My original claim is that the 2004 ALCS/WS is the biggest victory in American sports history, the most significant win, not the "greatest moment" ever.
And the flipside as well, of course, the Yankees losing was the biggest loss/choke. Ever.

Both of these statments can obviously be debated, but they pass the straight face test.

THATS THE STRAIGHT FACE TEST ANDY. THE STRAIGHT FACE TEST!

My point being, it was obviously a huge win, and a huge loss. You can disagree, but you can't laugh it out of the room, IMHO.

Why the hell did the ref wave Tom McMillen away from the baseline when he was trying to defend the in-bounds pass? Was that an international rules thing?

A better question would be why did McMillen then run away from the inbounder. It appeared to me the ref, by waving his arm up and down vertically over the line, was just warning McMillen not to encroach. McMillen should have known the rules and not backed away like that. If the long pass had a higher arc, the two defenders would have had a much better chance to deflect it.

I think Tom choked a little there.

My point being, it was obviously a huge win, and a huge loss. You can disagree, but you can't laugh it out of the room, IMHO.

Let it go, t. Andy is going to continue to be a birther on this one.

Belarus beating Sweden at the 2002 Olympics has to be up there for upsets. Especially as up to that point I couldn't conceive of how Canada would possibly be able to beat Sweden. They looked unstoppable, and then to lose the way they did, to Belarus of all nations.

now I believe Tyson was largely a hype-created bully, who quickly panicked when in a real fight.

YR is the boxing expert here. He says so, I'll believe it. Otherwise, not so much.

It's funny, Tyson was surrounded by so much media hype and received so much attention and adulation that many serious boxing historians found themselves almost compelled to throw as much cold water on his legacy as possible in order to counteract the hyperbole. Now Tyson may actually be in the position of being somewhat underrated as a result.

Tyson's meteoric rise in the late-80s was a near perfect confluence of events; the talent level of the heavyweight division was at a serious ebb, with most of the best contenders suffering from drug problems, conditioning issues, and other factors that made them a fairly weak field despite some fantastic raw talent. Tyson's style alone made him a captivating figure and stood in stark contrast to Larry Holmes' workmanlike magnificence and surly relationship with a boxing press who always demeaned him for the sin of not being Muhammad Ali. Tyson was well-trained and well-conditioned by a true veteran of the sport and had honed a style almost perfectly-suited for his physical gifts and the weaknesses inherent in the heavyweight field - if you can get away with patterning yourself on Jack Dempsey, you'd be hard-pressed to pick a more dangerous style.

Tyson shredded the field in an impressive manner that recalled the ascent of several of the all-time greats; Joe Louis went 31-1 with devastating KO's over three former champions before receiving his title over Jim Braddock in 1937, but the loss to former champ Max Schmeling muted a bit of the hype. A more apt comparison may be the Jack Dempsey who went 32-0 with 28 KO's immediately leading up to his 1919 title shot against champion Jess Willard, a remarkable streak that saw Dempsey score a ridiculous 17 first-round KO's (naysayers, bring up Willie Meehan at your own peril if you haven't read the newspaper reports). Streaks like that electrify the sporting press and common fan alike and Tyson rode that wave of hype straight to a series of title wins against middling opponents like Trevor Berbick and a trembling Michael Spinks.

That Mike Tyson from his meteoric ascent was a formidable opponent, but even there questions remained to be answered. The simple criticism was that Tyson was so successful that he never developed the internal toughness needed to weather the storm against equally talented opposition and I do think there's something to that, but of course you can't fault a man for being too good for his level of competition.

The death of Cus D'Amato and subsequent insertion of Don King and his slime-trailing cronies in place of trainer Kevin Rooney is usually cited as the point when Tyson's descent began and there's something to that in terms of stylistic faults becoming more manifest, even while Tyson was continuing to win by impressive knockout. Even granting him this (not a sure thing in my eyes, the elite champions know what needs to be done to keep themselves at their best) you can't discount the fact that the next generation of heavyweights ascending in the 1990s were a large step above the weak crop of the late-80s. In place of Carl Williams, Tony Tucker, Trevor Berbick, Tim Witherspoon, Bonecrusher Smith and Pinklon Thomas the 1990s saw a truly impressive generation of heavyweights take the stage - Evander Holyfield, Riddick Bowe, Lennox Lewis, Tony Morrison, Ray Mercer, David Tua, and Michael Moorer were all talented, hungry young fighters with skillsets ranging from "good" to "elite", and even old, pudgy sideshow George Foreman remained a very dangerous presence in the division. It's telling that Tyson went to some lengths to avoid almost all of these men in the ring following his loss to Buster Douglas, with only Holyfield, a blown-up cruiserweight, managing to get a crack at a time when Tyson was still considered by many to be a championship-caliber fighter. Even George Foreman was studiously avoided by Tyson and with good reason, as I personally have no doubt that even the long-past-prime Big George would have sent Tyson sprawling in a manner not unlike Joe Frazier, a similar small active slugger who couldn't weather Foreman's massive power.

