Quote:
Originally Posted by Hot Springs Bathers
I have a degree is history and have been researching baseball history for over 40 years. The first rule I have found that most historians agree on is that when you have a large sample of first hand accounts they out weigh revised history.
We all have our favorites in baseball. I personally have read every possible source on Ruth and had the chance to visit with Bill Dickey many years ago to ask him about the Babe. I find Ruth to be very confusing, how intelligent was he, how out of control was he? I still have no firm opinion.
With that said, no player has had more "current revisionist history" printed about him than Cobb. There seems to be a "he couldn't have been as bad as they said about him" attitude. I lean on the first hand accounts which seem to say that yes he might not have been a great human being. A great player yes and as collectors we all see his cards rising. But?
|
True with regard to personal opinions and firsthand accounts of actual events. Not true of second or third hand accounts. At all.
Also, when what has been written about a person over the years has been demonstrably and provably false and misleading, what are we to think? We obviously cannot throw it all away and say that Cobb was a saint and just misunderstood, but it is equally vapid to simply not pay attention when new information comes to light.