The obsession with how many titles we have

UK_Seahawk · Dec 11, 2013

I think that when it's so obvious that someone is much better than you currently, it's human nature to cling to past glories or current irrelevancies as if to somehow make up for the obvious shortcomings.

I mean the whiners are actually taking solace from the fact that CK7 is more "marketable" than RW3, never mind all the stats and that show Wilson as a much better QB and the talk of him being an MVP candidate. Utterly pathetic when you think about it but human nature nonetheless.

Sports Hernia · Dec 11, 2013

RolandDeschain":2ajjfauw said:
As countless people have said, "It's not the ending, but the journey to it." Getting that final trophy makes the path you took to get there much sweeter. Come on, man; just admit it. Of course the 49ers fans are dickheads for how much they bring it up and under what circumstances, but just laughing it off as irrelevant to even think about or mention is you kind of doing the same thing on the opposite side of the spectrum.

I laugh it off as irrelevant because I deal with it on a daily basis with a troglodyte cow patties fan at work who I hear the same "5 rings" line from. Like they say in the stock market past performance is no indicator of future results. ......and maybe a little of it is the Mariner's effect, where they've tried to milk every last drop out of the 1995 and 2001 "success", and while those teams were great they failed to even make it to the World Series, and 1995 was almost 20 years ago.

Disagree if you choose, but the old trophies argument is weak and lame. If the Sonics were still around I wouldn't be crowing about their championship in 1979 because it has nothing to do with the present. I try to live in the present and not off of old glories in the distant past.

HawkinNY · Dec 11, 2013

San Fran was introduced to the NFL in 1946. Did not win a championship until 1981. Took them 35 years to get their first. So you would think that they have won since the beginning. We are in year 37 so I guess our team just sucks cause they did it earlier. But also without a cap in the 80's. The argument can go both ways. But until we win our 6th they will always use the 5 rings thing.

Scottemojo · Dec 11, 2013

If it bugs you, now you know why some say it.

Think of the 5 rings thing as a fan filter of sorts. IF it bugs you, the fan filter just identified a thin skinned wussy who care a bit too much about perception. You are insecure in your fandom. Just be secure.

If SOMEONE ELSE tries to make to cry with 5 rings, that A-HOLE has also been identified and can now be ignored. You do not have to take them seriously ever again, they just told you not to. You don't have to reply to their posts, you don't have to point out how stupid they are, and you don't have to mock their pathetic attempts to bolster their self worth with a pathetic grasp at the past.

I repeat, 5 rings, 9 titles (for GB fans stuck in the past), 26 titles (for pathetic Yankee fans), whatever number Pitty has, if a fan of those teams brings it up on the net, just ignore them from then on. They cannot be taken seriously.

12thMode · Dec 11, 2013

ZorntoLargent":3m6dhjml said:
BTW, first American Stanley Cup in history.

I love this trivia. I remember about 6 or so years ago I won Thunderbird tickets by "stumping" a radio host on Kube 93 with this trivia. Go Seattle Metropolitans!

muxpux · Dec 11, 2013

They do it because they can.

dopeboy206 · Dec 11, 2013

HawkWow":17s15o94 said:
It's more difficult to win a National Championship than it is to win a SuperBowl. Seattle's UW has 2 such championships.

People outside of the Seattle area recognize U of Washington having 1. Officially the Huskies only has 1 and not 2 like most Husky fans believe.

HawkinNY · Dec 11, 2013

Scottemojo":2nuo264c said:
If it bugs you, now you know why some say it.

Think of the 5 rings thing as a fan filter of sorts. IF it bugs you, the fan filter just identified a thin skinned wussy who care a bit too much about perception. You are insecure in your fandom. Just be secure.

If SOMEONE ELSE tries to make to cry with 5 rings, that A-HOLE has also been identified and can now be ignored. You do not have to take them seriously ever again, they just told you not to. You don't have to reply to their posts, you don't have to point out how stupid they are, and you don't have to mock their pathetic attempts to bolster their self worth with a pathetic grasp at the past.

I repeat, 5 rings, 9 titles (for GB fans stuck in the past), 26 titles (for pathetic Yankee fans), whatever number Pitty has, if a fan of those teams brings it up on the net, just ignore them from then on. They cannot be taken seriously.

Its 27 titles for the yankees....haha

Scottemojo · Dec 11, 2013

HawkinNY":1oz2y50g said:
Scottemojo":1oz2y50g said:

If it bugs you, now you know why some say it.

Think of the 5 rings thing as a fan filter of sorts. IF it bugs you, the fan filter just identified a thin skinned wussy who care a bit too much about perception. You are insecure in your fandom. Just be secure.