When judged against the all-time heavyweight greats Tyson comes up quite short on almost every measure, but I do think, as someone who leans heavily on film analysis in considering boxers, that the mid-80s Tyson had all the tools required to be exactly the fighter everyone thought he was - blistering handspeed, agile footwork, slippery defense, and if not true mental toughness, at the very least a fearless aggression that served him well against the middling talents of the time. I've always felt that even the best Tyson would have been mentally cowed by the truly elite heavyweights of most eras, even before Evander Holyfield openly exposed Tyson's mental weakness for all to see in two fights that saw "Iron Mike" shoved around the ring and bullied until he literally quit in their second bout. Still, I don't think it's entirely unfair to place Tyson in the rankings of all-time heavyweight greats, somewhere around #20 or so although I haven't given the matter much thought in many years. He was a good swarming heavyweight with power in both hands, and small swarming heavyweights tend to have short lifespans even when they're as dedicated and fearless as Joe Frazier. No version of Mike Tyson ever beats a prime Evander Holyfield or Lennox Lewis, nor a prime Foreman or Larry Holmes or any of a dozen other truly great heavyweights through the ages. That doesn't mean Tyson was a bum or a pure product of hype, it just means that absent all the hype and granted some historic distance, an honest appraisal shows him falling well short of what he was perceived to be during his championship years.

More unexpected than Buster Douglas's beating Mike Tyson?

I'm sure it was true of a lot of Tyson's other opponents that I never looked at, but I remember being a kid and looking at the measurements before the fight and thinking "Huh...Buster Douglas has quite a reach advantage." I have no idea how much of a factor that actually played in the fight though.

My original claim is that the 2004 ALCS/WS is the biggest victory in American sports history,

And that is about the silliest claim in history. It's a great comeback story of course, but beyond that it is no different than dozens of other series. I don't see how it's better than the Royals '85 world series win. Just because it featured the Yankees, and their wannabee rivals, the Red Sox, doesn't make it anything more special. It's a nice footnote in history, but that is it. Only Red Sox fans would pump it up to any heights of importance.

[205] is why I love this site.

seconded.


Me three.


"Champs no more! Champs no more! Hahahahahaha! My 3 year nightmare is over!"


I think what we see here is a fine illustration of why Yankee fans have so much more character than the rest. A Yankee fan roots for the Yankees. The rest of you cockroaches get to root for the field, and it's considered poor manners to point out what a shameless cadre of gutless bandwagon-hopping jockriders you all are.

gimme a break, YR. i'm a lifelong cardinal fan, and now i live in L.A. ... why would i ever root for the yankees in the world series? character? most of the yankee fans i know are nice guys and all, but they are frontrunners. talk about bandwagon hopping.

good post on tyson, btw.

Sure. I have almost no recall of the 1980 hockey win -- it meant nothing to me at the time. It obviously meant something to plenty of people, but as I said, this is a pretty subjective exercise. Just scanning the SI list (which SBB correctly observed was in order of year, not "greatness"), I would put these ahead of the "Miracle": Bobby Thompson, Jesse Owens in Berlin, Bannister's 4-minute mile, Mays '54 catch, Ali-Liston, Ali-Frazier, Namath/Jets '69, Secretariat triple-crown, King v. Riggs (yes), Aaron 715, Thrilla in Manilla, Game 6 1975 Series, Comaneci 1976 Olympics. OK, that takes me thru the 1970s, so I'll stop there. I would also add Robinson '47 and Louis vs Schmeling. And Jim Thorpe in the 1912 Olympics probably belongs too, but that was a little before my time.....

