Current Pictures of Busch Stadium Destruction

[Wild_Cubs04]

Were this Wrigley I may feel the same way.

Of course you'd have way more reason to be sad about Wrigley. Busch isn't exactly the baseball mecca that Wrigley is.

 

 

Busch isn't as old, but probably holds more memories than Wrigley does.

 

Do you just look to start arguments, or do you actually believe the stuff you type....

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Were this Wrigley I may feel the same way.

Of course you'd have way more reason to be sad about Wrigley. Busch isn't exactly the baseball mecca that Wrigley is.

 

 

Busch isn't as old, but probably holds more memories than Wrigley does.

 

Do you just look to start arguments, or do you actually believe the stuff you type....

 

Awww c'mon. The "best fans in baseball" would never look to start an argument. :roll:

[K-Town]

Were this Wrigley I may feel the same way.

Of course you'd have way more reason to be sad about Wrigley. Busch isn't exactly the baseball mecca that Wrigley is.

 

 

Busch isn't as old, but probably holds more memories than Wrigley does.

 

Do you just look to start arguments, or do you actually believe the stuff you type....

 

 

Are you serious, or blind?

 

you'd have way more reason to be sad about Wrigley. Busch isn't exactly the baseball mecca that Wrigley is

 

 

THAT is what started it, wouldn't you say? And yet I'm accused of "trolling", and "driveling". Some of you only see what you want to.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Were this Wrigley I may feel the same way.

Of course you'd have way more reason to be sad about Wrigley. Busch isn't exactly the baseball mecca that Wrigley is.

 

 

Busch isn't as old, but probably holds more memories than Wrigley does.

 

Do you just look to start arguments, or do you actually believe the stuff you type....

 

 

Are you serious, or blind?

 

you'd have way more reason to be sad about Wrigley. Busch isn't exactly the baseball mecca that Wrigley is

 

 

THAT is what started it, wouldn't you say? And yet I'm accused of "trolling", and "driveling". Some of you only see what you want to.

 

First of all, that's not an outrageous statement by any stretch. And secondly, your fellow Cardinals fan said it.

[sweetpeteman]

:lol:

 

 

honestly, do you think that Busch has anywhere near the history Wrigley does?

[adamb0719]

:lol:

 

 

honestly, do you think that Busch has anywhere near the history Wrigley does?

 

I don't see any way that is possible.

[YearofDaCubs]

Their new stadium is looking pretty nice. I like the look of it.

[ManEatingTarp]

:lol:

 

 

honestly, do you think that Busch has anywhere near the history Wrigley does?

 

I don't see any way that is possible.

 

Being serious, and not trying to stir things up here.

Yes, Wrigley is older, and it's one of the crown jewels of baseball. I love watching games there.

That said, Busch has been the host of 6 World Series and more playoff games than I can count without looking it up. It has been the destination for millions of fans from a multi state region. It was a centerpiece in the mid sixties downtown revitalization of St. Louis.

I don't want to start another who is better than who debate, but you can't say thay Busch doesn't have an amazing 40 year history.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

:lol:

 

 

honestly, do you think that Busch has anywhere near the history Wrigley does?

 

I don't see any way that is possible.

 

Being serious, and not trying to stir things up here.

Yes, Wrigley is older, and it's one of the crown jewels of baseball. I love watching games there.

That said, Busch has been the host of 6 World Series and more playoff games than I can count without looking it up. It has been the destination for millions of fans from a multi state region. It was a centerpiece in the mid sixties downtown revitalization of St. Louis.

I don't want to start another who is better than who debate, but you can't say thay Busch doesn't have an amazing 40 year history.

 

There's no doubt about any of that, but claiming it has more history than a landmark ballpark that has been around twice as long might be a little much IMO.

[1908]

That said, Busch has been the host of 6 World Series

Did you know that Wrigley has also hosted 6 World Series?

[CubinNY]

That said, Busch has been the host of 6 World Series

Did you know that Wrigley has also hosted 6 World Series?

 

One of which included Babe Ruth pointing at a pitcher and swearing at him, then hitting a HR.

[adamb0719]

:lol:

 

 

honestly, do you think that Busch has anywhere near the history Wrigley does?

 

I don't see any way that is possible.

 

Being serious, and not trying to stir things up here.

Yes, Wrigley is older, and it's one of the crown jewels of baseball. I love watching games there.

That said, Busch has been the host of 6 World Series and more playoff games than I can count without looking it up. It has been the destination for millions of fans from a multi state region. It was a centerpiece in the mid sixties downtown revitalization of St. Louis.

I don't want to start another who is better than who debate, but you can't say thay Busch doesn't have an amazing 40 year history.

Busch does have an amazing history, but IMO it does not have quite the history of Wrigley.

[mjohnson71]

:lol:

 

 

honestly, do you think that Busch has anywhere near the history Wrigley does?

 

I don't see any way that is possible.

 

I agree. I really don't see anything historically or culturally significant about Busch Stadium. Wrigley Field is baseball.

 

Their new stadium is looking pretty nice. I like the look of it.

 

I hate to say it, but I agree. Looking forward to taking a trip to St. Louis to check the new place out after it's 100% complete (sometime mid-season).

 

Thank goodness they went with an open air ballpark and not some retractible roof goofiness like Miller Park. Also glad to see they're not installing stupid things like all the gimicks at Minute Maid or Petco.

[YearofDaCubs]

:lol:

 

 

honestly, do you think that Busch has anywhere near the history Wrigley does?

