Still, through it all, as late as 1973 the Giants were putting a highly competitive team on the field. Horace Stoneham and his executive team certainly had their weaknesses

We refered to this as the come Heaverlo or Hell period of moronic head-shaving God-Squading ineptitude.

We refered to this as the come Heaverlo or Hell period of moronic head-shaving God-Squading ineptitude.

Now, don't go confusing your periods of Gigantic ineptitude there, Repoz. Heaverlo shaved his head in '76, and the real God Squadders (Lavelle, Knepper, & Andrews) weren't together until '77-'79. All that was after dear Horace had retired to Scottsdale.

Steve, Knepper shaved his head? I guess I forgot that he was involved.

Wasn't the laughable Mike Sadek in on that also?

Sadek shaved his head too, but he warn't never no God Squadder.

Bob Garibaldi never won a major-league game, but after his retirement spent many years as one of the most respected basketball officials in the Pac-10.

By going 37-14, they were actually (slightly) ahead of tht '62 pace. Hadn't gone 37-14 since 1935. . . .Hmm, I wonder what happened to that team. They barely went .500 after their start. Schumacher had 13 wins by July 10, but only 6 more. Never was as good after that. . . . Their pitching really fell apart in the second half.

Steve, why'd this article go up on Analysts instead of THT?

I don't know about his religious beliefs, but Knepper was a world-class a-hole. In his relations with the press (especially female reporters), he displayed all the style and politesse of Dave Kingman. Too bad Kong was gone by the time Knepper came up. That might have been real fun.

The team that scuffled through the early part of 1970 perked up and played much better over the second half of that season

One possible factor aside from what you mentioned... about 1/4 into the 1970 season, manager Clyde King was replaced by Charlie Fox. Did that have any effect? I think most teams will play better intially no matter who is named new manager, enjoying a change of pace from the old regime. But the Giants really didn't play that much better for Fox -- at least as far as W-L would indicate -- than they had for King, at least at first. They really didn't take off until the last third of the season.

One thing -- as you said, the Giants pitching was bad in the early season, particularly their two rotation anchors, Marichal and Perry. By coincidence or whatever, both improved almost immediately after King was axed. Perry made 11 starts for King, and was 5-5 with a 4.84 ERA. His first five starts for Fox he was 4-1, 3.21; and in his 30 starts for Fox total, he was 18-8, 2.59. Marichal under King (in 6 starts) was 1-2, 6.94. His first five starts for Fox, he was 2-3, 4.41; and 11-8, 3.64 in 27 starts for Fox, overall.

In Marichal's case, he may have been having arm troubles the early part of that season. In any case, he was definitely in career decline by then. And maybe Perry was just a slow starter. But I am interested to know if you think the Giants inmproved because Perry and Marichal started pitching much better, simply put? Or if Charlie Fox had some kind of positive impact on the pitching which improved and caused the team to play better? The only thing that really jumps out is that Fox didn't seem to ride his starters quite as hard as King did (Perry had already thrown 13 inning and 10+ inning complete games for King, in addition to the other four standard 9-inning CGs he had racked up by the time of the mangerial change - May 23... for Fox, he continued to be a workhorse, but his starts were spaced a little more, and no more double digit inning stints.)

Finally, what was the deal with Cumberland? In '70-'71, for the Yankees and Giants, he looked liked he'd be pretty good. Then oblivion.

Arm troubles, I'm guessing.

WRT their pitching in 1970 - it got heckuva lot better around late July/early August. In their first 98 games they averaged 5.82 R/G allowed. That's something less than ideal. The rest of the way they averaged 3.98 runs. Marichal had his best month in August, Perry was un-freakin'-believably great in September. Robertson got pulled from the rotation and was much better in the 'pen. Reberger went from being a disastrously bad reliever to an adequate innings-eating starter. Ron Bryant got a slot in the rotation and was unspectalar (4.42 ERA over the last two months) but a dang site better than what the team had been used to earlier. Skip Pidlock also provided similar work from the back of their rotation. Meanwhile failed starters such as Miguel Puente and what was left of Mike McCormick had been removed. So their aces got better, their back end of their rotation improved, which not only caused their bullpen to be used less, but one ex-starter became a good reliever, helping out all the more.

