PDA

View Full Version : Do we have double standard re Old Comiskey vs Wrigley?


white sox bill
11-12-2003, 12:02 PM
I was arguing (all in fun) of the antiquated and dilapatated condition of wrigley and my friend pointed out same could be said for old Comiskey. He pointed out that if the flubs had built a new stadium, and we'd stayed in Comiskey, then the roles would be reversed, they'd be bragging about New Wrigley while we were stuck in Old Comiskey.

I've been to many games @ Comiskey, and loved the atmosphere. Old time baseball and all. Now, objectively speaking, do us Sox fans have a double standard regarding this issue? Take the floor please.....

voodoochile
11-12-2003, 12:08 PM
I don't think so. I haven't heard many people extolling the wonders of old Comiskey. It's nice to look at and all, but I for one don't want it back.

All Wrigley has going for it is "old world charm" and hype.

Dadawg_77
11-12-2003, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by white sox bill
I was arguing (all in fun) of the antiquated and dilapatated condition of wrigley and my friend pointed out same could be said for old Comiskey. He pointed out that if the flubs had built a new stadium, and we'd stayed in Comiskey, then the roles would be reversed, they'd be bragging about New Wrigley while we were stuck in Old Comiskey.

I've been to many games @ Comiskey, and loved the atmosphere. Old time baseball and all. Now, objectively speaking, do us Sox fans have a double standard regarding this issue? Take the floor please.....

Yes because we have memories there.

Huisj
11-12-2003, 12:31 PM
Sox fans realized that the place was in need of replacement. It wasn't in great shape anymore. Cubs fans are too blind to realize the poor shape that wrigley is in.

bestkosher
11-12-2003, 12:47 PM
I see what you are saying and in a way you are corrent, old comiskey did had a lot of the same flaws that wrigle has. Some of tis own to. The baseball elders would then see comiskey as being the oldest ballpark still around and then it would become a baseball museum. So it is a souble standard i na way, but the major differnece is that wrigley old or new will always get more publicity because of its ownership.

poorme
11-12-2003, 01:07 PM
I think Wrigley is in better condition than Comiskey was.

washington
11-12-2003, 01:47 PM
Sox owners didn't put a lot of $$ into keeping Comiskey Park up. Reinsdorf threw some money into cosmetic things when he bought the team but then let it get run down because it helped his argument that the team need a new (publicly-financed) park

MarkV
11-12-2003, 01:59 PM
I didn't like Old Comiskey much. It seemed like every time I went, I had a post in my way. The new park has always been my favorite park. I can't wait till the renovations are totally done. It'll be a real jewel then.

nasox
11-12-2003, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by Huisj
It wasn't in great shape anymore. Cubs fans are too blind to realize the poor shape that wrigley is in.

I disagree. Wrigley doesn't have loose wires running all over and is cleaner than Comiskey was. It is in great shape as compared to Comiskey.

KingXerxes
11-12-2003, 02:15 PM
Wrigley Field was kept in better shape than Comiskey Park had been, but I still think the old Comiskey Park was salvageable and should have gone through a renovation.

I actually preferred the old Comiskey Park to the new one - it had character. As far as pillars and obstructed view seats went - sure there were a couple of thousand seats that you would rather not sit in, but so what? To be honest with you I never let a pillar or post ever bother me at a game.

Maybe I'm old school, but all I read about on this board is Wrigley Field getting bashed for:

1. Pillars or I-beams obstructing a view
2. Lack of bathrooms
3. Lack of vending facilities

Now all of these also applied to Comiskey Park as well as The Stadium. I never went to a game to eat as a primary objective, nor did I ever go to a game to go to the bathroom as a primary objective.

white sox bill
11-12-2003, 02:20 PM
I loved the Chicago Staduim, it reeked of hockey!

KingXerxes
11-12-2003, 02:24 PM
I agree. Compare it to the tomb they play in now. I hate it. Piped in whistling noises, scoreboards going off like some sort of frenetic fireworks show....just terrible. I would bet that at least 50% of the seats in that place would be considered "obstructed" by today's standards - but nobody cared.

