THE BRITISH THREAD II

A snippet from Google-

Quote:

In American football, the forward pass was invented precisely because the original running game of football, with its infamous flying wedge, was getting too rough and dangerous. The forward pass was intended to make the game safer but some "purists" derided it as "unmanly."

0 Replies

Spendy might be right.

The catcher's mitt seems too big and unnecessary- although it looks as though it would make it more difficult to catch the ball, not easier.

Mind you Spendy, there's a difference in the energy and velocity of the ball which has just left the pitcher or the bat, to one which has reached the back row of the stands.

Is it only the catcher who has a mitt, or do all the fielders have one too?

Did you hear the one about the drunk baseball player?
He was the catcher on the rye.
boom-boom

0 Replies

The Office for National Statistics, btw, has reported that well-off people drink more alcohol than poor ones, and that men drink more than women.

I'd really like to know whether the comfortable middle classes are more likely to drive Mercedes-Benz cars and to live in large houses than the poorer members of society.

0 Replies

Mac wrote-

Quote:

Is it only the catcher who has a mitt, or do all the fielders have one too?

I think they all do. They can't afford dropped catches and their Mums hearing people call their sons, who they are immensely proud of, "butterfingers" and sniggering. It can cause erectile dysfunction I've heard.

Even Forest Gump was a hero.

Not allowing the ball to pitch on delivery is a real cop out don't you think? I should think Matt Hayden could knock every pitch out of the ground if the bounce is taken away. I've not once seen a baseball batter get hit. And think of the range of shots a cricket audience gets to appreciate. In baseball they just swipe at it.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Spendy might be right.

Mind you Spendy, there's a difference in the energy and velocity of the ball which has just left the pitcher or the bat, to one which has reached the back row of the stands.

Is it only the catcher who has a mitt, or do all the fielders have one too?

They all have leather "gloves", and the designs differ somewhat from position to position, particularly the first baseman's. The catcher's glove is called a "mitt" and it is indeed of a special design. Catching a pitched fastball moving at 90+ miles per hour from a crouch immediately behind the batter does indeed require specially designed protection for the hand.

0 Replies

But george, you're evading the point. Apart from the wicket-keeper in cricket none of the other fielders wear any gloves. The wicket keeper is like your catcher. The reason he needs gloves is because his hands couldn't take the pounding.

The point is that gloves make catching easier and less risky. You should watch cricket sometime and compare the fielding feats of cricketers with those of your guys.

We are aiming at the idea that your games are designed to make your men look tougher and more skilful than they really are so that Mom & Co gets more chances to be proud of her son.

What do you think. It is a big theme in your movies. Effete actors looking tough.

Maybe you missed my post on the ID thread (I think) about From Here To Eternity and how it couldn't have been written by a writer here.

0 Replies

And neither could anything like The Carpetbaggers. The wallowing in faked machismo I mean.

I'm not criticising it you should know. I see it as to be expected in a tradition deriving from turning a wilderness into a paradise. Enow.

I just think you should get over it and I for one would love to see you in the proper football World Cup and being a match for the best cricket sides. A five match series of five games over five days each with 9 days much needed rest between them with the US and Australia starting here about 1400 hrs would be a real treat to last a summer. The US winning it 3 to 2 would even better but really I can't see it. Those Aussies are real tough cookies and no mistake and there's hardly 30 million of them. They're fiends.

0 Replies

Baseball was very popular here at one time (Derby County FC play at The Baseball Ground, for example) and I think we had a professional or a semi-p league, but the fad passed.

When was that, 1880s? Probably a bit later.

0 Replies

Peaked in the 1930s

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseball_in_the_United_Kingdom

"One milestone of baseball in the United Kingdom was the 1938 victory of Great Britain over the United States to win the inaugural World Cup of Baseball.

"

0 Replies

Did we piss all over them Mac?

Did they slink back home with their tail between their legss by any chance?

And vowing to stick to their own game?

Who turned out for us? Were they any good?

0 Replies

British team (from):

Blenkinsop, Featherstonehaugh, Cholmondeley, Smithers
Braithwaite, Cartwright, Begby, Clegg
Jones A, Jones C, Jones M, Reece, Pritchard
McTavish, McGonagall, Lauriston, Grant
McHugh, Pugh, Barney McGrew, Casper, Dibble, and Grubb

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

The Office for National Statistics, btw, has reported that well-off people drink more alcohol than poor ones, and that men drink more than women.

