Support for LAist comes from
We Explain L.A.
Stay Connected

Share This

This is an archival story that predates current editorial management.

This archival content was written, edited, and published prior to LAist's acquisition by its current owner, Southern California Public Radio ("SCPR"). Content, such as language choice and subject matter, in archival articles therefore may not align with SCPR's current editorial standards. To learn more about those standards and why we make this distinction, please click here.


Boston Is Completely Nuts

Support your source for local news!
Today, put a dollar value on the trustworthy reporting you rely on all year long. The local news you read here every day is crafted for you, but right now, we need your help to keep it going. In these uncertain times, your support is even more important. We can't hold those in power accountable and uplift voices from the community without your partnership. Thank you.

Ladies and gentleman. Your 2009 world champions Los Angeles Lakers. AP Photo/Matt Sayles
Our Zack Jerome against David Schoenfield’s article on 1980s Los Angeles sports vs. 2000s Boston sports. The folks at Bostonist decided torebut Zack’s argument sport-by-sport.

They conclude in their little piece by saying Boston is having a better sports decade here in the aughts than LA did in the 1980s. I read it over and over again, but I don’t understand their special brand of Boston logic. I mean you can read the final count of titles in the respective decades below, and I come up with LA winning that battle.

Within their justification they say some things that are amusing to say the least.

Support for LAist comes from

Let’s see what they said.


To quote them:

Seriously, "The Homer" could be from anyone (Mazeroski? Aaron? Duane Kuiper?), but "The Steal", "The Sock", "The Slap" and "The Comeback", are pretty much locked up for good. As far as we're concerned.

As Zack mentioned, everyone in the sports world gives the Red Sox a ton of credit in 2004 to come back from a 3-0 deficit in the ALCS against the Yankees to vault them to their first World Series victory since 1918. That was an amazing feat that will most likely not be repeated in baseball.

And let me give kudos to Curt Schilling for pitching without a landing foot. Although the bloody sock has been overplayed due to the nature of media this decade, it doesn’t and shouldn’t diminish those six innings Schilling gave to the Red Sox.

But saying the Kirk Gibson home run could be from anyone? Let’s remind these folk that Gibson had a hard time standing up much less hitting a walk-off home run in a World Series game against the most dominant closer that season and former Red Sox Dennis Eckersley. Gibson could barely stand after fouling off Eckersley pitches. But he had enough arm strength to hit that 3-2 backdoor slider out to the right field pavilion and history was made.

In fact that hit was so memorable that on Saturday Night Live that followed the World Series game, that home run ball “landed” in the “Weekend Update” desk.

People everywhere were talking about that home run the next day, and they still talk about it. On most countdown shows of most memorable home runs that one tops the list next to “The Shot Heard ‘Round the World.” So to say that Dave Roberts’ steal in game four of the ALCS compares to that moment is just sheer lunacy.

Also can someone tell me what “The Slap” is? I watched every game of that ALCS and World Series in 2004, but I have no idea what that is. Sorry.

Support for LAist comes from


I’ll give the folks in Boston this. However let me add a caveat that college football should be counted. While neither USC nor UCLA won championships during the 1980s they were both fairly decent. Boston College this decade has been decent in the middle of the decade, so it confuses me why they don’t want to include college football.


This is a push, but let’s not omit one of the more memorable games in playoff hockey: The Miracle on Manchester in 1982.

With the series tied 1-1, the Kings and the Edmonton Oilers came back to The Forum for game three. Wayne Gretzky and the Oilers dominated the Kings leading 5-0 after two periods. But in the third period the Kings fought back and tied the game 5-5 in regulation.

In overtime left winger Daryl Evans’ slap shot gave the Kings the victory. The Kings would go on to win the series in five games, however they would lose to the Vancouver Canucks in the next round.


Number of NBA titles the Lakers won in the 1980s: five. 1980, 1982, 1985, 1987, 1988. With the exception of the 1981 season, the Lakers made it to at least the conference finals every year in the decade and never had a losing season.

Number of NBA titles the Celtics won in the 2000s: one. To top that off they have four losing seasons, although given the state of the Eastern Conference in one of those seasons they actually made the playoffs.

If you notice in Bostonist’s argument they don’t even make this one. I’m not going to sit here and write about Celtics-Lakers head-to-head because it’s a losing battle. Historically they have whooped us. But we’re trying to make the argument between 1980s Los Angeles teams and 2000s Boston teams. Don’t get it twisted.


LA Titles in the 80s

1980: Lakers
1981: Dodgers
1982: Lakers
1983: Raiders
1984: none
1985: Lakers
1986: none
1987: Lakers
1988: Lakers, Dodgers
1989: none
Total: Eight titles.

Boston Titles in the 00s

2000: none
2001: Patriots
2002: none
2003: Patriots
2004: Patriots, Red Sox
2005: none
2006: none
2007: Red Sox
2008: Celtics
2009: to be seen, but I’m going to guess none.
Total: Six titles.

8-6. The numbers don’t lie Boston. As you guys know very well from 1919 to 2003 you lose.

Most Read