I came hear to say, “what about lil’ rastus?” But then I re read some stuff and realized what I had heard and remembered about that situation may have been completely inaccurate. So you may be onto something. But he’s for sure the example that people grab when they’re comparing bad behaviors and that might not be fair.
I just read Leehsen’s book about six months ago. But Charles Alexander…! (Kidding.)
In one of those weird coincidences of life, I’m from Detroit, and then we move to the mountains of Western Carolina where Cobb Creek cuts through our property, his grandparent’s family graves are just up the mountain, and Ty Cobb spent his summers here where he played ball in town. Again: weird.
Did you read the blog? Pretty sure I did, and I told the readers to go and Google what was said. I don't want to write what was yelled at Cobb; it is inappropriate.
It’s possible to hold two separate thoughts about Cobb.
1) he was one of the greatest player to ever play the game, period. A remarkable player in virtually every aspect of play.
He also was one of the more troubled players to ever don a uniform. Even for the era in which he played. Which is saying something because there were some real….characters during that period. It’s possible to admire the hell out of the player, and be deeply disturbed by the man.
Both of you are possibly wrong here. Alan, you didn’t read what the author said. But Dean, I looked it up, like you said. And if I had to guess, I don’t think Cobb’s outrage was because the man with no hands was using the N-word. I’d guess Cobb was apoplectic because the guy was calling HIM the N-word. Maybe not exculpatory of the charge of racism.
I'm uncinvinced by your take on the "fighting a guy with no hands" incident. You act as if what the man said was a horrible insult to Cobb, but from what I can tell he just "accused" him of having black ancestry.
That definitely makes the disabled man horribly racist, and it's wildly offensive, but no I wouldn't take that as a reason to get angry at him for the insult, only for the racism. Cobb didn't seem to get angry at racism more broadly, so we should assume he took being called black (or mixed race) as such a bad insult it's worth going blind with rage and beating someone up.
Yes, I think it's fair to call him racist. Maybe not all that much kore than most at the time, but most baseball players from then aren't remembered for anything like that. And the fact that this event goes unmentioned, that it's the only part if the article that you ask us to look up a ting as if we'd unquestionably agree with your point leaves a bad taste in my mouth. The rest of the points are fine, but that one point alone makes me think the framing of it all is suspect.
There was another ball player who was lauded despite throw dirt into an umpire face on one occasion and hitting another at different occasions. He took federally banned substances (since the bulk of his career was during prohibition). His saving grace was that at one point he was the career and single season holder of home runs. Why Ruth is held to a different standard than Bonds and Cobb I think is because he played for the Yankees.
Cobb is a complicated person with some racist tendencies and did some favorable things for African Americans. But he is useful as a stereotypical racist as a rural southerner with a real temper. It is easy for people to use him as an example when there are far worse racists in Cooperstown, including Cap Anson who a force in creating the color line.
He probably wasn't super enlightened, but I agree, terrible racist is probably a stretch.
In 1952, he was reported to have said "The Negro should be accepted and not grudgingly but wholeheartedly. The Negro has the right to compete in sports, and who is to say they have not?"
Nice article. Thanks for writing it. I did find myself scratching my head at this though:
*But I encourage you to go and look at what the man was yelling at Cobb that provoked him. Go, look it up and come back. You back? Cool, wouldn’t you do the same?*
Now, I a have no problem believing some (many? Most?) whites in the 1910s would be angered at aggressively and persistently having their racial background called into question. But i don't believe many would be upset by the racial component of the harassment now. I certainly wouldn't. And it sounds like you're suggesting you would
I don't understand Leerhsen getting name dropped here and not Charlie Alexander whose Cobb biography long antedates Leerhsen's and did a lot of the debunking.
But that still shortchanges Alexander. Weird to shit on someone for not knowing this history and then shortchange a writer who got there first decades before because YOU don't know the history.
I misplaced my reply but I'll reiterate - your preference doesn't change which writer came first in the debunking. To not acknowledge the one (did you actually read it?) while claiming to prefer the other doesn't change who got there first. If you respect the history it would be nice if you respected the actual historians while you pretend to be one.
Derek, I can see you are a historian. Glad to meet a fellow historian! Got my degree about five years ago. Since you’re questioning whether I “know the history” and accusing me of “pretending” to be a historian, let’s separate the actual historical method of writing here. Let’s also remember this is a blog and not one of your “books”
Nowhere in my blog do I claim to be a historian. This is a baseball blog, my man.
If you read the blog, I never claimed Charles Leerhsen was the first writer to challenge the traditional portrayal of Ty Cobb. In fact, my article explicitly says “Leerhsen and others have debunked” these stories.
As I said, I am aware of Charles Alexander’s work. I found it while researching Cobb. I chose to discuss Leerhsen because I have read his book and prefer his treatment of the subject. If I were writing a “book,” I would probably reference more than one writer. But again, this is a blog.
Alexander predating Leerhsen does not create an obligation to cite Alexander every time Leerhsen is discussed. Historical writing is selective. There are writers who predate both Alexander and Leerhsen, but I don’t see you defending them? Have some respect for past historians; why don’t you?
