Who is the Real Father of Baseball?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Okay, here is a topic just for fun:<br /><br />Alexander Cartwright, Henry Chadwick, and Harry Wright have all at one time been called "the Father of Baseball." But we can all have only one daddy. So who is best deserving that title?<br /><br />I think it is Harry Wright. Wright was a player starting in the late 1850's; in 1869 he formed the first professional baseball team, which changed the face of the game forever; when the National Association was formed, he managed the finest franchise in the league and won four championships (1872-75); when the National League was formed he managed Boston, Providence, and Philadelphia for nearly twenty years; and he copiously kept acccurate records of nearly every aspect of the professional game, best illustrated in the yearly scorebooks he preserved for close to fifteen years.<br /><br />Any other differing opinions?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>I won't argue with you Barry as I've no doubt you know more about the early game than I do, but didn't Cartwright lay down most of the dimensions of the game? I gotta think that the guy who came up with 90 ft between bases and nine guys to a side is the "father of baseball".<br /><br />Maybe we could call Wright the father of Professional baseball?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>There is no question that the contribution of the Knickerbocker BBC was significant. What is less clear is Cartwright's role. He may have been integral in organizing the club, but it is now believed that others had a bigger part in refining many of the rules of the game. We just aren't sure.<br /><br />And Cartwright headed west in 1849, and his days of playing competitive ball were basically behind him.<br /><br />Yes, Wright was the father of professional baseball, but his contributions to the game in total were greater than Cartwright's...I think.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Corey R. Shanus</b><p>The problem with calling Harry Wright the father of baseball is that the game was basically developed by the time Wright began playing. Yes, Wright did a lot toward bringing professionalism out in the open and toward developing the first professional league. But that had little if anything to do with the rules by which the game was played. As to who had the most to do with those rules, my vote would be the Knickerbockers because they codified the precise rules under which the game was to be played. While perhaps one could argue that every rule they adopted had at one time been seen before, but it was the precise combination and publication of these "existant" individual rules that became baseball as we know it today. As to which rule was the most significant, in my view it was the rule codifying fair and foul territory. That allowed baseball to become a spectator sport, which was the engine behind its explosive growth. <br /><br />So if we're now talking about the Knickerbockers as being the most important force behind the development of the game, which Knickerbocker was most instrumental to the organization of the Club and the development of the Knickerbocker rules? While reasonable people can differ on this one, certainly Cartwight would be on anyone's short list of candidates. And certainly Chadwick and Wright would not. So among Wright, Chadwick and Cartwright, my vote would be Cartwright. <br /><br />EDITED to add that if the Veterans Committee wanted to find a more constructive use of their time, they might spend less time looking at what the likes of Bowie Kuhn ever did and more toward some of the contributions of some of the original Knickerbockers (e.g., Adams, Curry, Tucker, Wheaton).

