Talk:Curse of the Bambino/Archive 1

message: I removed "arch-rival" from the introduction because when Ruth was sold, the teams were NOT arch-rival. They weren't rivals until the DiMaggio/Williams era. I don't know where to fit that into this article. Kingturtle 20:35, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  arch-rival  

message: The phrase is NOT "much over-used. Look at how the phrase compares to other phrases that ARE over used:
*"Information superhighway" vs. "Curse of the Bambino"
*"This too shall pass" vs. "Curse of the Bambino"
*"shock and awe" vs. "Curse of the Bambino"
*"Think outside the box" vs. "Curse of the Bambino"
We have to take "much over used" out. It is POV and inaccurate. 
Sincerely, Kingturtle 04:24, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: King, I respectfully disagree.  Yes, it's not as overused as those phrases you mention.  But I don't think it wrong to say that it is probably the most used phrase in baseball to describe something essentially non-existent.  We talk about the Cubs not having won since 1906, but there isn't a huge focus on "The Cubs Curse" or a similar phrase.  Granted, Chicagoans joke about being cursed, but here I think we have a "curse" that is kept alive far more by the media than by the fans of the affected team.  Perhaps the prefix "much-" isn't fair, but I think it is fair to say the phrase is overused, or at least that many observers of baseball feel it is too often invoked.  I know I tire of it, and many others do also.  Should we quote a more major figure who claims the quote is overused?  Jwrosenzweig 04:29, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope at least you smiled at the google fights. :) I would approve of "often used"...but "over-used"? Honestly, it really isn't used that often. Kingturtle 04:38, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: This phrase is often over used by in the media to explain away bad play, bad luck or mis-management by the Red Sox front office. Every time I see this phrase in print the words "lazy writer" pop into my mind immediately. I would agree with Jwrosenzweig that the "much" part could be removed, however. Sincerely, No Guru 04:41, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I did indeed smile. :)  I'd forgotten about "shock and awe" <shudder>.  Hmmm, well, is there something inbetween?  It is used disproportionately often, I think.  I don't feel "often used" quite captures the connotation that many people find the obsession with the curse "tiresome".  Maybe that can't be expressed in one adjective.  Can we preserve that idea/reaction to the curse somehow?  This is a puzzler.....luckily, it ain't life and death, and I am positive this is a rarely visited article. :-)  We got time, in other words.  I can't think of anything right now, though.  I'll ponder a while. Jwrosenzweig 04:41, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: If it is an over-used phrase, then how can you this be a rarely visited article? :) Just kidding. I am sure we can figure this out after a few days. I won't delete the words from the article, that's for sure. Kingturtle 04:46, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Touché! I have to admit, the above made me laugh.  Yes, fine, it probably isn't all that overused.  In the tiny field of baseball "lore", it is much overused....I'd far rather hear about the Homer in the Gloaming or Shoeless Joe than the so-called Curse, anyway.  We'll all ponder it a bit, I guess. :-) Jwrosenzweig 04:49, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: Hey, I like it (though perhaps that's expected....I think I wrote it).  What do you think, Kingturtle, is this a good solution, and is there a good place for it in the article? Jwrosenzweig 04:56, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it would fit somewhere in that third paragraph, no? We should be more specific with the words "media" and "sometimes"...which media specifically. My guess is mostly national TV sports media. But I could be wrong. Kingturtle 04:58, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd go so far as to say ESPN, but yours is so much nicer and neutral. :-)  "Sometimes" is too vague, I suppose, but it's hard to nail down.  I like "National TV sports media will sometimes bring up the idea of the curse when the Red Sox are doing notably well (or notably poorly), rather than focusing on the current team and its strengths and weaknesses."  Are we close to agreed? Jwrosenzweig 05:15, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: I put the sentence in. I removed "over used". This week we should get working on Homer in the Gloaming, The Shot Heard 'Round the World, Slaughter's Mad Dash, Ruth's Called Shot ;) Kingturtle 05:29, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: Good edit. I like it. Don't forget Merkle's Boner !No Guru 07:03, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "much over used" 

message: Who put the bit in about George Vecsey being the first to print the words? I am skeptical of this claim. Kingturtle 06:22, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoever put that in has cited a book that the article was reprinted in so I don't know what to think about it.No Guru 15:33, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a search of the New York Times on Proquest (via my university's account), using the search times "Babe Ruth" and "curse". For what it's worth, the earliest mention of it I could find was in Oct 28, 1986 edition of the NYT (page D33), a headline in the Sports of the Times section titled "Babe Ruth Curse Strikes Again", by George Vecsy, written after the Mets' victory that year. -khaosworks 06:01, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Another search turns up a mention of it the day before, also in an article in the NYT by George Vecsy, this one titled "Why the Mets are still alive", on Oct 27, 1986 (page C3). -khaosworks 08:23, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Here's an ESPN article which also credits Vecsy as being the first to articulate the "Curse" in 1986.  -khaosworks 19:30, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Perhaps 69.199.167.15 could start a new article called Best-of-seven series to describe its history and the significance of the Red Sox 0-3 comeback. Kingturtle 19:40, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  George Vecsey the first?? 

