Glory of Their Times

[Hankphenom]

That's an impressive ancestry of anti-racists, for sure, but is Ty known to have followed their lead in any fashion? 1952 seems a little late to be standing up for the right of blacks to play in the majors, if that's his first comment about it for the record. Is there any indication of Cobb having played in exhibitions against black teams, as so many white players did in those days? And the lack of documentation of his racial attitudes among Leerhsen's 40,000 articles doesn't surprise me, I would guess that to be true of most major leaguers of the era, it just wasn't something they would be asked about or would want to discuss during that time. I realize I'm playing a bit of the Devil's Advocate here, but it seems like pretty thin gruel to chew on so far, especially when balanced against Crawford's searing anecdotes on the GOTT tapes. Sam and Ty weren't close, to be sure, but I'm dubious that Crawford would make this stuff up to Ritter at that point in his life to get back at Cobb, and then there is Jones's corroboration and expansion on much of what Crawford had to say.

[byrone]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

That's an impressive ancestry of anti-racists, for sure, but is Ty known to have followed their lead in any fashion? 1952 seems a little late to be standing up for the right of blacks to play in the majors, if that's his first comment about it for the record. Is there any indication of Cobb having played in exhibitions against black teams, as so many white players did in those days? And the lack of documentation of his racial attitudes among Leerhsen's 40,000 articles doesn't surprise me, I would guess that to be true of most major leaguers of the era, it just wasn't something they would be asked about or would want to discuss during that time. I realize I'm playing a bit of the Devil's Advocate here, but it seems like pretty thin gruel to chew on so far, especially when balanced against Crawford's searing anecdotes on the GOTT tapes. Sam and Ty weren't close, to be sure, but I'm dubious that Crawford would make this stuff up to Ritter at that point in his life to get back at Cobb, and then there is Jones's corroboration and expansion on much of what Crawford had to say.

My take on Sam Crawford from the GOTT is that he was more of a "Ty Cobb" than Cobb himself. Loner, curmudgeonly, jealous, etc.

As Crawford said, "Cobb “came up with an antagonistic attitude, which in his mind turned any little razzing into a life-or-death struggle,” Crawford recounted for Lawrence Ritter in The Glory of their Times years later. “He came up from the South, you know, and he was still fighting the Civil War. As far as he was concerned, we were all damn Yankees before he even met us.”

Little razzing indeed. Do you recall what they did to Cobb?

"The pretty thin gruel to chew on" would be calling someone a racist without evidence.

Regardless, no one should be called "racist" without strong evidence showing such.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by byrone

Little razzing indeed. Do you recall what they did to Cobb?

"The pretty thin gruel to chew on" would be calling someone a racist without evidence.

Regardless, no one should be called "racist" without strong evidence showing such.

Do you recall what Davy Jones answered when Ritter asked him why they pulled tricks on him? Cobb was getting into fights his whole life. And I'll take the evidence I heard on the tapes over the "thin gruel" that has been presented so far on the other side. I have no problem calling the entire country racist during that period, in fact there's still a lot of that going around. You can believe whatever you want, but let's not sugarcoat our history or start putting revisionist spins on it, it is what it is.

[byrone]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

Do you recall what Davy Jones answered when Ritter asked him why they pulled tricks on him? Cobb was getting into fights his whole life. And I'll take the evidence I heard on the tapes over the "thin gruel" that has been presented so far on the other side. I have no problem calling the entire country racist during that period, in fact there's still a lot of that going around. You can believe whatever you want, but let's not sugarcoat our history or start putting revisionist spins on it, it is what it is.