 

I don't see any way that is possible.

 

I agree. I really don't see anything historically or culturally significant about Busch Stadium. Wrigley Field is baseball.

 

Their new stadium is looking pretty nice. I like the look of it.

Yeah, I think the fans will enjoy it. You said it wont be 100% complete until mid-season are they going to play the games there or some place else in the beginning of the season?

 

I hate to say it, but I agree. Looking forward to taking a trip to St. Louis to check the new place out after it's 100% complete (sometime mid-season).

 

Thank goodness they went with an open air ballpark and not some retractible roof goofiness like Miller Park. Also glad to see they're not installing stupid things like all the gimicks at Minute Maid or Petco.

[wolf stansson]

Busch Stadium has undoubtedly had a great run, but when you think of pantheon ball parks, Wrigley is at the top of the list with Fenway, Yankee Stadium, Ebbets Field, etc. Busch has a lot of great baseball memories, proud tradition, and I personally grew up there, but let's be honest. It has neither the charm or character of Wrigley Field. Wrigley is in the middle of a residential neighborhood. There are bars, restaurants, stores, and houses surrounding it. It has that real sense of community that no other baseball stadium has. Up until the mid 90's, Busch was essentially a football stadium. Adding real grass, the big scoreboard, and new seats helped a lot, but it was still a cookie cutter that looked like a gigantic ash tray.

 

My statement was in no way a rip at Busch, but to say that it is as historically significant as Wrigley Field is preposterous. Some of you are equating success to history. I would argue that Wrigley Field is more significant because of the Cubs lack of success. What other reason did 30,000 + people have to go watch a game in 98 degree August afternoons when their team was 20 games out of 1st? Wrigley.

[K-Town]

Busch Stadium has undoubtedly had a great run, but when you think of pantheon ball parks, Wrigley is at the top of the list with Fenway, Yankee Stadium, Ebbets Field, etc. Busch has a lot of great baseball memories, proud tradition, and I personally grew up there, but let's be honest. It has neither the charm or character of Wrigley Field. Wrigley is in the middle of a residential neighborhood. There are bars, restaurants, stores, and houses surrounding it. It has that real sense of community that no other baseball stadium has. Up until the mid 90's, Busch was essentially a football stadium. Adding real grass, the big scoreboard, and new seats helped a lot, but it was still a cookie cutter that looked like a gigantic ash tray.

 

My statement was in no way a rip at Busch, but to say that it is as historically significant as Wrigley Field is preposterous. Some of you are equating success to history. I would argue that Wrigley Field is more significant because of the Cubs lack of success. What other reason did 30,000 + people have to go watch a game in 98 degree August afternoons when their team was 20 games out of 1st? Wrigley.

 

I didn't say "historically significant", so save your preposterousity for someone else.

 

I said it has more memories. I should have said, more SIGNIFICANT memories. Some of you may not put much value in the historic significance of winning a baseball championships, but I disagree. Bob Gibson's 17 strikeouts in Game 1 of the '68 World Series comes to mind. Lou Brock's record-setting stolen base. Mark McGwire's record-setting home run. Boston's first World Championship since 1918. The fact that it's parked in the shadow of one of our country's most significant man-made features (the Arch), and just blocks from the Mighty Mississippi.

 

Wrigley or Busch? It may be futile to argue one's significance over the other. They're both memorable, for different reasons. Keep in mind that I didn't start this banter. My point is that it's silly to make a post that implies that there would be reason to cry over Wrigley's demise, but not Busch's. THAT, my friend, is "preposterous".

[ManEatingTarp]

That said, Busch has been the host of 6 World Series

Did you know that Wrigley has also hosted 6 World Series?

 

Cubs in 45.

Did the Sox play there in 59?

What other years?

[Chris]

That said, Busch has been the host of 6 World Series

Did you know that Wrigley has also hosted 6 World Series?

 

Cubs in 45.

Did the Sox play there in 59?

What other years?

 

One was the mentioned 1932 World Series game 3 where Ruth called his shot

[Chris]

World Series: 1918, '29, '32, '35, '38, '45

[ManEatingTarp]

That said, Busch has been the host of 6 World Series

Did you know that Wrigley has also hosted 6 World Series?

 

Cubs in 45.

Did the Sox play there in 59?

What other years?

 

One was the mentioned 1932 World Series game 3 where Ruth called his shot

 

Nope, he was pointing at the Bud Light vendor. Duh!

;)

[Chris]

 

One was the mentioned 1932 World Series game 3 where Ruth called his shot

 

Nope, he was pointing at the Bud Light vendor. Duh!

;)

 

Ugh, I hate that commercial

[ManEatingTarp]

World Series: 1918, '29, '32, '35, '38, '45

 

Dang! The Cubs look like they had a near dynasty in the 30s.

[wolf stansson]

I said it has more memories. I should have said, more SIGNIFICANT memories.

Not if you are a Cubs fan. It's all relative brah.

 

Hey mods, how much is premium, and is the price worth it for the ignore list alone?

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I said it has more memories. I should have said, more SIGNIFICANT memories.

Not if you are a Cubs fan. It's all relative brah.

 

Hey mods, how much is premium, and is the price worth it for the ignore list alone?

 

5 bucks a month, or 50 bucks for a year. The latter I can't help you with.

[1908]

is the price worth it for the ignore list alone?

I imagine it is, but mods can't ignore anybody. Just another price we pay.