message: I don't follow baseball that much myself, but the media has been full of this for weeks, so I started following this particularly.  I heard from a friend that, earlier this year, Babe Ruth's original home was torn down for whatever reason . . . and that some folks who put stock in the curse credit this as being the deciding factor in its failure.  Can anyone shed more light on this?  I have been unable to locate any definitive information either way . . . and it certainly would add to the mythos, if naught else.--F117-A 20:48, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting theory! (I live in Chicago, I wonder how many houses, and whose, we'll have to tear down before the Cubbies win anything....) — Bill 08:43, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ruth's House? 

message: Just so I don't provoke an edit war here, the ESPN play-by-play indicates that there were no outs in the Boston 9th in Game 4 when Roberts scored. So there was one inning, or three outs left (doesn't matter to me which one we use). Link at http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/gameLog?gameId=241017102.TheProject 06:45, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  How Close Were They? 

message: Almost every baseball fan I know (well, 99%) knows what the "curse" is/was, yet none of them that I'm aware of really "believed" it, in the sense of actually thinking that it was a real phenomenon that "affected" Red Sox performance or something. So, I think a lot of undue attention is given to saying "skeptics counter" or "serious [sic]" baseball fans discount" or "the myth is propogated by"... If anything, this is just an insult to baseball fans. Come on, this isn't the article on creationism, UFOs, or ESP. It's just a tall story that got blown way out of proportion. Baseball has lots of tall stories, and admittedly, most don't get blown out of proportion this much. But I think the overwhelming majority of fans understand this as a tall story, a part of baseball lore, not some branch of science. So, it should be discussed as such, its role as a part of baseball lore, whatever you think of that. But, giving the impression anyone took this truly seriously is nuts. Revolver 08:39, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Get a grip on reality, and realise most other fans do too 

message: Would "undone" be a more appropriate label here? I mean, for the curse to be reversed, wouldn't it now have to be affecting the Yankees or something? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:59, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
:You're right, but "curse undone" just doesn't have the right mouth-feel.  :) - jredmond 19:30, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: until next year we wont know if its gone forever anyways. perhaps its best to retitle to "Is the curse gone?". thats my $0.02 Alkivar 02:34, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The curse "reversed"? 

message: Please don't pretend the "curse" idea is resurrected just because the Sox lost to the Sox (or maybe the Sox beat the Sox). The joke has run its course - DavidWBrooks 00:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  it isn't reborn 

message: I don't know if this issue has been addressed before ... but I see that the year that's been typed as the start of the curse is 1918.  However, Babe Ruth wasn't sold to the Yankees until 1920.  By that reasoning, wouldn't the curse have started in 1920? Amchow78 03:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I hear you, but trying to pin down the origin of a something that never existed in the first placeis a difficult task. No Guru 05:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is kind of ridiculous, but Amchow has a point. If we're going to include that tongue-in-cheek "birth/death" listing - which I think is quite clever and well worth including -  it should be accurate (so to speak), so I changed it to 1920. - DavidWBrooks 11:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to edit the date or anything but since the Yankees didn't win a World Series that year that date seems innapropriate (remember Yankee fans often cite the disparity of success between the two teams as "proof" of the curse. The Yankees didn't win their first World Series until 1923 (remember this all about World Series victories - the Yankee pennants of '21 & '22 hardly count - just like the Sox pennants of '46, '67, '75 & 86 didn't count) So we could use 1923 as the start of the curse but at that point the Sox still held a World Series advantadge of 5-1. So 1923 seems a litte fuzzy. The Yakees didn't win their sixth championship until 1937 - two years after the Babe wrapped up his career - back in Boston. So if anything I would go with 1937 - it makes about as much sense an any other year. No Guru 18:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We're getting perilously close to debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin! I think we can agree, at least, that the previous date of 1918 made no sense, even for such a nonsensical topic. - DavidWBrooks 19:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Any by the way I peg the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin to be between some and several ! No Guru 20:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Start of the Curse