Remember when the had those old analog clocks to keep track of the time left in the game (and of the penalties)? Those things were hilarious - but everybody in attendance knew how to read them, and nobody ever complained.

Iwritecode
11-12-2003, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by KingXerxes
I never went to a game to eat as a primary objective,

Maybe not but my wife certainly does. I'm sure there are other "casual fans" that are the same way. We need something to appeal to them as well.

Originally posted by KingXerxes
nor did I ever go to a game to go to the bathroom as a primary objective.

Maybe not but the suffocating stench of urine when you walk into Wrigley is not exactly pleasant.

KingXerxes
11-12-2003, 04:42 PM
But this flies in the face of a cornerstone "truth" that a lot of posters on this board have about those who go to Wrigley Field - That the fans know nothing about baseball (i.e. They are casual fans). If Wrigley Field were as bad a fan experience (no food, smelly bathrooms etc.) then one could only expect total die-hards to be in attendance.

Either it's a great fan experience - and that's why they draw as many as they do, or it's a terrible fan experience and they draw well in spite of it because they have a huge base of die-hard fans.

roofshot87
11-12-2003, 05:03 PM
Or bandwagon jumpers see how die hards cope with, or bask in the vintage "mystique" of the ballpark; so they jump aboard. The Tribune plays on the experiences of a few true fans. That brings in a contingent of tourists and others who really couldn't call themselves Cub fans, into Wrigley Field.
The Cubs and the Red Sox are starved teams in vintage ballparks. The White Sox are a vintage team in a (formally) starved ball park. As a casual baseball fan, which option sounds better?

DSpivack
11-12-2003, 07:50 PM
Reading somewhere on this site, actually a link someone posted about JR and the building of Comiskey II, I was thinking of another double standard.

Some attack Wrigley/ The Cubs for not having an incentive to win; i.e. they fill up the stadium when losing, so what is incentive to win?

But, apparently there is no incentive for the White Sox to fill up the park, either. In fact, does JR not make more $$$ the less attendance Comiskey has?

Of course, there is a difference between the fans [Cubs] and the owners [White Sox] being the cause for no incentive to win. Or is that another double standard?

greenpeach
11-12-2003, 10:00 PM
Originally posted by washington
Sox owners didn't put a lot of $$ into keeping Comiskey Park up. Reinsdorf threw some money into cosmetic things when he bought the team but then let it get run down because it helped his argument that the team need a new (publicly-financed) park

Bingo ! JR let old Comiskey become rundown so that he would have more leverage to get a brand new publicly financed stadium. Walter O'Malley did the same thing with Ebbets Field in the eraly 1950's. The difference was that the Big "O" didn't want a publicly financed stadium, just some prime real estate condemned & sold to him at a rock bottom price. He would then build his own stadium.

Incidently, Tiger Stadium, built in 1912, was in much better shape than old Comiskey. Of course, Tiger management spent a few million dollars renovating it in the late 1970's.

Daver
11-12-2003, 10:12 PM
Originally posted by greenpeach
Bingo ! JR let old Comiskey become rundown so that he would have more leverage to get a brand new publicly financed stadium. Walter O'Malley did the same thing with Ebbets Field in the eraly 1950's. The difference was that the Big "O" didn't want a publicly financed stadium, just some prime real estate condemned & sold to him at a rock bottom price. He would then build his own stadium.

Incidently, Tiger Stadium, built in 1912, was in much better shape than old Comiskey. Of course, Tiger management spent a few million dollars renovating it in the late 1970's.

JR and Eddie spent a good buck refurbishing Old Comiskey,they did not let it become rundown,it was rundown when they got it.

Old Comiskey could have been fully rehabbed,but not in time to play baseball there the following season,which is why they chose to build Bill Veeck Field on the south side of 35th st. instead.

greenpeach
11-12-2003, 10:30 PM
Originally posted by Daver
JR and Eddie spent a good buck refurbishing Old Comiskey,they did not let it become rundown,it was rundown when they got it.

Old Comiskey could have been fully rehabbed,but not in time to play baseball there the following season,which is why they chose to build Bill Veeck Field on the south side of 35th st. instead.

