch of Christie punchin' Rick Fox, and I think you've got a bonafied rivalry.

I wonder if Knicks & Heat fans have these same discussions, though....


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

The Kings/Lakers are kind of in the same position right now. They're in the same echelon in the Western Conference. That makes them rivals, among other things.

The Knicks/Heat isn't a rivalry even though they didn't like each other a whole lot back in the day. The difference now is the Heat are Defending Champs, and the Knicks are a skid mark on the underwear of the NBA.


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

By definition of "winning only makes it a rivalry" means that one of the greatest rivalries of all time (Boston vs Yanks) wasn't a rivalry until a few years ago...


----------



## CentralCaliGuy (Oct 3, 2006)

elcap15 said:


> I voted no, just like I did in the Laker forum. I was totally outnumbered there also.
> 
> I just dont feel there was enough give and take. We dominated all over the Kings faces for three years and then you guys started rebuilding. The only time there was true back and forth was when Christie fought Fox and even that was pretty weak. Shaq (in street clothes) put a stop to that one much like he did The Kings chances of winning a championship.
> 
> Just cause Kings fans are Laker haters doesnt mean there was a rivalry.


It's Was Definately A Rivalry; While Even Most Laker Fans Will Admit It; Those Who Aren't Mature Enough To Admit It, Still Know It. And Laker Fans Dislike The Kings; The Dislike Between The Fans Aren't One Sided. =)


----------



## CentralCaliGuy (Oct 3, 2006)

bruindre said:


> I voted yes.
> 
> Great write up, too, CentralCaliGuy. Rivalries definately are more legit if there's a mutual dislike by the teams (and their fans). And as a guy who's pulled for the Kings in the playoffs this decade _while _ living in the greater Los Angeles area, I can say there's a great dislike for the Kings down here. Heck, last night, color commentator Stu Lance even mentioned that while the Kings/Lakers game was 'only' a preseason game, that it was 'still Kings vs. Lakers', keeping an eye on elbows being exchanged in the post between Andrew Bynum and Brad Miller.
> 
> ...


Thanx bruindre. I also like the GS Warriors. Second closest NBA team to my Home. Probably still the team Mitch Richmond will go down :clap: in the HOF as, if he indeed goes. And they share the same City as my First Fav team in Sports the Oakland Raiders.

Good luck to your team this year bruindre. =)


----------

