Most notable among current MLB all-stars with mediocre English skills is Ichiro Suzuki, the 35-year-old Japanese outfielder, who is in his eighth season with the Seattle Mariners.

Actually, from everything I've heard, Ichiro speaks English quite well these days. He just prefers to do interviews in Japanese because it's his native language, and he feels that he expresses himself much better that way. But watch Ichiro when he's on base - he'll talk to the other players all the time, and I doubt they're talking Japanese...

No, he just telepathically translates everything. He's like the TARDIS.

But actually, you're right. He could speak English reasonably solid before he came to the states.

Think of all the excellent [...] players who would have been barred from MLB if they had been required to speak English before playing in the big leagues.

Like Casey Stengel!

Think of all the excellent Latin-American players who would have been barred from MLB if they had been required to speak English before playing in the big leagues.

Personally, I know that if I left my job in the US and moved to another country to work, I'd be horribly offended if anyone suggested I needed to learn the language of my new country. It's their job to accommodate me, not the other way around.

Personally, I know that if I left my job in the US and moved to another country to work, I'd be horribly offended if anyone suggested I needed to learn the language of my new country. It's their job to accommodate me, not the other way around.

And if 40+ years of players from Mexico, the Carribbean, South America, Japan, China, and Korea has taught us anything, it's that it's simply physically impossible, to hit, throw, or catch a baseball unless you can speak fluent English at a post-game interview.

This is entirely silly
The best part of being a hockey fan the past couple years has been listening to Ovechkin try to struggle through an interview.
(OK maybe if I was something other than a Leafs fan that wouldn't be the best thing of the past 2 years...but I am, so there)

The best part of being a hockey fan the past couple years has been listening to Ovechkin try to struggle through an interview.

I still miss Esa Tikkanen interviews, where even his countrymen couldn't figure out what language he was speaking.

And if 40+ years of players from Mexico, the Carribbean, South America, Japan, China, and Korea has taught us anything, it's that it's simply physically impossible, to hit, throw, or catch a baseball unless you can speak fluent English at a post-game interview.

I've seen plenty of threads here arguing that steroid policies are discriminatory - more foreigners seem to get caught, and we wonder whether the policies are being appropriately translated to them. If they spoke English (and note, I don't know whether all or some or none of the individuals who have been suspended had whatever level of fluency - I just know that the argument has been made here several times), wouldn't that potentially help alleviate this? The job is not just about hitting and throwing. It's about understanding the rules. It's about being able to communicate with your coworkers and with your boss.

And beyond that - what about the requirements of simple daily living? Reading labels at the market, signing a lease, understanding the rules of the road.

I don't think the LPGA's argument was that you have to speak English to play golf well. But there's a lot more to being a professional golfer in the United States than just the golf.

Personally, I know that if I left my job in the US and moved to another country to work, I'd be horribly offended if anyone suggested I needed to learn the language of my new country. It's their job to accommodate me, not the other way around.

And if 40+ years of players from Mexico, the Carribbean, South America, Japan, China, and Korea has taught us anything, it's that it's simply physically impossible, to hit, throw, or catch a baseball unless you can speak fluent English at a post-game interview.

The bottom line is simple: If a star player chooses not to learn English, he obviously stands to lose a lot of money. And if he knows that and still doesn't want to take the effort, why should we particularly care one way or the other? This isn't the LPGA, where media and corporate relationships are far more critical to their sport's survival. So what's the big deal?

This isn't the LPGA, where media and corporate relationships are far more critical to their sport's survival.

We don't think media and sponsor relations are critical to baseball's survival? (Or at least baseball-as-we-know-it's survival?) Those huge media rights fees pay a big part of everyone's salary down on the field.

Would Steve Garvey have spent much of the 1970s and 1980s as a guest panelist on game shows if he only spoke Korean? Johnny Bench and the Baseball Bunch, in Spanish only? These players helped grow MLB's popularity through their off-the-the field contributions, and that growth in popularity trickled down to everyone in the league via increased revenue, etc.

If Michael Jordan had spoken no English, you don't think the NBA would have bent over backwards to make him learn it? Jordan doesn't become "JORDAN" if he doesn't speak English, and that would have cost the NBA millions and millions of dollars.

(And yes, I know Steve Garvey is a Nazi child molester with no soul. Even so, he was a Nazi child molester with no soul who swung a mean gong stick.)

If the players in the LPGA end up being predominantly Korean, I would imagine the LPGA will appeal mostly to Koreans, whether or not they can speak basic English. How close are we to that happening?

Of course it is clearly a public relations advantage to be multilingual in a sport with an international following. I certainly remember seeing post-game news conferences after Laker games in which Pau Gasol was asked some questions in English, some questions in Spanish, and answered each question in the language it was asked. That's his advantage. What Eamus Catulli just said about Jordan? Jordan himself had so much to gain from his marketability that his own self-interests overwhelm everything else.

This is a non-issue in the PGA, which is dominated by players from English-speaking countries, and many of those from countries other than that are Europeans (for instance, Garcia) who learn more languages in school anyway, or who have been in the United States for a long time (for instance, Villegas, who has an NCAA background.) Of course, the PGA's biggest marketing issue is that there's only one Tiger, and no substitute for Tiger.

The reason it comes up in the LPGA - the only reason - is the tremendous success of Korean female golfers. (And it's pretty hard not to recognize that a name is Korean, and pretty hard not to notice that a very small number of family names are very, very common in Korean - but at the same time, it's not easy to guess who lives in Korea and who might be Korean-American.) There are two possible responses: the first is the panicky, jingoistic, sense that "Oh, no, they're invading us and overwhelming our way of life. We've got to defend it! And the language requirement seemed aimed at that. But I can see a second possible response: somehow, the game, at least for women, is being marketed successfully in Korea. And in a sport that's small enough that a few niches might be pretty important, Korea is potentially a pretty big niche - there is money in that country, and consumers. How might the LPGA embrace Korea and make more marketing money in that direction?

I don't think English is the problem...Canada's a bilingual country after all.
MLB should make sure all their players speak French fluently as well...maybe then the Expos wouldn't have flopped! We still have all the francophones in Toronto to appeal to!

I have to commend Steve Garvey if he is a Nazi child molester. If we can do anything to mess up Nazi children than it may retard their capabilities as Nazi adults.

I've always enjoyed this (possibly apocryphal) story:

After hearing Kenny & Charles mocking foreign-born NBA draftee's poor English language skills during their post-selection interviews on TNT in 2002, Commissioner Stern walked up to the podium in between picks, and in front of the live television audience as well as the crowd at MSG, said "You know, when Kenny and Charles first came into the league, they didn't speak English either."


