Talk:Curse of the Bambino/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Curse of the Bambino. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Untitled

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

If we get another Boston POV edit or two (at this point, it's mostly the same bad edit repeated over and over again), I'm thinking of protecting this page for 24 hours. I'm tired of monitoring this page (what is it, posted on /. or something?). Any objections? Jwrosenzweig 19:13, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Good idea - protect it. Please!!! DavidWBrooks 19:36, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

At this point, we may be reaching an uneasy compromise....the edits are changing, so I'm going to hold off as I think the anons are realizing NPOV, and I'm trying to keep as much of what they add as I can. If it returns to what it has been, I'll have to protect, I suppose, but I'd like to avoid it. I've protected more pages this week than in the 5 previous months, thanks to Wik, Anthony, et al. Time to take a backseat. :) Jwrosenzweig 19:54, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

As the author of "Babe Ruth and the 1918 Red Sox," my facts about Lannin's sale to Frazee (date and dollar amount) and the date of the sale of Babe Ruth are accurate. If Frazee sold Ruth in 1918, how did Ruth set a single season HR record in 1919 for the Red Sox? ... Allan Wood

I agree, Allan. See the change I already made to the sale date in the article. Is Jan 3rd, 1920 wrong? Jwrosenzweig 20:06, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Assuming you agree the curse is laughable, then it doesn't make sense to require a NPOV. It seems that by definition, humor or over the top assessment would be suitable. Even so, it would seem reasonable to have some mention of his journalistic laziness (and that of his peers). Rather than edit the page and cause you have to re-edit, etc I would propose the following after the line "... focused on the so-called curse." -- "Shaughnessy and other media members frequently fall back on this 'curse' when referring to the Red Sox, often ignoring other more relevant topics which are germane to the moment." For what it is worth, what is resented by most Bostonians isn't the story of the curse (schlock is schlock after all) but the discussion of it at all times in all circumstances. And that is laziness on the part of the media -- which is perpetuated by your discussion here. Your attempt to be factual leaves the reader without the knowledge that the proponent of the myth uses every media opportunity to perpetuate it, and it has become headline material for every Red Sox event without a positive outcome. In the big picture, it isn't that big a deal, but at the same time your efforts (as a group) seem to be serious about the content, and as such, it wouldn't seem to be an accurate portrayal of the subject matter. Roof

Roof, it's not a matter of whether I agree. If you and I agreed that Ayn Rand was a god, we couldn't say that in an article. The point is that some people take this curse half-seriously, and some think it ludicrous, and some think it a total waste of time. We can't say "it's ludicrous" because we think that's the best answer. We can only report the facts. If we report opinions, we have to attribute them...i.e., "Boston Mayor Bob Jones says the curse is bunk." "ESPN reporter John Jenkins calls it 'an uncanny coincidence'." Am I making any kind of sense? Jwrosenzweig 20:36, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

(Boy, let's hope we never write an article about the Sports Illustrated cover jinx!) How about something like this: "Mention of the curse has become so frequent in the Boston area that it has come to rub some people the wrong way." And maybe a sentence about why it bothers you, if you think enough people feel that way to merit mention. (I've lived near Boston for a decade and can't say I've encountered any sick-of-hearing-about-the-Curse feeling, but I'm not a native or more than a casual fan.)

Frankly, I'd like go back to much earlier and much *shorter* versions of this article without all the details about Ruth's career, details about the sale and the various post-Ruthian Red Sox horrorshows. So much detail implies a solemnity that the subject can't carry. DavidWBrooks 21:16, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

An excellent point, David. Sadly stupid and pointless vandalism forced me (in my opinion, at least, I was forced) to protect this page. Yes, this article likely makes too much of the curse...all we really need to do here is explain what it is, to inform those who hear the phrase and wonder what it means. The additional detail is interesting, but perhaps too much. We can dicuss it here of course, so that necessary changes can be edited in tomorrow when it is unprotected. Jwrosenzweig 21:34, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I happen to agree with you David. A short but sweet mention is harmless and marginally informative. But once one starts detailing the history and the actual failures in support of the curse (externally referencing the home run call by Dent???), then weight is given to the silliness. Once that weight is given, that is where I wish to identify the laziness of the media who perpetuate the thing, treating it as fact rather than mere childish amusement. From the outside this statement -- "Shaughnessy and other media members frequently fall back on this 'curse' when referring to the Red Sox, often ignoring other more relevant topics which are germane to the moment." -- seems like hyperbole, but it is actually accurate. So, I'm no expert on the intentions of the WikiPedia, but it seems that indeed, less is more on this subject. Aside to Jwrosenzweig... Boston's mayor would be one Mumbles Menino (local joke there) - and usually he isn't quoted! lol Roof