And I just don't get a few of those, I still don't see the importance of Mays catch. A nice catch, in the first game of a world series? As far as great catches go on the big stage, I'll take Endy Chavez's catch... I think it was a better play than Mays, and had a much higher impact on the game.

As far as great baseball series's go, the Red Sox vs Yankees I don't think that the 2004 Yankee/Red Sox would crack the top ten of great series, I'm not sure it would crack the top three playoffs of either teams personal list, I think 1986 playoffs was a better series that the Sox won, that 2008 was a better played and enjoyable series that the Sox lost, that 77/76 for the Yankees were probably better series etc. I'm not even sure it would be the best championship series the Red Sox participated in, in the past 10 years, or that it was the best Championship series of that particular year.

Heck the greatest World series of all time features the Red Sox, and is so much higher on the scale than a piddling come from behind victory in 2004. It might have been a great feeling for Red Sox fans, but the rest of the country only cared because of spite/schadenfreude for the Yankees. If you are going for statistically unlikely, how about the only team to ever blow a 3-1 lead in a post season series more than once, doing it for a third time against the Giants...and being outscored by the Giants 20-1 in those last three games, the Braves outscored them 32-1 when they did it to the Cardinals, and the Royals 19-2 against the Cardinals.

Gee, the 2004 WS really hurts, eh CFB? Its a huge huge story. Your anti-East Coast bias is showing. It was a top NEWS story all over the world. Not just a sports story. The 85 Royals did'nt generate that kind of international intrest.

I contend that the evil dwarf from Alabama or wherever largely verified my quick assessment of Tyson: overrated, and a quitter when anybody seriously gave him a good fight.

I don't even follow boxing, but YR's boxing history posts are good reads.

My original claim is that the 2004 ALCS/WS is the biggest victory in American sports history,

Only Red Sox fans would pump it up to any heights of importance.

cmon can't we find some sensible middle ground. Being the first team to come back from 3-0 (and with how it happened in games 4 and 5), happening after the same 2 teams played the series a year before which ended with the opposite team winning an 11-inning game 7, would have some height of importance even if the two teams were the St. Louis Browns and Seattle Pilots.

Gee, the 2004 WS really hurts, eh CFB? Its a huge huge story. Your anti-East Coast bias is showing. It was a top NEWS story all over the world. Not just a sports story. The 85 Royals did'nt generate that kind of international intrest.

Not really, the 2004 WS was over quickly and painlessly. Trust me 2012 hurts a hell of a lot more than 2004. Heck of all the World Series and playoffs that the Cardinals have been in, in my lifetime, the 2004 World Series is at the bottom of the list for painful loss. It wasn't even a fight, who can get broken up by that?


Again, the East coast bias showing in your posts. NOBODY cares about the Red Sox west of Atlanta. The Yankees sure, but the Red Sox? Who really cares about them outside of Boston? And top news story over the world, give me a break. It was a come from behind victory...yippee, good for them. But seriously hardly anybody cares about the Red Sox, the Yankees barely care about the Red Sox. Only Red Sox fans care about the Red Sox and only they hype this #### up.

It was a playoff series... that is it. It wasn't a historic moment of any amount. It wasn't the most soul crushing experience that a older than 21 year old(now) Yankee fan has experienced, it was a playoff loss.

The first 3-0 comeback in the sport is a big deal. It would have been a big deal if it was the Rays over the Mariners.

The first 3-0 comeback in the sport is a big deal. It would have been a big deal if it was the Rays over the Mariners.

It's a statistical oddity, that is about it. Placing more importance on it, is just giving in to the people that talk about character and choking. It's no inherently different than a series where the visitors win all the games or the home team wins all the games. The appeal of that series was the 4th and 5th game, the last two were ho-hum boring games along with the first two...so somewhere, someone thinks that 2 very good games in the middle of a boring series is the greatest victory in american sports history. Gotcha.

Heck of all the World Series and playoffs that the Cardinals have been in, in my lifetime, the 2004 World Series is at the bottom of the list for painful loss.

Wow, below being swept in the LDS?

Who really cares about them outside of Boston?

You, apparently, if you are so hell-bent on pretending that losing a world series with a 105 win team was not as disappointing as losing some LDS's or some blowout NLCS's. Somewhat paradoxically, your forced effort to contribute to the (somewhat justified and needed) backlash against east coast over-hype makes you seem like someone who cares a lot about the Sox - as you go out of your way to pretend that the '04 ALCS was just another ho-hum playoff series.

