Magazine Cover Derby Round 2.05 "Tom & Nancy Seaver" vs. "Iwo Jima"

[Benjamin Grimm]

http://leaptoad.com/mets/covers/images/magazines/MCD.png>



Vote for the cover that you like the best. Voting will run for seven days.



Tom & Nancy Seaver

McCall's, May 1970.

Winner of http://thecranepool.net/phpBB32/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=28206Round 1.16

http://leaptoad.com/mets/covers/magazines/19700500_MCCALLS.jpg>





Iwo Jima

Jock Magazine, October 1969.

Winner of http://thecranepool.net/phpBB32/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=28129Round 1.08

http://leaptoad.com/mets/covers/magazines/19691000_JOCK.jpg>

[MFS62]

It is only fitting to honor the Iwo Jima cover on Memorial Day.

Later

[G-Fafif]

The Seavers are indeed beautiful, but Jock rocks.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I voted for Tom and Nancy, mainly because that cover almost literally screams its publication date. The wallpaper clinches it.

[Guest 41Forever]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I voted for Tom and Nancy, mainly because that cover almost literally screams its publication date. The wallpaper clinches it.

Also shows how awareness of the Seavers had expanded beyond the world of sports publications. Been a while since I thumbed through a McCall's -- does it even still exist? -- but I have to think it didn't profile too many athletes.

[Edgy MD]

Nancy's driving hat kills me.



I'd swap out the monocle necklace and the mixed-pattern scarf, but that hat and Nancy were made for each other.

[kcmets]

Didn't vote for the chapeau last round and didn't again.



Knotted at 6-6.

[A Boy Named Seo]

Every time I see that cover, I wanna subscribe to McCall's.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Tied at nine!



Any other votes out there? Anyone care to break this tie???

[Benjamin Grimm]

Fun fact about the McCall's cover...



This is the original image, before some sharp-eyed editor realized that they had had Tom pose with the wrong Nancy!



http://leaptoad.com/mets/covers/images/magazines/other_tom_and_nancy.jpg>

[kcmets]

I'm gonna have nightmares!

[dgwphotography]

I just threw up...



If that Nancy was on the cover, it would have won in a landslide due to the deceased vote.

[MFS62]

Dang! (I wanted to use a stronger word)

That Jock cover conveyed the hard struggle the franchise had to endure from the beginning to finally reach that pinnacle and plant that flag. The use of that famous image to symbolize it was appropriate.

To lose to any cover, especially THAT one, is a shame.

Later

[Benjamin Grimm]

Making this one sticky again. After 20 votes, we're still tied. Is there a 21st vote out there anywhere?

[Johnny Lunchbucket]

Tom and Nancy are like the parents of the entire organization. The photo is awesome, the design is clean and tasteful and extremely contemporary for its moment.



Jock has a terrible logo. If you saw it today you'd be shocked if it weren't a gay-lifestyle magazine. It may have been then. The image is inspiring and well-done (I like that its a mound they're plating the flag in) but in the end it's a cliche that misappropriates and mixes war and sports.



Tom and Nancy famously bought a front-page ad in the New York Times calling for peace in the turbulent era during which these covers came to life. They themselves would have voted for domestic bliss over war at work.



Do the right thing for America

[Edgy MD]

However, Hodges wasn't smiling when he learned about the cover of the inaugural, October issue of Jock magazine. He objected vociferously to having Mets players planting the World Championship flag on the mound at Shea stadium in the exact pose of the Marines raising the American flag at Mount Suribachi on Iwo Jima in Joe Rosenthal's famous 1945 photograph. “Nobody is prouder of my players than I am,” he stated, “but they just won a baseball championship. The boys they are mocking in this picture [nearly] died for their country.” Jock ended up using models in the uniforms of Seaver, Koosman, Grote, and Jones. — Tom Clavin, Danny Peary, Gil Hodges: The Brooklyn Bums, The Miracle Mets, and the Extraordinary Life of a Baseball Legend, p. 351

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51Y-W46hZXL._SX329_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg>

[Johnny Lunchbucket]

That settles it: Voting for Iwo Jima is like urinating on Gil Hodges grave while also giving the finger to our brave men and women in uniform and crapping in Arlington cemetary and wiping with the April 1970 issue of McCall's magazine

[bmfc1]

I remember buying that issue of "Jock" at the local candy store. It has my vote despite Tom's "look what I got" look.

[batmagadanleadoff]

It never occurred to me to complain that the Jock cover was mimicking the famous Iwo Jima photo. Nothing's so sacred is my first instinct even though there are exceptions I'd make -- but not the Iwo Jima photo in the context of the Jock cover.



But what always did bother me about that cover was how obviously fake the Mets uniforms were.

[MFS62]

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: Tom and Nancy are like the parents of the entire organization. The photo is awesome, the design is clean and tasteful and extremely contemporary for its moment. Jock has a terrible logo. If you saw it today you'd be shocked if it weren't a gay-lifestyle magazine. It may have been then. The image is inspiring and well-done (I like that its a mound they're plating the flag in) but in the end it's a cliche that misappropriates and mixes war and sports. Tom and Nancy famously bought a front-page ad in the New York Times calling for peace in the turbulent era during which these covers came to life. They themselves would have voted for domestic bliss over war at work. Do the right thing for America

Tom (as well as many other pro athletes) joined the National Guard so he wouldn't get drafted and have to go to 'Nam. So let's take patriotism out of this. I find nothing wrong with using a famous moment of achievement after a struggle as the theme of that cover. It was tastefully done.

And Joan Payson was the mother of the organization. It was born to her.

Later

[Lefty Specialist]

I'll miss that picture of Nancy. It was like she was thinking about Tom's hard slider.

[Benjamin Grimm]

There had been an 11-to-11 tie, but apparently one of the Tom-and-Nancy voters switched to Iwo Jima.

[Johnny Lunchbucket]

Show yourself, you bastard!

[dgwphotography]

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: Show yourself, you bastard!

Hey! My parents were married!

[kcmets]

=MFS62 post_id=11603 time=1559234466 user_id=60]Tom (as well as many other pro athletes) joined the National Guard so he wouldn't get drafted...

[Edgy MD]

Tom (as well as many other pro athletes) joined the National Guard so he wouldn't get drafted and have to go to 'Nam. So let's take patriotism out of this. I find nothing wrong with using a famous moment of achievement after a struggle as the theme of that cover. It was tastefully done. And Joan Payson was the mother of the organization. It was born to her. Later

Doesn't 100% of everybody know that Seaver was a Marine reservist? I mean, your statement is neither here nor there, but it's just not true.



https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3b/Tony_the_Marine2_1969.jpg>



As for taking patriotism out of this, you brought patriotism into this initially, didn't you?



The statement here as to the appropriateness of the artwork is from Gil Hodges, so your argument's with him.

[MFS62]

I'll agree that The Marine reserves and the (Army) National Guard are different services; now you can agree that many pro athletes joined up in those programs to avoid a two year draft commitment.

As someone who was ducking machine gun bullets during the mid-late 60's, I did not pay attention to which six month program each athlete joined. So, it was not 100%.

As for Gil Hodges, that was his opinion as I'm entitled to mine. And I did not find the cover inappropriate or offensive.



Later

[Edgy MD]

I'm not sure why you think your right to an opinion needs to be asserted. That's not in question.



As for rights, I don't need to be told when and what to agree with. Come on.

[MFS62]

avi

Later

[Benjamin Grimm]

http://leaptoad.com/mets/covers/images/magazines/2_05w.jpg>