Thanks for being a good sport, Roof. Why don't we talk over possible fixes here? A larger question, I suppose, is whether this page should focus mostly on the Ruth aspect (emphasizing Bambino, hence a shorter article) or the Red Sox troubles aspect (emphasizing Curse). Or both? I'm open to it. What do we think? Let's not ask Mumbles. ;) Jwrosenzweig 21:34, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Guys, I'm no expert so I offer this shortened effort for your review. It mentions the history, it mentions the media thrust into todays lexicon, and mentions secondary musical offshoot (which might be relevant if someone is searching for the musical). I am not a wordsmith, so do what you will with it. If the content is to stay long, then I think there would be significant modification/games continued in the future -- this would seem to cut it off at the pass a bit. (Jwrosenzweig: I think it is neither about a curse or the bambino, but it's entirety.) Roof

You are most correct...I was trying to get at something but failed, and I don't think I really knew what I was saying. Should we move your proposed text to Talk:Curse of the Bambino/temp where we can edit and fiddle with it like a real article? Once the protection is lifted, we could just push the compromised article onto the actual page. Jwrosenzweig 22:04, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

The Curse of the Bambino is a tongue-in-cheek explanation for the failure of the Boston Red Sox baseball team to win the World Series since 1918 - a period coinciding with the sale of Babe Ruth to the New York Yankees in 1920. Ruth (known as the Bambino amongst other nicknames), considered by many to be the greatest player in baseball history, went on to achieve considerable success with the Yankees while his former team the Red Sox have not enjoyed World Series success since his sale.

While not commonly used prior to its printing, the phrase "Curse of the Bambino" is the title of a 1990 novel written by Boston Globe journalist Dan Shaughnessy. Shaughnessy and other media members frequently fall back on this 'curse' when referring to the Red Sox, often ignoring other more relevant topics which are germane to the moment. Media references to this so-called curse brought it to mainstream status, including the development of a musical play in 2001, starring famed Broadway director Spiro Veloudos.

Just double checking: You are saying that the phrase was NOT commonly used before Shaughnessy's book? Did it exist at all, do you know? Certainly lamentations existed about the Red Sox ill fortune vs. Yankee good fortune, but what about the phrase itself? DavidWBrooks 22:07, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Forgive my indentation style if it doesn't meet standards. To the best of my recollection... The phrase was used occasionally by media members, but it wasn't mainstream and it wasn't common -- certainly not by handwringing Red Sox fans. It wasn't regularly referred to as such on a national stage until the book was published. For instance when the Sox played the Reds in 1975 I don't recall mention of the phrase. I heard it a bit after 1986, but again, mostly by the Boston local media. Shaughnessy did NOT invent the phrase, but he certainly made his financial gain off of popularizing it. Again I am not a wordsmith, my only intent is to make it clear that this is a media perpetuation. It might sound petty, but to me that is an important distinction. Roof

The Curse of the Bambino is a media deal. As a lifelong Bostonian and diehard Red Sox fan, I can tell you no one here (besides the media and bandwagon fans) even mentions it. The Yankee fans, however, latched on to it like crazy. They'd go pray to Ruth's gravestone before big games. Even Cardinals fans held up signs saying "May the Curse be with you" (best fans in baseball, my ass). I never heard my grandmother mention it (she was born in 1918 and died two weeks to the day before they won) and in all my years of watching/discussing baseball with my dad, it's never once come up. I'll probably talk to him over the phone tomorrow and ask him if it was ever mentioned before ol' Danny boy brought it to the forefront. GreatGatsby 06:47, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

My proposed text (only somewhat altered from Roof's suggestion

The Curse of the Bambino is a tongue-in-cheek explanation for the failure of the Boston Red Sox baseball team to win the World Series since 1918 - a period coinciding with the sale of Babe Ruth to the New York Yankees in 1920. Ruth (known as the Bambino amongst other nicknames), considered by many to be the greatest player in baseball history, went on to achieve considerable success with the Yankees while his former team the Red Sox have not won a World Series since Ruth left the team. The idea that the Red Sox were cursed has been enhanced off and on since 1920 by numerous occasions in which the Red Sox seemed poised to win the World Series, yet failed to do so.