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>I think you can be the "father" of something and still have less contribution to the overall history.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Corey- I half agree with you.<br /><br />The contribution of the Knickerbocker BBC, as the sum of its members, was monumental. But which members were most instrumental? Doc Adams? Will Wheaton? Duncan Curry? or was it actually Cartwright himself?<br /><br />Rob Lifson just emailed me a link to an article written by John Thorn, and his basic premise is that Cartwright's contribution to the game is vastly overrated.<br /><br />I do agree Wright should more aptly be called the Father of the Professional Game, since he is considerably younger than the other two. But I question exactly what role Cartwright had during his brief tenure with the club (1845-49).<br /><br />Edited to add while I was typing you added something important, too.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>When was the term "Cartwright rules" first used? and by Whom?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Corey R. Shanus</b><p>A point worth mentioning is that just because the Knickerbockers did not formally organize until 1845, that does not mean that they did not play baseball together before then. Logically, they had to. It's hard to fathom that those guys met one day and organized a baseball club the next. Almost certainly they had been playing together for some time. So I don't think its entirely accurate to describe Cartwright's association as being only four years.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>Here is a good article dispelling some of the myths surrounding Cartwright.. Much of this is a surprise to me, but I have to say that I've not studied Cartwright and have in the past always accepted the Hall of Fame's stance on AJC.<br /><br /><a href="http://bioproj.sabr.org/bioproj.cfm?a=v&v=l&pid=2205&bid=727" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://bioproj.sabr.org/bioproj.cfm?a=v&v=l&pid=2205&bid=727</a>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Corey- I think you are right. If I remember correctly, they started meeting several times a week in Murray Hill around 1842, but I think their activities were largely disorganized. They decided at some point that finding some competitive sport to play would be more worthwhile. So clearly by the time they codified the first set of rules on September 23, 1845, they had to have been already playing baseball for months. <br /><br />But it was during that trial period that they determined the rules of baseball as they were known to that point were insufficient. My theory, and others too, feel it may have been more of a joint effort and not solely the invention of Alexander Cartwright.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Dan- I skimmed that article and it is a very good one. What is clear is many members of the club had a hand in revising the rules of baseball, changing it from a child's game to one enjoyed by adults. Nobody knows with certainty, however, who did what.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>Does anyone know who coined the term "Cartwright rules"? That seems to me like it would be a point worth noting, and may have an explanation as to why that term was used.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Dan- I have no idea who coined that term, but it appears to be something current.<br /><br />There is even some question as to why Cartwright is in the Hall of Fame (isn't everyone questioned these days?). His grandson, Bruce Cartwright, traveled to Hawaii around 1912, and began an aggressive campaign to get some recognition for his famous grandfather. That may explain how the Cartwright myth may have been overblown.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Gary Passamonte</b><p>Barry,<br /><br />If George Washington can be the "Father of our Country", I guess Harry Wright can be the "Father of Baseball".

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Corey R. Shanus</b><p>I don't think there is any question that Cartwright was part of a group effort and that others in group made similarly large contributions to the organization of the Club and the development of their rules. And if Cartwright is in the HOF, then very compelling arguments could be made that some of other original Knickerbockers should be there too.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>Barry, it does seem a contradiction in the Hall of Fame's early beginnings that they inducted Cartwright, but not Doubleday, but they did name their baseball field after Doubleday. I guess the evidence for Doubleday which is nonexistent and based only on Spalding's nationalistic wishes that the game have its roots in America was enough for the Hall of Fame to go with the Cartwright story which does have <i>some</i> merit...and it's quite possible that AJC <i>was</i> an integral part of the modern games origins. Seems to me that the Hall honoring Doubleday in a different way was to keep those that subscribed to Spalding's "findings" happy. <br /><br />In short what my rambling is trying to say was that perhaps the Hall's induction of Cartwright was somewhat a reactionary move.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>Doc Adams should be in the HOF for inventing the shortstop at the very least

