Talk:Polo Grounds

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag
Portal
Baseball Portal
Polo Grounds is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of baseball and baseball-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

This article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
This page is part of the scope of WikiProject New York Yankees, a WikiProject which aims to develop and expand Wikipedia's coverage of the New York Yankees. Please feel free to join us.

Contents

[edit] What now stands on the site?

What now stands on the site? --71.102.144.27 03:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

An apartment complex. 64.241.37.140 19:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
It's a PUBLIC HOUSING complex, filled with violent criminals and other rejects of society living off your hard earned cash. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.92.95 (talk) 03:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
And that differs from Congress how...? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Soccer at the Polo Grounds

  • I never knew how important the Polo Grounds was to the development of soccer in this country. Nyrmetros 19:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The New York Giants soccer team of 1894

The paragraph contained within the soccer section of this page keeps being removed but I feel that it not only is an important part of the history of the Polo Grounds but also a very significant turning point in American sport and should remain. Had the Baseball owners achieved what they set out to do with the soccer idea it could, and probably would have changed the face of American sports totally from the framework we know today in three ways. Firstly soccer would almost certainly be either the biggest or second biggest sport in the USA today. Football may well have never become a major sport and possibly even could have been outlawed in the early 1900s making it a forgotten extinct sport today. Amazing as this seems this nearly happened even without soccer popularity. Thirdly each citie's Baseball, soccer, football {if there was any}, basketball, hockey, lacrosse, rugby etc...teams would quite possibly have all been run by the same owners {perhaps the city itself} under the same name. As an example the New York Giants would today have been one organisation playing a wide range of professional sports under the one title. Similar to the Spanish model where Real Madrid play a host of sports other than soccer for which it is famous. Captainbeecher

It keeps getting removed because you're not providing a source. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Four different stadiums; four different pages?

Should this article be split into four articles for each of the four distinct Polo Grounds, or is this article like this for some other reason?--CrazyTalk 21:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, the so-called "III" and "IV" were the same diamond just surrounded by wooden (III) or concrete (IV) stands, so they were really the same park. And "II" was right nextdoor. "I" was 45 blocks south or so. Now, how would you do the disambiguation on it? To put it another way, is there really enough info to warrant separate pages for I and II? I just checked Madison Square Garden, and it was done this same way. Even though they are separate buildings, there is an implied continuum... just like the N.Y. Giants and the S.F. Giants are on the same page, although maybe that's a poor analogy, since they didn't physically move the ballparks. Wahkeenah 21:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

One of the common fallacies that I have noticed on this site is the circular logic that is used often: It must be this way because this is how it is. "Because" is not answer for "why?". If III & IV are the same park, then there is no IV and there just is a III. However, III burned down and they built IV; therefore, III & IV are not the same or they would have just called it III. Just because they have the same name does not mean they are the same. I am sorry, but that answer seems empty: "there is an implied continuum". Do New Yorkers generally consider the Polo Gounds as one park? Using that logic, Comiskey, Busch, South End Grounds, Lake Front Park, West Side Park, etc etc etc should all be combined, not to mention all of the various League Parks, County Stadiums, Memorial Stadiums, Municipal Stadiums etc etc etc. Typically for stadiums, we have a page for each structure. I believe this page should be disambig. If a consensus believes otherwise, then so be it.--CrazyTalk 01:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Then you should do likewise with Madison Square Garden. As to III and IV, that is modern revisionism. Nobody called them that at the time, it was just "The Polo Grounds". The wooden grandstand burned in 1911 and was replaced with concrete stands built around the same diamond. However, the previous bleachers survived the fire and remained intact until 1923. So I could argue for a III (1890-191) and a III-and-a-half (1911-23) and a IV (1923-64). Also, consider Sportsman's Park, which was rebuilt several times in its existence on Grand and Dodier, the diamond repositioned several times, yet there is only one article. If you want to separate them, I would argue that I and II could be on individual pages, but separating III and IV is kind of a stretch. As to what New Yorkers "consider", most of them don't even know about I, II, and III, so it's kind of a moot question. Wahkeenah 02:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ruth

Even in the early 1920s, one of Babe Ruth's deeper blasts was said to have landed "in Manhattan Field".