You apparently, if you are so hell-bent on pretending that losing a world series with a 105 win team was not as disappointing as losing some LDS's or some blowout NLCS's. Somewhat paradoxically, your forced effort to contribute to the (somewhat justified) backlash against east coast over-hype makes you seem like someone who cares a lot about the Sox - as you go out of your way to pretend that the '04 ALCS was just another ho-hum playoff series.

You are right, I'm probably over correcting. It was a very good series. It was not, and no way can I stress this enough, on the list of top 30 greatest victory in american sports history, forget calling it number one. It had one element to it... that was the 3-0 comeback, but as pointed out, if this was the Rays versus Mariners, that would give it some pizzaz/oomph. The fact that it's the Yankees getting beat by their wannabee rivals, doesn't really add a thing except for the east coast bias bump.

But I don't really see anything separating 04 Yanks/Red Sox from 06 Mets/Cardinal or 2011 Cardinals/Rangers or 75 Red Sox/Reds etc. A seven game series, in the post season is always going to be impressive and enjoyable, the come from behind nature is dwarfed by better game 6/7's of other series. Heck,I'm pretty sure that 30 years from now people are going to still remember 1986 better than they do 2004.

The odds of an upset is a World Series are never really that long. If anybody offers you 4-1 on a baseball playoff series, you oughta jump on it.
So, 1906 is mot really that shocking.

I said it was the "Greatest upset" in a sport's biggest event, meaning in this case the World Series. And no World Series upset ever topped 1906.

My original claim is that the 2004 ALCS/WS is the biggest victory in American sports history, the most significant win, not the "greatest moment" ever.
And the flipside as well, of course, the Yankees losing was the biggest loss/choke. Ever.

Both of these statments can obviously be debated, but they pass the straight face test.

THATS THE STRAIGHT FACE TEST ANDY. THE STRAIGHT FACE TEST!

My point being, it was obviously a huge win, and a huge loss. You can disagree, but you can't laugh it out of the room, IMHO.

I wasn't trying to "laugh it out of the room." Obviously a Red Sox fan would have every reason to believe it, and as I said, "it totally depends on where you're coming from." I wouldn't put any World Series or any playoff above Jackie Robinson's debut in a ranking of "greatest sport event", or above Joe Louis's KO of Max Schmeling, or above the first Giants-Patriots Super Bowl, or above the 1984 NBA finals. I doubt if a single other person in the world would agree with all of those choices, but I doubt if a single person in the world would agree with all of yours, either.

"Greatest victory" or "greatest defeat" are also both wholly subjective concepts, and if you want to think that the 2004 ALCS represents both of those, more power to you. But what you don't seem yet to realize (or simply acknowledge) is that that 2004 ALCS meant less to me (and to lots of other non-Red Sox fans) than those other games or series I mentioned way back in #81. It's your pretensions to mindreading that I do find laughable.

But I don't really see anything separating 04 Yanks/Red Sox from 06 Mets/Cardinal or 2011 Cardinals/Rangers or 75 Red Sox/Reds etc. A seven game series, in the post season is always going to be impressive and enjoyable, the come from behind nature is dwarfed by better game 6/7's of other series. Heck,I'm pretty sure that 30 years from now people are going to still remember 1986 better than they do 2004.

And if they're not totally East Coast-centric or fans of the winning team, they'll remember the 1991 World Series more than any of them. 5 one run games, 4 decided by walkoffs, and the last two in extra innings. No World Series can top that one for drama and nailbiting moments, and no more than a tiny handful are even close.

Trust me 2012 hurts a hell of a lot more than 2004. Heck of all the World Series and playoffs that the Cardinals have been in, in my lifetime, the 2004 World Series is at the bottom of the list for painful loss.

agree with this, but i'm already over 2012; it was a wild ride, and everything after the WC playoff was a bonus.

what really still gets under my skin is 1985. we had no business dropping that one. 1968 too. i'm hard pressed to decide which one was worse for me.

Concur with praise of 205. If you told me that YR's piece had been cut and pasted from SI or Esquire, I wouldn't have batted an eyelash. Also concur with the content and analysis. Tyson actually proved his own axiom in that fight with Douglass: "Everybody has a plan until you punch him in the mouth.".

