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.
Kane-Kane-really-homer-ism? And by me making a long statement-that will obfuscate the truth, really now? I've lived in LA, worked in NY/worked in Boston-have parents from Chicago and been there numerous times-I've seen sports in virtually every major city, including Philly, Houston, St Louis, Minneapolis. If anything I'm biased now to Boston since I've been here for 20 years. My argument is NOT to convince you, as that's pointless. Rather, it's to state reasons, WHY, my opinion, has validity. The whole thing is subjective. I know all the selling points of New York, but the LA points are totally valid. College sports REFLECTS the actual people to a large degree, who live in the city. USC and UCLA-are for the most part-not always-but mostly made up of local athletes. Pro teams are made up of athletes from all over. LA produces, without question better athletes than New York. I've made my point on attendance. The Boston Globe-no LA "Homer" did a piece on LA being 1 or 2 in mlb attendance 35 times since moving west-and their summation was-say what you want-they SHOW UP for baseball-better than any other city. The numbers are the numbers. As for the Laker debate, that argument against their historical success is stupid-as my co-horts point out-accurately-they've been the dominant NBA franchise in every respect for decades-on social media-they trail only 6 European Soccer clubs in terms of most popular sports franchises globally. Their on court dominance, minus the last few years, speaks for itself. Of course that is not relevant in your eyes. USC was selected by USA Today, no LA homer paper-as having the Number 1 fan base in America-2014. Not my selection, theirs. Their success on the field-winning their first title in 1928, and having been a football factory ever since, is clear to anyone. I'll stick with my argument.
Well you sure have a way of showing it by making one just as long lol.
Saying it's not close is pretty asinine, but what's stopping me in particular from taking you seriously is your sentence structure. Also, all the nitpicking and boasting going towards things that favor LA.
Anything that doesn't go to NYC advantage doesn't count in this thread.
But LA guys are the Homers and biased. Sure.
I admit I voted LA out of pure hometown loyalty. I love my LA sports teams.
It really is subjective what people mean by "better." NYC fans are certainly more raucous, crowds I would bet are more electric. For most people that's enough for a city to be a better sports city. Going to MSG for a Knicks game is definitely on my NYC bucket list.
LA fans get a bad rap I think for being more laid back, but I don't think there's anything wrong with that. It's just the culture. If you've ever lived there you can't deny that we love our teams!
Final note to Kane-Kane-since you will no doubt consider the previous another example of random points jumping all over the place. So let me narrow it down and be concise-my opinion only of course -Football Pro-NYC easily Giants Flagship of the NFL-Hockey NYC-Rangers amazing support over decades and Islanders success on the ice in the 80's. Baseball-LA-but it's close as we can only look at since the Dodgers moved west, and you could certainly make a case for New York and I'd say fine-
NBA Basketball-LA- not close- Major College sports meaning Football and Basketball-and if you want Baseball-LA and no one would dispute that-Special Events-Olympics/Rose Bowl/Super Bowls-again LA-the city that has produced the greatest amount of world class athletes historically-LA-so there is my concise argument-I'll say baseball is close-total on field success would be the Yankees-but when you factor in that the Yankees never hit 3 million in attendance until 1999, 21 years after the Dodgers did-I'd say LA, and also, in large part as the Dodgers never went longer than 8 years in a row without a post season appearance 1996-2004, while the Yanks went from 1964-1976- and again from 1981 to 1995. Plus a New York franchise, the Dodgers-left Brooklyn-and had far greater success in titles and attendance after moving west. If that makes me a homer, I'm fine with it.
LA has more championships since the 2000's but NYC has way more passionate, diehard and loyal fans, and thats what matters.
NYC fans show up win or lose.
Championships don't make a city a great sports city. The fans are what makes it a great sports city.
Pro teams are not composed of locals, they're made up of athletes from all over the place. Sports championships are a crapshoot.
Boston for example couldn't sell out Celtics or Bruins games before they won championships. That doesn't sound like a great sports town if you ask me. They're endured unparalleled success the last 16 years only rivaled by LA.
Had left this site for good, but happened to take one last peak and saw this post. Since it's subjective, rather than list random thoughts-here's a simple factual response.The Clippers have sold out every game since 2011-and they have never won anything in their history.The Dodgers have led the majors in attendance the last 3 years and last won a World Series in 1988. The Kings have sold out every hockey home game since 2012, and did not even make the playoffs last year. UCLA led the PAC 12 in football attendance-76,000 per game-and last won a college football title in 1954 and have not even won so much as a conference Championship in the 21st century. The Angels have drawn over 3 million fans EVERY year since 2003-and they have won exactly one World Series in their history, and again, last year failed to make the playoffs. The Mets were nowhere in attendance for years unless they had a winning record and last year only started drawing as it became clear they would make the playoffs. The Islanders have been in the bottom 1/3 of the NHL in attendance for years. The Yankees-THE YANKEES!!! -did not draw over 3 million fans even one time until 21 years after the Dodgers had first done it.And, the Brooklyn Dodgers never even once drew close to 3 million fans while playing IN NEW YORK for decades despite the borough of Brooklyn alone being the 4th largest city in America for years. Only after moving to LA did they set attendance records.
So, there you have it-yes-a true sports city DOES show up-win or lose-so I say LA once and for all-based on the above. I'll give you the East coast passion, since I live in New England-and visit NYC frequently, I get it, but I'll never agree to NYC being more loyal. When you support sad sack franchises like the Clips-you're loyal.
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.
Response to the Man who sold the world