While not commonly used prior to its printing, the phrase "Curse of the Bambino" is the title of a 1990 novel written by Boston Globe journalist Dan Shaughnessy. Shaughnessy and other media members frequently fall back on this 'curse' when referring to the Red Sox. The media often will 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. Media references to this so-called curse brought it to mainstream status, including the development of a musical play in 2001, starring famed Broadway director Spiro Veloudos.

These changes state what I was trying to say in an easier to read form, which is why I never became a writer :) The additions are valuable as well. Roof

Two quibbles - First I had certainly heard of "the Curse" before 1990, and I did not then live anywhere near the northeast US. In fact I don't recall hearing of the novel until now, so while the phrase may not have been overused 15-20 years ago, it wasn't uncommon either. So, yes, perhaps ESPN et al. lean on the phrase too much now as they look for ways to fill air time, but it's not all the media's fault.

The other quibble is the reference to "famed Broadway director". Google does suggest Veloudos has had a long, well-regarded career, but it appears that career has predominantly been in the Boston area. Famed? Possibly. Broadway? No. - Rbs 00:10, 2004 Feb 14 (UTC)

Rbs, good point. If we could find a documented use of the phrase pre-1990, that would be interesting, and it ought to be included. Re: the director, honestly, I hadn't heard of him, and assumed Roof had. Maybe it just got borrowed from the article, and isn't factual, in which case, let's scrap it. :) Thanks for the comments! Jwrosenzweig 00:13, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I didn't start following baseball hevaily until about 1986 so I probably first heard of the Curse in regards to that year's World Series. Unfortunately, searching for its etymology through something like Google is a nightmare. By all means mention Veloudis and the musical, just drop the adjectives. - Rbs 00:18, 2004 Feb 14 (UTC)

The Ruth sale was completed in late December 1919, but was kept secret and not publicly announced until January 5, 1920. Also, he was NEVER known as the Bambino in Boston. Boston newspapers referred to him as the Colossus; also known as the Caveman and Tarzan. (Really.)

P.S. The first writer is actually allude to a curse was George Vescey of the New York Times. Shaughnessy stole the idea from him.

I'm unprotecting the article now. I believe we are agreed that some version of the shortened text above would be better than the current article. Once unprotected, I'll post what I see as the consensus, and then we can feel free to edit it as an article. I hope that works for everyone. Jwrosenzweig 19:01, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Correction, it was already unprotected. :) But I've done what I could. Edit away! :) Jwrosenzweig 19:14, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Looks nice to me ... I almost put in something about the Yanks signing A-Rod after he turned down the Sox, but figured that would start us down the path of excessive weightiness again! DavidWBrooks 19:52, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The shorter version seems to make sense to me because of the reasons stated above. No reason was given for re-including the excess data. Should be reverted to short version IMO.No Guru 22:45, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'll give you fine reasons.

The examples such as Buckner and Dent are not "excess data;" they are part of the story. You can't tell the story without including these examples. To leave them out is to do a disservice to the article. The Bermuda Triangle and the Loch Ness Monster articles list evidence and confront the evidence. It is no sillier to have an external link to Dent's homerun than it is to have an external link to a list of Nessie Sightings. Yes, yes, I know...the Loch Ness Monster? The point is that Wikipedia provides information to its readers to educate them.

The Dent and Buckner accounts are written as NPOV as possible. Furthermore, the Dent and Buckner accounts were in the article for half a year before they were recently removed. Therefore, the examples should remain until someone can give solid reasons why they detract from the article. Do the examples harm the aricle? Not in the slightest. What they do is inform the reader more fully of the mythical curse. That is our job: to educate and to clarify and to be thorough. Readers should not have to go elsewhere to get their information. As much as possible should be contained within these wikipedia walls.

