Maybe he means "mean" as in "wicked"?

I'd lean towards Philly, where it's more of a self-fulfilling prophecy, and some fans enjoy the reputation.

Yeah, I vote for Philly too. They even booed Dr. J.

They cheered Michael Irvin's career-ending spinal injury.

They cheered Michael Irvin's career-ending spinal injury.
I'm a mild-mannered guy, but I would've been tempted to do the same.

Maybe he means "mean" as in "wicked"?

Or "mean" as in average?

I'm a mild-mannered guy, but I would've been tempted to do the same.

Well, yeah, anybody who has followed his playing or media career would. But as a non-Philly sports fan, I trust you would have found it in you to resist the urge.

I think he means specifically in reference to baseball since the fans are such hounds.

Yeah, I vote for Philly too. They even booed Dr. J.
Details?

It's a shame all the other stuff has pushed to the background how great of a receiver Irvin was. I might take him over anyone in the game today.

Larry Bird should probably shut the #### up.

Boston's definitely in the running for meanest sports writer. Especially baseball.

Boston's definitely in the running for meanest sports writers. Especially baseball.

Larry Bird should probably shut the #### up.

Probably, but Philly fans are frigging hostile. I started hearing nasty things about Phillies fans before I was even really aware that different cities had different baseball cultures. Those guys would boo Gandhi.

Philadelphia. Booed. Santa.

Case closed.

Booing Santa is perfectly reasonable if you're self-employed.

As Scrooge said "A day older, and not a penny richer."

I never actually understood why booing Santa was a big deal. It just seemed to become a cool thing to say that picked up steam. Waiting for someone to refer to it as a reason why Philadelphia is a mean city is a nice little mouth-breather litmus test though.

Philadelphia. Booed. Santa.

38. Years. Ago.

I agree with karlmagnus. A Christmas Carol is the most sadly misread work of the 19th century; all of these years, critics have interpreted it as an overwrought paen to generosity and good will toward men at Christmastime, while it was actually intended as a dark, subtle commentary on the tragidy of senility.

"It's a shame all the other stuff has pushed to the background how great of a receiver Irvin was. I might take him over anyone in the game today."


Count the Rings?

Michael Irvin was nothing special. If he'd have been drafted by a team like the Bucs or Saints, he'd have been just another guy.

Michael Irvin was nothing special.

I disagree. He had a very special talent for getting away with offensive pass interference six or eight times per game.

Give me Irvin over Harrison 10 times out of 10. I'll take someone who enjoys the contact, instead of whining to the league about it. And it doesn't hurt that he actually showed up in big games, unlike Harrison.

Michael Irvin was nothing special.

Disagree strongly. Irvin was a hell of a receiver--and no, I am not a Cowboys fan.

Michael Irvin was nothing special. If he'd have been drafted by a team like the Bucs or Saints, he'd have been just another guy.

C'mon; the Saints could draft Dan Marino and he'd've sucked.

I never actually understood why booing Santa was a big deal. It just seemed to become a cool thing to say that picked up steam. Waiting for someone to refer to it as a reason why Philadelphia is a mean city is a nice little mouth-breather litmus test though.

I think it's the equivalent of finding out who your kid's favourite sports hero is, and then buying a poster of it and pissing on it in front of your kid.

Booing Santa is just plain ###### up.

I can't think of any legitimate reason to boo a mythical person who brings joy to kids.

1. The same reason people boo mascots or why they boo halftime jugglers who mess up during their act. No one actually roots for these people to fail or dislikes them; it's just playful razzing.

2. The Santa thing is like somewhere around #4527 on the list of why the fans in Philadelphia are harsh. Go to a game there and you'll see or hear about 35 things that offend you more than the Santa episode.

3. Who gives a #### about Santa? He's a fictional character, not the pope.

Give me Irvin over Harrison 10 times out of 10. I'll take someone who enjoys the contact, instead of whining to the league about it. And it doesn't hurt that he actually showed up in big games, unlike Harrison.

I'll take the guy who's the fastest in history to 1,000 receptions, has the single season record in receptions by a huge margin, is sixth in all-time receiving yards, and has no known crack problem.

Who cares about stats in football? I know who's going to show up when I need a win. I'll take him.

What does 'showing up' mean? Does it mean you have an amazing offensive line and a great defense that allows your team to win Super Bowls? If so, I agree, Irvin had it all over Harrison. You know who else was great? That Lynn Swan.

Yes, if Marvin Harrison wasn't so deprived of a great QB, a great RB, and a great O-line for his career, he might had a chance to do something. A shame he was stuck with Peyton Manning, Edgerrin James, and that annually nasty Colts' line. Have you watched the Colts' in the playoff? Have you watched what happens when the going gets rough? Mr. Harrison plants himself right on that bench moping, while his team fades into black. Hit this man in the mouth once and he's out for the game. The Pats' figured that out and they had to change the NFL rule book in order to accommodate him.

What rule did they change? (Really asking)

I don't go in for the toughness/clutch/etc. arguments much more in football than I do in baseball. Some guys win it all and some don't. A single WR, particularly in comparison to an RB or QB, has a small effect on whether his team wins the big one.