Cumberland was a beauty...on the Red Sox demoting him as a coach...I'm not going, That's official, that's for damn sure. That's OK. We've had a lot of good people leave this organization, and now it's going to be me because I'm not going to be reassigned.

It is hard to figure, on paper, why that team didn't do better than it did. With a 1-thru-6 like Bonds-Hunt-Mays-McCovey-Henderson-Dietz, that a hell of a batting order, even if there were some Hal Laniers and Dirty Al Gallaghers in there at the back end. And a 1-2 in the rotation of Perry and Marichal, or vice versa.

One can put together in retrospect how they fell short, I guess, but going in I'm pretty sure most teams' fans would have taken their chances with players like that. I know I would have.

Steve, why'd this article go up on Analysts instead of THT?

Because Rich invited me to do a guest piece for him.

Marichal under King (in 6 starts) was 1-2, 6.94. His first five starts for Fox, he was 2-3, 4.41; and 11-8, 3.64 in 27 starts for Fox, overall.

In Marichal's case, he may have been having arm troubles the early part of that season.

During spring training in 1970, the Giants took an exhibition tour of Japan. Marichal contracted some sort of nasty infection over there, and was sick as a dog for the first half of 1970.

Finally, what was the deal with Cumberland? In '70-'71, for the Yankees and Giants, he looked liked he'd be pretty good. Then oblivion.

Arm troubles, I'm guessing.

The brick wall he hit looks like arm trouble, for sure. But DIPS would say he was helped by a ton of luck and/or great defense to post his 2.92 ERA in 1971.

It was clear to me then and still is that moving the As to the Bay Area was a financial mistake. Both teams suffered; both lost opportunities for long term success because of financial constraints.

both lost opportunities for long term success because of financial constraints.


Both?

A cursory perusal of the two teams' trophy cases contradicts that statement.

It is hard to figure, on paper, why that team didn't do better than it did. With a 1-thru-6 like Bonds-Hunt-Mays-McCovey-Henderson-Dietz, that a hell of a batting order, even if there were some Hal Laniers and Dirty Al Gallaghers in there at the back end. And a 1-2 in the rotation of Perry and Marichal, or vice versa.

The 1970 Giants scored the most runs in MLB, and factoring in their home park, it's obvious they had the best offense in the world by a mile. The problem was they also allowed the most runs in baseball, which was a function two problems:

- The pitching, outside of Perry and McMahon, and a half-season of Marichal, was hideous

- The infield had no range, and Candlestick Park had Astroturf installed in 1970 (and there were artificial turf parks in Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Cincinnati, and Houston as well), and other ground ball got through.

I don't get into it in the article, but that second reason had a lot to do with the replacement of Lanier/Hunt with Speier/Fuentes in 1971.

and other ground ball got through.

That was supposed to be "every other ground ball got through."

Steve, loved the article, the 70-71 Giants are the first teams i watched and followed as a kid, those were my first years in little league. One thing that was a continuing theme for them in this era was a an over-valuing of defensive infielders...people like Lanier, Fuentes, Gallagher were kept largely because of their reputationwith the leather.

Now you have to do the article taking them from 71 to the completely different team they had in 75-76. They suddenly had the youngest team in baseball, with some very good kids...looked to have a great future, but they frittered it all away.

Now you have to do the article taking them from 71 to the completely different team they had in 75-76. They suddenly had the youngest team in baseball, with some very good kids...looked to have a great future, but they frittered it all away.

On a larger scale, I wrote that article several years ago. It was published in Nine, and titled "A Legacy of What-Ifs: Horace Stoneham and the Integration of the Giants."

Another piece of work on that 1970 team was Fuentes. A 'character', as they say. He had all sorts of things goiung on while on the field, I recall. Something like Willie Montañez, except Fuentes was ahead by a few years. He named some or all of his kids (by several women) "Tito", George Foreman-style. And I read somewhere that, post-career, he legally changed his name to "23", which was his uniform number in SF.

