Good read here. The New York Times archives is also a source.
In 1923 early in the season Ruth did use the "Crawford Bat" which was not a corked bat but was a laminated bat. This bat was used by a number of hitters and was not illegal at that time.
Ruth and all others who used it were told by the commissioner they could no longer use that type of bat.
Does anyone remember what it took to find news stories 10 years ago? You went to the library and looked it up. If you're going to find info from the past which people really don't care to much about, you'll have to do things like going to the Library and checking out a reach Guide or contacting the NY Times in order to search their archives.
Miner, there is no conspiracy to brand Ruth a cheater, everyone always knew he was a bad boy. The only reason people bring it up is to bring perspective on punishing other supposed cheaters. Pose the question to baseball fans of the past, (ask it before Bonds lived) "Did Ruth bend the rules", and they'd laugh at you. "Of course he did you fool, who didn't!", they'd say.
PinotResa wrote:Good read here. The New York Times archives is also a source.
In 1923 early in the season Ruth did use the "Crawford Bat" which was not a corked bat but was a laminated bat. This bat was used by a number of hitters and was not illegal at that time.
Ruth and all others who used it were told by the commissioner they could no longer use that type of bat.
Does anyone remember what it took to find news stories 10 years ago? You went to the library and looked it up. If you're going to find info from the past which people really don't care to much about, you'll have to do things like going to the Library and checking out a reach Guide or contacting the NY Times in order to search their archives.
Miner, there is no conspiracy to brand Ruth a cheater, everyone always knew he was a bad boy. The only reason people bring it up is to bring perspective on punishing other supposed cheaters. Pose the question to baseball fans of the past, (ask it before Bonds lived) "Did Ruth bend the rules", and they'd laugh at you. "Of course he did you fool, who didn't!", they'd say.
well youve showed no proof of ruth breaking any rule so far. youve showed two instances of ruth using bats that werent illegal at the time.
and no i definetly dont remember going to the library to do this type of research.
i mean how would we have this type of debate? through chain letters?!
Last edited by The Miner Part 2 on Wed May 31, 2006 7:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
August 20, 1923: A 4-piece bat used by Ruth is banned by AL president Ban Johnson because of the glue used on it. A protest is made against the Browns' Ken Williams for using a bat with a wooden plug in it. Johnson rules that all bats must be one piece with nothing added except tape extending to 18 inches up the handle.
so the bat was banned, but it wasnt illegal when he used it correct?
There are reports, of which you'd have to consult the achieves of the NYT and other papers of the time to get %100 confirmation, of Ruth using the Crawford bat many times beyond the 1923 season. These reports are from people who have done the research. Yes at this time it is hearsay, however these people have no reason to lie about the research they've done. Personally I could care less. The other guys were probably using them too, to hit spit and scuffed balls right after the guy on second stole signs and after umpire called a pitch which was 5 inches outside a strike....GET IT?
I remember the annoucer of for the M's...can't remember the name , but he was a player too... I remember Ruth's bats were on display in Seattle when this guy was a player, he found a plug for corking in one of them. It was on the news.
Last edited by PinotResa on Wed May 31, 2006 7:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
August 20, 1923: A 4-piece bat used by Ruth is banned by AL president Ban Johnson because of the glue used on it. A protest is made against the Browns' Ken Williams for using a bat with a wooden plug in it. Johnson rules that all bats must be one piece with nothing added except tape extending to 18 inches up the handle.
so the bat was banned, but it wasnt illegal when he used it correct?
I dont think you understand why we brought up the Ruth comparison. The bat that Ruth used was later banned by Ban Johnson, but it wasnt against the rules or illegal in the MLB when Ruth was using it. You would say he is not cheating.
Barry Bonds alledgedly used steroids, before they were against the rules or illegal in the MLB. Yet you say he is cheating.
Do you understand why people think the Bonds Haters here are hypocrites?
The Mets [b]will[/b] win the World Series this year.
August 20, 1923: A 4-piece bat used by Ruth is banned by AL president Ban Johnson because of the glue used on it. A protest is made against the Browns' Ken Williams for using a bat with a wooden plug in it. Johnson rules that all bats must be one piece with nothing added except tape extending to 18 inches up the handle.
so the bat was banned, but it wasnt illegal when he used it correct?
There are reports, of which you'd have to consult the achieves of the NYT and other papers of the time to get %100 confirmation, of Ruth using the Crawford bat many times beyond the 1923 season. These reports are from people who have done the research. Yes at this time it is hearsay, however these people have no reason to lie about the research they've done.
