Being at the Garden for Game 7 and seeing them skate around with the Cup in 1994 is all I need to be satisfied.
The Rangers could go the next 50 years without a Cup and I wouldn't care one iota. I got what I needed from this team, it was the high point of my sports-fan life, I don't even think a Jets Super Bowl victory could top it. The Rangers always make it interesting and they are going about it the right way. The recent trades to bring in some young role players, the homegrown leaders, the stellar goaltending, adding the occasional star veteran, cannot complain.
Stockholm syndrome, or capture–bonding, is a psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and sympathy and have positive feelings toward their captors, sometimes to the point of defending them. These feelings are generally considered irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims, who essentially mistake a lack of abuse from their captors for an act of kindness. The FBI's Hostage Barricade Database System shows that roughly 27% of victims show evidence of Stockholm syndrome.
Stockholm syndrome can be seen as a form of traumatic bonding, which does not necessarily require a hostage scenario, but which describes “strong emotional ties that develop between two persons where one person intermittently harasses, beats, threatens, abuses, or intimidates the other.”One commonly used hypothesis to explain the effect of Stockholm syndrome is based on Freudian theory. It suggests that the bonding is the individual’s response to trauma in becoming a victim. Identifying with the aggressor is one way that the ego defends itself. When a victim believes the same values as the aggressor, they no longer become a threat.
Last edited by BleedGreen314; 05-09-2013 at 11:00 AM.
I have the luxury of becoming a Jets fan during the Namath era. Those memories will keep stay with me for a lifetime. The idea that the Jets are James Dean was built on Namath's shoulders. It's fading and no longer relevant.
Same here, re the Namath era. Which makes us old geezers. Anyway, I think the Jets re-activated the James Dean thing when Rex arrived. There was a kind of brash younger brother style he brought to the media, which was fine when they were winning and pushing back on the Giants, but there was that other shoe just waiting to drop. The media Giant-lovers were just salivating waiting for the Jets to falter. Jets FO and Rex played right into that with their glam moves, SB guarantees, and the Tebow fiasco. Even in Rex's first two years the Jets were never more than borderline playoff contenders who exceeded expectations. It wasn't that far to fall to return to mediocrity.
Just like the Nets, if you are old enough to have liked both teams when they were in separate leagues, you could, "logically" root for both today.
I didnt know any Knicks fans who didnt like Dr. J and the Nets also!
My older brother claims he likes both Jets and Giants (but he favors the Giants)
As impossible as it sounds, loyalties can change. You move somewhere and adopt the local teams, maybe because of your spouse or kids who dont have the attachments you do. Lots of Rangers fans in teh region became Flyers Devils and Islanders fans when those teams came along. When the NL allowed the NYC market to be abandoned by 2 historic franchises, some fans ditched their lifelong loyalties or adapted. My dad a NY Giants fan became a Yankees fan. My oldest brother a Knothole Gang card-carrying member moved to RI and rooted for NE teams. One of my uncles moved to SF.
If you happen to like more than one team in a sport, the rationalization would be if they met head to head you would choose a favorite. My favorite baseball team is the Mets but I didn't get too much pleasure when they came back on my 2nd favorite the Bosox.
When I was a very young child I wasn't very interested in football as I preferred baseball then, one of my very few sports heroes was Y. A. Tittle although I never was a Giants fan.
Last edited by Jungle Shift Jet; 05-09-2013 at 02:27 PM.
Agreed...although they are closer to the JETS in performance and it's frustrating.
I go back to Giacoman, Gilbert, Brad Park and 1994 was magical.
It's frustrating watching them get outplayed year in year out lately. But I hear you.
I grew up on Long Island. All 4 years of high school, Islanders won the Cup each year. The 1940 chants in every arena. There was nothing I wanted more than a Rangers Championship.
And not only did they do it, I met my wife the week the playoffs started, took an overnight date with her down in DC to see Game 3 of that series, and wound up getting tickets to Game 7 of the finals with her too. Nothing can ever top that.
Originally Posted by Jet Life
I hear you on that. If the Jets ever won one I would be satisfied but I can admit that as a Yankee fan, that's a very Met-like mindset.
Originally Posted by Austin
Let me guess, low standards Mets fan?
I know the Mets analogy feels congruent, but I don't know what to tell you other than winning that '94 Cup was so monumental for me that it sucked the life out of my fandom ever since.
I'm sure some Red Sox fans likely feel the same way and some Jets fans would too. There's something about the suffering that makes the win so epic and a repeat just isn't the same thing.
4 cups since the 20s is pretty awful. Hockey in New York is a wierd situation. There are 2 Met-type teams. No Yankee/Giant model franchise for sure. The Rangers are just the more popular of the two.
You have to understand a few things about the NHL and the Garden why the rangers did not sustain the success of their 1st 2 decades prior to the late 60s hockey was a rigged situation after the war.
Boxing was king at the old Garden, controlled by one scion of the Norris family. The NBA was in its infancy and family fare like Ice Capades and Ringling Bros. could evict teams from the Garden even during playoff runs.
The Norris family controlled or influenced all of the American NHL teams favoring their Red Wings after the war with the Rangers Bruins and Hawks as bottom feeders. The Canadiens had 1st dibs on Quebec talent etc.