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.
I should say that both cities' teams are very accessible to the public; in Boston, the Red Sox, Celtics and Bruins are all located on subway lines ( the Pats are 20-25 miles down the road), while the Cubs, White Sox, Bulls and Black Hawks are also on subway lines ( or within 3 blocks; the Bears are a short walk from Michigan Ave.)..
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,035,535 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliff Clavin
Can't believe this poll is even close.
Polls in City Data never mean anything, they aren't even a clear representation of a popularity contest. I have seen a thread where NYC lost to Baltimore by a large amount on "better sports city".
Like Tmac said, the OP never designated this thread to be an accurate and clear cut one, he designed this thread (whether it be on purpose or accidentally) to be a subjective one. It's best to leave things to the others as far as their preferences go and where their votes come from.
Chicago is also closer to another major league city than Boston is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmac9wr
huh?
M-i-l-w-a-u-k-e-e
You don't think a true sports fan would spend all his time only in the city in which he lives, do you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmac9wr
That's basically what I was "huh"-ing about. It's [Chicago being closer to another major league city] totally unrelated to what's being discussed here.
It depends on what you mean by "better". I think your intent was to say "better teams". However, my answer to the question interpreted the question as "better from a sports fan perspective". Looked at in that perspective, proximity to other cities with sports teams, especially major league sports teams, becomes a factor.
I should say that both cities' teams are very accessible to the public; in Boston, the Red Sox, Celtics and Bruins are all located on subway lines ( the Pats are 20-25 miles down the road), while the Cubs, White Sox, Bulls and Black Hawks are also on subway lines ( or within 3 blocks; the Bears are a short walk from Michigan Ave.)..
The United Center is not particularly convenient to get to from any of the CTA lines (specifically the Green, Blue, or Pink Lines).
It depends on what you mean by "better". I think your intent was to say "better teams". However, my answer to the question interpreted the question as "better from a sports fan perspective". Looked at in that perspective, proximity to other cities with sports teams, especially major league sports teams, becomes a factor.
Umm...I guess. Well then I guess we mop the floor because even though Milwaukee is closer, we've got New York City & Philadelphia down the road...sliiiggggghhhtttllyyyy better sports cities than Milwaukee.
The United Center is not particularly convenient to get to from any of the CTA lines (specifically the Green, Blue, or Pink Lines).
The Blue Line is only about 2 blocks from the United Center; I've ridden it to Black Hawk games about a half-dozen times...it doesn't have to be right "to the front door" to be effective..
Well a lot of people are choosing which teams they like better instead of which teams are better.
Fortunately in professional sports we have scores and statistics so it's very easy to prove which team has a better record. All hoopla about history and fans and experience aside (any city can claim it) track record describes the quality of the team.
You maybe a devout Cubs fan but even you have to admit that their track record is pathetic. Not a WS in over 100 years? Bears w/o superbowl title in 25 years? The Bulls that are just a shadow of their former glory? White Sox with measely three WS titles? Red Sox alone won more WS titles than both Chicago teams combined. Even as a Yankee fan I HAVE to admit they are a great and capable team... Besides all the hoopla there is no Chicago sport teams can match Boston sport teams and both cities have devoted fans...
PS. One thing I can't understand is how can Chicago have such a terrible sport teams and then claim being a great sports city?
It sounds like a dellusion.
Last edited by abracadabra02; 05-26-2010 at 12:34 PM..
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,035,535 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by abracadabra02
Fortunately in professional sports we have scores and statistics so it's very easy to prove which team has a better record. All hoopla about history and fans and experience aside (any city can claim it) track record describes the quality of the team.
You maybe a devout Cubs fan but even you have to admit that their track record is pathetic. .
Yeah I can actually agree with that. But watching them is pretty cool nonetheless. I'd still take the Red Sox and Astros before Cubs and White Sox anyday, IMHO.
But I've always enjoyed the Bears more than the Patriots. Houston being a rookie team really helps with me liking the bears more.
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.