I found it interesting that after a decent run as a starter in the NL, he went over to Detroit in 1977 and had a huge year (well, huge relatively speaking.) I know he wasn't a great player and all, but within the context of that time, I would think a .310 BA in 600-some ABs would've extended his career by several years. Instead, he retired midway through '78.

I found it interesting that after a decent run as a starter in the NL, he went over to Detroit in 1977 and had a huge year (well, huge relatively speaking.) I know he wasn't a great player and all, but within the context of that time, I would think a .310 BA in 600-some ABs would've extended his career by several years. Instead, he retired midway through '78.

Fuentes was a huge hot dog, fun as hell to watch. I loved the way he always bounced and flipped his bat on home plate before each at-bat.

He suffered a back injury in 1974, that severely impacted his mobility. He recovered, but never had the same range again. By 1977, his range was pretty legendarily bad. I recall hearing Allan Roth discuss Fuentes in a SABR Panel in the mid-1980s, talking about examples of infielders with poor range: "People said Fuentes had worse range than his grandmother. Well, that was true, but I saw Fuentes' grandmother play, and she wasn't bad for an 85-year-old woman."

Once Fuentes stopped hitting, he was toast.

Once Fuentes stopped hitting, he was toast.

Of course, he wasn't much of a hitter even when he could hit. : )

Tito is the answer to the "who was on deck during the Juan Marichal-John Roseboro incident." The photo of Fuentes waving a bat over his head as Koufax reluctantly approaches Marichal and Roseboro is indelibly etched in my mind.

The photo of Fuentes waving a bat over his head as Koufax reluctantly approaches Marichal and Roseboro is indelibly etched in my mind.

Like this...

Of course, he wasn't much of a hitter even when he could hit. : )

For a middle infielder, he generally wasn't bad with the bat. He had a little pop from the right side; left-handed he was strictly a slap hitter.

Like this...

Nice.

He had a little pop from the right side; left-handed he was strictly a slap hitter.

Yep. I agree. (Unfortunately, Mr. Peat batted from the left side much more often than the right.)

Yep. I agree. (Unfortunately, Mr. Peat batted from the left side much more often than the right.}

He did. One of those right-handed at-bats that I took particular enjoyment in was the final at-bat of this game, which I witnessed from the lower deck, way up under the overhang in the right field corner. Brewer hadn't given up a loud foul, and then Tito hit a rocket.

Brewer hadn't given up a loud foul, and then Tito hit a rocket.

I'll bet he hit a screwball that didn't screw.

Speaking of bets, there's probably a good chance I was at home watching the game on TV although, I have to admit, I don't recall it. Not sure if that is a function of the Giants winning or my age.

I think Tito Fuentes was the first "free agent" signed by the Detroit Tigers whose GM, Jim Campbell, was strongly opposed to it. He didn't sign any the first year and signed Fuentes to a one-year contract to allow Lou Whitaker to play in the minors. At the end of his season when Fuentes wanted to sign another contract, Campbell said no, Whitaker is ready, time for you to go.
Other than New York and Los Angeles, are there any other cities that can support 2 teams? Certainly Giants attendance took a major hit in 1968 when the A's moved there..it went down about 33%. But for all the talk the last 40 years how the Bay Area can't support two teams, they have done fairly well. Could Boston, Philadelphia, Washington and other cities say the same?
This is just the memory of someone on the East Coast who was in high school in 1971 casually following the Giants struggle to hold on. But I felt some of those players-Mays, Marichal, McCovey and Perry-felt they didn't have a lot of chances left to win. It gave them a sense of urgency and determination to win..just like the 1985 Royals with Brett, White and McRae and the 2001 D-Backs with Johnson, Schilling, Bell, Williams, Gonzalez.

Other than New York and Los Angeles, are there any other cities that can support 2 teams?

Um ... Chicago?