I'll leave it as is...calling a man racist with no evidence is wrong.
Perhaps if Cobb was your Grandfather you'd reconsider

I purchased your Walter Johnson book from you a few years ago, enjoyed it

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by byrone

I'll leave it as is...calling a man racist with no evidence is wrong.
Perhaps if Cobb was your Grandfather you'd reconsider

I purchased your Walter Johnson book from you a few years ago, enjoyed it

I'm glad you liked my book, Byrone, thanks for that. But you keep saying "no evidence" as if the Crawford and Jones tapes don't exist. I keep asking for some firm evidence that Cobb was somehow the opposite of what they claimed. There was considerable evidence to that effect about my grandfather, and I wrote about and documented it. Where's the evidence for Cobb? The games he played against black teams; contemporary admiration for the black players of his time; etc.? As for his fighting, he got into lots of fights for different reasons, not just when he was taunted from the stands. The good things I have to say about Cobb in my book far outweigh the bad things, something also reflected by the players in "Glory" the book and audio. I just don't see any reason to try to pretend that the bad wasn't there, too. Perhaps the picture of Cobb painted in the past did accentuate the bad to an unfair degree, and the one-sided impression created by Stump and others needed to be corrected, but there's no sense in going too far now in the other direction and trying to pretend he was some kind of saint. Feel free to respond to this, Byrone, then let's close it out, I'm all Cobbed out!

[byrone]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

I'm glad you liked my book, Byrone, thanks for that. But you keep saying "no evidence" as if the Crawford and Jones tapes don't exist. I keep asking for some firm evidence that Cobb was somehow the opposite of what they claimed. There was considerable evidence to that effect about my grandfather, and I wrote about and documented it. Where's the evidence for Cobb? The games he played against black teams; contemporary admiration for the black players of his time; etc.? As for his fighting, he got into lots of fights for different reasons, not just when he was taunted from the stands. The good things I have to say about Cobb in my book far outweigh the bad things, something also reflected by the players in "Glory" the book and audio. I just don't see any reason to try to pretend that the bad wasn't there, too. Perhaps the picture of Cobb painted in the past did accentuate the bad to an unfair degree, and the one-sided impression created by Stump and others needed to be corrected, but there's no sense in going too far now in the other direction and trying to pretend he was some kind of saint. Feel free to respond to this, Byrone, then let's close it out, I'm all Cobbed out!

Never said Cob was a saint. Don't think anyone ever has.

You seem to put a lot of weight on the possibility that he may have not played against black teams.
It was clear that once Cobb's Detroit season was over, that was it...off he went to Georgia without much thought of baseball. It's probably true that he didn't play much against white teams off-season either.
He hunted and rested mostly.
He detested spring training, often showing up only when he absolutely had to. While many players would need spring training to get in shape, Cobb was already in great shape, from all his hunting and hiking over the winter.

And as mentioned, if Crawford or others said that Cobb had no friends in baseball,they lied. He had plenty. And again, it wasn't that Cobb wanted to hang around ball players all year, he obviously enjoyed having time to himself.

I just don't see any reason to try to pretend that the bad wasn't there, too. Perhaps the picture of Cobb painted in the past did accentuate the bad to an unfair degree, and the one-sided impression created by Stump and others needed to be corrected, but there's no sense in going too far now in the other direction and trying to pretend he was some kind of saint


I guess that's what we are seeking, the truth. Was he sometimes bad? He sure was. But racist? I'm not so sure.

And I hate it when people flippantly throw around the word "racist"

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by byrone

Never said Cob was a saint. Don't think anyone ever has.

You seem to put a lot of weight on the possibility that he may have not played against black teams.
It was clear that once Cobb's Detroit season was over, that was it...off he went to Georgia without much thought of baseball. It's probably true that he didn't play much against white teams off-season either.
He hunted and rested mostly.
He detested spring training, often showing up only when he absolutely had to. While many players would need spring training to get in shape, Cobb was already in great shape, from all his hunting and hiking over the winter.

And as mentioned, if Crawford or others said that Cobb had no friends in baseball,they lied. He had plenty. And again, it wasn't that Cobb wanted to hang around ball players all year, he obviously enjoyed having time to himself.