I'd really like to know whether the comfortable middle classes are more likely to drive Mercedes-Benz cars and to live in large houses than the poorer members of society.

Amazing what statistics can do. Soon they will be proving poor people have less money than rich people. Still it keeps someone in a job.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Mac wrote-

Quote:
Is it only the catcher who has a mitt, or do all the fielders have one too?

I think they all do. They can't afford dropped catches and their Mums hearing people call their sons, who they are immensely proud of, "butterfingers" and sniggering. It can cause erectile dysfunction I've heard.

Even Forest Gump was a hero.

Not allowing the ball to pitch on delivery is a real cop out don't you think? I should think Matt Hayden could knock every pitch out of the ground if the bounce is taken away. I've not once seen a baseball batter get hit. And think of the range of shots a cricket audience gets to appreciate. In baseball they just swipe at it.

very true Spends

0 Replies

The Baseball Ground

...you know I never considered that. Thanks Mct

So we beat the Yanks at their game in 1938. That makes me feel a lot better about 1950.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

But george, you're evading the point. Apart from the wicket-keeper in cricket none of the other fielders wear any gloves. The wicket keeper is like your catcher. The reason he needs gloves is because his hands couldn't take the pounding.

The point is that gloves make catching easier and less risky. You should watch cricket sometime and compare the fielding feats of cricketers with those of your guys.

We are aiming at the idea that your games are designed to make your men look tougher and more skilful than they really are so that Mom & Co gets more chances to be proud of her son.

What do you think. It is a big theme in your movies. Effete actors looking tough.

Maybe you missed my post on the ID thread (I think) about From Here To Eternity and how it couldn't have been written by a writer here.

I don't think I am evading any point, but I may well be missing some of your meaning. (I have given up on the ID thread.)

I think it is fairly clear that our baseball is in part a derivative of cricket. As a boy I played Irish football and later, in grad school I played on a West Coast rugby club. It is clear that these games and football (both European and American) have common origins.

I think your proposition that our games are "designed" to make the players look tougher/more skillful than they really are is a bit off the mark. I don't know cricket well enough to judge, but I do know that it is not possible to catch a pitched fastball, or a fast line drive from the batter, with an unprotected hand without immediate injury.

For American football inparticular, I believe the sport has become so specialized and so finely attuned to its spectator value and the expert & specialized coaching involved, as to more resemble the battles of professional gladiators in Rome (or Sumo wrestlers in Japan) than a sport accessible to ordinary people. The fact is that most professional players are worn out by injuries after a few years. 300 pound linemen and 240 pound running backs are the rule. The elaborate equipment is there just to limit injuries, but the whole thing has become something rather weakly related to anything ordinary people can do or enjoy themselves, and I don't think any conclusions based on it have much generally applicable meaning.

0 Replies

Australia uses as a fielding coach an American baseball fielding coach.
Mike Young - Australian fielding coach

I believe he spent some time in UK as well.

0 Replies

Geoge wrote-

Quote:

I have given up on the ID thread.

In that case you would never take an interest in cricket.

0 Replies

A nice story from AA Gill concerning Australian philistinism.

A rather refined doyen of English Literature gave a lecture in Australia about principles of dramatic presentation or somesuch.

At the end he asked for questions. A dingo-basher at the back stood up and asked if he had met Diana Rigg.

"I have actually", he said, "anymore questions?

Another DB got to his feet and asked-

"What's she like?".

0 Replies

He should have said- "Was she any good?"

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

British team (from):

Blenkinsop, Featherstonehaugh, Cholmondeley, Smithers
Braithwaite, Cartwright, Begby, Clegg
Jones A, Jones C, Jones M, Reece, Pritchard
McTavish, McGonagall, Lauriston, Grant
McHugh, Pugh, Barney McGrew, Casper, Dibble, and Grubb

late repacements:

Little, Biggar, Small and Weir
Hunt, Lunt, and Cunningham

0 Replies

THE BRITISH THREAD II

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know