Is there a source for this? I assume the implication is that one of Babe Ruth's home runs from the Bronx was said, quite hyperbolically, to have landed in Manhattan field, but to someone who wouldn't know it sounds like the shot in question was hit in the Polo Grounds, which would still be hyperbole but considerably less so. Can someone clarify? Thanks. Chick Bowen 21:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Or was it in the Polo Grounds before '23? I guess that would make more sense. Again, a citation would clear everything up. Chick Bowen 21:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • It was a home run that Ruth hit over the right field stands at the Polo Grounds that landed in whatever was left of the former Manhattan Field. I could look for the article if necessary. It's in a book I have someplace. Wahkeenah 22:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm thinking it was his first as a Yankee, on May 1, 1920. Smelser's book makes reference to the ball landing on an amateur field. Another book, which I can't find just now, reprinted an entire article from 1920 about it. The point of that anecdote was that the diamond called "Manhattan Field" was still well known in 1920. Later it became a parking lot. Wahkeenah 00:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Yep, it was May 1, 1920. I put that in the article recently... and only about 14 months after I said I would look for it. Now, on to my projects from February of 2006. Wahkeenah 23:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] American Football at the Polo Grounds

This statement needs a citation:

Yale traditionally played football in the Polo Grounds in the 19th century for their most highly attended games. Their Thanksgiving rivalry game against Harvard was attended by 24,000 spectators in the stadium, marking the arrival of college football as a significant cultural phenomenon.

Which game? When? --Chancemichaels 19:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Chancemichaels

According to the article List of Harvard-Yale football games, there were two such games, in the 1880s, i.e. at the original "polo grounds" on 110th Street. The details are not given, though. Wahkeenah 23:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I've inserted the dates and citation in the section on Polo Grounds I. bobhymes —Preceding comment was added at 20:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ninth/Eighth Avenue Elevated

I've changed "Eighth Avenue Elevated" back to "Ninth Avenue Elevated" as in the text I had originally added. Although the northern terminus of this elevated line was at 155th and Eighth Avenue, at the time the entire line was called the "Ninth Avenue Elevated" because it originated in Ninth Avenue, all the way down at South Ferry at the southern end of Manhattan. From Ninth Avenue the line made a sharp turn east into 110th Street followed by a sharp turn north into Eighth Avenue, creating the S-curve that would later be known as the "Suicide Curve" because of its height and because at least one person did attempt suicide from the El tracks at this point. Bobhymes (talk) 02:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I reverted it because it was an IP address making an unsourced and seemingly random change. You could be right. What's your source for this info? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The "Ninth Avenue" change was based on my general knowledge about that elevated line, which ran through what's now my neighborhood; but I realize general knowledge isn't enough, so for a source see the Wikipedia article "IRT Ninth Avenue Line," which lists the 155th Street stop as one of the stops on that line. See also the webpage "abandoned subway stations (nysubway.org)" at www.scribd.com/doc/220588/abandoned-subway-stations-nysubway-org. Sorry about the IP address before -- I had forgotten that I wasn't logged in yet when I started making changes.Bobhymes (talk) 02:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Aha. Well, you need to include that cross-reference in the article, and then you could reset it to Ninth Avenue. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I just added the reference as a parenthesis after the sentence mentioning the Ninth Avenue Elevated. Is that the correct location for the reference? Pardon the question, but I'm a novice at Wikipedia editing, as you can probably tell.Bobhymes (talk) 02:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's a source, anyway. I'll leave it to the sourcing-structure mavens to determine the exact way to state it, assuming they accept it. Thanks for posting it. We'll see what happens next. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Concrete and steel