I just don't see any reason to try to pretend that the bad wasn't there, too. Perhaps the picture of Cobb painted in the past did accentuate the bad to an unfair degree, and the one-sided impression created by Stump and others needed to be corrected, but there's no sense in going too far now in the other direction and trying to pretend he was some kind of saint


I guess that's what we are seeking, the truth. Was he sometimes bad? He sure was. But racist? I'm not so sure.

And I hate it when people flippantly throw around the word "racist"

I'm just looking for solid evidence one way or the other, of which very little has been presented in this thread. I have the voices on the tapes, which I believe present all sides of Cobb, many to the positive but also including Crawford's searing comments on his racial attitude. You think Sam made all that up? I doubt it, although you are right that he did exaggerate the extent of Cobb's lack of friends. As I pointed out in my original post, he had many friends, including my grandfather. Upon further evaluation, and as a result of your strenuous objections, I will no longer label Ty Cobb a racist until I see more evidence to that effect. I don't do anything "flippantly," but I did perhaps succumb to a common wisdom of long standing that deserves re-evaluation. On the other hand, I'm very surprised that the scholarship on Cobb in recent times doesn't seem to have established a firm answer to that question. All the letters he wrote? All the interviews he gave over his lifetime? All the articles, all the books? And we are still debating the question? I find that mystifying.

[byrone]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

Do you recall what Davy Jones answered when Ritter asked him why they pulled tricks on him? Cobb was getting into fights his whole life. And I'll take the evidence I heard on the tapes over the "thin gruel" that has been presented so far on the other side. I have no problem calling the entire country racist during that period, in fact there's still a lot of that going around. You can believe whatever you want, but let's not sugarcoat our history or start putting revisionist spins on it, it is what it is.

From Davy Jones' NY Times obituary


In an interview in 1970, Mr. Jones told how he spearheaded a strike in 1912 involving the centerfielder, met with club owners to patch things up and then helped to organize players’ fraternity, the forerunner to the present Major League Baseball Players Association.

“We were in New York and a fellow was insulting Cobb,” Mr. Jones said. “I told Cobb that if he didn't punch him in the nose then I would. Cobb went up there and gave the man a beating,” he said. Cobb was suspended and fined $500. Mr. Jones said that when Cobb had not been reinstated when the team moved to Philadelphia, he talked the Detroit players into walking out. They refused to play until Cobb was reinstated.

He was reinstated and league officials approved a rule allowing players the right to ask that tormentors bi ejected from ball parks.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

Do you recall what Davy Jones answered when Ritter asked him why they pulled tricks on him? Cobb was getting into fights his whole life. And I'll take the evidence I heard on the tapes over the "thin gruel" that has been presented so far on the other side. I have no problem calling the entire country racist during that period, in fact there's still a lot of that going around. You can believe whatever you want, but let's not sugarcoat our history or start putting revisionist spins on it, it is what it is.

The problem I have with this line of thinking is that it merely perpetuates the unfounded talking point that he was "constantly fighting the civil war". This connotes that his pugilistic attitudes were simply a product of his Southern upbringing. Just because Sam Crawford said it and many newspapers of the time said it does not make it so. That is way too simplistic and lazy for this exceedingly complicated man. "He is a Southerner and he is combative therefore he"... X y and z. Sorry not buying it. The revisionist history you describe is what has been written about Cobb since he arrived in Detroit. He was very hard to understand and frequently played into what was written about him during his playing career so as to use it to his advantage on the field of play. The press was all too eager and lazy to oblige.

And again, the mention of Cobb and "racist" together simply continues another lazy talking point that is unproven and actually contradicts much of the known facts about his life. What we know as fact shows that his lineage is that of Southerners who were sympathetic to the cause of blacks, that his quotes show a man supportive of the integration of baseball, and his actions show a great financial support of those less fortunate of all races. As you say, it is easy to show most all people from that era as being racist, especially using today's definition of the term. But he was certainty no moreso than the general public at large, and the facts show that he was likely less so.