And as to the "sponsoring companies want the requirement" angle:

And one of the tour's title sponsor, State Farm, said it was "dumbfounded" by the initiative..

"We don't understand this and we don't know why they have done it," State Farm spokesman Kip Diggs told Advertising Age on its Web site. "And we have strongly encouraged them to take another look at this."

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hUbJhKCLRQv6DieBfbsOW7E6Q4NgD930MG5G0

"We don't understand this and we don't know why they have done it," State Farm spokesman Kip Diggs told Advertising Age on its Web site. "And we have strongly encouraged them to take another look at this."

If you go to the State Farm website and look up agents, each one will tell you which languages they speak in their particular office. I doubt the company is stupid enough to alienate that whole subset of policyholders by supporting a English-speaking proposition that had already generated an enormous backlash.

(Note - they may sincerely believe that it's silly. I'm not saying otherwise. I'm only pointing out that, whatever they really believed, it would have been business suicide to support this idea after the uproar it caused.)

Eamus Catuli Posted: September 06, 2008 at 02:36 PM (#2931201)

But there's a lot more to being a professional golfer in the United States than just the golf.

- like what?

and do MALE golfers have to "entertain and please" fat cat executives?

as for baseball players, except for jeter and a couple of guys who have already retired, like who makes off the field $$$ from TALKING?

This isn't the LPGA, where media and corporate relationships are far more critical to their sport's survival.

We don't think media and sponsor relations are critical to baseball's survival? (Or at least baseball-as-we-know-it's survival?)

The difference is that with 750 baseball players, a few stars here and there who don't speak English aren't likely to harm the corporate appeal of baseball all that much, since there are scores of other stars who are English-proficient to take their place. Whereas if (say) 3 or 4 of the top 10 LPGA players were non-English speakers, that might have much more of a negative effect. The status of any professional women's sport is never guaranteed from year to year. They're always going to need all the free publicity they can get.

I'm not saying that I agree with the requirement (which the LPGA has dropped, as it turns out), only that there's much more of a case to be made for it with the LPGA than there would be with baseball.

as for baseball players, except for jeter and a couple of guys who have already retired, like who makes off the field $$$ from TALKING?

You obviously haven't seen Pedroia's stellar acting job for Sullivan Tire on NESN.

Centuries ago, educated professional people almost always spoke multiple languages. Such a situation can almost only be a good thing, since it helps make the ability to speak multiple languages a prerequisite for political and economic influence, and that's something that more intelligent people tend to have, and less intelligent people tend to not have.

That's a very silly comment, Vaux, from any number of angles.

and do MALE golfers have to "entertain and please" fat cat executives?

I'm guessing here, but... yes. I suspect they do. One of the things pointed out in the original proposal was that there were people paying $10K+ to play in pro-ams with these LPGA golfers, and because of the language barrier there was basically no interaction at all between the people who paid to be there and the pros. These pro-ams go on for the male tour as well, and the cash paid to participate is probably a lot more than it is on the LPGA.

Would you pay $50K to play 18 holes with Tiger Woods, knowing that he wouldn't speak to you the whole time? You'd be playing together, but only in that you were on the same hole at the same time. No tips, no stories, no idle chitchat on the tee box.

vaux,

how many american born people on this here board do you think speak 2 languages fluently? and you can't ask for a board with a bigger group of more intelligent educated people

and hasn't nobody yet answered what exactly are the female golfers supposed to do to "entertain" male fat cats? or does tiger woods have to entertain them just as much

The difference is that with 750 baseball players, a few stars here and there who don't speak English aren't likely to harm the corporate appeal of baseball all that much, since there are scores of other stars who are English-proficient to take their place.

What if the 50 best baseball players were all non-English speakers? Would it still be OK?

I agree that if the Korean contingent on the LPGA were fighting to make the cut every week, this never would have been an issue. Though maybe it should be. Beyond the sports aspect of this, how lost would you feel moving to a country where you didn't speak the language? Shouldn't we be encouraging these people to learn English even simply as a way to make their daily lives better? It's not about suppressing the culture - if people want to speak Spanish or Korean or Chinese in the home, I don't think anyone has a right to stop them from doing so. But outside of the home, non-English speakers are at a decided disadvantage simply operating within American society.

and hasn't nobody yet answered what exactly are the female golfers supposed to do to "entertain" male fat cats? or does tiger woods have to entertain them just as much

Stop trying to make this into a gender thing. The LPGA is not pimping out these Koreans like scratch golfing hookers. And I would suspect that not all of the fat cats are male, either, especially where the LPGA is concerned.

The pro-ams are probably the biggest place where the golfers are asked to interact with the public and the sponsors. People aggregately put millions of dollars every year into the tour's coffers to get the chance to play golf with their favorite pros. The LPGA specifically called that out as a reason when this policy was floated.

Centuries ago, educated professional people almost always spoke multiple languages. Such a situation can almost only be a good thing, since it helps make the ability to speak multiple languages a prerequisite for political and economic influence, and that's something that more intelligent people tend to have, and less intelligent people tend to not have.

I'd wager that the ability to speak multiple languages is much more strongly correlated with exposure to multiple languages at a young age than with intelligence. My understanding is that there is as much, if not more, of a "language window\" as there is a "music window." No amount of practice and training will make me able to play an instrument as well as I might have been able to if I had started as a child. No amount of language training will make me more fluent than I could have been if I spoke a foreign language at an earlier age.

I took five years of accelerated Spanish classes from grades 7-11. I can read a little Spanish, and guess at a few other languages, but I can't speak or interpret the language at any normal pace. However, even at my best, I was always translating back and forth into English internally... I never became able to "think in Spanish." I could learn any language by rote, given enough time and effort, but it has nothing to do with intelligence.

The difference is that with 750 baseball players, a few stars here and there who don't speak English aren't likely to harm the corporate appeal of baseball all that much, since there are scores of other stars who are English-proficient to take their place.

What if the 50 best baseball players were all non-English speakers? Would it still be OK?

I agree that if the Korean contingent on the LPGA were fighting to make the cut every week, this never would have been an issue. Though maybe it should be. Beyond the sports aspect of this, how lost would you feel moving to a country where you didn't speak the language? Shouldn't we be encouraging these people to learn English even simply as a way to make their daily lives better? It's not about suppressing the culture - if people want to speak Spanish or Korean or Chinese in the home, I don't think anyone has a right to stop them from doing so. But outside of the home, non-English speakers are at a decided disadvantage simply operating within American society.

I don't look at this as being inherently "OK" or "not OK." And I don't view this as a moral question, but a practical one. I wouldn't want to be forced to learn French in order to spend seven or eight months a year working in France if it weren't necessary to perform on my job there, but OTOH I'd like to think that it might not be a bad idea, and if it were a requirement I'd certainly understand the reason for it.