If SOMEONE ELSE tries to make to cry with 5 rings, that A-HOLE has also been identified and can now be ignored. You do not have to take them seriously ever again, they just told you not to. You don't have to reply to their posts, you don't have to point out how stupid they are, and you don't have to mock their pathetic attempts to bolster their self worth with a pathetic grasp at the past.

I repeat, 5 rings, 9 titles (for GB fans stuck in the past), 26 titles (for pathetic Yankee fans), whatever number Pitty has, if a fan of those teams brings it up on the net, just ignore them from then on. They cannot be taken seriously.

Click to expand...

Its 27 titles for the yankees....haha

I knew I could get one to crawl out of its hole.
Now for a Steelers fan to chime in...

tom sawyer · Dec 11, 2013

It has nothing to do with rings really, that's just a smoke screen. It's really because we brought forth JIMMY HENDRIX! Make no mistake.

NINEster · Dec 11, 2013

I think it's the internet age, quite frankly.

I don't recall having this level of intense hatred for the Rams in the '80s and late '90s when they were a very real thorn in the side of SF.

As many smart mans of other teams have noted, it is the fans that make you hate a team more than the team itself. To see the hatred from other fans makes you want to get back at them, and rooting against their team is the way to do it. There weren't forums back in those days to get riled up over.

Combine that with the hatred that comes with another team's success and you have your baseline. In Seattle's case in particular you have a coach that gets on people's nerves like our coach does, and you have two players in particular who are very annoying (Sherman and Tate). That adds to it.

Also interesting is the forum fans can be a lot more extreme (naturally). I grew up in NYC most of my life after moving from SF, and never really got into it with Giants fans and only hated the team for some historic battles. If you go to bigblueinteractive, you see nothing but intense hatred for the 49ers. I rarely ever see that with people I know in real life unless of course they are masking it out of politeness.

And with respect to why I see NFC fanbases "liking/respecting" the Seahawks so much (all these brown nosing threads I see on here the week of that opposing team's matchup)....it has more to do with Seattle being very new to dominance and the natural desire to support upstart teams. The 49ers have a historical hatred with a ton of NFC teams from the '80s and '90s that will never be lifted.

Win a super bowl or two and all of that will change and you can enjoy being part of the Hated Class. I saw some "sympathy" for the 49ers this past decade, and as soon as Harbaugh revitalized the team it was back to the '90s again.

This 49ers/Seahawk rivalry will have to be settled in the playoffs.

drdiags · Dec 11, 2013

I think some of it is the whole "Act like you have been there before" point of view. You have a team that is being seen as one of the best in the NFL and grudgingly given respect for how they play. They are a threat and have people's attention. You have a fanbase that is getting noticed for helping to impact play on the field when coupled with this very good team. Seahawks fans lash out at folks because they have caught flak for so long as a mediocre team. Other fans know Seahawks fans have a chip on their shoulder and can be riled up easily with XL and the lack of championship thing.

The rings argument is a way to throw cold water on those who are sensitive to it if they are in a heated debate with a Seahawks fan. Also it is a form of elitism since the person arguing it considers his team part of NFL royalty. Whether one wants to admit it or not, there are NFL teams that are considered blue bloods of the sport. Raiders are probably considered the crazy uncle of the blue bloods, but still part of the royal family.

I think there is a subconscious pecking order or even an overt one. Bill Belichek helped put the Patriots into this family, they were old AFL that old NFL cities didn't take serious until Bill B took Parcell's groundwork and grew it into a decade plus long period of excellence.

If Pete and John are able to do something similar here for an extended period of time, the rings argument will ring hollow (I am so clever, Ha!).

Anonymous · Dec 11, 2013

drdiags":3o8znxj3 said:
I think some of it is the whole "Act like you have been there before" point of view. You have a team that is being seen as one of the best in the NFL and grudgingly given respect for how they play. They are a threat and have people's attention. You have a fanbase that is getting noticed for helping to impact play on the field when coupled with this very good team. Seahawks fans lash out at folks because they have caught flak for so long as a mediocre team. Other fans know Seahawks fans have a chip on their shoulder and can be riled up easily with XL and the lack of championship thing.

The rings argument is a way to throw cold water on those who are sensitive to it if they are in a heated debate with a Seahawks fan. Also it is a form of elitism since the person arguing it considers his team part of NFL royalty. Whether one wants to admit it or not, there are NFL teams that are considered blue bloods of the sport. Raiders are probably considered the crazy uncle of the blue bloods, but still part of the royal family.

I think there is a subconscious pecking order or even an overt one. Bill Belichek helped put the Patriots into this family, they were old AFL that old NFL cities didn't take serious until Bill B took Parcell's groundwork and grew it into a decade plus long period of excellence.

If Pete and John are able to do something similar here for an extended period of time, the rings argument will ring hollow (I am so clever, Ha!).