I remember the annoucer of for the M's...can't remember the name , but he was a player too... I remember Ruth's bats were on display in Seattle when this guy was a player, he found a plug for corking in one of them. It was on the news.
Ya thats the part from baseball abstract, check my quoted post about 3 or 4 pages back.
The Mets [b]will[/b] win the World Series this year.
The_Met_Threat wrote:Do you understand why people think the Bonds Haters here are hypocrites?
back to the pot calling the kettle black. you are doing the same exact thing, just with far less evidence to support what you say. well actually zero evidence.
August 20, 1923: A 4-piece bat used by Ruth is banned by AL president Ban Johnson because of the glue used on it. A protest is made against the Browns' Ken Williams for using a bat with a wooden plug in it. Johnson rules that all bats must be one piece with nothing added except tape extending to 18 inches up the handle.
so the bat was banned, but it wasnt illegal when he used it correct?
I dont think you understand why we brought up the Ruth comparison. The bat that Ruth used was later banned by Ban Johnson, but it wasnt against the rules or illegal in the MLB when Ruth was using it. You would say he is not cheating.
Barry Bonds alledgedly used steroids, before they were against the rules or illegal in the MLB. Yet you say he is cheating.
Do you understand why people think the Bonds Haters here are hypocrites?
BINGO.
I love the response Miner Part 2. 'When Ruth used these bats they weren't illegal...'
Well neither were steroids when Bonds used them in baseball. You just contradicted yourself....again.
The_Met_Threat wrote:Do you understand why people think the Bonds Haters here are hypocrites?
back to the pot calling the kettle black. you are doing the same exact thing, just with far less evidence to support what you say. well actually zero evidence.
Maybe you cant tell from my posts but i am not taking any certain bias as to whether Ruth cheated or not, i am just trying to prove a point. I am not calling out Ruth as a cheater and trying to get him taken out of the hall of fame or some BS like that, I am showing a comparison of someone who did something that now is considered against the rules of baseball, before the policy was implemented. The certain situations between Ruth and Bonds are essentially the same thing, that is what my ultimatum boils down too.
Now whether or not Ruth used a corked bat after the ban is just hearsay. Whether you want to believe those two seattle announcers who found the corked Ruth bat, its all hearsay just like these Bonds rumors.
The Mets [b]will[/b] win the World Series this year.
PinotResa wrote:Good read here. The New York Times archives is also a source.
In 1923 early in the season Ruth did use the "Crawford Bat" which was not a corked bat but was a laminated bat. This bat was used by a number of hitters and was not illegal at that time.
Ruth and all others who used it were told by the commissioner they could no longer use that type of bat.
Does anyone remember what it took to find news stories 10 years ago? You went to the library and looked it up. If you're going to find info from the past which people really don't care to much about, you'll have to do things like going to the Library and checking out a reach Guide or contacting the NY Times in order to search their archives.
Miner, there is no conspiracy to brand Ruth a cheater, everyone always knew he was a bad boy. The only reason people bring it up is to bring perspective on punishing other supposed cheaters. Pose the question to baseball fans of the past, (ask it before Bonds lived) "Did Ruth bend the rules", and they'd laugh at you. "Of course he did you fool, who didn't!", they'd say.
well youve showed no proof of ruth breaking any rule so far. youve showed two instances of ruth using bats that werent illegal at the time.
and no i definetly dont remember going to the library to do this type of research.
i mean how would we have this type of debate? through chain letters?!
See the thing is, before Bonds there wasn't one person contesting the validity of the Ruth cheated facts, it was known as precedent of baseball history. You're best off acknowledging that Ruth scuffed balls, used spitballs, trick bats and supported an illegal industry(beer, mafia beer). It's real and it'll help you and the people out to get Bonds deal with reality. People cheat, it's part of life and it's too bad one of these guys had to be so damn good, black and have a chip on his shoulder directed toward the 4th branch of our government.
Oh no! A likely cheater passes a known cheater on a list which isn't adjusted for ball park, HR per AB or PA rate, opposing pitchers, mound height or accomplishments of peers. Big friggen’ deal. Ruth is still statically far beyond the HR hitter Bonds will ever be. Seems like people around here would understand that and show it.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by The Miner Part 2 » Wed May 31, 2006 7:14 pm 