There is no rule of historical methodology that requires me to mention every writer that spoke on a topic. If that were the standard, which it isn’t, virtually every historical article would require an exhaustive historiographical review. Again, this is a blog.
Also, omission is not the same thing as historical error. The relevant question is whether omitting Alexander makes anything I actually wrote about Cobb false or materially misleading. I did not.
If there is a specific sentence in my article that is historically inaccurate because I did not cite Alexander, let me know.
I have a feeling there is a little bias here in your argument. Disagreeing with another writer’s source selection certainly isn’t grounds for deciding that I am “pretending” to be a historian.
It doesn't require a book to acknowledge the work that comes before that does what you claim the latter book does, especially in a post where YOU have accused another writer of being bad at history (which it is). It's disingenuous to imply otherwise. One line acknowledging Alexander's work after it's been pointed out that you ignored it and after you claim to be aware of it is all you needed to do. Yes, ommission is its own sin. Make the edit, don't make the edit, but don't shit on one guy for being sloppy with history and then refuse to fix something that is easily fixed when it's pointed out to you. Just add a sentence. It's all you have to do.
I thought the same thing listening to the interview. The book Ty Cobb: Terrible Beauty is a great book and worth the time to read it....Cobb was a certainly a complex human and a product of his time. I will say I remember in the book it talks about how Willie Mays is the only modern player he would pay to see play and Cobb was in favor of integration....Cobb was an easy target for Stump and he took advantage of and maligned his character for over 50 years. Whether one agrees with all that's written in Terrible Beauty there is enough evidence to point that Cobb was not the monster he's made out to be. Good post.
But one came after the other. If part of your argument is debunking, not acknowledging an early effort at debunking is to give short shift to the "research" you claim to have done.
I came hear to say, “what about lil’ rastus?” But then I re read some stuff and realized what I had heard and remembered about that situation may have been completely inaccurate. So you may be onto something. But he’s for sure the example that people grab when they’re comparing bad behaviors and that might not be fair.
Totally unfair
Thanks for this. I had read negative things about Mr. Cobb probably based on Stump’s book. Makes a person wonder about motivation.
Share it to the world
Good article, Bud.
I just read Leehsen’s book about six months ago. But Charles Alexander…! (Kidding.)
In one of those weird coincidences of life, I’m from Detroit, and then we move to the mountains of Western Carolina where Cobb Creek cuts through our property, his grandparent’s family graves are just up the mountain, and Ty Cobb spent his summers here where he played ball in town. Again: weird.
You failed to mention WHY Cobb jumped into the stands in 1912 to beat a man within inches of his life.
Cobb was not in anyway a good man, not by any stretch of the imagination. Not by any standard of any era.
Did you read the blog? Pretty sure I did, and I told the readers to go and Google what was said. I don't want to write what was yelled at Cobb; it is inappropriate.
You can’t on one hand say Cobb wasn’t that bad of a guy, then on the other try to both minimize and justify why he attacked a disabled man.
Just my opinion. It feels very much like creating a scenario where the opinion of the man is justified
Did you look to see what the man said to Cobb? Also, the blog is to show the lies about Cobb.
It’s possible to hold two separate thoughts about Cobb.
1) he was one of the greatest player to ever play the game, period. A remarkable player in virtually every aspect of play.
He also was one of the more troubled players to ever don a uniform. Even for the era in which he played. Which is saying something because there were some real….characters during that period. It’s possible to admire the hell out of the player, and be deeply disturbed by the man.
I think you are missing the point of this blog.
Probably. I usually miss the obvious.
It’s a gift.
Both of you are possibly wrong here. Alan, you didn’t read what the author said. But Dean, I looked it up, like you said. And if I had to guess, I don’t think Cobb’s outrage was because the man with no hands was using the N-word. I’d guess Cobb was apoplectic because the guy was calling HIM the N-word. Maybe not exculpatory of the charge of racism.
I'm uncinvinced by your take on the "fighting a guy with no hands" incident. You act as if what the man said was a horrible insult to Cobb, but from what I can tell he just "accused" him of having black ancestry.
That definitely makes the disabled man horribly racist, and it's wildly offensive, but no I wouldn't take that as a reason to get angry at him for the insult, only for the racism. Cobb didn't seem to get angry at racism more broadly, so we should assume he took being called black (or mixed race) as such a bad insult it's worth going blind with rage and beating someone up.
Yes, I think it's fair to call him racist. Maybe not all that much kore than most at the time, but most baseball players from then aren't remembered for anything like that. And the fact that this event goes unmentioned, that it's the only part if the article that you ask us to look up a ting as if we'd unquestionably agree with your point leaves a bad taste in my mouth. The rest of the points are fine, but that one point alone makes me think the framing of it all is suspect.
The man also said terrible things about his family.
There was another ball player who was lauded despite throw dirt into an umpire face on one occasion and hitting another at different occasions. He took federally banned substances (since the bulk of his career was during prohibition). His saving grace was that at one point he was the career and single season holder of home runs. Why Ruth is held to a different standard than Bonds and Cobb I think is because he played for the Yankees.