Well said.

ceej22 · Dec 11, 2013

Because we are always running our mouth, lol. I honestly don't know if the other cities get flak or not. But if you have to question why 49er fans like to remind us everyday then you aren't trying to hard.

Shaz · Dec 11, 2013

Giedi":2i6iflmu said:
BreesIsOverrated":2i6iflmu said:

I just find it funny that fans from the 49ers and other fanbases obsess that we haven't won a Super Bowl yet.... and that our city supposedly sucks as a sports town. I know we only have one major modern Pro title (1979 NBA)... but I never see the same thing being said about well... pretty much any other city. What makes us so much more hated than San Diego, Phoenix, Buffalo, Minneapolis, Cleveland, Nashville, Charlotte, Jacksonville, Atlanta, New Orleans, Cincinnati...etc and many more that have accomplished in most cases the same or LESS than our city has? It's like they have some personal vendetta against Seattle winning another title.

Click to expand...

The 'Hawk 12th man is definitely not overrated. They are a formidable team advantage for Seattle. I think that may have something to do with the 49er fans pointing constantly to their history. The Seattle fans are dedicated and vociferous and give you guys probably a good +2 wins a year alone on that excellent support you give to your team. The Bay Area doesn't have a 12th man that comes even within a mile of the Seattle 12th man.

The other reason, and probably more important reason, is that Seattle is a good team this year. Nobody cares about the Rams this year. Why? They suck. Tampa Bay, same thing. Atlanta Falcons. Seattle is the class of the NFC and probably the NFL, and so the only way to counter that is past history that proves the opposing team used to be the class of the NFL the way Seattle is now. It should not be surprising, and Seattle fans should expect it, and simply move on to more relevant issues like match ups and strategy.

This is probably the most admirable post about Seattle I've ever seen from you

plyka · Dec 11, 2013

BreesIsOverrated":ft4zx98k said:
I just find it funny that fans from the 49ers and other fanbases obsess that we haven't won a Super Bowl yet.... and that our city supposedly sucks as a sports town. I know we only have one major modern Pro title (1979 NBA)... but I never see the same thing being said about well... pretty much any other city. What makes us so much more hated than San Diego, Phoenix, Buffalo, Minneapolis, Cleveland, Nashville, Charlotte, Jacksonville, Atlanta, New Orleans, Cincinnati...etc and many more that have accomplished in most cases the same or LESS than our city has? It's like they have some personal vendetta against Seattle winning another title.

Those towns know their place as losers. Seattle currently has the best team in the biggest and most important sport. If you want pity and nice remarks about Seattle, sabotage the hawks and go back to being a city of sport losers.

plyka · Dec 11, 2013

Popeyejones":fpmv90na said:
Diezel Dawg":fpmv90na said:

The Niners accomplished their Quest for Six Sunday, that was their Super Bowl, they are not going anywhere

Click to expand...

Just as a tip, the "that was their Super Bowl thing" about Sunday's game is pretty feckless and meaningless. 9ers fans being obnoxious and saying that about the Hawks regular season win last year was BECAUSE the Hawks haven't won one yet. 9ers fans just roll their eyes and laugh at Hawks fans who have tried to use it in reverse this week, because the whole point of saying it was that the Hawks have never won one and their fans need to pacify themselves with meaningless regular season win.

As for the OP, it's only really some 9ers fans who say this. Not anybody else really. As for why they say it, it's pretty simple: they say it because it's obnoxious and it gets under some Hawks fans' skin. That's it. That's the whole story from beginning to end. It's a simple one.

FWIW if the 9ers get knocked out I'm definitely rooting for the Hawks to win the Bowl this year. I'd root for the fans of any team that hasn't won one yet, but the Hawks being in the same division as my team (and also just personally liking the Hawks as a team) are good reasons too.

No one is using this is as some sort of comeback, it's the truth. I've never seen such joy and celebration, than the niner players last Sunday. I was embarrassed for them.

60niners · Dec 11, 2013

I think when you guys snag your first trophy you'll understand. They are something of enormous pride; the kind of pride that makes you want to shout it out to the world. Maybe for some people it's in a boastful fashion, but for me it's just in a proud manner (though I don't typically use the "5 ringz" argument as a testament of anything).

One of the fondest memories of my childhood was watching the 1994 Super Bowl in my favorite pizza parlor with my mom. I was only 12, but my love for football had started a few years prior, so it was the most unreal excitement to watch the entire season unfold and watch my team, above all others', prevail. I guess you can say I was indoctrinated into my fandom from my mother. She's a long time Niner fan and I was born two days after they won their first title... So in the Bay Area they were the bee's knees.

When we look back on the teams that we love to root for, we cannot help but measure them against the competition - isn't that what football is all about anyway? So when you look back on the history of modern football, how else would you measure up teams? You can't use the current year only as a measuring stick of "best" or "worst" teams... It would be like saying that the Lions are a more successful and winning franchise than the Packers. I don't think it matters, how long it takes, as long as it happens. The Cardinals are possibly the oldest continuous team in football, and are one of the losingest of all time.... I guarantee they would trade 50 years of that history for one Super Bowl ring.

