Ty Cobb not the monster many have made him out to be?

[Hot Springs Bathers]

Taylor- I would question your "research", contemporary accounts disagree with your findings. As I have said before Charles Alexander's reputation as a historian and researcher are impeccable. The most irritating thing for historians is to have authors discount actual contemporary accounts by reading between the lines to "revise" history to their liking. Not saying you did this but history is history.

About three years ago on the SABR Deadball Era discussion group the then director of the Cobb Museum tried to "revise" history and he was ripped to shreds by over 20 historians including John Thorn.

Cobb was one of the greatest players of all time and must have had some wonderful qualities but the facts are that he was very troubled and had a violent nature. The real puzzle is that he showed in his investments and business dealings that he had a wonderful mind just never able to control his anger.

As far as him receiving special treatment by the courts, and police, just look at today's athletes?

[Joshchisox08]

Originally Posted by Hot Springs Bathers

Taylor- I would question your "research", contemporary accounts disagree with your findings. As I have said before Charles Alexander's reputation as a historian and researcher are impeccable. The most irritating thing for historians is to have authors discount actual contemporary accounts by reading between the lines to "revise" history to their liking. Not saying you did this but history is history.

About three years ago on the SABR Deadball Era discussion group the then director of the Cobb Museum tried to "revise" history and he was ripped to shreds by over 20 historians including John Thorn.

Cobb was one of the greatest players of all time and must have had some wonderful qualities but the facts are that he was very troubled and had a violent nature. The real puzzle is that he showed in his investments and business dealings that he had a wonderful mind just never able to control his anger.

As far as him receiving special treatment by the courts, and police, just look at today's athletes?

Mike,

Read the Leerhsen book, he does a good job and perhaps in your judgement of Alexander an uphill battle at defaming his theories on Cobb. He gives definitive proof on responses from Alexander himself when Leerhsen questioned where he received information on the three fights.

Alexander admitted to Leerhsen he didn't have factual information on, nor did he research the race of the individuals in question. Which in hindsight would presumably be an assumption. And if you can earn respect off of assumptions well shit I'll write a book my own off of them.

[byrone]

Originally Posted by Joshchisox08

Mike,

Read the Leerhsen book, he does a good job and perhaps in your judgement of Alexander an uphill battle at defaming his theories on Cobb. He gives definitive proof on responses from Alexander himself when Leerhsen questioned where he received information on the three fights.

Alexander admitted to Leerhsen he didn't have factual information on, nor did he research the race of the individuals in question. Which in hindsight would presumably be an assumption. And if you can earn respect off of assumptions well shit I'll write a book my own off of them.

What kind of gun did Alexander claim was used to kill Cobb?

[tschock]

Originally Posted by byrone

What kind of gun did Alexander claim was used to kill Cobb?

Yeah. That was one thing Alexander got wrong, indicating it was a shotgun, yet all the contemporary accounts indicate it was a revolver (or some form of handgun). It appears the 'shotgun' account was first encountered in Stump's TRUE magazine article, though there could be an earlier first reference that appeared in the mid '50s.

To be fair, Alexander got many (most?) things right, and one mistake doesn't prove others, but it should caution those to trust everything as written. His book was a product of the '80s in that he had no where near the access to the information that is available today online (court records, birth certificates, newspaper accounts, etc), which makes this type of research a bit easier and more comprehensive (assuming you filter out the noise of the internet).

[tschock]

Regarding the Larry Ritter award.

"The Larry Ritter Award winner’s work must demonstrate original research or analysis, a fresh perspective, compelling thesis, impressive insight, accuracy, and clear, graceful prose. Charles Leerhsen’s new Ty Cobb biography contains these requisites in abundance.'

For those that quetion Leerhsen's work. Do you really think SABR is sacrificing "accuracy" (along with the research) simply for a "fresh perspective" or "clear, graceful prose"?

[Pilot172000]

Originally Posted by tschock

Regarding the Larry Ritter award.

"The Larry Ritter Award winner’s work must demonstrate original research or analysis, a fresh perspective, compelling thesis, impressive insight, accuracy, and clear, graceful prose. Charles Leerhsen’s new Ty Cobb biography contains these requisites in abundance.'

For those that quetion Leerhsen's work. Do you really think SABR is sacrificing "accuracy" (along with the research) simply for a "fresh perspective" or "clear, graceful prose"?

For those who have more experience. Could any of you provide a short list of quality Cobb biographies? I am about to purchase the Leerhsen book and would like to cross reference it with some others.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Pilot172000

For those who have more experience. Could any of you provide a short list of quality Cobb biographies? I am about to purchase the Leerhsen book and would like to cross reference it with some others.

War on the Basepaths by Tim Hornbaker

That book was released the same day as Leehrsen's and is superior, IMHO.

[Joshchisox08]

Originally Posted by tschock

Yeah. That was one thing Alexander got wrong, indicating it was a shotgun, yet all the contemporary accounts indicate it was a revolver (or some form of handgun). It appears the 'shotgun' account was first encountered in Stump's TRUE magazine article, though there could be an earlier first reference that appeared in the mid '50s.

To be fair, Alexander got many (most?) things right, and one mistake doesn't prove others, but it should caution those to trust everything as written. His book was a product of the '80s in that he had no where near the access to the information that is available today online (court records, birth certificates, newspaper accounts, etc), which makes this type of research a bit easier and more comprehensive (assuming you filter out the noise of the internet).

I actually found his book very bland. But maybe it's just me. Everyone else seems to like him.

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by Joshchisox08

Mike,

Read the Leerhsen book, he does a good job and perhaps in your judgement of Alexander an uphill battle at defaming his theories on Cobb. He gives definitive proof on responses from Alexander himself when Leerhsen questioned where he received information on the three fights.

Alexander admitted to Leerhsen he didn't have factual information on, nor did he research the race of the individuals in question. Which in hindsight would presumably be an assumption. And if you can earn respect off of assumptions well shit I'll write a book my own off of them.

A big +1 here also,

Larry

[Pilot172000]

So just throwing this out there.... General consensus who is a worse villain Ty Cobb or Al Stump???

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by Pilot172000

So just throwing this out there.... General consensus who is a worse villain Ty Cobb or Al Stump???

Stump, hands down. He was a leach.....

[Pilot172000]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

Stump, hands down. He was a leach.....

As a newbie, if you review the last 8 pages of this thread, you could easily come to the conclusion that the only thing everyone can come to an agreement on is Stump

[SteveMitchell]

Charles Leerhsen, author of Ty Cobb: A Terrible Beauty, has produced a 5-minute video for Prager University. He points out facts and fiction regarding the immortal Cobb's character and actions, and some general principles applicable to all of us today. It is an enlightening 4 minutes 51 seconds, at: https://www.prageru.com/courses/hist...w-case-ty-cobb

Steve Mitchell

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Hot Springs Bathers

Taylor- I would question your "research", contemporary accounts disagree with your findings. As I have said before Charles Alexander's reputation as a historian and researcher are impeccable.

Might be the case but Alexander's work on Cobb is terrible. He made assumptions (when facts were available), got stuff wrong, and relied on Al Stump. These are not the things an "impeccable" historian does.

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Might be the case but Alexander's work on Cobb is terrible. He made assumptions (when facts were available), got stuff wrong, and relied on Al Stump. These are not the things an "impeccable" historian does.

+1.

Regards,

Larry