BunkoSquad

Also, Boston is the only city in America that can at least claim that they have had an era, if not a dynasty, in all 4 major sports. The Red Sox of 1903-1918 were a dynasty, with Cy Young, Babe Ruth, etc. The current Patriots of Bill Belichick, Tom Brady, etc. certainly qualify. Maybe the Bruins of Bobby Orr and Phil Esposito of 1968-1974 qualify as an era anyway. And certainly the Celtics of 1957-1992 with Cousy, Russell, Havlicek, Cowens, Bird and all were a definite dynasty.

Other cities don't seem to have had teams in all 4 sports that have been dominant over a multi-year stretch of time. New York certainly has the Yankees, and the Islanders, but not really anything else (and do the Islanders really qualify, since aren't the Rangers really New York's team and the Islanders Long Island's?). Philadelphia has never had a dominant baseball or football team. Detroit hasn't had a baseball dynasty. Chicago has not had a hockey dynasty. Los Angeles and St. Louis have never had a hockey champion. And no other city can claim championships in all 4 sports (unless you count the Pittsburgh Pipers of the old ABA).

Boston? That is still hard to believe. Especially for anyone who remembers the Patriots of Clive Rush, Mike Taliaferro, Irving Fryar, and all. They were definitely the moribund, Phoenix Cardinals type of team for many years, as you describe. It is hard to believe that they are THE best of the National Football League, but they are, and they deserve it. They are a team, T-E-A-M, in all senses of the word.

Congratulations, New England!

Well, off the top of my head, Philly has won in all four over the past 50 years...

Well, I crunched some numbers. Since 1974 (the year I was born and the year I tend to start number-crunchings like these), Philly has won 4 major sports title, tying them for 11th place with Denver and Washington.
The problem, of course, is that Philly has been shut out since 1983. No other city with multiple teams has been shut out longer than Seattle (the '79 Sonics). The cities with multiple teams, and complete shutouts since '74 are:
1) San Diego. At least they get close every few years. And it's always 80 degrees there.
2) Indianapolis. Maybe Peyton will get Indy a ring before long, if the Patriots' team plane flies into the Bermuda Triangle.
3a and 3b) Nashville and Charlotte. Neither of these cities has had teams long enough to develop suffering in their fans.
4) Milwaukee. Sort of a hard-luck case, but since they pretty much won by association with the '97 Packers, it's hard to give them too much pain-credit.
5) Cleveland. I just can't feel THAT sorry for them. The same fans who filled Jacobs during the Indians' "glory days" showed up 600 strong during the 80s. And the Cavs are on their way up. Not much sympathy.
6) Buffalo. The only city whose pain rivals Philly right now.

Yep. Philadelphia has won a title in each of the 4 major sports in the last 50 years, as have New York, Detroit, and Boston (and Pittsburgh if you count the ABL Pipers).

But Philly and other cities' teams have not had a dynasty or era in all 4 sports, which was one thing I was trying to say. The Eagles only won one title in 1960 and so weren't thought of as a dynasty, or the era's dominant team. Similarly, the Phillies only won one title in 1980. The Warriors won 1 NBA Title before moving to the West Coast, and the 76ers have won titles but spread out - in 1967 and 1983 - and so weren't a dynasty or era (but boy were they really good in both of those years!). Maybe the NHL Flyers of 1974-1976. But in any case, even since 1900 there has not been a dynasty/era for Philadelphia in all 4 sports.

In Boston sicne 1900 it was Red Sox 1903-1918, Celtics 1957-1992, Patriots 2001 - on-going, and maybe a Bruins era 1968-1974.

In any case, for us long-suffering Boston fans, it is still surprising that Boston/New England has had such dynasties/eras in all 4 sports. We were accustomed to losing for so long that it is amazing to think of that.

FWIW, all Philly's teams are and have been likeable too, expect the Dave Schultz Flyers of the mid-70s.

Gotcha. I only got confused, as being a Pittsburgher, I didn't recall seeing anything about the Pipers being very dynastical, no matter how much Connie Hawkins or the rest of the players (some of whom were banned by the NBA for various reasons) could do. I think they were one and done.

As for Philly, if anyone wanted to consider the post-WWII (more importantly, post-Steagles) version of the Eagles, led to some success by NFL Hall of Famer Greasy Neale (what a great nickname)...that would probably be a bit of a dynasty stretch.

It is kind of surprising about Boston, maybe because the Red Sox have overshadowed all for so long. But then I guess you just have to look at the players: Babe Ruth, Bill Russell, Bobby Orr, and Brady, Tom.