If that's the case, then they sure got ripped-off. :smile: Tiger Stadium aged much better than the old Comiskey.

TDog
11-12-2003, 11:56 PM
Originally posted by Daver
JR and Eddie spent a good buck refurbishing Old Comiskey,they did not let it become rundown,it was rundown when they got it....

I think you're right. I saw a game in old Comiskey in the late 1980s after having not been to a game there since 1978. I was impressed with how nice the park looked and how clean it was, even compared to my memories of Wrigley. I had been going to games in San Diego and Anaheim where the parks were clean beyond any standard I could imagine while growing up. The new park is even cleaner. I don't understand how fans can put up with Wrigley in the name of nostalgia.

Some Chicagoans feel nostalgia toward Riverview, but I'm sure they would admit that Great America is a nicer park.

doogiec
11-13-2003, 06:31 AM
Originally posted by greenpeach
Bingo ! JR let old Comiskey become rundown so that he would have more leverage to get a brand new publicly financed stadium. Walter O'Malley did the same thing with Ebbets Field in the eraly 1950's. The difference was that the Big "O" didn't want a publicly financed stadium, just some prime real estate condemned & sold to him at a rock bottom price. He would then build his own stadium.

Incidently, Tiger Stadium, built in 1912, was in much better shape than old Comiskey. Of course, Tiger management spent a few million dollars renovating it in the late 1970's.

This is complete nonsense. Old Comiskey became run down during the regimes of Veeck and the Allyns, the team was so close to bankrupcy during those years simple maintenance was ignored. Reinsdorf's group probably put more money into fixing up the park in the first 5 years of their ownership than was spent the previous 20 years.

Wrigley Field today is in better shape than Comiskey was in the 1970's, and in better shape than Fenway is today. Thats because the Wrigley family dumped tons of money into maintaining the park (while igoring the team on the field for the most part) for decades, and the Tribune company has also maintained their best marketing asset.

hsnterprize
11-13-2003, 07:27 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
I don't think so. I haven't heard many people extolling the wonders of old Comiskey. It's nice to look at and all, but I for one don't want it back.

All Wrigley has going for it is "old world charm" and hype. Well...I'll assume that if there was money coming into the Old Comiskey Park like there is for Wrigley Field today, maybe the old ballpark would not only still be standing, but it would be extolled like the joint on the north side.

It's been said time and time again...but we all know why Wrigley Field is given almost the "heavenly" distinction over and over again...tourist attraction, owned by a major media company, constant promotion, bars across the street, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Let's face it...even if the new ballpark was like places like Oriole Park at Camden Yards, Coors Field, or Jacobs Field, it wouldn't get as much hype as Wrigley. Of course, we'd never really know that because Uncle Jerry rejected the chance to have the place look somewhat decent. Die hard fans like us wouldn't really care that much. I confess I personally wanted the ballpark to get some renovations, but the way the ballpark was before wasn't a draw for the casual fan...and we all know why...not so much for the design as much for all the negative press around the place. The Cubs' PR people, as well as national press took full advantage of the negativity, and we all know what happened.

I'm glad U.S. Cellular Field is getting makeovers. Whether or not it will get much needed positive press is a different story. But, as we all know, a ballpark isn't the only thing that makes a team successful. It's just a shame the flub fans who aren't smart enough to stay away from the place when they lose nearly 100 games realize that.

KingXerxes
11-13-2003, 09:20 AM
If Comiskey Park had undergone extensive renovations - and by that I mean restoring the old brick look, replacing/repositioning the seats and rails, getting the outfield walls back to their original look, installing more bathrooms, replacing the utility infrastuctures etc - I guarantee you that it would be celebrated nationally right along side of Wrigley Field as a classic stadium.

PaleHoseGeorge
11-13-2003, 09:41 AM
Originally posted by KingXerxes
If Comiskey Park had undergone extensive renovations - and by that I mean restoring the old brick look, replacing/repositioning the seats and rails, getting the outfield walls back to their original look, installing more bathrooms, replacing the utility infrastuctures etc - I guarantee you that it would be celebrated nationally right along side of Wrigley Field as a classic stadium.