Two things YR left out, IMO:

1) That fight was around the same time that Robin Givens and her crazy mother were ####### with his head. The Barbara Walters interview he did with her was one of the most humiliating thing I have ever seen on TV. He sat there silent and shamed like a scolded puppy while Givens eviscerated him.

2) Tyson was only effective on the offensive. If you backed him up, his power was dissipated. That's what Douglass did. He was bigger and had longer arms and he kept backing him up and pushing him around. Tyson had no backup plan. And he was never the same after. His aura was gone and Buster provided the blueprint for beating him.

Red Sox vs Yankees I don't think that the 2004 Yankee/Red Sox would crack the top ten of great series, I'm not sure it would crack the top three playoffs of either teams personal list

Both clubs have played quite a few post-season series (Yankees have played many more of course) but I have a tough time thinking that 2004 wouldn't crack the Sox' top three list. The comeback is a big deal and 5 of the first 6 games ended either with the tie/winning run at the plate or in walkoff fashion.

By contrast 1986, while featuring two dramatic series, were not so dramatic game to game. In very simple terms I think 2004 featured 5-6 dramatic games while in 1986 just 2-3 of the LCS games were dramatic and the WS had3-4 dramatic games. Likewise 1967 and 2007 (LCS) did not feature much in the way of game to game excitement.

For Red Sox history I have a tough time seeing any series other than 1912 and 1975 belonging ahead of 2004 (sticking to 7 game series for simplicity sake).

In an overall MLB sense I think the first 3-0 comeback is meaningful but there have been enough great series that depending on what you want it may or may not be top ten.

agree with this, but i'm already over 2012; it was a wild ride, and everything after the WC playoff was a bonus.

I'm kind of the same way about the A's in 2012: I was so damn happy they did as well as they did, and I didn't even mind when they finally lost (especially after the curtain call at the Coliseum). The 2001 loss felt much worse - Amazing GF said she'd never seen me so fidgety as during the opening of "Moneyball," when I was muttering profane imprecations and twitching like my seat was mildly electrified - but even that's kind of reached "Eh!" territory at this point. So, basically, either I've matured, or I haven't.

Notice that the two most vociferous voices in denial about the importance of the Red Sox stunning playoff run in 2004 just happen, purely by coincidence naturally, to big big fans of the pair of teams the got their asses handed to them as a result of Boston's incredible 8-0 sprint to the finish?

Heh.

By the way, I'm reasonably certain that the diminutive YR semi-plagerizes most of his "expert content".

Teddy has a point. That 2004 comeback was huge news worldwide(well at least here in Sydney). It lead the news. They gave a little background and the history of it to put it in perspective. The emphasis being the first comeback from a 3-0 deficit and the fact the the perennial chokers finally defeated the team that had kicked sand in their faces for so long. It was a really, big effing deal. It was if the devil had been finally put to rest. I wore a Red Sox t-shirt to work the next day and actually had a few people say Go Sox to me in the street...it was kind of weird.

Thanks Hugh. Like I said. It was f*cking huge.

Notice that the two most vociferous voices in denial about the importance of the Red Sox stunning playoff run in 2004 just happen, purely by coincidence naturally, to big big fans of the pair of teams the got their asses handed to them as a result of Boston's incredible 8-0 sprint to the finish?

I'm not buying the "eh, the 2004 comeback was okay, I guess" line at all. Totally unconvincing. But the 2005 White Sox had an incredible 8-0 sprint at the finish, and the 1999 Yankees went an incredible 8-1, and the 1989 A's went an incredible 8-1, and the 1984 Tigers went an incredible 7-1. When these sprints happens once every six or seven years, maybe they're a little bit credible.

Pedro should be placed on the ineligible list.

And none of the teams you listed were down and out at 0-3 to their arch rival that theretofore had perenially rubbed their noses in it, now were they, GB (a NYY fan, yes?)?

Therefore, far less incredible. Context matters.

We're talkin' about the NYY's baby! Everything they do is BIG! So when they choke on one, they choke on the BIGGEST ONE.

Ya gotta hand it to 'em. It was done in Grand Yankee Style®!

