1951 and 2001: Which is worse?

[LouGehrig]

The depth of despair of Dodgers fans for 1951 is understandable, but it leads to a question of values.

The Dodgers lost the PENNANT. The Giants won the pennant but lost the WORLD SERIES. As a Yankees fan, I am more familar with WINNING and LOSING World Series than fans of any other team.

My opinion is that the Giants were the bigger losers. I say that after living through the 1960 and 2001 World Series. It is acknowledged that to get a chance to win, there must be the chance the to lose. Is the loser of the World Series the ultimate loser of a particular season?

Who were the bigger losers in 1951, the Dodgers or the Giants?

[shlevine42]

RE: 1951 and 2001: Which is worse?

There’s really only one answer…at least on THIS Forum!

Nothing the Giants suffered in their Series loss could begin to equal the despair felt by the Dodgers and their fans.

We lost the pennant after having had a huge lead. We lost it in the 9th inning of the final playoff game.

Worst of all, we lost it to THE GIANTS!

It doesn’t get any worse than that.

[LouGehrig]

RE: 1951 and 2001: Which is worse?

Would it have been better to beat the Giants but then lose to the Yankees? Do (did) most Dodgers fans want to beat the Giants more than they wanted to beat the Yankees?

[donzblock]

RE: 1951 and 2001: Which is worse?

It would have been better to beat the Giants because the Dodgers of 1951 would not have lost the Series.

[shlevine42]

RE: 1951 and 2001: Which is worse?

The short answer to your question can be found in the fact that that one loss to the Giants overshadows all the Series losses to the Yankees.

On the positive side, NOTHING was sweeter to a Dodgers fan than beating the Giants.

It goes back to at least 1934, when Bill Terry asked, "Brooklyn? Are they still in the league?" and the Dodgers answered by knocking the Giants out of the pennant on the last weekend of the season.

The hatred felt by the two teams (and their fans) intensified when Durocher became the Giants manager in '48.

The NEXT best feeling was beating the Yankees.

[LouGehrig]

RE: 1951 and 2001: Which is worse?

Stating that the Dodgers would have beaten the 1951 is illogical since the Yankees beat the team that beat the Dodgers. But that is the fascination of baseball and life. It could have happened.

While I think the Yankees would have beaten the Dodgers, there are no guarantees. The Dodgers might have won, but they might have lost. All that matters is that the Yankees won.

[donzblock]

RE: 1951 and 2001: Which is worse?

Mr. Gehrig, you are sounding like Spock. All that matters is not that the Yankees won: it is that the Dodgers lost!

[jaykay]

RE: 1951 and 2001: Which is worse?

Dear Mr. Gehrig:

Surely we can agree that your citing the years 1960 and 2001 indicates that much depends on HOW your team loses. After all, those were not the only years in which the Yankees finished second in the World Series.

Perhaps no Yankees fan could ever identify with the wormwood of 1951, but I guarantee that your friendly rivals in Boston can. It's all a matter of perspective. So allow me to conclude this brief missive by calling your attention to the nectar sipped by Dodgers fans in 1955 when the Bums beat the Giants AND the Yankees. How about that?

[researcher]

RE: 1951 and 2001: Which is worse?

[updated:LAST EDITED ON Apr-02-02 AT 10:41 PM (EST)]1934: After winning the first gm of a Dbl Header in Boston 8-0 on 9/23
......the Giants were 3 1/2 games ahead of St.Louis.

......NY went on to lose their last 5 games, while the Cards went 6-0.
......to finish 2 games ahead of NY.

......On sat 9/29 Van Mungo (17-18) beat Parmelee (10-5)5-1; then on
......sun 9/30 21 y/o Johnny Babich (7-11)and Ray Benge(13-12) teamed
......up to beat Freddie Fitzsimmons (18-13) 8-5.

[LouGehrig]

RE: 1951 and 2001: Which is worse?

That is great. Fantastic. I love it. You are right. I concede. Completely.

[LouGehrig]

RE: 1951 and 2001: Which is worse?

You are right.

[Paulmcall1]

RE: 1951 and 2001: Which is worse?

The defeat of fifty years ago has had time to marinate in the
juices of time.
It has turned into a fine whine.
Recent defeats have not had enough time to fester and cause
a lifetime of pain.

[LouGehrig]

RE: 1951 and 2001: Which is worse?

Losing does not have to marinate
For the loss to really grate.

To come so close and then to fail
Makes the 26 other victories
A little stale.

[Berky34]

RE: 1951 and 2001: Which is worse?

I was a Yankee fan growing up in a Brooklyn neighborhood and I can say without fear of any contradiction that October 2, 1951 was The Penultimate Day of Infamy indelibly etched into the psyches of every Dodger fan from that era. By comparison, all other Dodger heartbreaks--from Mickey Owen to Tommy Henrich to Don Larsen--diminish in significance.

[donzblock]

RE: 1951 and 2001: Which is worse?

If October 2, 1951, was the penultimate day of infamy for Dodger fans, what was the antepenultimate, and what was the Ultimate? October 2, 1951, to me, was The Ultimate Day of Infamy.