Not to disagree with you, because I believe you're absolutely right. However the only man's opinion who counts is that of our Maximum Leader, the chairman, Mr. Jerry Reinsdorf. Here is what he said on this subject back in 1991.

:reinsy
"You could have waved a magic wand over Comiskey Park to make everything brand new and it still wouldn't have worked."

Mr. Reinsdorf wanted the revenue of 100 Diamond Suites and he couldn't get it unless he had a new ballpark. Game. Set. Match.

Now allow me to paraphrase what our Maximum Leader was thinking when he was quoted by Rich Lindberg above.

:reinsy
"Take all your memories and sentimental attachments and stick it!"

:smile:

greenpeach
11-13-2003, 09:53 AM
Originally posted by doogiec
This is complete nonsense. Old Comiskey became run down during the regimes of Veeck and the Allyns, the team was so close to bankrupcy during those years simple maintenance was ignored. Reinsdorf's group probably put more money into fixing up the park in the first 5 years of their ownership than was spent the previous 20 years.

Wrigley Field today is in better shape than Comiskey was in the 1970's, and in better shape than Fenway is today. Thats because the Wrigley family dumped tons of money into maintaining the park (while igoring the team on the field for the most part) for decades, and the Tribune company has also maintained their best marketing asset.

Well I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion. You're right though, in the 1970's when I went to the park it was in terrible shape. This was in the heyday of Bill Melton & Dick Allen. I didn't go again until 4th of July in 1986 & it still appeared very rundown to me. Maybe that was because I had visited many newer parks (Shea, Busch, Riverfront, Dodger & Fulton County) in the proceeding 10 years. Hey, I guess it's all a matter of perspective. However, I stand by my earlier assertion that Tiger Stadium was in much better shape towards the end.

A.T. Money
11-13-2003, 08:02 PM
I miss old Comiskey Park.

poorme
11-13-2003, 08:15 PM
Tearing down Comiskey Park was a crime. Plain and simple.

thezeker
11-13-2003, 08:32 PM
Some of my greatest memories were at the old Comiskey but that doesn't take away from the fact that the ballpark sucked!

It was built on the cheap to begin with. Comiskey started a White Sox tradition of gumming up the works by trying to save a buck. Isn't it funny how the White Sox stll follow that lead? That's our tradition!

But getting back to old Comiskey it was a fun park when there were only 20,000 there. Larger crowds and you could get stuck in some really terrible seats. Also, I'll never forget the nasty smell in the outfield areas. It always smelled like dry vomit! They never could get that smell out.

Wrigley Field was always a much more fan friendly ballpark. The sightlines seemed better and it was always so much cleaner and wholesome feeling. Wrigley and Fenway have something Comiskey never had. Intimacy! And that is one of the reasons people love those two places so much.

As for me I will take the new refurbished "cell". I love sitting in the Club Level. Wrigley has nothing that can compare!

xil357
11-13-2003, 08:36 PM
Old Comiskey was the first big league stadium in which I saw a game -- 1985. I threw out an opening pitch to Ozzie Guillen in 1987 there as well. It had a lot of great memories for me.

But the place was an old dump, through and through. The troughs always gave me a nervous kidney, the aisles and ramps were too narrow and the seats were uncomfortable.

xil357
11-13-2003, 08:44 PM
Originally posted by KingXerxes
If Comiskey Park had undergone extensive renovations - and by that I mean restoring the old brick look, replacing/repositioning the seats and rails, getting the outfield walls back to their original look, installing more bathrooms, replacing the utility infrastuctures etc - I guarantee you that it would be celebrated nationally right along side of Wrigley Field as a classic stadium.

Wouldn't there also need to be new clubhouse facilities and team offices?

That would have been some MAJOR renovations. It could have worked, though, but I doubt that enough political pressure could have been exerted to both put money into an old stadium and fulfilled JR's desire for skyboxes. I'd venture to say it would have cost more than the new park, because you virtually would be re-building an entirely new park within the existing structure, kind of like Soldier Field. They also would want to remove the poles that obstructed so many views, right?

