Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,172,934 times
Reputation: 2925
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrfox
Good points. I also don't think anyone's denying what you're saying. It's just that most of the time professional sports aren't discussed in that context on these forums. It usually goes something like this:
1) "Our city has 5 championships and you only have 4!"
2) "Yeah but we won in 2014 and you haven't since 2005!"
3) "Oh yeah?! Well we sell out more games because we have better fans!"
... and so on.
Everything you said is valid. I agree that economically, sports are important. They're important culturally as well. Nobody here in Boston will forget David Ortiz saying, "This is our f*cking City!" in 2013. That extended well beyond sports. The exposure certainly helps. That's why cities fight for the Olympics (relevant to this thread). Not because sports are so important to the city; but because it's the modern era's World Expo- where a city invest billions to create an international showcase and bask in the spotlight. Success is important. So is longevity (just ask the Cubs or pre-2004 Red Sox- both top franchises without recent success). But when City vs. City threads delve into sports, the conversation usually doesn't go that deep.
Yea, I hear ya--sports debates often bring out the most juvenile in folks, and not just on here. Cleveland, for example, is much more than just the (relative) futility of its sports teams. If a team doesn't win a championship for another 50 years (no jinx!), that city will still grow and attract business. The Cleveland Clinic won't shrivel and die or anything, and will continue to be a top tier institution worthy of our praise/respect.
If I had to use an analogy (prob flawed, but go with it lol), pro sports would be the top layer of a multi-layered "city cake". Not the biggest piece, but the one that is most easily accessible and dressed up (championships being a fancy frosting on top, I suppose). What people will "dig" into first and will attract the largest crowd--to include less "refined" types. But those other layers are bigger, more important, and bring more nuanced ingredients to the overall flavor.
So yea, it's silly to judge an entire city/metro off of just one layer. It's important, of course, but it isn't the most important part, outside of initial attraction. Sports have their place, but people shouldn't devolve into the type of hooligans you see on here, and unfortunately, in real life.
Ocean? Yep. Mountains? Just a couple of hours away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMI
and the palm trees.
Yep. Boston has those too. Seen 'em a few times as decoration in hotel lobbies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMI
LA wins
Okay, now to be a bit less facetious:
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMI
The Climate
Better climate in Boston. I stay in shape all winter from shoveling.
Oh, okay, this wasn't supposed to be facetious. Yeah, most would give the climate comparison to LA, but it is a matter of taste. Some people really do prefer the classic four seasons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMI
Scenery
This is definitely a matter of taste. Both cities are located in areas with beautiful scenery. Which scenery is nicer is totally subjective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMI
This to do, places to see.
You'll have to be more specific here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMI
Mountains, the ocean.
Boston does have the ocean. It's true that Boston has beach weather for only a few months out of the year, but it's still possible to enjoy the coast. There's a special pensive sense of calm about a walk along a quiet beach during winter. Maybe you have to experience that to understand what I mean.
As for mountains, you can find those within a couple of hours of Boston. I'm pretty sure that somewhere back in this several-years-old thread someone pointed out that LA has mountains locally, right in the city. Then others, including myself, pointed out that Boston has a nice river right in the city.
So this takes us back to the scenery comparison. Both have nice features, so it's a matter of personal taste which you prefer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BMI
and the palm trees.
Boston: oak, maple, and birch trees . . . fall colors! (Again, which do you prefer? It depends on the person.)
I actually think championships are a significant thing to bring into city vs city discussions. Regardless of your personal opinion of or inclination to follow sports, you can't deny that professional sports are a multi-billion dollar industry (perhaps trillion dollar) not just nationally, but globally, and that they bring significant amounts of money and exposure to metropolitan areas. Like it or not, pro sports teams amass huge followings, and their successes--and failures--are often woven into the fabric of a city's identity. More championships = more money and positive exposure for cities, which in turn leads to more investment and development in that city.
Pro sports are a bedrock for modern metropolitan areas and help spur a lot of civic growth--no different than any other successful, large business, really. If we can argue about the presence of Fortune 500 companies in a metropolitan area, I don't see why we would ignore pro sports representation and civic boosting championships. Successful corporations are judged by their stock prices and valuation, while sports teams are judged on championships and attendance--among other factors, for both. Quite similar, if you ask me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by qworldorder
If I had to use an analogy (prob flawed, but go with it lol), pro sports would be the top layer of a multi-layered "city cake". Not the biggest piece, but the one that is most easily accessible and dressed up . . .