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Dan- it is undeniable that Cartwright made a real contribution to the game's early history, and that the Doubleday myth is one of the great travesties of American history, baseball or otherwise. Cartwright was a founding member of the KBBC, he had strong organizational skills which he put to good use when the club was formed, he was an officer of the club, and he clearly contributed to the formation of the early rules.<br /><br />But I also think it was a group effort, and the Hall of Fame could once get it right if they considered some of the other members too. No organization can survive and grow with only a single individual making a contribution. I'm sure much discussion went into writing that first constitution, and Cartwright surely didn't do it by himself.<br /><br />In fact John Thorn believes that Doc Adams was a much more important figure in the Knickerbocker history. But his name is only familiar to the most ardent baseball historian. It's fascinating that baseball got its history wrong with the Doubleday myth, then got it wrong to a lesser degree again by anointing Cartwright the creator of the game. Maybe they will never get it exactly right.<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>Perhaps the myth is the beauty of baseball. I mean who really cares about the invention of basketball where it is pretty clearly known that Naismith was asked to devise an indoor game and he based it on a childhood game he learned in Canada. No romance there.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>That's a very poetic way of putting it, valuing the myth over the reality.<br /><br />But we are baseball historians, and it has to rile you at least a little bit when you realize that baseball is America's pastime, and has been for nearly 150 years, yet they can't even get its creation right.<br /><br />It's as if Thomas Edison invented the lightbulb, but they decided to credit Mark Twain instead. It makes no sense.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>I've always had a passing interest in the origins of the game, and I accept that it was a game that evolved out of perhaps many different childhood games so it doesn't really rile me up too much, but Spalding's <i>rigging</i> the origins kind of riles me up a bit. I still think an essential pull to the romance of baseball is that it's true origins still remain shrouded in mystery.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>That's a fair point. We may never know the true origin of the game, but there is no way we can condone what Spalding did.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Rhys</b><p>I would vote for Chadwick. His popularity and standing as a pioneer even in his day can not be overlooked. I think if you could go back in time and ask Harry Wright who he thought was the father of baseball, he would probably give the nod to Chadwick. <br /><br />Basically there is no right or wrong answer, its like asking who invented a specific pitch; It always can be traced back one step further. However, I think Chadwick did the most over the longest period of time spanning the earliest days of pre-professionalism to the days when the modern game was firmly in place.<br /><br />Rhys Yeakley

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>He (Spalding) definitely muddied the water, but I don't know, did he destroy anything document wise that may have pointed to something solid? I doubt it. <br /><br />edited to add: (Spalding) in my response.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>One thing about Spalding and Doubleday that David Block discussed in his book (in a chapter written by David's brother Philip) is that when the Mills Commission published its results in 1905, the two were not strangers.<br /><br />In the late 19th century Albert Spalding vacationed in the Point Loma section of San Diego (for point of reference, both Don Larsen and David Wells went to Point Loma High School), and his wife attended some spiritual meetings led by Madame Blavatsky, a well known 19th century psychic. Well guess who else attended those meetings- Mrs. Abner Doubleday! So it's reasonable to believe that both Albert and Abner knew each other and were acquaintences years before Doubleday was anointed the inventor of baseball.<br /><br />Is it possible that the two had a clandestine meeting, and agreed to this whole charade beforehand? Who knows. But it's an amazing fact that has only been recently uncovered.<br /><br />(and not that it matters, but my oldest friend lives in Point Loma and I have visited it many times- a beautiful place indeed!)<br /><br />Edited to add Doubleday died in 1893, so let me rephrase my hypothesis- is it possible that when the Mills Commission was looking for the game's inventor, Spalding was well acquainted with Doubleday, and while he knew that Doubleday had nothing to do with the game, felt he would be the perfect person to fill the role? However it worked out, they already knew each other.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>Spalding was a sneaky bastard... Getting John Ward out of the country with him in 1888 on his World Tour while John Brush was instituting the player classification system.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>ramram</b><p>My vote is Cartwright. He was the "voice" of the formulating group. <br /><br />I also say that, if it wasn't for the civil war, baseball today may have been no more popular than lacrosse or, at the least, baseball today would be about 50 years behind where it is now.<br /><br />Rob M.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Maybe in the end we should just say the Founding Fathers of the game were the esteemed members of the Knickerbockers, among them Alexander Cartwright, who jointly codified the rules of baseball and laid the groundwork for our national pastime.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>I think you're right Barry...and thanks for starting this thread. I learned a lot.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>I was hoping we would have a stimulating discussion, which we did...but did you happen to notice how few people actually chimed in? <img src="/images/sad.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Tom Russo</b><p>Barry, you mention that Mrs. Spalding and Mrs. Doubleday knew each other at least through Madame Blavatsky. Has there ever been any mention as to why Doubleday's widow went along with the Mills Commission report? She had to know that it was nonsense.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I was going to add something to this thread but I didn't have anything worthwhile to add. With that being said I vote for Harry Wright being the Father of Baseball....as I have a card of him. It's always about "me" <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>....