Notice that the two most vociferous voices in denial about the importance of the Red Sox stunning playoff run in 2004

Who's denying its "importance"? All I've said is that it didn't affect me nearly as much as many other Yankee losses. CFB is saying the same thing about the Cardinals. The idea that everyone reacts in the same way to sporting events is surely one of the weirder ideas I've ever seen offered here. I didn't give a #### about that 1980 hockey game, either, or that oh-so-important 1972 Olympics basketball game. The only time I've even taken any interest in the Olympics is when Tonya Harding ordered that kneecap job on Nancy Kerrigan---now that was entertainment!

And if you want to talk about truly historic upsets, you might want to look at the 2007 Super Bowl, where a 10 and 6 wild card team---a team that was 2 and 6 in its own stadium---beat an 18 and 0 team that was being touted as the Greatest Team Ever. By your logic, if you don't admit you were practically contemplating suicide after that one, you're not passing a "smell test", and yet strangely enough, you still seem to hang on, though perhaps only with life support.

I'm reasonably certain that the diminutive YR semi-plagerizes most of his "expert content".

One would think that such a statement would be accompanied by some evidence, or not made at all.

By the way, I'm reasonably certain that the diminutive YR semi-plagerizes most of his "expert content".

I'm completely certain that you're wrong. I'm also a bit insulted but I'll get over it.

2) Tyson was only effective on the offensive. If you backed him up, his power was dissipated. That's what Douglass did. He was bigger and had longer arms and he kept backing him up and pushing him around. Tyson had no backup plan

To be fair plenty of excellent fighters weren't able to fight effectively while backing up - Joe Frazier, another small, slugging heavyweight springs to mind. That isn't such a damning indictment of Tyson in my eyes, he was a physically small fighter and needed aggression to compensate for his anatomical difficulty fighting in the pocket. The only undersized heavyweight I can think of off-hand who excelled fighting off the back foot was Negro champion Sam Langford, and he was simply a freak.

Douglas was able to work Tyson with one weapon - his jab. Tyson had fought skilled jabbers before (Tony Tucker took him 12 rounds, Larry Holmes was arguably the greatest heavyweight jabber of all-time, even if he was clearly rusty and unprepared for Tyson) but Douglas really took the measure of him at arm's length and Tyson couldn't adapt. His corner work for that fight was notoriously reprehensible - I'm sure even casual boxing fans recall the image of Tyson's cornerman attempting to treat his swollen face with a rubber glove filled with cold water. The cornering was so inept it lacked even the most basic triage items such as an Endswell, a large hunk of aluminum kept in a bucket of ice and pressed against a fighter's face to reduce swelling in such instances. A corner that unprepared sure as hell doesn't have the experience or brainpower to advise a swarming fighter how to counter the jab, as Tyson did effectively in the Tucker fight under the guidance of Kevin Rooney.

By the way, I'm reasonably certain that the diminutive YR semi-plagerizes most of his "expert content".

Jesus Christmas, wtf is wrong with you?

By the way, I'm reasonably certain that the diminutive YR semi-plagerizes most of his "expert content".

Jesus Christmas, wtf is wrong with you?

You haven't been noticing anything before this? This guy walks around all day with a Red Sox propeller beanie and sleeps with a stuffed animal called Teddybear Ballgame, and he can't believe that not everyone else shares his peculiar obsession with the outcomes of games.

A couple notes. With no dog in the fight 2004 was a big news story at the time, but that doesn't really make it historic (Like Jesse Owens is for example). There is no accounting for taste though.

And yeah accusing someone of what YR is accussed of with no evidence or anythign else is seriously feeble, especially since I think his posts are really really good (and I don't even like boxing).

I'm not buying the "eh, the 2004 comeback was okay, I guess" line at all. Totally unconvincing. But the 2005 White Sox had an incredible 8-0 sprint at the finish, and the 1999 Yankees went an incredible 8-1, and the 1989 A's went an incredible 8-1, and the 1984 Tigers went an incredible 7-1. When these sprints happens once every six or seven years, maybe they're a little bit credible.

The 1998 Yankees also went 8-1, as did the 1990 Reds

edit: both went 7-1, after splitting the first 2 games of the LCS.

I hate boxing and I love YR's boxing posts. I think they're clearly written in his own literary style and not plagiarized. Teddy should take that back, unless he has evidence.