LRFox makes a good point about the mine's-badder-than-yours tone often seen in threads like this. However, if you get beyond that, you're onto something here QWorld. Sports moments, including championships, add something to the life of a city. Over time they become part of the city's culture. As LRFox also pointed out, given what had just happened days earlier, Ortiz's "our f'ing city" statement resonated beyond sports.
And the sports events themselves become part of a city's fabric. There's an excitement in the air as a team contends for a championship, and that makes the whole city feel good. The more championships a city has, the more of its citizens who have enjoyed that experience.
It's not just recent times. The memories of past sports moments linger. Consider BtownBoss' observation that people in Boston cling to recollections of Doug Flutie to forget about BC's recent failures. Maybe that's true to some degree, but those memories of Flutie still bring a warm feeling in their own right. I get a stir even now when I recall that stunning Hail Mary pass, and the announcer, in excited disbelief, exclaiming "TOUCHDOWN! TOUCHDOWN! TOUCHDOWN! TOUCHDOWN . . ." over and over.
People old enough to remember still get giddy when describing Bobby Orr's joyous leap from the ice the moment after the Bruins clinched Lord Stanley's Cup in 1970, still speak warmly of Fisk's home run and the moment when "Johnny Havlicek stole the ball!" and still get downright wistful when they recall how the young underdog Red Sox clinched the AL pennant on the last day of the season in '67 (and people old enough to remember will speak almost reverently of "that season" that Yaz had that year).
I'm sure LA has those kinds of memories as well (Gibson's homer comes to mind immediately). Those memories and moments add something to the life of a city, and the more of them a city has experienced, the more it adds to the enjoyment of living in that city.
LRFox makes a good point about the mine's-badder-than-yours tone often seen in threads like this. However, if you get beyond that, you're onto something here QWorld. Sports moments, including championships, add something to the life of a city. Over time they become part of the city's culture. As LRFox also pointed out, given what had just happened days earlier, Ortiz's "our f'ing city" statement resonated beyond sports.
And the sports events themselves become part of a city's fabric. There's an excitement in the air as a team contends for a championship, and that makes the whole city feel good. The more championships a city has, the more of its citizens who have enjoyed that experience.
It's not just recent times. The memories of past sports moments linger. Consider BtownBoss' observation that people in Boston cling to recollections of Doug Flutie to forget about BC's recent failures. Maybe that's true to some degree, but those memories of Flutie still bring a warm feeling in their own right. I get a stir even now when I recall that stunning Hail Mary pass, and the announcer, in excited disbelief, exclaiming "TOUCHDOWN! TOUCHDOWN! TOUCHDOWN! TOUCHDOWN . . ." over and over.
People old enough to remember still get giddy when describing Bobby Orr's joyous leap from the ice the moment after the Bruins clinched Lord Stanley's Cup in 1970, still speak warmly of Fisk's home run and the moment when "Johnny Havlicek stole the ball!" and still get downright wistful when they recall how the young underdog Red Sox clinched the AL pennant on the last day of the season in '67 (and people old enough to remember will speak almost reverently of "that season" that Yaz had that year).
I'm sure LA has those kinds of memories as well (Gibson's homer comes to mind immediately). Those memories and moments add something to the life of a city, and the more of them a city has experienced, the more it adds to the enjoyment of living in that city.
Los Angeles is a massive city which seemingly sprawls on forever--especially when compared to Boston. Boston has a very bustling & dense urban core but quickly drops off into sleepy suburbs. Let's use your Pacific Palisades vs Newton example. Driving from Downtown LA to the Pacific Palisades is about 18 miles and takes roughly 40 minutes. Using mass transit, it's 2 hours and is only accessible by bus (with multiple transfers). Conversely, driving from Downtown Boston to Newton is 10 miles and takes about 25 minutes. Mass transit options include bus, commuter rail, and green line and travel times range from 30-40 minutes.
You might be able to get to Newton faster and via more options (e.g., car, bus, commuter rail, etc.), but once you get there, it's still, well, Newton. LOL, nothing spectacular about Newton and not much to see.