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Leon- that's the best reason yet.<br /><br />Tom- I don't know when Mrs. Doubleday died; it's possible it occurred before 1905. I really should read that chapter again, as there are many details I'm sure I've forgotten.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Steve Murray</b><p>It has to be Harry Wright otherwise Barry would have to change his ebay handle to alexandercartwright <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>Heh! I've always kind of liked AJC and we share a birthday too...I wanted to name my kid AJ Cartwright Bretta, but my wife nixed it (she nixed all baseball related names <img src="/images/sad.gif" height=14 width=14> ). Imagine if she'd let me and documents were uncovered that showed he had ZERO to do with the formation of the modern game's rules. Would I have gotten a do over?<br /><br />You think there were baseball fans that named their kid Abner because of their love for baseball?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Steve is right- my ebay handle is in honor of my favorite 19th century baseball figure.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jerry Rucker</b><p>I'm with Leon on this one because I don't have a Cartwright card.<br /><br /><p><img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/ruckers/hofcards/websize/wright.jpg" width="517" height="640">&lt;/p&gt;

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>You know, when I wrote articles on a regular basis for VCBC, I checklisted all the known photographs of Cartwright, Chadwick, and Wright, and clearly Harry Wright had far more known than the other two.<br /><br />Unfortunately, that article appeared in issue #7, the one that turns out to be the hardest to find.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ken W.</b><p>Dan,<br /><br />I like your theory about why the Hall named the ballfield after Doubleday - to keep the Spalding people happy. But what I have never understood, is why the opening of the Hall to commemorate the centennial of the Game's invention occurred in 1939 (the Doubleday myth stems from 1839)? And furthermore, if they were still intent on sticking with this story, why wasn't Doubleday inducted? I realize they had already inducted 3 classes starting in 1936, and maybe it just took three years to complete the process - which coincidently corresponded to the centennial of the myth. Does anyone know when the Doubleday story began to fall out of favor with true baseball historians? Nice thread.<br /><br />Ken

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>I think the Doubleday myth has been widely known as a myth amongst baseball historians for a very long time...and true historians of the game never accepted the Mills Commission findings. There are no known documents where Doubleday even mentions baseball...he was nowhere near Cooperstown in 1839, he was at West Point and the only testimony came from someone who was only 5 years old in 1839...who actually went on to murder his wife. Not a very credible witness. A 1911 Encyclopedia article on Doubleday doesn't even mention baseball so it's evident that historians didn't buy into Spalding's ruse.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Max Weder</b><p>(OK, so I know that Travis Henry is the father in football, and Shawn Kemp is the father in basketball, but don't know about baseball....)<br /><br />I'd pick Henry Chadwick, but that's only because Harry never wrote a book about baseball.<br /><br />Max

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>Well Chadwick was the most vocal opponent of Spalding on the matter of Abner Doubleday, but he never proclaimed himself to be the father of the game.<br /><br />And here's one for Barry...George Wright was on the Mills Commission so there's no way Harry Wright could be considered the real father of the game if his own brother didn't think so. <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>CarltonHendricks</b><p>There certainly is a lot of contention over this subject. Allow me to introduce physical evidence which doesn't necessarily prove Alexander Cartwright the father of baseball, but lends its self to that conclusion. <br /><br />I wrote a story some time ago on a c1876 baseball clock; I dubbed "The Muller Clock" for its designer. In the story I presented speculation one of the men depicted in the relief work may have been Alexander Cartwright. My speculation was based on physical similarity, and that he and other Knickerbockers members laid out the rules for the first modern style baseball game on June 19th 1846. The story doesn't conclude it's him, but when the rendering is compared side by side with Cartwright's photo, I think most will agree there is a resemblance. If the rendering was intended to be Cartwright, certainly he would have had to have been held in considerable esteem. The clock was produced about 30 years after that inaugural rule setting game. However, as I recall he left the region shortly thereafter for Hawaii. So it's not like he was around to establish a renowned reputation.