Cobb is a complicated person with some racist tendencies and did some favorable things for African Americans. But he is useful as a stereotypical racist as a rural southerner with a real temper. It is easy for people to use him as an example when there are far worse racists in Cooperstown, including Cap Anson who a force in creating the color line.
He was a terrible racist, though--wasn't he? But most white Georgians of that era were.
I think terrible racist would be a stretch.
He probably wasn't super enlightened, but I agree, terrible racist is probably a stretch.
In 1952, he was reported to have said "The Negro should be accepted and not grudgingly but wholeheartedly. The Negro has the right to compete in sports, and who is to say they have not?"
https://www.mlb.com/news/book-sheds-new-light-on-cobbs-character/c-135677818
By today’s standards, I think so. By those of the early 20th century, maybe not.
Not judging him by today's standards
He, at the time, stood out from the rest and was actually progressive when it came to race relations.
Nice article. Thanks for writing it. I did find myself scratching my head at this though:
*But I encourage you to go and look at what the man was yelling at Cobb that provoked him. Go, look it up and come back. You back? Cool, wouldn’t you do the same?*
Now, I a have no problem believing some (many? Most?) whites in the 1910s would be angered at aggressively and persistently having their racial background called into question. But i don't believe many would be upset by the racial component of the harassment now. I certainly wouldn't. And it sounds like you're suggesting you would
I don't understand Leerhsen getting name dropped here and not Charlie Alexander whose Cobb biography long antedates Leerhsen's and did a lot of the debunking.
Because I read Leerhsen’s book.
But that still shortchanges Alexander. Weird to shit on someone for not knowing this history and then shortchange a writer who got there first decades before because YOU don't know the history.
Oh man here we go.
I saw Alexander’s work in my research. I like Charles’ work better.
That’s not knowing history, that’s having a preference.
I misplaced my reply but I'll reiterate - your preference doesn't change which writer came first in the debunking. To not acknowledge the one (did you actually read it?) while claiming to prefer the other doesn't change who got there first. If you respect the history it would be nice if you respected the actual historians while you pretend to be one.
Derek, I can see you are a historian. Glad to meet a fellow historian! Got my degree about five years ago. Since you’re questioning whether I “know the history” and accusing me of “pretending” to be a historian, let’s separate the actual historical method of writing here. Let’s also remember this is a blog and not one of your “books”
Nowhere in my blog do I claim to be a historian. This is a baseball blog, my man.
If you read the blog, I never claimed Charles Leerhsen was the first writer to challenge the traditional portrayal of Ty Cobb. In fact, my article explicitly says “Leerhsen and others have debunked” these stories.
As I said, I am aware of Charles Alexander’s work. I found it while researching Cobb. I chose to discuss Leerhsen because I have read his book and prefer his treatment of the subject. If I were writing a “book,” I would probably reference more than one writer. But again, this is a blog.
Alexander predating Leerhsen does not create an obligation to cite Alexander every time Leerhsen is discussed. Historical writing is selective. There are writers who predate both Alexander and Leerhsen, but I don’t see you defending them? Have some respect for past historians; why don’t you?
There is no rule of historical methodology that requires me to mention every writer that spoke on a topic. If that were the standard, which it isn’t, virtually every historical article would require an exhaustive historiographical review. Again, this is a blog.
Also, omission is not the same thing as historical error. The relevant question is whether omitting Alexander makes anything I actually wrote about Cobb false or materially misleading. I did not.
If there is a specific sentence in my article that is historically inaccurate because I did not cite Alexander, let me know.
I have a feeling there is a little bias here in your argument. Disagreeing with another writer’s source selection certainly isn’t grounds for deciding that I am “pretending” to be a historian.
It doesn't require a book to acknowledge the work that comes before that does what you claim the latter book does, especially in a post where YOU have accused another writer of being bad at history (which it is). It's disingenuous to imply otherwise. One line acknowledging Alexander's work after it's been pointed out that you ignored it and after you claim to be aware of it is all you needed to do. Yes, ommission is its own sin. Make the edit, don't make the edit, but don't shit on one guy for being sloppy with history and then refuse to fix something that is easily fixed when it's pointed out to you. Just add a sentence. It's all you have to do.
Thanks for this adding Ty Cobb: A Terrible Beauty to my read list.
It is a must read.
Good work. I appreciate the research. I’ll check out the Terrible Beauty book.
Cobb was also an early investor in the Coca-Cola company, and some of its bottling plants and became as wealthy as the Tigers’ owner.
I thought the same thing listening to the interview. The book Ty Cobb: Terrible Beauty is a great book and worth the time to read it....Cobb was a certainly a complex human and a product of his time. I will say I remember in the book it talks about how Willie Mays is the only modern player he would pay to see play and Cobb was in favor of integration....Cobb was an easy target for Stump and he took advantage of and maligned his character for over 50 years. Whether one agrees with all that's written in Terrible Beauty there is enough evidence to point that Cobb was not the monster he's made out to be. Good post.
make sure to let ken burns know too.
But one came after the other. If part of your argument is debunking, not acknowledging an early effort at debunking is to give short shift to the "research" you claim to have done.