The revisionist history is what Al Stump and other authors have done to his legacy. It's a lazy way of looking at a complicated man. Certainty no saint as you say. Hard to know and hard to like by many. But he obviously was also misunderstood even by many of those closest to him such as Sam Crawford who said in the Ritter tapes that he hadn't a friend in baseball. That is incorrect to the extreme and is contradicted by others on the tapes as well. So as to these firsthand accounts of Crawford and Jones which seem to be perhaps a bit clouded by personal feelings of animosity, possible jealousy, and the decades since the events had happened by the time they were interviewed by Ritter...always with a grain of salt.

[Case12]

Taken all together - Cobb was mean, but not evil....as such, it made him great....

[todeen]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

Do you recall what Davy Jones answered when Ritter asked him why they pulled tricks on him? Cobb was getting into fights his whole life. And I'll take the evidence I heard on the tapes over the "thin gruel" that has been presented so far on the other side. I have no problem calling the entire country racist during that period, in fact there's still a lot of that going around. You can believe whatever you want, but let's not sugarcoat our history or start putting revisionist spins on it, it is what it is.

+1

I made a comment similar to this in the Top 50 Hated Players thread, and it wasn't regarded highly by some there either.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

That's an impressive ancestry of anti-racists, for sure, but is Ty known to have followed their lead in any fashion? 1952 seems a little late to be standing up for the right of blacks to play in the majors, if that's his first comment about it for the record. Is there any indication of Cobb having played in exhibitions against black teams, as so many white players did in those days? And the lack of documentation of his racial attitudes among Leerhsen's 40,000 articles doesn't surprise me, I would guess that to be true of most major leaguers of the era, it just wasn't something they would be asked about or would want to discuss during that time. I realize I'm playing a bit of the Devil's Advocate here, but it seems like pretty thin gruel to chew on so far, especially when balanced against Crawford's searing anecdotes on the GOTT tapes. Sam and Ty weren't close, to be sure, but I'm dubious that Crawford would make this stuff up to Ritter at that point in his life to get back at Cobb, and then there is Jones's corroboration and expansion on much of what Crawford had to say.

As to playing against black players, yes. That is clearly true, at least for 5 games. In 1910, the Tigers went to Cuba for an exhibition series. Cobb and Crawford were both there, as numerous photos attest. Punch Cigarros issued an incredibly rare set of baseball cards including the Tigers team, one of which was Cobb. Other cards in the set depict players from the various Cuban teams, including negro league stars such as Pop Lloyd, Grant Johnson, Jose Mendez and Bruce Petway.

There are box scores showing that Cobb played at least 5 games in Cuba. In one game, Negro League catcher Bruce Petway threw him out stealing at least once and threw him out bunting at least once. Petway is reputed to have actually thrown him out 3 times, although I don't know that to be true. Lloyd, Johnson and Petway all out-hit him there and he is also reputed never to have played against black players again. But those 5 games can be substantiated for what its worth insofar as this discussion is concerned.

[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?

[btcarfagno]

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.

[Hot Springs Bathers]

Totally agree Tom but we have to be careful as to defining "what new has come to life."

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by Hot Springs Bathers

Totally agree Tom but we have to be careful as to defining "what new has come to life."

Absolutely. In a Terrible Beauty Leerhsen does have a good amount of research to back up his statements regarding what is fact, what is fiction, and what is a 50/50 he said/he said type of situation. You also must be able to separate some leaps of faith that he does make with regard to opinions on certain matters. As with much in the field of history, there is a lot of "if "this" is true and "that" is true, it is reasonable to assume that "this" is also true". It may be and it may not be the case. There are definitely a fair amount of reasonable assumptions going on in this work. However, the research he does regarding what was always assumed to be 100% fact that turns out to either be complete myth or at best a he said/he said 50/50 is enough to make the findings of this book shed some new light on the situation.

