-EG> Look long and hard because I think those that can't look
-EG> past their obviously faulty memory are seeing things that
-EG> they want to. I may be a Lakers' fan, however, I can't even
-EG> begin to say that the '80s Lakers ever did anything like
-EG> this. One thing that people might want to note is that for
-EG> all but two of their championships, the Celtics only had to
-EG> play 2 rounds to win while the Bulls had to play 4.
 
Yes, and the Celtics usually had to play the #1 and #2 teams in
any order to win the title in the 60s.  There were no mini-series
against the Sacramento Kings or teams like that.  Winning 62 games
in a league with only 8, 9 or 10 teams is a lot greater accomplishment than 
winning that many in the current-day, watered-down NBA.
 
For instance, in some years the Celtics would win 60 games or
so, then play the Philadelphia 76ers in a best-of-seven, and
then, probably with one or two days off, play the Los Angeles
Lakers in the NBA Finals.
 
A pantheon team like the Bulls (or the Jazz) can romp through
the early rounds.   Back in the 1960s there were no early
rounds.  A second- or third- place team would have a best-of-five, and if 
they got through that they had to play the regular season
division champion.  Also to be noted - in the 1980s, the pace of
the playoffs was slower -- the NBA finals were held over three
weeks in order to cater to TV.   Not so in the 60s.
--- 
---------------