Furthermore...when reading the article without the evidence, the timing of Shaughnessy's book has no context. Kingturtle 23:25, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Kt, you do make a good case. The reason they were pulled out was out of a desire to avoid the lengthy edit wars that plagued this article last week (wish you'd been here then) from Bostonians who felt we were shockingly overplaying the so-called curse and its effects. The article threatened to turn into a list of all the reasons why Boston should or shouldn't have won the World Series in every given year...which would of course incite Yankees fans, etc. Those of us trying to sort out this dispute felt that it might be best to avoid trying to explain Buckner, Dent, etc. and just state the facts as plainly as we could--what this phrase means and where it came from. I don't think any of us considered the idea that anyone believes there is a real "curse" with evidence for it that needs dispelling....but rather that we were identifying a minor cultural phenomenon. If you feel that strongly, you ought to put the sections back in in the "NPOV as possible" state. You're right that the phrasing surrounding the opening of the 2nd paragraph is weak. I was in too much of a rush to end the bizarre edit war. Thanks for your input. Jwrosenzweig 23:48, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Kingturtle, my point was that there seemed to be consensus on this talk page that the shorter version seemed more appropriate than the longer one. I was surprised that you had reverted to the old version without discussion.

My problem with the excess data is that it implies that the "curse" is responsible for the examples you give. Is the curse also responsible for every error that any Red Sox player made between 1919 and today ? Have the Red Sox been cursed or have years of bad play, mis-management and poor fortune taken its toll ?

I contest that giving no examples would give Wikipedia readers all that they need to know about this "curse" but if you think that the longer version is more appropriate I'll say no more on this matter.No Guru 00:05, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Jwrosenzweig & No Guru, I am sorry I was not around last week to help thwart the vandals. My machine has been on the fritz. What sets baseball apart from other sports in the United States is the lore. Sure there is no real curse, but the stories are terrific. I see this article as I see the Paul Is Dead article. We know Paul didn't really die, but the "clues" should be listed nontheless. Kingturtle 10:04, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If you insist on providing the 'clues' for this BS myth, then you also need to strengthen the part about the Shaughnesy and others (ESPN, et al) who propogate the myth out of lazy journalism. To wit, ARod is traded to the Yankees. The only reason ARod is not with the RedSox already is the almighty dollar, plain and simple. No curse, nothing. However every major news report of the article used a tie in with the curse. Is there a good reason to tie it into the curse? Nope, other than them being too lazy to come up with a better angle. In fact, the ESPN piece(s) re-used the same stock 30-45 second curse footage they use over and over -- in lieu of journalism. So, if we are going to provide detailed examples of the supposed curse, then I think it is just as necessary to do 2 things: 1) Identify that it isn't the fans jumping on this curse wagon, but the lazy media, and 2) identify for each of these examples how things came to pass without the curse. For example the Bucky Dent homer ought to include a counter reference from Mickey Rivers that Bucky Dent cheated and used a corked bat. That way a read can be truly informed that for many of the examples, it wasn't a curse but rather other forces at play.

There are two approaches to this short and sweet and informative, or detailed. In the midst of the "great edit wars" last week, I tried to add detailed info and it was repeatedly removed. Seems to me that one approach needs to prevail, and then live with it. Decided to provide detail is great, then live with ALL the detail to be added. Or for the reasons of sanity, keep it short and sweet and alleviate the issue. Roof

Dear Sir or Madame, Wikipedia should never choose "short and sweet" over "comprehensive and detailed". I encourage you to write about Rivers switching Dent's bat. I encourage you to write about the soft dirt Wilson's squibbler hit. I encourage you to write about Calvin Schiraldi, about Yastrzemski's final out, about Bob Gibson's homer, about Enos Slaughter's mad dash. I encourage you to add a section analysing how the myth is propogated.

No one writing this believes the curse is real, just as we don't believes Paul is Dead or in Santa Claus. But the "evidence" is fun. As I said earlier on this page, baseball is different from all other sports in the U.S. because of the lore.

