Or, you know, a sports fan of any city? Ever?
It would have to be, right? After all, with the Patriots victory last week Boston teams have won (at least) nine titles in fourteen calendar years. That's staggering. They reached the final game another four times in that span. Amazing. Everyone I've seen has been tweeting about the most dominant run in sports history. We were all joking that we had to endure 15 LONG months between parades. We we had almost forgotten how to celebrate. Winning had become so commonplace, it was the butt of jokes!
Best period ever!
Unless you're Bill Russell. I wonder if he's sitting back and chuckling.
Because, of course this isn't the most dominant period of Boston sports. In thirteen calendar years, the Celtics won eleven of their own. Eleven! You want a decade of dominance? Try the sixties, when the Celtics DIDN'T win the title once. Forget having to wait fifteen months. Russell's Celtics hardly ever made you wait more than twelve.
But. this recent feeling of euphoria has to be different, right? After all, you can't usually celebrate any modern accomplishment without someone pointing out that things were better "back in the day." But, I don't remember hearing any of that. Even when people are displaying those graphics showing all the banners Boston teams have ever won, nobody ever points out the swath of green in the middle.
What's the difference?
Is it the all-inclusive feeling of it? Maybe. I do remember that when the Red Sox won their title in the middle of the two Patriots ones, there was a lot of talk of having a reigning Super Bowl and World Series title in the same city. The fact that you didn't have to wait for the patriots to win was a big draw. But, at that point, it was just the Pats and Sox. Looking back, the Bruins won the Stanley Cup in 1970 and 1972. so, add those to the end of the Celtics run,and now you've got a pretty dominant stretch involving two teams. Just like 2002-2007.
Is it really that it includes all the teams? Is it the sense that every year, one of the teams could win it all? Even though that's really how the early Red Sox teams were. Since they were the only game in town, every Boston team had a chance to win every year from, say, 1903-1918.
Or, is it the modern sports teams? Sure the Celtics won all those titles. But, ti's not like the NBA was a real sport at the time? I mean, were's not counting the Revolution in any of these counts, even though they make the finals last year. We're talking about real teams that real people care about. Those teams have been winning at an amazing clip. Not those teams from the sixties when Red could draft three Hall-of-Famers on one day. Is that it?
Is it just the media, and social media, coverage? I wonder what twitter would have been like when Russell was finishing up his eleventh. Are we just reacting to the explosion of tweets and newspapers and magazines and videos and EVERYTHING that is thrust upon us these days? Is it so much more a part of our lives, that it makes even the lesser accomplishments better? I bet I'm able to enjoy last weekend's win more than a Celtics fan enjoyed the sixties in total because of all the different way to enjoy it.
Or, is it something else? It has to be more than just "recent things are more important and impressive." Like I said, there doesn't seem to be a dissenting argument out there. I'm just having trouble putting my finger on what exactly is making this time period so special. can you help me out?
Why is this the best time to be a Boston sports fan?
What people are reading this week
Section 36 has another visitor! Nicolette Peloquin is a Red Sox fan, and the current Miss Rhode Island. In addition to following the Sox...
Tony, the wonderful writer of the “ Off Hiatus Baseball ” blog, started a fun activity based off the “30-Day Music Challenge” that Twitter u...
I’m not sure I’ve ever participated in one of the blog bat arounds before. Not really sure why (or if that’s the case) but I thought I ...
1. Jason Varitek 2. Carlton Fisk 3. Victor Martinez 4. Tony Pena 5. Rich Gedman 6. Scott Hatteberg 7. John Marzano 8. Bill Haselman ...
1. Wade Boggs 2. Kevin Youkilis 3. Rico Petrocelli 4. Mike Lowell 5. Carney Lansford 6. Bill Mueller 7. Scott Cooper 8. Butch Hobson ...