<br />Below, the images I refer to, as well as a link to the story on my site:<br /><a href="http://www.sportsantiques.com/MullerBBClk.htm" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.sportsantiques.com/MullerBBClk.htm</a><br /><img src="http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc120/CarltonHendricks/CartCompare.jpg" /><br /><img src="http://i213.photobucket.com/albums/cc120/CarltonHendricks/BigMullerClockCr.jpg" /><br /><a href="http://www.sportsantiques.com/MullerBBClk.htm" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.sportsantiques.com/MullerBBClk.htm</a>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Dan- I was not aware that George Wright was on the Mills Commission...interesting.<br /><br />Carlton- that is a famous clock, and while one of the men in the center does resemble Cartwright, it's a tough call because if you look at daguerreotypes from that period, everyone looked that way. Even Abner Doubleday could have had that style beard in 1839. So there is a leap of faith.<br /><br />Regarding the Doubleday myth, when I was a kid in the late 1950's and early 1960's, I was taught that Doubleday invented baseball. I can assure you at that time I had never heard of Cartwright.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Tom Russo</b><p>Ken,<br />Just to clarify, Doubleday Field is owned by the Village of Cooperstown, whose citizens probably continued to accept the Doubleday myth long after it had been abandoned by historians. I don't think the Hall did the naming of the field. There is a plaque at the entrance of the Doubleday parking lot that states that in a radio poll, Americans voted Doubleday the most important figure in the first 100 years of baseball. So a lot of people were fooled for a long time.<br /><br />Barry,<br />Mrs. Doubleday died in January 1907. That is what raised my question as to whether the commission even spoke to her about whether Abner ever mentioned the game or his alleged playmate, Graves.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>I would have to go back to David's book and reread the chapter. It would seem to me that if she had the choice, she would like the idea that her husband would be dubbed this heroic figure. Or perhaps she was senile at the time. I don't know.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>The commission did not investigate Graves claim that Doubleday invented baseball. They took it at face value because it held everything that Spalding was looking for, an American beginning to the game...and what better story than to have it not only American, but also invented by an American hero? We have to remember that The Mills Commission was a reaction to Chadwick's article in 1903 that the game evolved from the British game of Rounders.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>First off, Chadwick's assertion that baseball evolved from rounders has been disproved by David Block, who found numerous references to baseball much earlier than the earliest known one to rounders. So there is an instance where even Chadwick was wrong.<br /><br />And Abner Graves was an eccentric and colorful individual who was far from a credible witness. If anything, people found him to be a bit daffy (as opposed to dizzy).

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Rhys</b><p>Here is a neat Harry Wright signed letter written to his Shortstop Bob Allen with some interesting content. It even has his ink smudged fingerprint on the back of the letter.<br /><br />Rhys<br /><br /><img src="http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff129/prewarsports/hw.jpg"><br /><img src="http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff129/prewarsports/hw2.jpg"><br /><img src="http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff129/prewarsports/hw3.jpg"><br /><img src="http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff129/prewarsports/hw4.jpg">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Rhys- that is exceptional- great baseball content (including mention of Ed Delahanty) and twice signed by Wright, with the original envelope. I know that is part of that fabulous find you made.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Joann</b><p>Great conversation. I think the reason more don't join in is because (if they are anything like me) they don't think they can add to the knowledge - just take it away. <br /><br />But I have always half followed and been interested in the auto industry, and I think there is an interesting parallel between the invention of baseball and the invention of the automobile.<br /><br />Both have indistinct beginnings, in that the end item evolved over time from a variety of similar concepts. Town ball and rounders = early steam devices and other horseless conveyance designs going back to DaVinci.<br /><br />Both have an individual that is widely considered to be the inventor by students of the topic and maybe some casual fans, although even then there is debate as to the true role of this individual. Alexander Joy Cartwright = Karl Benz.