The Bay Area has supported two teams just fine. The Giants' marketing in the first years the A's arrived defies description in its ineptitude, and Finley's A's, for all his wacky promotions, was barely any better. Neither team had a clue about the actual fan experience; both ballparks were abominable.

There's every reason to believe both Boston and Philadelphia could have continued to support two franchises, if MLB had wanted it to happen. LA and New York could both well support at least 3 teams.

In Marichal's case, he may have been having arm troubles the early part of that season.
...Finally, what was the deal with Cumberland? In '70-'71, for the Yankees and Giants, he looked like he'd be pretty good. Then oblivion.

Arm troubles, I'm guessing.

Why does my car engine keep conking out? I'm going to say arm troubles are to blame.

Unrest in the Middle East? Arm troubles.

My arm is absolutely killing me. Strangely enough, that one is because of bad karma. That or moisture.

Duh..Yes I forgot about Chicago. Stupid me. Sorry about that, Second City residents.
One thing we should also mention is the 1971 Giants is the Big Red Machine had an off year. Injuries to starting pitchers Wayne Simpson and Jim Merritt plus outfielder Bobby Tolan got them off to a bad start. Youngsters like Bernie Carbo and Dave Concepcion had sophomore slumps. George Foster was not ready. Johnny Bench tried to do too much after winning the MVP in 1970 and slumped. The Giants won with 1 90-72 record. That wouldn't not have done it in most years.
I do wonder if the New York area could support 3 teams. I just look at hockey (a different fan base to be sure) and see how little support the Devils have after a decade of championship winners/contenders. If the A's or Expos/Nationals would move to New York, would they build a fan base? Perhaps only if Steinbrenner's successor turns out to be a real nitwit. 50 years ago both the Giants and Dodgers were successful but part of the reason they left is they got tired of butting heads against the Yankees.
If MLB were to put strict limits on getting good owners, sharing the wealth equally a la NFL (which hasn't prevented lots of franchise jumping the last 25 years), getting good stadia with a mixture of public and private money, perhaps there would be more two and 3 team cities. But Al Franken will marry Ann Coulter long before we see sharp, innovative mlb ownership.

But Al Franken will marry Ann Coulter long before we see sharp, innovative mlb ownership.

What's in it for Ann Coulter?

I do wonder if the New York area could support 3 teams.

New York supported 3 teams wonderfully from 1903 to 1957. The market has only grown vastly larger since. The question isn't whether the modern NY market could support 3 teams, but how well it could support 4.

50 years ago both the Giants and Dodgers were successful but part of the reason they left is they got tired of butting heads against the Yankees.

Not really, no. The Giants and Dodgers left because there was a virgin territory gold mine awaiting in California. They didn't leave NY because of any deficiencies in the NY market; they left to get in on the ground floor of separate, young, growing markets.

But Al Franken will marry Ann Coulter long before we see sharp, innovative mlb ownership.

I was thinking more along the lines of Molly Ivins and Victor Davis Hanson, but yes, you're right.

It did seem to be supporting the Giants and Dodgers pretty well when they left. I thought I remembered, before I just now looked it up, that the Giants' attendance had dropped off in the fifties, but it really was only the last two seasons, when the team wasn't in contention. They always drew well when contending, as did the Dodgers.

The Giants had the bad luck to be located in Harlem at a bad time for Harlem and the Polo Grounds were beginning to fall apart. They left for pretty similar reasons to the Dodgers - they too did not want anything to do with the Flushing Meadows site that Robert Moses proposed for a stadium, and building in Lower Manhattan was not much easier then than now.

Simple really. Give the Giants the Javits site and the Dodgers the Atlantic Ave railyards site and both teams never leave.

The question isn't whether the modern NY market could support 3 teams, but how well it could support 4.

There's no question Brooklyn could support a team tomorrow, and I think Jersey could do it. The big question to me is could the Northeast support eight teams? Boston could probably support a second team and if so, do you start thinking about Connecticut. Build a ballpark in the center of the state and if you can get the state to embrace a team, you could do it. Only 3 million people, but rich as hell.

