PDA

View Full Version : Always in the Shadow of the Cubs for many years...


TornLabrum
04-28-2004, 09:29 PM
That's the conclusion of a guy whose email address is includes the name "Ryne" but who will remain nameless even though he sent me his name and address. I'm not sure of the point Ryne was trying to make when he responded to my column on the Sox-Sun-Times media war. Perhaps someone here can translate it for me.

For many years, the Chicago White Sox has always lived in the shadows of the Cubs, regardless of how successful either team is during that season and thw city's newspapers give the Cubs more coverage because of one thing, Sammy Sosa.
When the White Sox made the playoffs in 1993 and again in 2000, they received little press from the media.But when the Cubs made it to the postseason in 1998 and 2003, they were considered America's darlings.
Let's face it, Chicago's heart will always be with the Cubs because of tradition and Wrigley and the White Sox will always be the poor stepchild or second-class team in Chicago.

Ryne, what are ya sayin'?

npdempse
04-28-2004, 09:31 PM
I think he means he bent his wookie. But I might be wrong.

pearso66
04-28-2004, 09:32 PM
so let me get this straight? since before 93 the Cubs have been getting all the publicity because of Sammy Sosa? how does that work?

Lip Man 1
04-28-2004, 09:46 PM
Ryne obviously doesn't remember (or know) about the 1950's through 1965 does he?

Lip

SoxBoy14
04-28-2004, 09:51 PM
What an idiot. It's losers like that who give flub fans so much pride thinking that because some idiot wrote an article that makes them the number 1 team.

cheeses_h_rice
04-28-2004, 10:39 PM
I may be getting old, but I seem to recall this city going nuts when the Sox were in the playoffs in '93.

hose
04-28-2004, 11:30 PM
I mentioned to my buddy , who happens to be a cub fan, that I went to the game today.

The first thing he asked me before I said who won the game was, "what was the attendance?"

When did this whole thing about attendance become a issue that it gets more attention than the game itself?

JC456
04-28-2004, 11:32 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Ryne obviously doesn't remember (or know) about the 1950's through 1965 does he?

Lip

How about the 70's?

Kilroy
04-29-2004, 12:03 AM
Originally posted by hose
The first thing he asked me before I said who won the game was, "what was the attendance?"

When did this whole thing about attendance become a issue that it gets more attention than the game itself?

Because that is the one and only thing that the Cubs have over us, unquestionably. Which team is better, who has the better record, what place they are in, are all subject to change. But the Cubs will always have more drunken idiots and people who come out just to be there and not even watch the game than the Sox will.

batmanZoSo
04-29-2004, 12:15 AM
Cub fans think the cubs have always sold out Wrigley field. I encountered a spaz like that the other day. The last time I went to Wrigley (94) I was with my friend in the last row of the upper deck. We snuck down to the lower deck and with ease ended up on top of the dugout. That same year the Sox were drawing about 33,000 a game.

Clarkdog
04-29-2004, 11:30 AM
Yawn.

Cubs fans can say whatever they want about attendance and who lives in whose shadow. Here is what I know as fan of the game for 30 years.

The 2004 Cubs are a BORING team. And I'm not saying that as a biased Sox fan. I have watched games of both teams. The Cubs play boring baseball. The Cubs are resting on their rotation and counting on their offense to outslug other teams. Playing not to lose. Sound familiar?

The 2004 Sox are aggressive, and they are playing all 27 outs. Granted they make some stupid mistakes and they get into jams. But they don't stop competing. The Sox are playing to win, and they are entertaining.

When these teams meet in June, you'll see the difference. The Sox are going to be ready, and they will force the action on the Cubs. That is exactly how the Marlins beat them in the NLCS.

SoxFan76
04-29-2004, 11:37 AM
I can't wait until Wrigley is demolished. All will be well in Chicago.

I've also thought about this: Do we really want 40,000 fans in the park if 12,000 of them don't even want to see the game? If the Sox become Chicago's team again, I have a feeling they would become everything we hate about the Cubs. I'd rather see a game with 25,000 real Sox fans than a bunch of bandwagon fans.

Hangar18
04-29-2004, 11:54 AM
" ....................but when the cubs made the post-season in 1998 and 2003, they were considered Americas Darlings"

"Lets face it, Chicagos heart will always be with the Cubs
because of Tradition and Wrigley"

Hmmm, seems like Ive met this "fan" before, or one of 89,000 other "fans" just like him. Yes, I remembered 98 and 03. They were "americas darlings". Who made them that? THE MEDIA.
Why? because it was "good for baseball" if them & the redsox made the WS. Why? Both teams were "cursed", IMPLYING that the REDSOX also havnt been Good for Years and Have had No WS to brag about. Ummmmmmmmmm, MEDIA got it wrong again, WS for BoSox in 1986 and winning records thoughout the 1990s.