<br /><br />Both have another individual who is somehow most widely associated with the beginning of the game/industry as the person that gave it legs, that did some significant thing to help spur growth. Harry Wright did all that Barry described above, and Henry Ford took the auto out of the rich-boy-hobby category and made it a mass phenomenon - even a backbone of the country. Harry Wright = Henry Ford<br /><br />I guess the only difference is the Abner Doubleday business - the person still mistakenly thought to have invented the item by many mainstream Americans. I suppose that in a way, Henry Ford plays that role as well.<br /><br />Interesting topic though, and I thought the parallels of the role of actual inventor versus major catalyst were pretty dead on. Heck, even the basic timelines (at least when looked at in the context of all of North American history) are not that far off.<br /><br />Joann<br /><br />ETA that I can't think of anymore offhand, but I bet there are dozens of huge cultural-center type things in the US and world that would have similar parallels: related concepts early on, one individual (or very few) that crystallize the thinking to one core design, and another individual (or few) that shoot the invention to the stars.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Henry Ford may not have invented the automobile, but he certainly played a pivotal role in mass producing them.<br /><br />Abner Doubleday, on the other hand, likely had nothing to do with baseball on any level.<br /><br />Interesting comparison, however, between baseball and the automobile.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>I grew up believing that Abner Doubleday devised a set of rules that helped transform town ball into base ball. Then I learned that he didn't, and fellows like Cartwright and others did more to enhance the game. Then I read up on this and saw that many of our current beliefs are based on a lack of first hand information. New things pop up every year about baseball's origins. <br /><br />It's kind of like Lewis Black's skit about eggs...first they were good for you...then they were bad for you...and now it seems that they might just be good for you after all.<br /><br />Three points are often made to discredit Doubleday's link to baseball - He was not in Cooperstown in 1839, he never mentioned baseball in his numerous writings, and Abner Graves lacked credibility. <br /><br />Abner Graves was motivated enough to submit a letter to the Mills Commission that gave his opinion about baseball's early days. He even responded when asked questions about what he wrote. In his first letter he never claimed Doubleday devised new rules in the summer of 1839, merely stated it could be any of three years. The Commission concluded it had to be the summer of 1839 and now we know that they were probably wrong. Did Abner Doubleday present the three or four suggestions to improve their game or did Graves make them up in his head? Or was it some other boy? <br /><br />James Fenimore Cooper mentions in a novel that boys were playing base ball on the green in Cooperstown around this same time period. Assuming they were playing town ball, it seems clear to me that nearly every single boy in town participated when they could. Abner Doubleday had two brothers so I believe that a Doubleday or two (or three) played town ball in Cooperstown when they were kids. Graves probably played ball with Abner Doubleday's younger brother who was closer in age to him.<br /><br />Did Abner Doubleday possess the mental faculties and leadership qualities to convince the other kids to play a new game that didn't require 25 to 50 players? Of course he did.<br /><br />But Doubleday never mentioned baseball in his writings. Does that prove he never played town ball or base ball? How many of our nation's leaders did mention baseball in their writings in the 19th Century?<br /><br />I do not think we know enough about what occurred in Cooperstown back in the late 1830's or early 1840's to say for sure what happened. Did anyone who grew up with Abner Graves object when they heard the news? What research has been done on primary sources of information? Both John Ward and Al Spalding were members of the Mills Commission and no doubt had strong opinions on baseball's origins. It's hard to imagine that both were fooled by a crackpot from out West. <br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>There are numerous books pre-1839, including a German one from 1796, that include rules for baseball, and even use the term "baseball." You need go no further than that to know that the game was played prior to 1839.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Corey R. Shanus</b><p>To my knowledge no credible baseball historian believes Abner Doubleday had anything to do with the invention of baseball, period. And that the Mills Commission was nothing more than a ruse by Albert Spalding to capitalize on the patriotism extant in the aftermath of the Spanish American War to Americanize baseball and, in the process, sell some more of his sporting equipment. Probably the most prominant baseball historian of the period, Henry Chadwick, regarded the Mills Commission findings as a joke and something not to be taken seriously. The fact that a form of baseball might have been played in Cooperstown in or around 1839 is irrelevant because there is ample documentation that both the name baseball as well as many, if not all, of its current rules long predate 1839. Just the fact that Abner Doubleday is not even a member of the HOF tells enough what knowledgable people think of his association to baseball.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Max Weder</b><p>A very good book on the origins of baseball is David Block's Baseball Before We Knew It<br /><br /><img src="http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51mh%2BOumC6L._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU15_AA240_SH20_.jpg"><br /><br />Max