Putting it up in the northern part of the state would work, I think, especially if it were an NL team. It would effectively be Boston's second team, and also would draw from the rest of Connecticut. They'd draw at least as well as the Pirates or Reds. The bigger problem would be the cable TV deal; it's already impossible to get cable companies in that state to carry both NESN and YES, let alone MESS, or whateven that network is supposed to be. Here in central Maryland, Comcast won't carry MASN, either. It's a problem everywhere.

Vaux, ever heard of MSG? ;)

Sorry, that sounded a bit flip. But Fox Sports NY as well as MSG are both out of the Mets, and perhaps a tandem with Fox Sports NE could mean a TV deal for a Connecticut team.

I think people feel the Giants were only profitable in the mid 1950s because of TV revenue.We now know how steady and large TV revenues are but back then many were afraid they would drop quickly. Even in the mid 1970s Steeler owner Art Rooney was warning his NFL colleagues the networks would drop them in a second if they could get higher ratings with kids playing marbles. O'Malley didn't want to have his family business dependant on politicians keeping the stadium clean and repaired. Peter Gammons does consider Shea Stadium the worst ballpark: dirty, nosiy, rat-infested. Once he decided to move, Stoneham went along. Probably the key dates were in the last week of the 1956 season, in a close pennant, with a World Champion, the Dodgers drew 13,000 and 6,000 for weeknight games. O'Malley could see Robinson, Reese, Campanella and others aging and felt people would not support a mediocre team.
But one does wonder what would have happend if Giants minority owner Joan Payson had bought the team in 1957, kept them in New York, and had those teams in the 1960s with a different front office.
The "Giants and Dodgers got tired of beating their heads" remarks comes from Mike Francesca on a "Sports Century-Yankees" ESPN episode. I don't know how much a baby boomer like Francesca really knows about the decision making back then but I think he is onto something. I don't think the Mets have ever seriously talked about leaving in their 40+ years. But you do wonder how they would feel about a third team coming in. They opposed a AA team in Brooklyn in the mid 1980s but now they and the Yankees run teams in Brooklyn and Staten Island.

That's quite true, Flynn, but I'm under the impression that a lot of carriers dropped those networks when they lost the Mets, in order to add either YES or the new Mets network... it seems like carriers are balking at the higher and higher prices for more and more sports networks.

Even in the mid 1970s Steeler owner Art Rooney was warning his NFL colleagues the networks would drop them in a second if they could get higher ratings with kids playing marbles.

And he was right, the NHL being a prime example of a sport that can't draw viewers and thus can't keep a television contract. With someone like Bettman instead of Rozelle and then Tagliabue in charge, it is possible that NFL television revenues could have declined dramatically as more people switched their allegiance to other sports.

Lest folks forget Robert Moses gave Peter O'Malley a take it or leave it offer on a new stadium proposal. O'Malley left it for the MUCH greener pastures out west. How can you pass up several hundred acres of prime real estate?

O'Malley had his flaws but not seeing the obvious wasn't one.......

But you do wonder how they would feel about a third team coming in.

They'd hate it, of course, as would the Yankees. That doesn't mean that (a) it wouldn't be a good thing for MLB generally anyway, and (b) more to the point I'm making, if the Giants and Dodgers had never left, the question never would be "can NY support 3 teams," but would instead circulate around the issue of 4.

O'Malley had his flaws but not seeing the obvious wasn't one.......

Right. The issue isn't whether O'Malley's decision to move the Dodgers didn't make good business sense for him and his particular franchise; of course it did, just as it did for Stoneham and the Giants. The issue is whether MLB as a larger entity would have been better off not allowing these two anchor franchises to abandon the sport's biggest market, and instead enter the new West Coast markets with expansion teams. If O'Malley and/or Stoneham wanted to do busness in California, their choice could (I say should) have been: great, sell your current franchise, and buy an expansion franchise in California.