What Tradition could Ryne be speaking of? The 7th Inning Stretch? ummmmmm, The SOX started that. Harry Caray, whom the Cubs Presumptiously erected a Statue of? Ummmmm, He was a SOX & Card broadcaster before that.
What else do they have that they DIDNT STEAL/BORROW from
other teams? Heres a tradition theyve got. Losing.

What do we have? 7th inning stretches, NananaHeyHey,
Clever Banners, "SweetHomeChicago" after home victories, Nancy Faust, Tailgating, GeneHonda, DogDay Games, SLeepOverGames, ExplodingScoreboards, OoEEOo-Maaglliooo, 70'sNites, ElvisNites.......... I could go on. Theyve Got NOTHING on us. Except the MEDIAS undying devotion

woodenleg
04-29-2004, 12:01 PM
Did "Ryne" pilfer his ideas from an article that appeared in the State Journal-Register last year?

Here is an excerpt from that article:



White Sox have always been in the
shadow of the Cubs, Cardinals

The State Journal-Register (Springfield, IL)

September 10, 2003 Wednesday

[...]

I'm afraid that even if the White Sox win the World Series, they never will be a bigger story than the Cubs or Cardinals here in Springfield. They'll never surpass the Cubs in popularity in Chicago. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that if the White Sox are playing in Game Seven of the World Series on Nov. 2 and the 2-5 Bears are playing the 2-5 San Diego Chargers at Soldier Field, more Chicago television sets will be turned to Da Bears than the White Sox.

[...]

Plainly and simply, the White Sox have no tradition. Oh, there's the Black Sox scandal of 1919. And there's the Go-Go Sox of 1959. There was Disco Demolition Night. Bill Veeck turned them into a circus act with shorts one year. But there's no history. And even if the Cubs are embraced as lovable losers, they at least have some tradition.

The Cubs have Wrigley Field. The White Sox have . . . let's see, there was old Comiskey Park, then new Comiskey Park and now they've sold the naming rights, so it's U.S. Cellular Field.

The Cubs have Ernie Banks, Gabby Hartnett, Fergie Jenkins, Sammy Sosa. The White Sox have silent Harold Baines, grumpy Frank Thomas, Little Luis Aparicio, Nellie Fox with the plug of chew in his jaw, Luke Appling. No contest.

The Cubs have WGN, television and radio, beaming all across America with various affiliate radio stations and national cable television exposure. The White Sox don't have a radio affiliate you can pick up south of Joliet. They're on WGN sometimes, but their big TV venture was SportsVision, which meant you had to pay extra to watch them. Most folks didn't.

The Cubs had Jack Brickhouse and Harry Caray describing their games. The White Sox had Bob Elson and actually let Harry Caray get away so he could move across town to broadcast the Cubs. Dumb.

The Cubs have blue-and-white uniforms; pin stripes are home. The White Sox have been blue and white, black and white, red and white. Every day seemingly used to produce a different uniform.

jackbrohamer
04-29-2004, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by hose
When did this whole thing about attendance become a issue that it gets more attention than the game itself?


Check out the Tribune today, the attendance is in the very first sentence about yesterday's game.

Hangar18
04-29-2004, 12:09 PM
I like how he mentions Fergie Jenkins. Didnt the Duchess himself play for like 13 teams? Doesnt qualify him as a cub.

Hangar18
04-29-2004, 12:12 PM
Anytime a Cub fan starts with you on "attendance",
remind them that as late as the 1983 season, the cubs had
crowds of 14 and 15 thousand in their "shrine".

TommyJohn
04-29-2004, 12:21 PM
That column isn't worth rebutting. All it did was highlight a few
good things about the Cubs while downplaying the history and
tradition of the White Sox, eg. conveniently failing to mention
the 1906 or 1917 White Sox, declaring "no contest."

Arrrrrrgghhhh. Seriously. Some Cub fans just make me ILL. Where
is Mike Royko and his Cub Quiz when you really need it?

alohafri
04-29-2004, 01:16 PM
Originally posted by hose


The first thing he asked me before I said who won the game was, "what was the attendance?"



Your buddy could have been my wife's boss! That is always his first question.

alohafri
04-29-2004, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by SoxFan76
I can't wait until Wrigley is demolished.



Kegger of Guinness at Aloha's!

thepaulbowski
04-29-2004, 01:49 PM
How long ago was it that the Cubs use to close off the upper deck after school had started because nobody was there as they were buried in last place? His rebuttal is ridiculous and unfounded.