ESPN.com: Wrigley vs. Fenway

[daske17]

As part of their "Hot Stove" topic discussion, today's will be Wrigley versus Fenway hosted by Neyer. Even though he claims he can't choose, he certainly waxes more poetically to Fenway.

 

http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/chatESPN?event_id=18993

 

Just wanted to FYI everyone.

[seanimal]

gee i wonder

[Outshined_One]

Cue goats and Steve Bartman.

[UMFan83]

Not surprisingly, so far its become "fans of Wrigley" arguing against Fenway, and Rob Neyer defending the Red Sox park.

[Andy]

There are a LOT of White Sox and Cardinals fans who still think Wrigley is the best park in baseball. Warrants mentioning.

[seanimal]

They probably subscribe to Carl Everett's Theory of Evolution and Dinosaurs too, so, what they think is of little consequence.

[Derwood]

I've been to Fenway twice. it was fun, it was historical, but there are some really dumpy parts of the park

[CoolHandLuke]

He ended up picking Wrigley.

[FergieJ31]

He ended up picking Wrigley.

 

Yes indeed:

 

Brandon (Morehead, KY): What about walking to Wrigley Field and seeing the big red sign on the front of the stadium? I get chills seeing pics of it.

 

SportsNation Rob Neyer: You're right: it's a great sign. I have to say, I started this thinking Fenway, but now I'm coming around to Wrigley. Can I call it a draw? Or is that just weaselly...

[CoolHandLuke]

He ended up picking Wrigley.

 

Yes indeed:

 

Brandon (Morehead, KY): What about walking to Wrigley Field and seeing the big red sign on the front of the stadium? I get chills seeing pics of it.

 

SportsNation Rob Neyer: You're right: it's a great sign. I have to say, I started this thinking Fenway, but now I'm coming around to Wrigley. Can I call it a draw? Or is that just weaselly...

 

 

Ken (Boston,MA): Both parks are great but Wrigley has really held onto the classic look. I love Fenway but all the advertisements everywhere, especially on the monster, kinda take away from its grandeur.

 

SportsNation Rob Neyer: I think I'm going to end on this note, Ken, because I happen to agree with you. I've always had Fenway ahead of Wrigley by a nose, mostly because of the fans. But the rampant commercialism in Fenway has dropped it, just barely, behind Wrigley in my mind. Shoot, the Green Monster's not even all that green anymore.

 

Not that this matters to me in anyway whatsoever.

[seanimal]

Because, you know, the Green Monster isn't as green anymore. Because the advertisements aren't green. And advertisements that don't perfectly blend into their surroundings make watching men play baseball less fun.

[Yanksfan1523]

To me this is like Bucholz vs. Chamberlain. Both have their attributes and both have downsides.

 

I have been to both several times and i would give Wrigley the edge. I enjoy the atmosphere there better than Boston.

 

Oh BTW, for all these purists that gripe about the ads on the Green Monster, look back at the 30's-40's. The monster was not green, it wwas covered top to bottom in ads! Why do you think it was originally built?

 

http://www.i-concepts.org/images/prints/st10120p.jpg

Yankees vs. Red Sox at Fenway Park, Margaret Mayall, July 4, 1942

[jiml60]

Whether it's ESPN TV, the Magazine or dot com; I don't bother with any of their crap anymore.

[inari]

To me this is like Bucholz vs. Chamberlain. Both have their attributes and both have downsides.

 

I have been to both several times and i would give Wrigley the edge. I enjoy the atmosphere there better than Boston.

 

Oh BTW, for all these purists that gripe about the ads on the Green Monster, look back at the 30's-40's. The monster was not green, it wwas covered top to bottom in ads! Why do you think it was originally built?

 

http://www.i-concepts.org/images/prints/st10120p.jpg

Yankees vs. Red Sox at Fenway Park, Margaret Mayall, July 4, 1942

 

Not to stray off topic, but Chemberlain is in a whole different league than Bucholtz.

[Yanksfan1523]

My point is, much like ESPN's debate over the two young pitchers, there is no right answer. Both pitchers have good upside and you could be rewarded with either. These stadiums are the same type of argument.

 

There is no wrong pick here. I've been to both stadiums, several times each. Both stadiums are great. Either pick is a good choice.

[RedFlash]

To me this is like Bucholz vs. Chamberlain. Both have their attributes and both have downsides.

 

I have been to both several times and i would give Wrigley the edge. I enjoy the atmosphere there better than Boston.

 

Oh BTW, for all these purists that gripe about the ads on the Green Monster, look back at the 30's-40's. The monster was not green, it wwas covered top to bottom in ads! Why do you think it was originally built?

 

http://www.i-concepts.org/images/prints/st10120p.jpg

Yankees vs. Red Sox at Fenway Park, Margaret Mayall, July 4, 1942

 

Not to stray off topic, but Chemberlain is in a whole different league than Bucholtz.

 

Yeah a lower league. Bucholtz already has a no-hitter to his credit, and is a future #2, whereas the Yankees clearly do not know what they want to do with Joba. Is he the heir apparent to Mariano, or is he a top of the rotation guy? Until they figure out what they want to do, I'll give the edge to Bucholtz.

[pitchcs]

I've been to Fenway twice, Wrigley probably 300-400 times. Obvious bias, but Wrigley is my choice.

 

The second time I was at Fenway, it was probably the worst experience of my life. I was sitting in the equivalent of 200 section at Wrigley and it felt like it was about 200 degrees.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Not to stray off topic, but Chemberlain is in a whole different league than Bucholtz.

you sure 'bout that?

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=46301

[Wilmo]

Oh BTW, for all these purists that gripe about the ads on the Green Monster, look back at the 30's-40's. The monster was not green, it wwas covered top to bottom in ads! Why do you think it was originally built?

 

http://www.i-concepts.org/images/prints/st10120p.jpg

Yankees vs. Red Sox at Fenway Park, Margaret Mayall, July 4, 1942

 

I personally don't have an issue with the ads around the park, I think they do add a nostalgic look.

 

I think the only reason Wrigley doesn't have more advertising is due to a lack of space, that is until they remove the ivy. :shock:

 

They have added the Under Armor ads to the doors in the outfield and the Bud Light sign on the outside, and even sold naming rights for the dugouts. (with signage of course)

 

I have never visited Fenway, but for me it doesn't get any better than Wrigley. Hell, I would show up at Wrigley on a warm summer day, to drink beer, eat peanuts and check out the scenery, even if there wasn't a ballgame.

[BudHouse]

I've been lucky enough to have gone to Fenway Park for about 75 games. They have made a number of improvements inside and outside the park in the last 10 years. Maybe the best improvement is the activity outside the park. More smaller vendors and unique products help to build the excitement before and after the game. You do feel that the Green Monster is about 90 feet behind the SS, little wonder that most Red Sox LH hitters have that inside out swing down pat. I'll still take Wrigley Field.

 

The trouble with ESPN is they are very short-sighted and love to make lists out of everything. They have no appreciation of history. They feel like nothing happened before Chris Berman opened his big yap.

[Tracer Bullet]

For many seats at Fenway, it's the most uncomfortable way to see a game. I was 30 rows up from 1B, was facing the Monster, rather than home (funny b/c the fans in RF/CF that sit at the base on the Monster were facing me, not home) so I had a kink in my neck after the game and I had to sit with my legs apart at all times b/c my knees were hitting the seat in front of me (and I'm only 5'7", my 6'3" buddy was really complaining).

 

There's a lot of great things about Fenway, but Wrigley destroys it. There's really no competition.