And I agree that making this into a gender issue (in golf) is bogus. The LPGA tour has historically always been operating on the fringes of public consciousness compared to the men's tour, and therein lies the difference in terms of what sort of language requirements may or may not be necessary.

EC

tfa specifically said "entertaining fat cats and executives" and now HOW many of those people do you think are female? and HOW many females do you think are going to fork out 10 large or even 50 large to GOLF???

you have not yet said what "entertaining" means. or even what they are supposed to talk about. what are they going to be able to say about anything besides - happy to be here hope i can help the club and god willing blahblahblah. or do you really think they have to talk about personal stuff?

bbc

1)Male golfers on the tour are absolutely expected to talk to pro-am participants and executives of tournament sponsors.

2) There are very few, if any, golfers on the PGA tour who do not speak English.

you have not yet said what "entertaining" means. or even what they are supposed to talk about. what are they going to be able to say about anything besides - happy to be here hope i can help the club and god willing blahblahblah. or do you really think they have to talk about personal stuff?

I have twice said what entertaining means - it means interacting with them in a social setting like a pro-am. As for what they're supposed to talk about: people are paying thousands of dollars to play golf with them, to play in a foursome with them on the same hole at the same time. They're supposed to talk about GOLF.

I was a decent golfer once upon a lifetime, and I know that, given the chance at that time to play with a PGA professional, I'd have had tons of questions in hopes of learning something that might improve my game. Why did you hit that club there? How would you approach this hole? What do you recommend for a ball in this kind of a lie? What practice rituals would you find useful for someone at my level? And tons of questions about what it's like to be on the tour. You won at X tournament - what was that like? Who do you like to play with? What's the toughest course you've ever played? Etc. I'm not shelling out 10 grand to play golf with someone who would basically stand there and ignore me for 4 hours.

And beyond that, I know there are player-sponsor mix-and-mingle cocktail parties and dinners, where (again) people pay good money to come sit and talk to the pros. How would you like to be the gal (or guy) who paid 1000 bucks to come sit at an LPGA dinner, only to end up at a 4-person table with 3 Koreans who spend the whole night talking to each other in Korean?

They don't half to talk about personal stuff, if you mean their personal lives. But yes, they should talk about personal stuff so far as it relates to their personal golf games and the product that they put on the course every week for the fans and sponsors to see. It's like saying you can talk to Michael Jordan in 1990, but not about how he plays basketball. If we're not talking about basketball, who the #### cares what he thinks? (OK, Jordan's a bad example given that he became such an icon, and that in itself would be interesting. Though if that would be personal as well, then apparently I couldn't ask him about that either. But none of these Korean golfers are exactly Michael Jordan.)

And I don't care if they're 100% males. It makes not one whit of difference. If you really believe that the LPGA wants these players to learn English so that they can "entertain" the sponsors in some kind of flirtatious or sexual way... join us in the world of common sense. You don't think we'd have heard stories about that years and years ago? That it would take this language requirement to bring to light the notion that the LPGA thinks of their players as nothing more than a bunch of very athletic escorts?

EC

tfa specifically said "entertaining fat cats and executives" and now HOW many of those people do you think are female? and HOW many females do you think are going to fork out 10 large or even 50 large to GOLF???

you have not yet said what "entertaining" means. or even what they are supposed to talk about. what are they going to be able to say about anything besides - happy to be here hope i can help the club and god willing blahblahblah. or do you really think they have to talk about personal stuff?

What do the pro male golfers who have to entertain talk about? "Entertaining" fat cats is part of a pro golfers job. If a pro golfer can't or won't do it, then don't complain when those who can / are willing to do it, get better financially remunerated.

i still do not know what is your definition of "entertain"

sing? dance? do stand up? do lie down? listen to someone complain about his/her spouse/sexual partner/office partners for the 10 hours it takes to finish a golf game? give a speech?

so you are saying that if a golfer wins the US open, he is paid depending on how much "entertaining" he does?

or if a golfer doesn't want to "entertain" they can't play in tournaments?

If you really believe that the LPGA wants these players to learn English so that they can "entertain" the sponsors in some kind of flirtatious or sexual way... join us in the world of common sense

You'd be amazed. British golf pro Kitrina Douglas has written recently about just that expectation (in the most recent issue of Aethlon, the sport literature journal [edit: I'm an editor of that journal]). Women in pro-ams are part golfing attraction and part sex object – not so much that the male amateurs directly hit on them, but that a lot of banter and a bit of close squeezing at photo-ops goes on. Sad, but the world is not as advanced as you might think. And women golf pros are unlikely to talk about it while they are active (Douglas, now an academic, is much freer to talk).

i still do not know what is your definition of "entertain"

sing? dance? do stand up? do lie down? listen to someone complain about his/her spouse/sexual partner/office partners for the 10 hours it takes to finish a golf game? give a speech?

BBC, I don't know how Eamus could have answered your question any more explicitly. What part of this was unclear?

I have twice said what entertaining means - it means interacting with them in a social setting like a pro-am. As for what they're supposed to talk about: people are paying thousands of dollars to play golf with them, to play in a foursome with them on the same hole at the same time. They're supposed to talk about GOLF.

I was a decent golfer once upon a lifetime, and I know that, given the chance at that time to play with a PGA professional, I'd have had tons of questions in hopes of learning something that might improve my game. Why did you hit that club there? How would you approach this hole? What do you recommend for a ball in this kind of a lie? What practice rituals would you find useful for someone at my level? And tons of questions about what it's like to be on the tour. You won at X tournament - what was that like? Who do you like to play with? What's the toughest course you've ever played? Etc. I'm not shelling out 10 grand to play golf with someone who would basically stand there and ignore me for 4 hours.

And beyond that, I know there are player-sponsor mix-and-mingle cocktail parties and dinners, where (again) people pay good money to come sit and talk to the pros. How would you like to be the gal (or guy) who paid 1000 bucks to come sit at an LPGA dinner, only to end up at a 4-person table with 3 Koreans who spend the whole night talking to each other in Korean?

i still do not know what is your definition of "entertain"

sing? dance? do stand up? do lie down? listen to someone complain about his/her spouse/sexual partner/office partners for the 10 hours it takes to finish a golf game? give a speech?

You can't be this stupid. Do you really believe that the LPGA wants Koreans to learn English because they're putting together the Golf Comedy Jam or plotting an all female golfer production of The Producers? And you really believe that people pay $10K to play golf with a professional golfer just because they want an ear to bend about their personal problems?

