Taking Sides: the Cubs' curse vs. the White Sox curse

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Why isn't it more well-known that the White Sox' postseason futility is potentially just as bad as the Cubs' -- no World Series appearances since 1959, no World Championships since 1917 (under manager PANTS ROWLAND!), and the spectre of 1919 hanging over their heads?

― alfalfa romeo (natepatrin), Saturday, 25 September 2004 02:16 (twenty-one years ago)

because anything about the Sox is less well-known than anything about the Cubs. My uncle to thread to bitch about the Tribune.

― oops (Oops), Saturday, 25 September 2004 06:22 (twenty-one years ago)

Maybe if the White Sox hired another manager named "Pants"

― alfalfa romeo (natepatrin), Saturday, 25 September 2004 16:59 (twenty-one years ago)

The White Sox don't really have a ''curse" - the fans hate that sort of crap. The reasons are too obvious anyway.

There is the obscure 'curse of Luis Aparicio' - he said that it took forty years for the Sox to win a pennant, and that it would be forty more years before they won another one. That was more of an accurate observation than a curse, I'd say.

― Kerry (dymaxia), Saturday, 25 September 2004 17:57 (twenty-one years ago)

The Cubs and their fans can have their curse, as can Red Sox fans. White Sox fans just want an owner who gives a shit about winning it all, which appears to be a long time coming.

― Baked Bean Teeth (Baked Bean Teeth), Saturday, 25 September 2004 18:27 (twenty-one years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.