The Bay Area has supported two teams just fine. The Giants' marketing in the first years the A's arrived defies description in its ineptitude, and Finley's A's, for all his wacky promotions, was barely any better. Neither team had a clue about the actual fan experience; both ballparks were abominable

I disagree with that last bit, in its original configuration the Oakland ballpark was a wonderful park, clean, good sight lines, nice setting, easy to get to. For the concrete generation it was second only to Dodger stadium.

I disagree with that last bit, in its original configuration the Oakland ballpark was a wonderful park, clean, good sight lines, nice setting, easy to get to.

Before the Mt. Davis reconfiguration, it provided a very pleasant view of the Oakland hills beyond the outfield bleachers, yes, and access has always been good.

But back in Finley's tenure, the place was deathly drab and gray; the ballplayers called it "The Mausoleum." Concessions were virutally nonexistent, and the ones that were there were cut-rate. And the foul territory was as big as the parking lot.

It wasn't as indescribably bad as Candlestick, of course, but that's hardly a compliment.

But back in Finley's tenure, the place was deathly drab and gray; the ballplayers called it "The Mausoleum." Concessions were virutally nonexistent, and the ones that were there were cut-rate. And the foul territory was as big as the parking lot.

Attending an A's game in the mid/late 1970's was a differnt experience to be sure; there were few people in the stands and the team was, to be charitable, no better than AAA. On the plus side you could sit were you wanted because the few ushers on duty didn't care, and one of the few concessions available was beer in 32 ounce cups. Bill Graham probably drew more people to one of his "Days on the Green" than the A's managed in a typical week. The Mausoleum wasn't much better as a concert venue than for sporting events but that didn't prevent us from going; I'm sure that for many of the acts it was a challenge being up and about that early in the day.

Bill Graham probably drew more people to one of his "Days on the Green" than the A's managed in a typical week. The Mausoleum wasn't much better as a concert venue than for sporting events but that didn't prevent us from going; I'm sure that for many of the acts it was a challenge being up and about that early in the day.

Dude. You went to "Days on the Green"? So did I.

Let's see if maybe we went to some of the same concerts:

- Robin Trower, with Gary Wright and Fleetwood Mac

- The Beach Boys, with a whole bunch of other acts who are somehow (how could that be?!?) lost in the fog

- Electric Light Orchestra

Dude. You went to "Days on the Green"? So did I.

I missed the ones you listed. I saw the one where he paired the Grateful Dead and the Who (ducks); although that one might not be one of the official "Days". I saw one of the Led Zeppelin concerts in 1975 (I know that had to be the earliest they had been out of bed in a long time). The best one that I saw was in either 1977 or '78 that had Steve Miller, Heart, Foreigner, Atlanta Rhythm Section, with the Eagles as the headliner. I know that most people dump on the Eagles, and rightfully so most of the time, but that day they put on an inspired show, especially Joe Walsh. There were a couple of others but the list of artists escape me at the moment; that was quite a few years back. One thing I do remember was how easy it was to get dehydrated sitting in the sun in the dry California heat. Coming from the land of humidity some of us didn't realize how hot we were getting if we were not perspiring; ah, wayward youth.

The best one that I saw was in either 1977 or '78 that had Steve Miller, Heart, Foreigner, Atlanta Rhythm Section, with the Eagles as the headliner.

Damn, I remember that one. I really wanted to go, but couldn't, for some mundane reason; either I had to work, or I was broke, or some combination thereof.

I was, of course, head-over-heels in love with Nancy Wilson of Heart.

- Robin Trower, with Gary Wright and Fleetwood Mac

Both times I saw Trower I got extremely high from second-hand smoke, but they were indoors. How was the contact buzz outdoors?

I just want to add that Bill Graham landed a right cross on me...for sparking up during the Dylan/Band Flood Tour.

That is all.

Both times I saw Trower I got extremely high from second-hand smoke, but they were indoors. How was the contact buzz outdoors?

Come on, Dave. You know me too well to ask a question like that.

What is this "second-hand" smoke of which you speak? What is this "contact" buzz?