That you think it takes 10 hours to play a round of golf tells me you're not a golfer. Having played in a few hundred foursomes, I can tell you that I was entertained almost every time but never once had sex. And I've played with women before, plenty of times. Apparently I missed out - I should have just asked them to entertain me, and boom. A great story for the 19th hole would have ensued.

For the very last time, just because a woman is asked to "entertain" someone doesn't mean she's expected to lie down and perform sexual favors. That's ####### ridiculous. These women make hundreds of thousands of dollars every year playing golf, plus additional money in appearance fees and endorsements. Do you really think they'd all agree to be golf whores to businessmen, and that no one would ever say a thing about it?

C'mon, bbchick. You're much smarter than you're putting on in this thread.

so you are saying that if a golfer wins the US open, he is paid depending on how much "entertaining" he does?

or if a golfer doesn't want to "entertain" they can't play in tournaments?

Firstly, golfers also earn money outside of tournament winnings. Playing a few rounds, chatting with the fat cats, providing some golfing tips, having a couple drinks, can be lucrative.

Corporate sponsorship is a major part of golf. If the men are willing to entertain fat cats, and the women are not, then if the prize money in women's tournaments is less, is it sexism that causes the prize money to be less?

You'd be amazed. British golf pro Kitrina Douglas has written recently about just that expectation (in the most recent issue of Aethlon, the sport literature journal [edit: I'm an editor of that journal]). Women in pro-ams are part golfing attraction and part sex object – not so much that the male amateurs directly hit on them, but that a lot of banter and a bit of close squeezing at photo-ops goes on. Sad, but the world is not as advanced as you might think. And women golf pros are unlikely to talk about it while they are active (Douglas, now an academic, is much freer to talk).

There will always be subtle racism in the interactions between races, and sexism in the interaction between sexes. It's a baseline thing that's not going to go away in my lifetime. I'm not saying none of that goes on. But I'm not buying the argument that the Korean golfers need to learn English because they'll make better sex objects. Hell, for some guys, not speaking English is probably a big turn-on. (I know, men suck, yadda yadda.)

You'd be amazed. British golf pro Kitrina Douglas has written recently about just that expectation (in the most recent issue of Aethlon, the sport literature journal [edit: I'm an editor of that journal]). Women in pro-ams are part golfing attraction and part sex object – not so much that the male amateurs directly hit on them, but that a lot of banter and a bit of close squeezing at photo-ops goes on. Sad, but the world is not as advanced as you might think. And women golf pros are unlikely to talk about it while they are active (Douglas, now an academic, is much freer to talk).

True. But, sex sells, in other women's sports too. Even in men's sports, though to a lesser extent.

And athletes are young, fit and attractive.

...only to end up at a 4-person table with 3 Koreans who spend the whole night talking to each other in Korean?

Wasn't this the premise of a Seinfeld episode?

i'm sorry, but i wrote 33 when 31 was not up. it usually takes me a while to finish a paragraph because i got too much going on around here because kidz always looking for ways to get into trouble and i always lookin for ways to stop em before they get too started

EC you are correct i have not played golf. that is for rich people. i thought it takes 10 hours because it seems that is about how long it takes on TV. also because one of the rich women i clean her house for says she loves that her husband plays golf because then he's gone all day

and i don't know how long it takes to play golf but if i was good enough to play professionally and win i would rather die than have to spend HOURS being grilled on a witness stand like that. i don't know how i could even start to concentrate enough to play having to defend my self every minute of the day. if i was a baseball player i be the quiet one who gets the corner locker so as she doesn't have to talk much

and maybe you are the kind of guy who would keep his hands and other things to him self and also not make, um, not golf related remarks, but i disbelieve that most rich and privileged men go play golf with females JUST to talk about what some woman's course is like or what club she uses (even before i read what bob dernier wrote, i thought this)

which reminds me

a golf joke 4 u -

these 4 guys met up at the golf course at 7 AM.

guy #1 sez, man yall wouldn't believe what i had to promise my wife to get her to let me come. i had to promise her a new pair of manolos

guy #2 sez - you think THAT's bad, i had to promise her that tomorrow, i'd clean the gutters and wax the floors and watch the kids all day so her and her friends could go shopping

guy #3 sez - you think that's bad i had to promise her she could go buy a new couch

guy #4 he just smiles

so the other guys they all ask him - cmon man, what did you have to promise you wife?
he said well guys, it was like this - i woke her up at 5 AM and said hey baby, golf course or intercourse? and she said - don't forget your sweater...

and i don't know how long it takes to play golf but if i was good enough to play professionally and win i would rather die than have to spend HOURS being grilled on a witness stand like that. i don't know how i could even start to concentrate enough to play having to defend my self every minute of the day. if i was a baseball player i be the quiet one who gets the corner locker so as she doesn't have to talk much

BBC,

The pro-am is not part of the competition (except in a few instances), but a round of golf the day before the actual tournament starts. It's a big money maker for the course/tour, and the players know and understand that participating in these outings, as annoying as some guys might find them, is part of the job. The truth is, in most sports, being the shy guy who won't talk to the press/interact with fans doesn't fly. Anyone in a second or third tier sport realizes that he/she has to be accessible with the media and fans in order to sell the sport. Taking a Barry Lamar or the even more silent Steve Cartlon approach can only exist at the highest levels of a handful of sports.

And it's not really a grilling. Players are merely expected/encouraged to treat the pro-ams as they would an ordinary foursome with buddies, where you casually joke/talk between shots, while sharing some tales of the tour/or tips. Some guys revel in it. Others are likely somewhat uncomfortable. All do it, except perhaps guys like Tiger who can dictate the terms of their appearance at tournaments (I have no idea if Tiger does or doesn't participate in pro-ams, only that he's one of the few who would have the clout to bypass them).

The LPGA reacted in a heavy-handed way that was rightfully criticized. But its concerns on this issue are quite legitimate.

EC you are correct i have not played golf. that is for rich people.

I am far from rich and have been playing my whole life. I may not have $2500 clubs, and I don't play at courses that charge $200 for 18 holes on a Sunday. But with $400 clubs (that will last you for 10+ years) and a $25 round of golf, I can have just as much fun.

And you're saying YOU wouldn't want to be asked about golf, in part because (I think from your post) you find it elitist and boring. People who play golf their whole lives have a little different feeling about it. And people who pay crazy money to play in pro-ams tend to be serious golfers (or seriously rich, one of the two). If you really like it, being asked questions about it is not a grilling.

If someone asks you about your kids, do you feel like you're being grilled? Do you wish they'd just shut the hell up because you can't stand talking about them? Or do you love your kids, and thus it's not so bad talking about them when someone with a real interest wants to know more?