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>corey: Baseball is not the invention of one person. Didn't Chadwick claim baseball sprang from rounders so any differing opinion must be wrong? <br /><br />My point is we shouldn't dismiss Abner Graves' comments in his letter until we know for certain they are wrong. Boys and men played ball in Cooperstown around 1839-1842. That is a fact. Did any one of them, as Graves claimed, try to systemize the game they played making it one step closer to baseball? If so, then they contributed a piece in the evolution of the game. Sure Graves wasn't the first boy to play "baseball", but he seemed to be the first adult to remember specific changes to the game of his childhood. <br /><br />If Graves was completely wrong, then the boys of Cooperstown learned of new rules from somewhere else. With many of them joining the military that may have been the place where the opportunity to play a different game arose. <br /><br />What historians have published their findings about Cooperstown's early baseball history?<br /><br />The fathers of baseball are probably the American Boys of the 1800's. <br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>Well, here we have proof that organized ball playing came before Graves claims of Doubleday and Cooperstown so he should be eliminated from the mix anyway.<br /><br /><a href="http://bid.robertedwardauctions.com/bidplace.aspx?itemid=8163" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://bid.robertedwardauctions.com/bidplace.aspx?itemid=8163</a>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Corey R. Shanus</b><p>Annoymous,<br /><br />That's exactly the point -- baseball is not the invention of one person. And that is the reason the Doubleday connection is so stupid. To the typical American, he is the ONE who INVENTED baseball. The best that can possibly be said about him, assuming what Graves "remembered" over 60 years later is true, is that he was one mere link in a chain of many links that lead to the development of today's game. The roots of the game in America had already been long established, brought overseas from England, and it is an extraordinary stretch to believe anything the Knickerbockers did would have been any different had Doubleday never existed.<br /><br />However, given the bias of the Mills commission and mandate given it by Spalding, its impartiality has been so compromised as to make its <br />work product essentially worthless.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>The Doubleday story has become a great embarrassment to the Hall of Fame, because when it opened to the public in 1939, it was to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the invention of the game.<br /><br />As the years passed and it became increasingly clear that the entire myth was untrue, the Hall had to figure out a way to tactfully deal with this fallacy. It had to be a public relations disaster.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>Dan: The 1837 Olympia Rules is a significant find. That auction also has a photo of Abner Doubleday in it's baseball section. What's he doing there?<br /><br />One site which has a chronological list of early baseball mentions is www.retrosheet.org/Protobell/Fat2.06htm<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>Baseball collectors pay a premium for CDV's and cabinets of Abner Doubleday not because they believe he invented baseball, but because over time he has become a mythological figure in baseball lore.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>DD</b><p>I was in a Chinese restaurant yesterday and posed this question to the maitre'd. Of course, he said Cartwright. It's funny that when he said that, a bald guy in glasses showed up.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Oh, that will 5-10 minutes! <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>anthony</b><p>i bought my 15 yr old "baseball a film by ken burns" for christmas and we watched the first inning yesterday. man did my son have a ton of questions after watching it. i watched it several years ago but it never gets old.<br /><br />i always thought it should be abner doubleday as the father of baseball but after watching it again, now i see it should be alexander cartwright in my opinion. it does seem that there were several major players (mainly wright, cartwright, chadwick, doubleday) in really turning baseball into what it is today so maybe we can call them our "forefathers" or "fourfathers" and not consider just one.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>Doubleday really has no right to be considered with the company of Wright, Chadwick or Cartwright. There is no evidence at all that he had anything to do with baseball.