[Hot Springs Bathers]

Well said

[todeen]

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....

...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?

I have a MA in US History. My theory on life is everything is gray. There is no black and white. And that upsets many people. But people act out of necessity, and many times, necessity is controlled by uncontrollable forces (lessons learned very early in life from parents, experiences that affected outcomes, nature vs nurture ideas). That's also why we have the term hypocrite. As I said in another thread, a person can respect certain aspects of a different culture, and still treat people of that culture with disdain in other areas on life. As was said in an earlier post here, everyone in that generation was a racist. It is what it is.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by todeen

I have a MA in US History. My theory on life is everything is gray. There is no black and white. And that upsets many people. But people act out of necessity, and many times, necessity is controlled by uncontrollable forces (lessons learned very early in life from parents, experiences that affected outcomes, nature vs nurture ideas). That's also why we have the term hypocrite. As I said in another thread, a person can respect certain aspects of a different culture, and still treat people of that culture with disdain in other areas on life. As was said in an earlier post here, everyone in that generation was a racist. It is what it is.

So all the members of the Underground Railroad were racists? It doesn't matter that whites were risking their lives, and sometimes dying, helping blacks. Branch Rickey must have been a racist too. How about Pee Wee Reese?

[todeen]

Originally Posted by rats60

So all the members of the Underground Railroad were racists? It doesn't matter that whites were risking their lives, and sometimes dying, helping blacks. Branch Rickey must have been a racist too. How about Pee Wee Reese?

I'm a Christian man. The seed of hatred and discrimination lies within us all.

There has been and always will be the ability to accept one minority without accepting them all. There were many a white abolitionist who thought that removing Native Americans from their families and reservations and forcing them into schools far away so that they could assimilate into white culture was best for them and their kind.

And further, being an abolitionist didn't mean one stood for equality in all segments of society. Being an abolitionist meant that you didn't believe one man could subjugate and enslave another. Abolitionists weren't advocating interracial marriage. Many didn't even advocate women's right to vote.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[rats60]

Originally Posted by todeen

I'm a Christian man. The seed of hatred and discrimination lies within us all.

There has been and always will be the ability to accept one minority without accepting them all. There were many a white abolitionist who thought that removing Native Americans from their families and reservations and forcing them into schools far away so that they could assimilate into white culture was best for them and their kind.

And further, being an abolitionist didn't mean one stood for equality in all segments of society. Being an abolitionist meant that you didn't believe one man could subjugate and enslave another. Abolitionists weren't advocating interracial marriage. Many didn't even advocate women's right to vote.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

Some maybe, but ALL? All who were risking their lives were still racists? Isn't that diminishing what real racism is? People today like to throw around that term to make themselves superior to others they disagree with. Racism injured and killed real humans. It is a word that shouldn't be used lightly.

[carlsonjok]

Originally Posted by todeen

I'm a Christian man. The seed of hatred and discrimination lies within us all.

There has been and always will be the ability to accept one minority without accepting them all. There were many a white abolitionist who thought that removing Native Americans from their families and reservations and forcing them into schools far away so that they could assimilate into white culture was best for them and their kind.

And further, being an abolitionist didn't mean one stood for equality in all segments of society. Being an abolitionist meant that you didn't believe one man could subjugate and enslave another. Abolitionists weren't advocating interracial marriage. Many didn't even advocate women's right to vote.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

I think this is the salient point. I'm not a particularly active member here, nor am I anything approaching a competent baseball historian, but I have been blessed/cursed to have to walk this earth observing and evaluating my every move (ISTJ, represent!) Stereotyping is a common heuristic for dealing with unfamiliar situations. So, the question isn't whether a person is prejudiced or not, because everyone carries around some level of prejudice. The question is whether we can recognize that prejudice within ourselves and compartmentalize it away from our interactions with the world in general, and individuals specifically.

So, think of Cobb as Schrödinger's racist.