Roberto Clemente Signature "Bob"

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

While it is oft said today that "Bob" was offensive or he hated it on blogs and boards, I have yet to see a primary source for this claim whenever I ask for one. He seems to have signed his name as Bob some of the time, making it difficult for me to see how the narrative can be correct. Perhaps evidence will surface to clear it up.

There aren't a ton of Clemente interviews out there if you are looking for primary sources. But there are numerous articles describing his objection to being called "Bob."

For instance, this SABR article: "Prince was celebrating his 25th anniversary in broadcasting, and Clemente invited him to Puerto Rico, where he described him as “one of the best friends I have in the world” – indeed, Prince might have been the only person who could refer to Clemente as Bobby and not be upbraided for it – and bestowed on him one of his prized possessions: The silver bat he was presented in 1961 for the first of his four batting titles."

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

There aren't a ton of Clemente interviews out there if you are looking for primary sources. But there are numerous articles describing his objection to being called "Bob."

For instance, this SABR article: "Prince was celebrating his 25th anniversary in broadcasting, and Clemente invited him to Puerto Rico, where he described him as “one of the best friends I have in the world” – indeed, Prince might have been the only person who could refer to Clemente as Bobby and not be upbraided for it – and bestowed on him one of his prized possessions: The silver bat he was presented in 1961 for the first of his four batting titles."

I'm aware of these much later articles stating this claim. Where they got this claim is the question, as nobody can seem to locate a primary source.

Let's use this SABR example here to illustrate the problem, and its claim that Clemente didn't like the name and would upbraid anyone but Bob Prince who called him Bobby. No citation is made directly for this claim, but the content of the Prince discussion here seems to come from citations 9 and 11 (10 is an endnote without a citation about something else). These citations are to Kal Waggenheim's 1973 biography of Clemente. I don't have a print copy, but I have a digital. I searched for every instance of "Prince" in the book and read every page it appears. Nowhere in this book, which does not have any footnote or endnote citations of its own sourcing, does the claim appear at all. So then I searched for "Bobby" and checked every time that word appears.

In fact, the book does quote Bob Friend referring to Clemente as Bobby. It also has a long section from Tony Bartirome, about his memories of "the good friend he called Bobby". Tony said "Everybody knows what kind of ball player Bobby was, but I'll miss him the most as a man. He was probably the best friend I ever had in this game", before recounting some anecdotes about Clemente through which he repeatedly calls his friend Bobby (Clemente called him "dago").

So where did SABR get this claim from? I don't know. Certainly not from this book that the rest of the Prince comments are taken from. This book, in fact, strongly suggests he had other friends who called him Bobby without any controversy.

I ask each time it comes up, I've never seen a real source for this story. Everything from the time seems to suggest the opposite, as far as I can find. When something is linked, it is a secondary source that, upon reading its citations, reveals the citations do not support what it says at all. It seems to be a story that people like, but that does not make such a story so. A claim to fact needs to have evidence, in all things. If I say Bismarck did this, or Frederick Douglas did that, or Babe Ruth did X or Roberto Clemente thought Y, I should be able to point to actual evidence.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

I'm aware of these much later articles stating this claim. Where they got this claim is the question, as nobody can seem to locate a primary source.

Let's use this SABR example here to illustrate the problem, and its claim that Clemente didn't like the name and would upbraid anyone but Bob Prince who called him Bobby. No citation is made directly for this claim, but the content of the Prince discussion here seems to come from citations 9 and 11 (10 is an endnote without a citation about something else). These citations are to Kal Waggenheim's 1973 biography of Clemente. I don't have a print copy, but I have a digital. I searched for every instance of "Prince" in the book and read every page it appears. Nowhere in this book, which does not have any footnote or endnote citations of its own sourcing, does the claim appear at all. So then I searched for "Bobby" and checked every time that word appears.

In fact, the book does quote Bob Friend referring to Clemente as Bobby. It also has a long section from Tony Bartirome, about his memories of "the good friend he called Bobby". Tony said "Everybody knows what kind of ball player Bobby was, but I'll miss him the most as a man. He was probably the best friend I ever had in this game", before recounting some anecdotes about Clemente through which he repeatedly calls his friend Bobby (Clemente called him "dago").