As for ARod, ARod is not part of the "curse" because the "curse" involves Ruth's intervention on the field, not in the front office. I mean, ghosts can make balls bounce funny, but they can't get in the heads of the player's association or Selig or the GMs. So lets be clear: the mythical curse involves only "acts of God."

As for shoddy journalism, sports "journalism" on TV and the radio is rarely journalism. The main news outlets are much more responsible. For example, these stories from major sources do not mention the curse at all:

sincerely, Kingturtle 18:08, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

1) I don't agree that all relevant incidents of media/fans invoking the reference to the curse add to the lore of baseball. I think it belittles a true baseball fan (regardless of which, if any, team they have pledged allegiance to). It only serves to provide fodder for the mindless ones with ADHD or the like. But that is just my opinion.

2) When I tried to add details such as this earlier, they were unceremoniously removed because they weren't considered important -- rather merely a Bostonians POV in what others were describing as an edit war. Perhaps it is my clumsy verbiage, or not being neutral enough. But barely a trace of such reference was allowed to be put forth. I followed the suggested procedure and offered my opinions and efforts on this talk page. A consensus was reached -- and the agreed upon change was a shortened informative version. Which YOU unceremoniously dumped. I assume you are the head man in charge, because it certainly wasn't consensus to make the changes YOU made. I suppose though the fact that you find the detailing of the curse "fun" is because you grew up in NY, presumably as a Yankee fan.

3) Who are you to determine what the curse involves or not? In effect, you've decided we're only going to count on field events, not off field events. Well that seems ironic considering that the deal of Babe Ruth was an off field event. Nice of you to be judge and jury though. Again, I suppose that is because you are the person in charge of this forum/folk encyclopedia.

4) The other administrators have shown an attempt to be factual in their efforts, preferring to be factual, thorough and neutral over all. I don't perceive the same in your efforts. I suspect your attempt to keep things fair are colored by your pinstriped glasses. In their efforts to make sure a Bostonian point of view was not imparted last week, they removed any hint of humor suggesting a Bostonian had written the work. But I look at your page, and see a title such as Bill Buckner which you are obviously involved in. And on that page is a fun little joke about Buckner throwing himself in front of a train, but missing. That is obviously a factual reference, and you apparently see no need to remove that little bit of humor.

5) Oh, and while we are talking about factual stuff, "Ruth enjoyed considerable success" versus "Ruth enjoyed unparalleled success". He was part of 4 championships in NY according to the current writing you changed. Interestly, I suspect that some guys named Berra and Jeter would take issue with unparalleled. One word, hardly a big deal, but yet an example of not being able to see things clearly. The necessity of changing considerable to unparalleled in your mind was exactly what? To add a bit more "salt to the wound" ? It isn't even factually accurate, yet you were driven by something to change the simple word.

6) That said, since consensus is irrelevant, and the person making the decisions is a Yankee fan, and making those decisions in a biased way, there is no longer any need to attempt to contribute here, or view this WikiPedia as anything more than a place where the "in crowd" decide what the content is. Thanks to Jwrosenzweig, and DavidWBrooks for making the initial attempt.

Roof

Looking at this article again after a bit of a pause, I'd like to re-arrange it slightly: Break up the first paragraph and edit it a little, then move up the paragraph describing the history of the phrase, the book et al. Since this article is about the phrase and the "curse" more than baseball stats/history (although they're obviously intertwined), I think that paragraph should come before details about the teams' history.

Considering this article's history, however, I thought I'd mention the idea first, to see what people think. DavidWBrooks 16:00, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I would agree with the above suggestion. The focus should be on the origin of the phrase in my opinion. I was in favor of the much shorter article and still feel that is more appropriate. No Guru 20:07, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Please fiddle around with the order of the content. But please do not remove any content. The examples given are part of the "curse" and part of the lore. Kingturtle 22:58, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, here's my rewrite effort. I don't like the wording of the header Baseball history but couldn't think of another way to put it - and I think something is needed. Some may also think I underplayed the angle of media overuse. Have at it, editors! DavidWBrooks 18:37, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Excellent work. It reads very smoothly! Kingturtle 20:33, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I haven't seen any discussion of the suggestion that the real curse was the Red Sox's failure to integrate - they were the last team in the league to hire a black player. This argument is outlined in the book "Shut Out: A Story of Race and Baseball in Boston" by Howard Bryant(ISBN: 041592779X)

arch-rival

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)

"much over used"

The phrase is NOT "much over-used. Look at how the phrase compares to other phrases that ARE over used:

We have to take "much over used" out. It is POV and inaccurate.

