I recently accepted a throwdown because my opponent stated that Boston is the best sports city in the country. I accepted it because it was a bold statement to make and he used the recent Red Sox Championship and the New England Patriots' winning record as to the reasons why the city of Boston should be adorned with such a crown. My main argument was/is that there is and must be a lot more criteria for a city to be awarded such a prestigious title.
I'm sure that every fan has their own set of criteria that a team must meet before given such a title or at least even being considered worthy of such a title. I for one have been to many cities and to many stadiums. Each time I could say that I walked away with some mixed emotions; however, without much awareness or rehearsal, I found myself looking at and examining a wide array of factors in order to determine whether or not the city in which the team played in was a "true" sports type of city or town.
The one thing I know is that recent victories and or championships don't make a city worth having such a title. As I mentioned in my throwdown, here are some things I find myself taking into consideration: the history of the team, the fan base, stadium attendance, the location of the stadium, the amount of teams, the amount of stadiums or arenas, the ease of getting to and from it the facility, the stadium itself, the coaching, the players, ownership, etc..., the list goes on and on.
If it were just about wins, losses and championships it would be fairly easy for us all to decide and perhaps agree on a city deserving of such a title. The fact of the matter is that we don't agree and we don't agree because their are so many factors to consider.
I was recently out in Seattle and I thought the way the stadiums were situated was so cool. They're basically side-by-side; they're really easy to get to, from just about any place in the City. They overlook the water. The views are amazing. I've also been to the old RFK stadium years ago, which I loved. That was very cool. The nostalgia there was just amazing. I sat in the old Cleveland Browns' dog pound. I've been to a Bills game when it's been 11 degrees out and there's now in the bleachers. I've visited Chicago and have seen their various stadiums from afar, which impressed me. I've been to Miami. Yea, that list goes on too. My point here is that for every stadium I've been to or have seen I took something different away with me each time. Mostly good things and very little bad.
The one thing I always noticed is how proud fans are of their teams, players, stadiums, arenas, etc... Sometimes I enjoyed that just as much as I enjoyed the game itself. If you have not traveled around to see different teams play and experience teams and cities outside of you're own, give it a try. I can assure you that you too will develop particular criteria as to how to judge a city for its sports worthiness and titles. If you already have certain criteria I can guarantee you that by traveling to these different cities your viewpoints will change and your criteria will only broaden.
So, I don't think my opponent was wrong is stating his opinion, I just believe that his opinion is somewhat limited. I believe that he failed to consider the criteria that many of us utilize in determining such a bold notion. I believe that he will also see things differently as he perhaps matures and has more sports related experiences outside of the city of Boston.
I can't tell you what my favorite sports city is or which one I think is the best because I have not yet and probably will never experience them all. I do believe it's a personal thing and it is very objective but again, I think there are way too many things to take into consideration when trying to determine the "best." I guess that's just one of the ongoing arguments (throwdowns) we will continue to see on FanNation.
What are your thoughts? What type of criteria do you use? Does that make you right?
Please share your thoughts and comments.