Also, I can tell you that even rich and powerful men would forgo treating a woman like a sex object if that woman could knock a couple of strokes off of his handicap. These businessmen play "friendly" rounds involving thousands of dollars in match play, presses, and side bets. Your acumen as a golfer could sway a potential client for/against hiring you. Being a good golfer as a younger businessman is a way to open the door to socializing with higher-ups at your firm. Knocking your score from 80 to 75 because some LPGA player noticed a hitch in your swing off the tee at a pro-am would be a dream for these guys. Of course, if she told you in Korean and you didn't understand, not so much.

Edit: To add that I agree 100% with what SoSH says about pro-ams. They're non-competition rounds for the pros, not really something they have to worry about concentrating on. I think most pros use them as a chance to walk the course one last time before the tournament starts. Most of them probably don't even keep score, and may hit unconventional shots just to see what might fly when the tournament starts.

sosh

you learn something new every day. i don't know of any other sports where the athletes are forced to have to play their sport with people who are incredible worse than they are. it would be like a ML ballplayer being forced to go play on some crappy college team

and best i know basketball and football players don't have to do anything like that

i wonder if ballplayers are made to kiss fat cat ass - i mean anything besides sign autographs

2) There are very few, if any, golfers on the PGA tour who do not speak English.

Angel Cabrera and K.J. Choi immediately come to mind.

A little research finds that the following players have used translators for interviews:

Angel Cabrera, Andres Romero and Jose Coceres of Argentina; Shigeki Maruyama and Daisuke Maruyama of Japan; Yong-Eun Yang and K.J. Choi of South Korea; and Carlos Franco of Paraguay

she loves that her husband plays golf because then he's gone all day

Well, he probably is getting the extra "entertainment package"...

and best i know basketball and football players don't have to do anything like that

They don't have to, the same way I don't think the PGA/LPGA guys/girls have to, but it's encouraged. Basketball and football players often do clinics and stuff, usually for HS kids...

And FWIW evan Baseball has these types of events. For example, the Red Sox annually have a "Picknick in the Parl" event, where players auction of personal items, or batting practice sessions etc for charity...

i wonder if ballplayers are made to kiss fat cat ass - i mean anything besides sign autographs

They may represent the team at charity functions, appear at store openings, put on clinics, and make other public appearances in connection with the team.

There is nothing like a pro-am in baseball, it's true. But that doesn't mean the players aren't asked to represent the team and the league in other ways. And (to drag this back to the initial topic), it's not something they could easily do if they don't speak English.

If you were hosting a charity function, and called a team to ask them to send a representative to go press the flesh a bit and sit on the dais as a way to attract donors, would you rather have a well-spoken and articulate player who could engage the people, or someone who doesn't speak English and will have to have every conversation through a translator? (Or, for that matter, someone so surly and sullen that he sits alone at the bar all night.)

Maybe in addition to requing the players to speak English, MLB should also make them all attend a semester of charm school.

True. But, sex sells, in other women's sports too. Even in men's sports, though to a lesser extent.

And athletes are young, fit and attractive.

Obviously. But what does that have to do with what BBC was talking about?

I don't know much at all about women's golf, but I know a fair amount about women's pool. Jeanette Lee is about as sexy an athlete as you'll find in women's sports these days, and there are more than a few other top female pros who aren't that far behind.

Jeanette Lee is going to earn over a million bucks this year, over 90% of it on the promotional side of the game. The exact sort of "promotional" side that the golfers do. Corporate sponsorships and events; product endorsements; private lessons; speaking engagements; trade fair appearances; etc.

I can guarantee that nearly every straight man who sees her in action at a pool table, or at one of those events, harbors at least a fleeting fantasy or two about her.

And yet it's funny, but there hasn't been one hint of a rumor that any of these corporate honchos, or anyone else, has ever tried to hit on her. Maybe it's because she exudes such self-confidence, or maybe it's because she talks about her husband and adopted child about every other minute. But whatever it is, the sort of stuff that BBC keeps wanting to hint at just doesn't happen. The women's pool tour is even more precarious than the LPGA in terms of financial structure, and the last thing on Earth it would ever want to do would be to get the reputation of a skank pool for horny businessmen. Not to mention that the women themselves see themselves as serious athletes, and wouldn't put up with it for a minute.

----------------

I am far from rich and have been playing my whole life. I may not have $2500 clubs, and I don't play at courses that charge $200 for 18 holes on a Sunday. But with $400 clubs (that will last you for 10+ years) and a $25 round of golf, I can have just as much fun.

And for $600 you can enter the U.S. Open nine ball tournment yourself, and play the Tiger Woodses and Sergio Garcias of pool for at least two rounds, and with luck a few more. One more reason why it's the best individual sport on Earth.

And while he was climbing to the top of the pool world, the world's greatest player ever was using a $13 cue.

EC

i think golf is boring and honestly if it was free i wouldn't have any interest in playing

but yeah, i guess i would say that golf is elitest. you don't see grocery store clerks/waitresses/cleaning ladies out there. you did say "Your acumen as a golfer could sway a potential client for/against hiring you. Being a good golfer as a younger businessman is a way to open the door to socializing with higher-ups at your firm." and that sure sounds elitest to me...

but hey, these days, baseball is quickly becoming elitest and i love it anyhow.

as for having to talk to strangers about anything, ida wanna. i have turned down a LOT of requests to talk about my astros on podcasts/radio. and for money, too.

Also, I can tell you that even rich and powerful men would forgo treating a woman like a sex object if that woman could knock a couple of strokes off of his handicap. These businessmen play "friendly" rounds involving thousands of dollars in match play, presses, and side bets. Your acumen as a golfer could sway a potential client for/against hiring you. Being a good golfer as a younger businessman is a way to open the door to socializing with higher-ups at your firm. Knocking your score from 80 to 75 because some LPGA player noticed a hitch in your swing off the tee at a pro-am would be a dream for these guys.

- now THAT makes sense. a LOT of sense.
i knew it was used for social/business climbing, but i didn't realize it was a gambling thing too.

Angel Cabrera, Andres Romero and Jose Coceres of Argentina; Shigeki Maruyama and Daisuke Maruyama of Japan; Yong-Eun Yang and K.J. Choi of South Korea; and Carlos Franco of Paraguay

Only two of those players are in the top 100 on the money list; its very different situation on the LPGA tour. (Also, I have seen Cabrera and Romero give interviews in English).


i wonder if ballplayers are made to kiss fat cat ass

Most of them probably kiss the team owner's ass, which is comparable to tournament sponsors.

And while he was climbing to the top of the pool world, the world's greatest player ever was using a $13 cue.

One of the big names or someone more obscure?