I'd rather spend an hour in traffic meandering out to Pacific Palisades from DTLA. YMMV.
I'm a born NYCer and honestly, I've been to Boston. I liked it to an extent but it's way colder at times up there. I prefer Rhode Island over Boston area personally.
I haven't been to LA since 1996 but you can't beat tropic weather and arguably the 2nd best city for nightlife, etc. Only downside is, I wish they had an intricate subway system that covered the whole city like NYC.
People seem to forget that L.A is a younger City than those Eastcoast cities so of course Boston will have more.If we Start from the modern Era of either the 70s/80s till now than Los Angeles has every other city beat including New York for overall titles.
At least make sure you're correct before making a statement like that in your last sentence. To keep it simple, I'll count all teams in each metro area. By that count, the NYC metro area has 22 championships from 1970 to the present: Knicks 2 (1970, '73); Yankees 7 ('77, '78, '96, '98, '99, '00, '09); Islanders 4 ('80-'83); Mets 1 ('86); Giants 4 ('86, '90, '07, '011 (season of championship, not year of Super Bowl)); Rangers 1 ('94); NJ Devils 3 ('95, '00, '03).
On the other hand, you have an interesting point. Southern and Western cities are at a disadvantage when it comes purely to bragging rights, since they have had major league clubs for a much shorter time than Northeastern and Midwestern cities.
However, there is a counterpoint to this. Consider my point in an earlier post, about how a championship adds something to the experience of living in a city, it's still true that the very fact that older cities have had teams longer means that more people have had this experience. A longer presence of major league teams enhances the sense of history surrounding those teams.
This adds something to the experience of living in an older city. To say that Boston's (or NYC's, Chicago's, etc.) sports championships before 1970 should not count because this is unfair to newer cities with shorter major league histories may mean something when it comes to the adolescent bragging rights discussed in some earlier posts.
But if we're talking about anything that sports teams may add to a city's quality of life, to say that Boston's titles before LA had a full contingent of teams should not count is like saying that the sense of a long heritage stirred up by the sites of Colonial history tucked away in many corners of Boston should not count as a plus for life in Boston because LA never had a chance to be a part of that history. That doesn't change the fact that it happened in Boston, and this adds something to the life of that city.
The LA Dodgers have 5 championships. The additional one was in Brooklyn in 55. And 5 Lakers championships were before they moved to LA. So I'm not counting those because those aren't LA wins.
To me, it does make sense to count only the championships won in the city in question. Championships the same club has won in other cities aren't really part of a city's heritage.
If we're going to count past titles (like those won by the Minneapolis Lakers, one of which was not even an NBA title but a championship in a Midwestern regional league), I might want to start including the Braves' titles in Milwaukee and Atlanta in Boston's total (and all championships won by the Washington Redskins, since the 'Skins were originally in Boston). A championship won after a team leaves a city has about as much a part in that city's history as a championship won before the club was in that city.
The Ravens and the Thunder further undermine the notion that championships a team won in previous cities count in the total. If for the sake of expediency these clubs' leagues can conveniently regard them as no longer being the clubs they actually are, but as brand-new expansion clubs, when they move, that really adds to the notion that a club has a different history in each city it calls home.
Boston's won 16 titles since 1970 with only one pro team in each sport.
Besides cities like Boston none of that matters. NY and LA have too many teams for city titles to matter. I'm a Giants fan idgaf if the Jets win in fact F em. Unless they're playing Boston, I'd rather no NY team I don't like win even though it costs NY a championship.
Interesting point.
Speaking of the NYC metro, I haven't heard much about this lately, but about 15 to 20 years ago there was an intense rivalry between fans of the NY Rangers and the Islanders. I'm guessing this is still the case, as those sports rivalries never seem to fade. And think of the scene a few years ago when baseball's All-Star game was at Comiskey Park and the White Sox fans there booed the Cubs' contingent on the NL squad.
In the cities with several teams in a sport, it's tough to see how you take pride in the total number of championships by all the teams, when some of those titles were won by teams that many local fans, who pull for crosstown rivals, view as bitter rivals they would prefer to see lose as much as possible.
When it comes purely to bragging rights, this does add an interesting twist to the question of how much sports championships matter, at least when comparing cities.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