As Hugh correctly points out, the 2004 ALCS was a worldwide story. It played as a top story on the national news in the US, and got into the news in other countries that don't even care about baseball. The humongous backlash against Red Sox / Yankees hype is predicated on the climax of the Red Sox / Yankees narrative being splashed all over the news when it happened.

The night the Sox won the World Series, a bunch of my friends, none of whom are Sox fans, drove up to Boston from NYC to see the city on the night when they finally won. It was a thing you wanted to experience, it was a big ass deal.

A couple notes. With no dog in the fight 2004 was a big news story at the time, but that doesn't really make it historic (Like Jesse Owens is for example).

Regarding the 2004 comeback and World Series win, as no one had ever done it before, ever, and it was the breaking of a historic curse, calling it NOT historic really does not seem accurate at all.


There is no accounting for taste though.

It is baseball in general that is the accounting for taste; once you're over that line, allowing for the fact that you are already following baseball, calling that specific event a matter of taste as opposed to historic seems equally inaccurate.


I hate boxing and I love YR's boxing posts.

Yes.

that doesn't really make it historic (Like Jesse Owens is for example).

Ok, then there hasn't been a single "historic" event in American sport for at least several decades. If you want to define your terms this way, you can, but it's not the way people actually use them in discussions about sports.

And none of the teams you listed were down and out at 0-3 to their arch rival that theretofore had perenially rubbed their noses in it, now were they, GB (a NYY fan, yes?)?


But outside of CHB and the dumbed-down NY tabloids, and ESPN, no one really cares that much about the rivalry, anymore than a Midwestern college football fan cares about Alabama-Auburn.

From a nonpartisan perspective, 2003 was a better LCS than 2004. Cubs-Marlins 2003 was better than both.

Nor are the '03 and '04 LCSs aging particularly well. The two biggest payrolls, chockablock filled with expensive roiders -- yuck. Those years and those games play the same role in baseball history that the Cuban Missile Crisis played in the long twilight struggle -- Ground Zero in a low, dishonest epoch.

Again, the East coast bias showing in your posts. NOBODY cares about the Red Sox west of Atlanta. The Yankees sure, but the Red Sox? Who really cares about them outside of Boston? And top news story over the world, give me a break. It was a come from behind victory...yippee, good for them. But seriously hardly anybody cares about the Red Sox, the Yankees barely care about the Red Sox. Only Red Sox fans care about the Red Sox and only they hype this #### up.

And this is just horseshit. The Sox and Yankees were both in the top 5 for road attendance every year from 2001 through 2010. After '04 they were 1 & 2 for three straight years. Saying no one outside of Boston cares about Boston is factually incorrect.

YR plagerizes directly from Jack Chick. Its no stretch of the imagination to expect him to lift passages from long-forgotten old Ring Magzine articles, especially since Burt Sugar's dead, to prop-up the pathetic, ongoing and intentionally insulting little personna he has developed.

He's a nastly little bigot. One who has for far too long gotten a pass here. F' him. And the dirty business he's an "expert" on. A crank's expertise only goes so far. He's a little insulted? Tough. And I don't give a rats ass if he couches his bigotry as "tongue-in-cheek".

So, let's say I was a Twins fan, born and bred in Minneapolis, never cared much for the east coast. Certainly never cared for their various bullying sports teams with their ridiculous payrolls and even more ridiculous self-mythologizing. While I would have watched it and certainly appreciated the brilliant drama of games 4-6, I would have found the 2004 ALCS annoying, and I would have found its ubiquity in culture even more annoying. That's perfectly reasonable.

But it was actually a big deal to a much larger population of casual fans and non-sports fans than any but a small handful of national sports events since the turn of the millennium. The whole reason that hypothetical Minnesotan MCoA felt this backlash against the 2004 ALCS was precisely that so many folks around me were experiencing it as a historic sports event. At the same time, games 4-6 of the ALCS were just completely bugnuts insane for baseball drama.

YR plagerizes directly from Jack Chick. Its no stretch of the imagination to expect him to lift passages from long-forgotten old Ring Magzine articles, especially since Burt Sugar's dead, to prop-up the pathetic, ongoing and intentionally insulting little personna he has developed.

Oh, ok, you're trolling. To your credit you are at least correct about Burt Sugar being dead, although I have no idea how that supports your trolling.

YR plagerizes directly from Jack Chick.

And the relevant passages would be?