I've played a little golf, but I have to agree with you that if I wanted to devote the time to one of the gambling pastimes, I'd choose billiards over either golf or poker. If for no other reason than you meet more interesting characters. I've played maybe three times in 2008, and I've got at least three good stories to tell, not to mention the stories I heard when not playing. Plus, I've got to move.

And for $600 you can enter the U.S. Open nine ball tournment yourself, and play the Tiger Woodses and Sergio Garcias of pool for at least two rounds, and with luck a few more. One more reason why it's the best individual sport on Earth.

Someone mentioned poker as well - for $500, you can enter the WSOP and play against the best in the world (at least the best who bother to enter the $500 event). For the $10K you would otherwise spend to enter an LPGA pro-am, you can draw a table in the main event and sit with Hellmuth, Brunson, or Chan.

In most poker tournaments in the US (and in many poker rooms as well), you are (or were, last I checked) prohibited from conversing at the table in any language other than English. And the proportion of foreign-born poker players at big events is probably close to as high as it is on the LPGA.

The article says, "One of the most proficient hitters in MLB history, Ichiro is in a class with Ty Cobb, Ted Williams, Pete Rose and Rod Carew. " Huh? Suzuki's BEST OPS+ is 130. Rod Carew''s CAREER OPS+ was 131, and he was obviously nowhere near as good a hitter as Cobb or Williams. White may have a point with Rose, another overrated singles hitter who made a lot of outs. Still, after age 30 Rose had several seasons better than Suzuki's best.

That thread of the conversation is long gone, but to clarify my earlier comment, when I said "ability," I didn't mean current knowledge, but ability to learn. In a place where many languages are spoken, people growing up are also more likely to be exposed to many languages at an early age, and the ones who pick up those languages will tend to be people who are also intelligent in other respects. I do think that's largely true; it's even true of English as Americans' first language. The more intelligent Americans generally speak English better than the less intelligent ones.

One would have hoped that the advent of the Internet would have resulted in the ability to communicate in writing becoming even more valuable, since more communication now takes place in writing than had for a few generations, since the ubiquity of the telephone. Perhaps it will still play out that way.

That last comment isn't directed against the people in this thread, by the way.

Fancy Pants Handle Posted: September 06, 2008 at 09:24 PM (#2931486)

she loves that her husband plays golf because then he's gone all day

Well, he probably is getting the extra "entertainment package"...

- laughing like heck
well, youneverknow - wouldn't blame him
but a divorce would cost him HUGE $$$$$$$
women like her are expensive
- on the other hand she probably wouldn't care...


Eamus Catuli Posted: September 06, 2008 at 09:36 PM (#2931508)

i wonder if ballplayers are made to kiss fat cat ass - i mean anything besides sign autographs

They may represent the team at charity functions, appear at store openings, put on clinics, and make other public appearances in connection with the team.

- yeh, the rookies and the middle relievers do the store openings/clinics/caravans
with the astros, berkman does a LOT of stuff but he is real unusual for a star
roger clemens did an incredible TON of stuff. i mean appearances, not drugs.

there is at least one charity besides the astros in action thingy that the players are made to go to


but
i am curious - what on EARTH do female golfers/pool players endorse? i've never seen any female golfer/pool player in any ad i know of

One would have hoped that the advent of the Internet would have resulted in the ability to communicate in writing becoming even more valuable, since more communication now takes place in writing than had for a few generations, since the ubiquity of the telephone. Perhaps it will still play out that way.

It won't happen until the internet is regulated in such a way that your real name and location are made a part of every e-mail and internet post. The cloak of anonymity afforded by the internet is its single greatest shortcoming, in terms of tapping its potential as a medium for generally valuable communication.

(And yes, there is some value to anonymity if it affords insiders a chance to blow the whistle on illegal or immoral practices, just as there was the same value to those people going to reporters and speaking off the record about things. But I think that value is dwarfed by the harm that comes from giving every loudmouth with an opinion the ability to log in, state it, and then start spewing threats and personal attacks at anyone who questions it with no real threat of retribution.)

i am curious - what on EARTH do female golfers/pool players endorse? i've never seen any female golfer/pool player in any ad i know of

They endorse equipment - golf clubs, golf balls, pool cues, pool tables. If you watch an LPGA event on TV, you'll see lots of female golfers selling product.

I remember Annika Sorenstam being on commercials for something non-golf related 4-5 years ago, though I don't remember what it was.

as for having to talk to strangers about anything, ida wanna. i have turned down a LOT of requests to talk about my astros on podcasts/radio. and for money, too.

Not to pile on or anything, but if you were trying to make it as a professional blogger or something that didn't have a strict relationship between work and salary, you'd probably feel different about accepting these kinds of requests, even when there wasn't money directly involved. The person you shake hands with today could give you work tomorrow, or introduce you to someone who could, or just say you're a heckuva gal when your name comes up in conversation.

Suppose you wanted to publish a piece in the Hardball Times tomorrow. How many people on the staff do you know well enough to send off an email to, just by virtue of having fun on this site for so many years?

You might be surprised how willing athletes in minor sports are to talk. I'm on the CU triathlon team, and we've gotten several of the best triathletes in the world to talk to us, just by virtue of asking them when they were in town.

i wonder if ballplayers are made to kiss fat cat ass

Here I will pile on a little. Getting sponsored is how these guys make their money, especially in minor sports or the minor leagues of major sports. Meeting with sponsors is 100% related to the bottom line. I really can't imagine any business where an employee who had the ability to bring in money by shmoozing a little wouldn't be expected to do exactly that. If people want the purity of sport, they can play ultimate frisbee, which has zero sponsorship, requires zero shmoozing, and makes zero dollars.

One would have hoped that the advent of the Internet would have resulted in the ability to communicate in writing becoming even more valuable, since more communication now takes place in writing than had for a few generations, since the ubiquity of the telephone. Perhaps it will still play out that way.

It won't happen until the internet is regulated in such a way that your real name and location are made a part of every e-mail and internet post. The cloak of anonymity afforded by the internet is its single greatest shortcoming, in terms of tapping its potential as a medium for generally valuable communication.

(And yes, there is some value to anonymity if it affords insiders a chance to blow the whistle on illegal or immoral practices, just as there was the same value to those people going to reporters and speaking off the record about things. But I think that value is dwarfed by the harm that comes from giving every loudmouth with an opinion the ability to log in, state it, and then start spewing threats and personal attacks at anyone who questions it with no real threat of retribution.)

I've been saying this for years. The only serious counterargument is that many employers monitor e-mails and anyone who revealed their real name would get fired.