Not to nitpick, but I mean this as an honest question and am open to suggestions. Where would the Sox have played for one or two seasons while Comiskey underwent these massive renovations. Soldier Field? Wrigley Field? Champaign?

If the money was there, though, it would have been great. Nevertheless, I still am looking forward to the results after these renovations to the Cell are complete.

tc1959
11-13-2003, 10:01 PM
Does anyone know, if there are any renderings of what Old Comiskey Park might have looked like before Charles Comiskey cheapened the original design?
What about the proposed stadium from the late 60's, that would have replaced Comiskey Park?

voodoochile
11-13-2003, 10:47 PM
Originally posted by tc1959
Does anyone know, if there are any renderings of what Old Comiskey Park might have looked like before Charles Comiskey cheapened the original design?
What about the proposed stadium from the late 60's, that would have replaced Comiskey Park?

I can't answer your questions, but Welcome Aboard! :D:

thezeker
11-13-2003, 10:53 PM
Originally posted by tc1959
Does anyone know, if there are any renderings of what Old Comiskey Park might have looked like before Charles Comiskey cheapened the original design?
What about the proposed stadium from the late 60's, that would have replaced Comiskey Park?

Boy I remember a couple of plans. I even remember seeing one with a combined football and baseball stadium side by side where they were going to have a movable roof on rairoad tracks that could be moved from stadium to stadium. I think it was going to be built in Addison. I think this was when Arthur Allyn owned the Sox.

nasox
11-13-2003, 11:25 PM
Originally posted by tc1959
Does anyone know, if there are any renderings of what Old Comiskey Park might have looked like before Charles Comiskey cheapened the original design?

Whoever designed Old Comisey back in the early 1900s told the Old Roman that he could build a steel reinforced park without obstructing posts in the way of seat views for $600,000 but Charles said no thanks, just build it for $250000 (or $350000 I forget). THis would have changed the way we built stadia in that period up until current stadium design. No renderings though, they probably have all been destroyed or lost. Note that my numbers might be slightly off.
Source is the Ballpark Book (circa 1999?)

soxnut
11-14-2003, 12:35 AM
Originally posted by xil357
Wouldn't there also need to be new clubhouse facilities and team offices?

That would have been some MAJOR renovations. It could have worked, though, but I doubt that enough political pressure could have been exerted to both put money into an old stadium and fulfilled JR's desire for skyboxes. I'd venture to say it would have cost more than the new park, because you virtually would be re-building an entirely new park within the existing structure, kind of like Soldier Field. They also would want to remove the poles that obstructed so many views, right?

Not to nitpick, but I mean this as an honest question and am open to suggestions. Where would the Sox have played for one or two seasons while Comiskey underwent these massive renovations. Soldier Field? Wrigley Field? Champaign?

If the money was there, though, it would have been great. Nevertheless, I still am looking forward to the results after these renovations to the Cell are complete.


With they way things go with the White Sox, if they had renovated the old park, I think people would have still complained. After seeing the money spent on new parks, and probably a close to similar amount spent on refurbishing the old park, people would have said "why didn't they just build a new one?" :D:

soxnut
11-14-2003, 12:39 AM
I do miss some things about the old park: the color scheme, the light standards, the arched windows behind the left field seats, the lower upper deck, and the prices, but that's about it. :D:


I can't wait for the renovations to be done by '05. I know I'm going to like the park alot more. :smile:

Brian26
11-14-2003, 12:42 AM
Originally posted by thezeker
Boy I remember a couple of plans. I even remember seeing one with a combined football and baseball stadium side by side where they were going to have a movable roof on rairoad tracks that could be moved from stadium to stadium. I think it was going to be built in Addison. I think this was when Arthur Allyn owned the Sox.

You might be thinking of a design that was shown in the mid 80's. It was a proposed stadium for the Bears and Sox, similar to the setup used at some of the old NL East cookie-cutter stadiums, where the stands would move on tracks. The Bears wanted nothing to do with it, though.