So where did SABR get this claim from? I don't know. Certainly not from this book that the rest of the Prince comments are taken from. This book, in fact, strongly suggests he had other friends who called him Bobby without any controversy.

I ask each time it comes up, I've never seen a real source for this story. Everything from the time seems to suggest the opposite, as far as I can find. When something is linked, it is a secondary source that, upon reading its citations, reveals the citations do not support what it says at all. It seems to be a story that people like, but that does not make such a story so. A claim to fact needs to have evidence, in all things. If I say Bismarck did this, or Frederick Douglas did that, or Babe Ruth did X or Roberto Clemente thought Y, I should be able to point to actual evidence.

The fact that he allowed his close friends to call him Bob or Bobby is not a great indicator that he didn't dislike the press, or people that weren't his friends to call him Bob or Bobby. But yes, there may be no primary sources proving that he didn't like to be called Bob.

[Peter_Spaeth]

IF Clemente hadn't objected to Bob, why did Topps change his cards back to Roberto in 1970?

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

IF Clemente hadn't objected to Bob, why did Topps change his cards back to Roberto in 1970?

Somewhat of a fair point, but if it was indeed his objection that stopped the practice, it took him about 13 years to say something, so he couldn't have cared all that much.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by BillyCoxDodgers3B

Somewhat of a fair point, but if it was indeed his objection that stopped the practice, it took him about 13 years to say something, so he couldn't have cared all that much.

Just because it took Topps 13 years to change it back to Roberto doesn't mean it took Roberto 13 years to object.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Just because it took Topps 13 years to change it back to Roberto doesn't mean it took Roberto 13 years to object.

Exactly.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Just because it took Topps 13 years to change it back to Roberto doesn't mean it took Roberto 13 years to object.

OK, maybe, but maybe not. Let's say he objected early on and "Topps were being assholes" for years after the fact. If it truly mattered so much to him, why didn't he just pull a Maury Wills and tell Topps to take a hike when it came to using his image, etc.? Surely, Roberto didn't need their insulting chicken scratch or a new dishwasher or whatever. He could buy whatever he wanted without Topps' paltry payout.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

IF Clemente hadn't objected to Bob, why did Topps change his cards back to Roberto in 1970?

Maybe because he was also and more commonly known by Roberto.

Any claim to fact should have an evidentiary basis, whether I like it or not. If there is no evidentiary basis, it is just a myth people have created. There’s not a separate rule set for claims I like or dislike. Maybe there is a real source for this claim, but I’ve never seen one and nobody ever provides one. Thus I am skeptical of the claim, as one should be of any claim to fact they hear from anyone about anything for which no evidence surfaces. In this particular instance of the general “Bob” legend, the source even contradicts the story being told and unequivocally does not say what the article claims. There are many stories of history told that I like; but it doesn’t make them so.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

Maybe because he was also and more commonly known by Roberto.

Any claim to fact should have an evidentiary basis, whether I like it or not. If there is no evidentiary basis, it is just a myth people have created. There’s not a separate rule set for claims I like or dislike. Maybe there is a real source for this claim, but I’ve never seen one and nobody ever provides one. Thus I am skeptical of the claim, as one should be of any claim to fact they hear from anyone about anything for which no evidence surfaces. In this particular instance of the general “Bob” legend, the source even contradicts the story being told and unequivocally does not say what the article claims. There are many stories of history told that I like; but it doesn’t make them so.

Of course a primary source would be better, but I am betting there are all sorts of things we accept as received wisdom for which there are no primary sources.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Of course a primary source would be better, but I am betting there are all sorts of things we accept as received wisdom for which there are no primary sources.

Yes people believe many myths. That doesn’t make it correct, or true or wise. If we choose to believe myths we like just because we like them, without evidence, we are not rational people.

1) We have, for the narrative: unsourced claims of current writers and internet boards, and that Topps called Clemente Bob on only some, instead of all, of his Topps cards.

2) We have, against: that he sometimes signed as Bob and primary sources claims that at least some of his friends called him Bobby and that there is apparently no evidence he objected (if it exists, it can be posted and terminate the debate instantly).

To believe 1 over 2, with the evidentiary body provided, demands throwing reason away to select what one would like to select anyways.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

We do know that Albert Belle hates "Joey", but he indeed signed that way as a rookie. Don't you dare ask him to do so now, though!