But if you read any of those anonymous comments attached to any political news article or opinion piece on the websites of the MSM, you'd think that the entire United States of America consisted of nothing but wingnuts, racists, and conspiracy theorists of all stripes, usually the same ones posting and re-posting the same garbage over and over. You can't appreciate how good (and diverse) this site is until you've spent a bit of time on nearly any of the others.

And while he was climbing to the top of the pool world, the world's greatest player ever was using a $13 cue.

One of the big names or someone more obscure?

Efren 'Bata' Reyes, AKA "The Magician." The New York Times once had a feature story on him with a headline that read "Oh, This Shark Has Missing Teeth, Dear." It was a terrific article.

But if you read any of those anonymous comments attached to any political news article or opinion piece on the websites of the MSM, you'd think that the entire United States of America consisted of nothing but wingnuts, racists, and conspiracy theorists of all stripes, usually the same ones posting and re-posting the same garbage over and over. You can't appreciate how good (and diverse) this site is until you've spent a bit of time on nearly any of the others.

Amen to that. For as much BS posturing as the Bonds/steroid threads had over the last few years, it pales in comparison to reading the Yahoo! boards on just about any topic.

I used to think that people new to the internet would get over the initial thrill of being able to say whatever you want without fear of reprisal. When I first got on Usenet back in the early 1990s, I'll admit to having been a real dick in more than one newsgroup, just because I could. But the excitement of that wore off after about a month, and then I looked around and realized there was some fascinating stuff going on that I wanted to be a part of. That doesn't seem to happen for a lot of people. They come on acting like dicks, and 5-10 years later, nothing has changed. Even at a place like this one, you see people sticking to the same acerbic, unlikeable persona they had back when this was still Primer.

I used to belong to a lot of literary mailing lists, and you might think that a place like pynchon-L would be as close to immune from this crap as anywhere you could find. But I unsubscribe after a couple of months of invective-filled personal attacks that seemed to be flung in every direction by people who got great joy out of doing so. They had almost nothing to say about Thomas Pynchon or his books - they just wanted to yell at people.

Your best bets for real conversation now - heavily moderated boards with mods fully willing to ban people after one offense, or invitation-only boards not open to the public. Simple user name registration has almost no effect at all, except to weed out the spambot postings (which is something, I guess). BTF is the only internet board I still frequent with any regularity that doesn't fall into one of those two categories.

Most every mainstream newspaper requires a verifiable phone number and home address before it will publish your letter to the editor in the print edition, but they have no such requirement for their websites.

And then they screw up the print edition letters by going in the exact opposite diection: They overload the page with bland and predictable letters that usually are edited down to a brief paragraph or two, often from a corporate spokesman or interest group. And then of course they only print a tiny handful of them a day.

So what you get is the two extremes, with nothing in the middle.

What they need is to combine the verification process of their print edition with the uncensored aspect of their websites, and let the chips fall where they may. Just having to reveal your real name would have to provide a certain amount of self-restraint that you can't possibly get from all these anyomous rants. And the true wingnuts / racists / conspiracy obsessors could be cut off for repeat offenses.

Your best bets for real conversation now - heavily moderated boards with mods fully willing to ban people after one offense, or invitation-only boards not open to the public. Simple user name registration has almost no effect at all, except to weed out the spambot postings (which is something, I guess). BTF is the only internet board I still frequent with any regularity that doesn't fall into one of those two categories.

It's an interesting point. I can't think of any other site that I read primarily for the pleasure in reading the comment threads. It's kind of surprising that the trolls and flamers don't seem to migrate here after some of the mentions that it's gotten from Joe Posnanski or Rob Neyer.

I'm a relative rarity in that I use my real name pretty much everywhere on the internet that I participate. And I'm no John Smith that can hide in googlenymity either!

It's an interesting point. I can't think of any other site that I read primarily for the pleasure in reading the comment threads. It's kind of surprising that the trolls and flamers don't seem to migrate here after some of the mentions that it's gotten from Joe Posnanski or Rob Neyer.

They probably come by, realize they've got nothing on Kevin, and move on without even bothering to try out doing him. ; )

Or, more seriously, most of of the flaming-types probably don't even bother clicking on links that Neyer throws up. They don't care about learning about the game, they just want to rag on him for using big words and too many numbers.

zach,

i couldn't deal with having to having to actually talk in front of people. let alone get screamed at on the radio. i'd rather clean houses.


- smile

and i know everyone at THT and i write for them occasionally and they'd let me do more if i had time to write. i'd have to give up my blog cuz i don't have the time to do both. but if they made me go talk to people i don't know i wouldn't

as for talking to athletes, what for? the few questions i actually want answers to they wouldn't be stupid enough to answer. i already know the bull durham stuff which is what they all say to just about everything anyhow. except for lance berkman. but he's so unusual...

and NO question this is the best board for conversation about all KINDS of non-female stuff there is. i've gotten an education in all KINDS of subjects from politics to law to WW 1 to military stuff to literature. who needs college.

and yeah there is a WHOLE lot of screaming nuts of every kind out there.

diversity, love it or leave it...

Sorry for hopping into this discussion late. It's hard to find a stable, reliable free wireless connection in Nanjing.

Baseball Chick asked how many here speak two languages fluently. I speak three: English, German and Chinese (Mandarin). Having established this, I completely disagree with Vaux' #21. I've never even seen any anecdotal evidence that those who are fluent in more than one language tend to be more intelligent. The same goes for #56. I've met more than my share of bilingual people in southern China (the Wu "dialect" ought to be counted as a different language, as it is mutually unintelligible with Mandarin), very few of which I'd consider overly intelligent. Now, there is a difference between speaking a language and speaking it well; nevertheless, you don't have to be an English scholar to become fluent in another foreign language.

As for the LPGA's decision, I think it's incredibly silly. By what standard is fluency measured? Will potential women golfers have to reach a certain TOEFL score before they can participate? Furthermore, what problem does this policy solve? Are there too many good foreign women golfers?

Like the other Dan, I use my real name on the internet.

Just in case anyone thought golf was an actual sport (as opposed to something rich people do between drinks at the country club) ...

How might the LPGA embrace Korea and make more marketing money in that direction?

Hiring a staff that is reasonably representative of the athlete population would be a start...

How might the LPGA embrace Korea and make more marketing money in that direction?

Hiring a staff that is reasonably representative of the athlete population would be a start...

That's an important point. It's a two way street that has to start with the assumption that it's to everyone's advantage to reduce the cultural (i.e. language) gap between the athletes and their potential fanbase in the country where most of the tournments are being held.

An English fluency requirement may not be something that should be a prerequisite to an LPGA membership, but to say that a golfer who spends the bulk of her professional time in the United States should learn English is no stranger a proposition than to say that our diplomats should be fluent in the languages of the countries to which they are assigned. When in Rome, etc.