Sincerely, Kingturtle 04:24, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

This sentence:

The media sometimes will 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.

which existed in a previous version of this article sums it up nicely I think. Perhaps some thought could be given to re-including it. No Guru 04:54, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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) P.S. Oh, and Pine Tar Incident.

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

George Vecsey the first??

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)

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)

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)

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)

Here's an ESPN article which also credits Vecsy as being the first to articulate the "Curse" in 1986. [1] -khaosworks 19:30, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I reverted 69.199.167.15's edits because it read like an editorial. Sticking to facts rather than opinions is always good. No Guru 19:04, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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)

Origin of the phrase

On NPR the other night (sometime the week of Oct 17th I think) Bill "Spaceman" Lee claimed to have been the first one to toss out the idea of the curse, I believe he said it was in 1988.

Ruth's House?

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)

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)

How Close Were They?

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)

Get a grip on reality, and realise most other fans do too

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)

The curse "reversed"?

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)

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)

The term comes from the overpass sign on Sturrow drive that once read "Reverse Curve" but was defaced to say, "Reverse the Curse!!". I remember seeing Governor Romney had the sign taken down (and presumably cleaned up) after the Red Sox won the 2004 Championship.

Here's a link to a picture: http://judy.hourihan.com/pix/curse.jpg -- TJ from Mass

Babe Ruth photo (1915, Rookie)

THE RED SOX WON THE WORLD SERIES! www.86years.org

Just a point of information, my father and I own the Copyright on the Babe Ruth rookie photo found here. Not sure where the photo came from to appear here, but we own the original glass plate negative and are the only authorized user of the image. We are authorized and licensed by the Babe Ruth estate for our use of the image. I have no problem with the photo featured here, this is my favorite encyclopedia of course, so long as a link to our website remains with the article. Thank you. - jason (Baseball Antiquities)

Tongue-in-cheek

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The phrase "tongue-in-cheek" has been removed from the introduction and replaced with "urban myth" and "superstition" and something else that is also quite serious. I think this is a bad idea: nobody, not even in the capital of Red Sox Nation, took it seriously - it was always a half-joke, always. I would like to replace "tongue-in-cheek" which, I think, describes the region's feelings toward it perfectly. - DavidWBrooks 22:37, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In all honesty, I just got finished watching the HBO documentary, and it seemed like a lot of Red Sox fans pictured in the documentary took the Curse of the Bambino very seriously -- thus the edit to reflect their point of view. I'm a Chicagoan suffering under the Curse of the Billy Goat (and although Bartman handled his infamy well, I could still clobber him), so perhaps that's my own particular bias. — WCityMike ^{(T | C)} 04:05, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

If you're talking about the HBO documentary about the curse, you have to consider the source - of course they'll play up the seriousness angle to make good television, in the same way that a documentary about Star Trek fans will concentrate on the fringe nuts instead of the more normal mainstream fans. I would propose a phrasing that indicates that not every fan takes it seriously. --khaosworks 04:18, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your edit looks good to me. — WCityMike ^{(T | C)} 11:35, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I think it still overplays the possibility that some people took it seriously, but I May Be Wrong (gasp!). It seems a good compromise. - DavidWBrooks 21:02, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As I stated up higher in this dicussion page, the Curse was never taken seriously by true fans (sure the bandwagon fans of the past few years latched on to it). It is more tongue-in-cheek than anything. You'd never heard a Bostonian (or other New Englander) who was a fan of the game argue the Curse was real. GreatGatsby 07:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I am guessing that Red Sox fans did not entertain the idea of the Curse and Yankee fans loved the idea. Kingturtle 08:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

it isn't reborn

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)

Start of the Curse

Latest comment: 19 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)