If/when Seattle wins one, I can guarantee you, there will never come a point in your natural life that you will not be proud of it. There will never be a point when it will cease to count as a number of titles, and it will never stop counting in your heart either. To suggest that rings expire or mean less because they happened in prior years is foolish to me.

Polaris · Dec 11, 2013

60niners":1j1ioxv8 said:
I think when you guys snag your first trophy you'll understand. They are something of enormous pride; the kind of pride that makes you want to shout it out to the world. Maybe for some people it's in a boastful fashion, but for me it's just in a proud manner (though I don't typically use the "5 ringz" argument as a testament of anything).

One of the fondest memories of my childhood was watching the 1994 Super Bowl in my favorite pizza parlor with my mom. I was only 12, but my love for football had started a few years prior, so it was the most unreal excitement to watch the entire season unfold and watch my team, above all others', prevail. I guess you can say I was indoctrinated into my fandom from my mother. She's a long time Niner fan and I was born two days after they won their first title... So in the Bay Area they were the bee's knees.

When we look back on the teams that we love to root for, we cannot help but measure them against the competition - isn't that what football is all about anyway? So when you look back on the history of modern football, how else would you measure up teams? You can't use the current year only as a measuring stick of "best" or "worst" teams... It would be like saying that the Lions are a more successful and winning franchise than the Packers. I don't think it matters, how long it takes, as long as it happens. The Cardinals are possibly the oldest continuous team in football, and are one of the losingest of all time.... I guarantee they would trade 50 years of that history for one Super Bowl ring.

If/when Seattle wins one, I can guarantee you, there will never come a point in your natural life that you will not be proud of it. There will never be a point when it will cease to count as a number of titles, and it will never stop counting in your heart either. To suggest that rings expire or mean less because they happened in prior years is foolish to me.

Except don't you think it's just a little bit foolish to talk about "five rings" when the last one happened before Seattle was even part of your division. Talk about irrelevant (at least if you want to compare to Seattle)!

60niners · Dec 11, 2013

Polaris":i4jmelv8 said:
60niners":i4jmelv8 said:

I think when you guys snag your first trophy you'll understand. They are something of enormous pride; the kind of pride that makes you want to shout it out to the world. Maybe for some people it's in a boastful fashion, but for me it's just in a proud manner (though I don't typically use the "5 ringz" argument as a testament of anything).

One of the fondest memories of my childhood was watching the 1994 Super Bowl in my favorite pizza parlor with my mom. I was only 12, but my love for football had started a few years prior, so it was the most unreal excitement to watch the entire season unfold and watch my team, above all others', prevail. I guess you can say I was indoctrinated into my fandom from my mother. She's a long time Niner fan and I was born two days after they won their first title... So in the Bay Area they were the bee's knees.

When we look back on the teams that we love to root for, we cannot help but measure them against the competition - isn't that what football is all about anyway? So when you look back on the history of modern football, how else would you measure up teams? You can't use the current year only as a measuring stick of "best" or "worst" teams... It would be like saying that the Lions are a more successful and winning franchise than the Packers. I don't think it matters, how long it takes, as long as it happens. The Cardinals are possibly the oldest continuous team in football, and are one of the losingest of all time.... I guarantee they would trade 50 years of that history for one Super Bowl ring.

If/when Seattle wins one, I can guarantee you, there will never come a point in your natural life that you will not be proud of it. There will never be a point when it will cease to count as a number of titles, and it will never stop counting in your heart either. To suggest that rings expire or mean less because they happened in prior years is foolish to me.

Click to expand...

Except don't you think it's just a little bit foolish to talk about "five rings" when the last one happened before Seattle was even part of your division. Talk about irrelevant (at least if you want to compare to Seattle)!

Well like I said, I don't tend to use that argument. The whole comparison thing between rival fans just becomes ugly, it's like an angry passing match. When people just sit around and talk football and teams and blah blah blah, it's much more casual... But when fans of rivaling teams are involved it somehow gets personal. Like, somehow it's an extension of the individual. So if I wanted to compare the Niners to the Seahawks, there would be no motive for me to do it that doesn't involve me trying to be better than you. I'd rather just talk about how they match up and strengths and weaknesses, and postulate on the future and such. Kinda got on a tangent but that's sort of why I don't bother with the 5 rings argument. Either way you cut it though, 5 is more than zero

Sorry, had to lol.

The obsession with how many titles we have

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

New member

Active member

Active member

Well-known member

Active member

New member

Well-known member

New member

Anonymous

Guest

New member

Member

New member

New member

New member

Active member

New member

Similar threads