I can't think of any legitimate reason to boo a mythical person who brings joy to kids.

How about because he's not a real person who brings joy to kids?

What rule did they change?

They added, or at least more strictly enforced, that illegal contact rule that makes it impossible to touch a receiver anymore when the QB has the ball without getting a 5-yard penalty and an automatic first down.

I don't go in for the toughness/clutch/etc. arguments much more in football than I do in baseball.

That's because you're not an Eagles fan and you haven't seen your team man-handled to the point where receivers are actually scared of catching the ball (Panthers in the NFC Championship).

Some guys win it all and some don't. A single WR, particularly in comparison to an RB or QB, has a small effect on whether his team wins the big one.

I'm not really arguing about winning it all. T.O. has never won it all, but I'd love to have him in a big game.

You said you would rather have Harrison over Irvin, and you mentioned the crack angle, which precisely proves my point. Crack and hookers never derailed Irvin's career, other than a distraction in the abstract, it never caused the Cowboys to lose or affected anyone else on the team. He still produced whenever he was on the field. Which goes back to my original point that it is a shame for all the off-field incidents which cloud the career of a great wide receiver.

I don't go in for the toughness/clutch/etc. arguments much more in football than I do in baseball.

FWIW, I buy it much more in football. I guess it's changing somewhat, but careers are short, so those shining moments stand out more as a measure of a player's career.

Not that I know how to settle the Emmitt Smith vs. Barry Sanders debate.


Oh, and E.P.P., on Marvin Harrison, you forgot the great #2 receiver and tight end. Marvelous hands though--can't believe that catch this yr against the Patriots.

FWIW, I buy it much more in football. I guess it's changing somewhat, but careers are short, so those shining moments stand out more as a measure of a player's career.

Yes they do.

How about because he's not a real person who brings joy to kids?

Well, to the kids who are watching, that physical person they see IS Santa.
Or, (if their parents use the "he's Santa's assistant" to explain the multiple mall Santas), it's close enough.

I'm guessing you'd have no problem with a group of people booing Santa Claus at those annual Xmas parades they hold in many cities. If so, then I guess that's where we differ.

They really were booing the Eagles, not Santa. The Eagles at the time were a penny-pinching, losing franchise. What happened, and I'm going from memory here because I don't have time to look it up (I mean memory of reading about it -- I wasn't there), is that there was supposed to be a Christmas pageant at halftime of a late-season home game. Santa evidently didn't show up, so they pulled a college kid out of the crowd who had just happened to do that thing of coming to the game in a Santa suit. But without padding. So he looked like this scraggly little skinny Santa, and he didn't have, like, a Santa act. The people booed.

It wasn't "Boo, Santa!"

It was more like, "Look at the Santa those cheap bastards the Eagles are trying to pass off on us. Boo, Eagles!"

It was more like, "Look at the Santa those cheap bastards the Eagles are trying to pass off on us. Boo, Eagles!"

Way to ruin the myth, captain bringdown.

King Kaufman, you're on the right track with the Santa story, but let me add some details:

The Eagles were the worst team in the league all year, and the only thing the fans had to look forward to was the #1 pick in the following season's draft, who happened to be O.J. Simpson. Then, the week before the incident the Eagles somehow won a game which gave Buffalo the #1 overall pick and the Eagles #2. So yes, the fans were booing the Eagles and not Santa, and also booing the fact that their crappy team managed to win when everybody wanted them to lose.

Here in Philadelphia, whenever an argument starts about how rough the fans are and someone brings up booing Santa, we just roll our eyes. It happened a long time ago and has been exaggerated by history. Bringing up the Santa thing shows that a person has no real knowledge of the subject of Philadelphia fans.

But yes, the fans here are very mean. A small percentage of course, but very tough to play for.

It was more like, "Look at the Santa those cheap bastards the Eagles are trying to pass off on us. Boo, Eagles!"

Thank you for clearing that up.

I now withdraw my statement at #17.

"Not that I know how to settle the Emmitt Smith vs. Barry Sanders debate."

There's a debate?

It would be a career vs peak agrument, except that Sanders retired during his peak. If Pedro had retired after last season, it would be like Roger vs Pedro, but Roger has clearly won now, I'm sorry to say.

It would be a career vs peak agrument, except that Sanders retired during his peak. If Pedro had retired after last season, it would be like Roger vs Pedro, but Roger has clearly won now, I'm sorry to say.

After taking inning into account, was Pedro's peak any better than Roger's?

As for football, I'd be interested to hear what people have to say about Rice. I've never seen anyone question him being the best receiver ever, but he had the benefit of playing with Montana and Young. Do all three of those guys get knocked down for playing with other greats? One less than the others?

"It would be a career vs peak agrument, except that Sanders retired during his peak."

How bout Lou Gehrig vs. Eddie Murray?

read # 47 and thought Foxx, clicked to BBREF to Gehrig hadn't been there in awhile then saw the comps/ both these guys don't get their due/Gehrig the Ruth phenomenon ok get THAT/Foxx ..don't know..Williams held him in high esteem.. so much so that in a way when you study the Williams literature Foxx becomes a glaring omission in the narrative/the Williams shadow is different on the subject--so many great A's years--