But OTOH to throw such an expectation on the golfers without giving them institutional backup support makes as much sense as requiring immigrants to be fluent in English without providing English classes to help them fulfill that reasonable requirement. It's the difference between common sense and smallminded nativist posturing.

I'd have no problem posting here under my real name, but I think all the various nicknames and humorous handles add to this site, don't detract from it. Heavily-moderated and private boards, several of which I have participated in the past, end up being a boring echo chamber in short time, the only exception possibly being tech boards or other forums of specialized knowledge, where boring isn't a problem. Give me anarchy over any authoritarian form. Any tighter control over this board and it, too, would soon become boring and lose a lot of traffic.

It's been a long while since I read Neyer. It's not his concepts or big words that pushed me away, but his biases, his willingness to shuffle the evidence to support his column's point that day. It's no worse than any other daily columnist's hackery, but I don't find it particularly better. If you enjoy his output, I have no problem with that. I get something out of a TJ Simers column.

attacks that seemed to be flung in every direction by people who got great joy out of doing so.

This was a Pynchon board, you say...

I basically agree with Andy's post, but I do think there's an important distinction here:

An English fluency requirement may not be something that should be a prerequisite to an LPGA membership, but to say that a golfer who spends the bulk of her professional time in the United States should learn English is no stranger a proposition than to say that our diplomats should be fluent in the languages of the countries to which they are assigned. When in Rome, etc.

It's definitely stranger than that. Diplomats needs to speak the language to do the work that is the very core of their jobs. Golfers need to speak the language to perform certain peripheral duties of their jobs.

And, of course, there's a big difference between saying that someone should do something, and regulating that someone must do something. I agree that if the LPGA is going to throw around mandatory English fluency, at the very least they need to meet their athletes way more than halfway.

It should also be noted, given the tone and content of this discussion that there is no proposal of mandatory English fluency among baseballing powerhouses. MLB has no plans of such, and was merely used here as an example in the process of criticism of the lpga.

I used to belong to a lot of literary mailing lists, and you might think that a place like pynchon-L would be as close to immune from this crap as anywhere you could find. But I unsubscribe after a couple of months of invective-filled personal attacks that seemed to be flung in every direction by people who got great joy out of doing so.

Interesting. I was on Pynchon-L for a few years back in the early 90's, and left for much the same reason. You'd thing someone as dense in allusions as Pynchon was would result in people discoursing about all sorts of interesting and obscure things, but eventually it became much less illuminating.

IIRC, what put me over the edge was the entry of someone who had dated Pynchon at one point in his life. People started asking about his sexual acumen, preferences and so forth. That was it.

Re the "staff" point, E-X and Andy, I just don't get it. Assuming we're talking about marketing towards Korea, why would having Korean or Asian caddies, or bartenders, or ball cleaners (or whatever counts as pro tour staff) help market the sport? Might it not have the opposite effect? Is it not already the case that despite the staff inKoreanicity, the sport seems pretty popular in Korea (given the rise of their professionals)? Could a case be made that showing Korean champs, speaking English, endorsing Coke, BP, and Nike, will be attractive to Koreans regardless of whether the lawn guy is from Inchon (flexing the MASH muscle!) or Indiana? Or does staff mean something else?

JC-

Why do you presume that "staff" only refers to people in service jobs? I'd assume that the LPGA staff is, like, everyone who works for LPGA and for women's golf. And Andy and EX are arguing that these groups have not done a good enough job of integrating their workforce. I don't know if that's the case, but I'm confused as to why you chose only service jobs, rather than also administrative, public relations, and other such work.

Matt: I honestly know very little about the sport. I don't know what "staff" means in that context, so assumed staff at events, at golf courses, you know, which is why I asked that question at the end.

JC, I was thinking about bi-lingual corporate staff who would be available during events (tournments and other functions) to act as buffers between the athletes and the fans, and who at the same time would be encouraging the athletes to become fluent in English. I'm assuming, of course, that the long run financial advantages to the LPGA, the players, and the sponsors would provide enough motivation for this to happen.

In any event, I wasn't thinking of Korean or Asian caddies. I assume that those are properly chosen by the golfers themselves and would obviously be fluent in the language of the golfer.

Obviously. But what does that have to do with what BBC was talking about?

Err, if you read my comment, I wasn't responding to BBC. The part I quoted was from #34.

It's an interesting point. I can't think of any other site that I read primarily for the pleasure in reading the comment threads. It's kind of surprising that the trolls and flamers don't seem to migrate here after some of the mentions that it's gotten from Joe Posnanski or Rob Neyer.

This site isn't overrun by flaming trolls for a few reasons:

1. They would probably be banned.
2. We have a critical mass of non-flaming trolls, many of whom have posted here for years. Some of us newer posters have also been around for a long time, lurking in the shadows.
3. This site is pretty geeky. It is not a general baseball board, but rather a board for folks who want to discuss baseball at length, and most of whom want to discuss baseball statistics. Being geeky, we probably don't interest many trolls.

If I was required to use my real name, I would never post here. I don't hide behind anonymity so that I can be a jerk -- I try not to be a jerk, but probably occasionally am one -- but the anonymity allows me to write more freely on whatever topic we are discussing. I am somewhat concerned about an employer or potential employer running across my postings on a Google search.

Interest in Pynchon's personal life is likely in proportion to his reclusivity. I did a search for Pynchon's photos, and got one of him as a young man (the only photo published of him), one of Ian McEwan, and one of Gary Snyder.

Here's a snapshot of the quest to see and know more about the man behind the writing... but not the actual man.

My favorite writers don't necessarily conceal their identities, but question identity itself.

Only at BBTF would you run across two different people who used to frequent Pynchon discussion lists.

My favorite writers don't necessarily conceal their identities, but question identity itself.

And by not concealing their identities, more people give credence to whatever they might have to say about the question of identity.

Only at BBTF would you run across two different people who used to frequent Pynchon discussion lists.

I'm often amazed at what I learn here, especially in the Lounge. I've also gotten some really good reading lists and references, suggestions for movies and music, and made some friends.

That, plus helping me with a functional equivalent of water-cooler talk during work time, is gravy on my potatoes.

Interest in Pynchon's personal life is likely in proportion to his reclusivity. I did a search for Pynchon's photos, and got one of him as a young man (the only photo published of him), one of Ian McEwan, and one of Gary Snyder.

I am fundamentally uninterested in Pynchon the man. His ideas - at least as presented in GR - are what is compelling. I have yet to slog through Mason-Dixon, and even crack Against the Day, although it glares accusingly from the bookcase.

It's been probably 15 years since I read GR. I should open it again. I was pretty obsessive about it at one point.