I will say this: that Trower show was the single loudest sound I have ever heard. My god. I never saw him indoors, but if it was that loud outdoors, I can't comprehend what it must have been like indoors.

I'm a huge Trower fan, BTW. I know he doesn't get much serious attention from the critics, but I don't care. After all these years, I still love to listen to Twice Removed from Yesterday and Bridge of Sighs.

Wasn't Peter Frampton on the bill for that fleetwood mac, Gary Wright day on the green?


Steve, you gonna make the SF meetup tomorrow?

Wasn't Peter Frampton on the bill for that fleetwood mac, Gary Wright day on the green?

I could very well be getting two Fleetwood Mac bills confused. I know I saw them twice there, in successive summers. The first year they were one of the leading up acts, and I'm pretty sure Trower was the headliner, but I could be wrong, it may well have been Frampton, who was huge with the Frampton Comes Alive album. The next year, Rumours had become The Biggest Hit Album Ever, and they were the headliner.

Steve, you gonna make the SF meetup tomorrow?

Damn straight. 7 o'clock at Lefty's, right?

Well..i was 15 that summer...and vividly (well umm actually it is more of a hazy acrid smokey thing) remember Frampton doing the day on the green, Fleewtood Mac was touring for the white on black album, and Gary wright had the one hit with dream weaver.

looking good for me to actually make a meetup....and will even bring a camera.

What is this "second-hand" smoke of which you speak?
The second-hand smoke couldn't penetrate the first-hand smoke screen, I'm guessing.

Well..i was 15 that summer...and vividly (well umm actually it is more of a hazy acrid smokey thing) remember Frampton doing the day on the green, Fleewtood Mac was touring for the white on black album, and Gary wright had the one hit with dream weaver.

Thinking about it now, you're right. It was Gary Wright, then Fleetwood, then Frampton on that bill. The next year Fleetwood Mac was the headliner. Trower was probably a different Day on the Green altogether. Who the hell knows? I do know for sure that TROWER WAS LOUD.

And, hey, Gary Wright had a second, albeit minor, hit off that Dream Weaver album: "My Love is Alive." Remember that one? Damn good song.

The second-hand smoke couldn't penetrate the first-hand smoke screen, I'm guessing.

Yeah ... yeah, that was it. Defensive smoke screen, that's what it was!

I will say this: that Trower show was the single loudest sound I have ever heard. My god.

People don't believe me but the loudest concert I ever attended was the Doobie Brothers one time at the Cow Palace. We were about 25 feet out from one of the speaker columns; I'm willing to swear that so much sound pressure was coming through the speakers that it was blowing the smoke away from the stage, of course I was pretty toasted that night so it could have been my imagination. I am paying the price now with a fairly severe case of tinnitus.

Ah, the Doobie Brothers! The pride of James Lick High School in San Jose.

Kansas put a hurting on my ears, literally. The volume was cranked to 11 and they were play that violin way up high. This was in Rec(tum) Hall at Penn State which had atrocious acoustics.
I didn't like Kansas but we got free tickets so what the hey...
My buddy and I left after about 1/2 hour because our ears literally hurt. We were covering our ears with our hands and it still hurt.

Hard to believe that they would have outvolumed both a '69 Iron Butterfly and a '70 Jefferson Airplane concerts at the same rotten venue.

Inna godda da vida, bay-buh ...

John Spencer Blues Explosion in a tiny club. Ears are stSTILL ringing from that one

Inna godda da vida, bay-buh ...
35 minutes of IGDV, with a mere 20 minute drum solo.

Loudest show I ever saw - The Clash at the Paramount, Seattle, 1979. That was the last rock show I attended without taking earplugs...

As for who played what Day on the Green show, here's a list:

Days on the Green

I saw the one where he paired the Grateful Dead and the Who (ducks); although that one might not be one of the official "Days".

That was two nights in October 1976; the Bill Graham Productions web site does list it as official Day on the Green Show(s). That's such a weird pairing; I liked both bands, but their approach to concerts was so different...