Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 3 of 4 pages
I agree that there is a distinction. Maybe I should just try to place these various "athletic" sports along a spectrum of distinctions, without getting into discussions about which of these endeavors require more grace, "skill", "athleticism", "manliness", etc.
So Tom Cruise and Jeremy Lin and Samuel L. Jackson and Kim Jong-un can't be said to be from different races?
they're each and all impossibly loose baskets containing apples, oranges, and countless other fruits in countless variations.
No, that's not it
they're each and all impossibly loose baskets containing different varieties of apples, macintosh, granny smith, winesap, golden delicious, fuji,etc etc
We understand them culturally and socially. That's the only truthful way to understand them. They're useless for genetic understanding.
I propose an apple cultivar hijack.
Were other stars notoriously good?
The argument isn't really about blacks as a "race" having superior physical genetics, but about whether this particular subset due to circumstances for a short period of time(and yes, in the guise of genetic evolution for humans, 400 years is a short period of time) have been bred for a noticeable differences in genetics from the rest of the population.
Edit- this isn't really evolution in action either, it's basically just genetic drift- no new genes/attributes have been added to the pool, rather the proportion/ratio of already existing attributes in a population may have changed
I once had these delicious purple colored apples, don't know what they are, tasted kind of like sweeter versions of winesaps, any one have any idea?
Samoans and Tongan and a few other Island societies are full of huge people and people who put on weight easily? Why? At some pointy in their history those who didn't have the ability and propensity to store every calorie they consumed died off during some long ago famine.
Yes, but in the case of people of African descent living in the Americas over the past 500 or so years, the notion that "no new genes/attributes have been added to the pool" is hilariously misplaced.
and the reproductive activity of slaves and their descendants in the Americas over the span of many centuries is so complicated (and so non-insular)
Right, but even "West African" is a hopelessly vague and broad category itself, and the reproductive activity of slaves and their descendants in the Americas over the span of many centuries is so complicated (and so non-insular) as to render the comparison to be again along the lines of so many more Fujis vs. McIntoshes.
Astaire was better, but Gleason was no slouch by any means. Those two were definitely supposed to be the standouts, though a few others like Jerry Orbach got a lot of respect from players for the lifelong respect that they in turn gave to the game.
By Mayo Clinic staff
Race. Although it's unclear why, people of certain races — including blacks, Hispanics, American Indians and Asian-Americans — are more likely to develop type 2 diabetes than whites are.
You do grasp that cultural/social categories do not require genetic underpinning to be identifiable risk factors for a condition such as Type 2 diabetes. Yes?
Newman had never picked up a cue in his life before Willie Mosconi gave him a crash course in preparation for The Hustler. He may have been able to run 10 balls in a row if you gave him 24 hours to do it, although that would probably be about 9 more than Tom Cruise could. All those trick shots in The Hustler and The Color of Money were either set up in advance so that they couldn't be missed, or were actually shot by professionals and spliced into the movie.
I suggest you should ask them what they mean.
My guess is that they've simply listed various loose and quite possibly overlapping categorizations of the general population that have been found to be correlated with the development of Type 2 diabetes in the United States in recent decades. Doing so requires no more a meaningful genetically-bound definition of "blacks" than it does of "overweight people" or "inactive people."
The drug GF mentioned, and at least 1 other one, have been approved solely for African-Americans.
That's absolutely not true, since in the movie Newman wasn't an unknown trying to sneak up on Gleason,...
**And anyway, he was crushing Gleason in game after game until the whiskey took over and got him broke. He couldn't have done that while lemoning with a stroke as crude as his.
The truth is that Newman was indeed chosen for reasons that had nothing to do with pool, but the entire pitch of the movie was that it was a realistic depiction of the hustling scene. One of the first things that they did was to put Newman under Willie Mosconi's wing, in order that he didn't make a complete farce out of the premise that he was a legitimate phenom. And with a lot of patience on Mosconi's part, and a lot of strategic editing, they largely succeeded in at least taking him above the Tom Cruise edition of pool's Mendoza line. It wouldn't fool any player in the audience, but that that's not exactly a critical mass of the target crowd.
I'm not remotely on the pro level, because pros are defined above all by their consistency.
Or the, good grief, "Hispanic" race,
We may be just talking around each other here, and I apologize if I wasn't clear. My point is only that "the way [Newman] handles a cue" isn't consistent with anyone who'd be capable of "beating the hell out of Fats", regardless of whether or not he wound up going broke after the alcohol sunk in.
Who am I missing? I'm sure there are several
OK, who was the best actual baseball player/actual actor ever?
- Johnny Berardino
- Chuck Connors
- Wes Parker
- Kurt Russell
- Bill Murray
I realize that it didn't matter to the filmmakers that Newman had an amateur's stroke. But there's nothing to indicate that they would've wanted him to hold back if his stroke looked as smooth as Gleason's. It's easy to see why they were perfectly willing to settle for a reasonable facsimile of a pool player when the rest of the package gave them a superb actor like Newman, but it's hard to believe that they deliberately held him back in that regard.
The Tevis novel had been optioned several times, including by Frank Sinatra, but attempts to adapt it for the screen were unsuccessful. Director Rossen's daughter Carol Rossen speculates that previous adaptations focused too much on the pool aspects of the story and not enough on the human interaction. Rossen, who had hustled pool himself as a youth and who had made an abortive attempt to write a pool-themed play called Corner Pocket, optioned the book and teamed with Sidney Carroll to produce the script.
Good directors will often look at how people who *are* really good do things, and very specifically NOT film them that way, because it is unconvincing to the target audience.
So you think that if the former Major Leaguer Chuck Connors had been cast in a baseball movie, the audience would have been turned off? Was the audience turned off when the future champion Max Baer was cast in a lead role as a heavyweight contender?
and they very specifically chose not to do that.
Could be, I suppose, but where's the evidence for that? I've read many stories about Mosconi's training of Newman, and not one of them ever said that they told him not to teach him too much.
why would deliberately making (only) Newman look worse be a sensible strategy?
The thing about Newman in the film is that the way he handles the cue is consistent with the personality of a guy who beats the hell out of Fats but still finds a way to lose to him. That's acting. Give him a smooth stroke and he's more convincing to you as a top-flight pool player, but gives a less convincing performance as Fast Eddie Felson, the jumpy alcoholic who picks up a gimp in a bar at 9 in the morning.
Who am I missing? I'm sure there are several.
No one in a profession thinks the movies get it right. There have been a whole lot more movies about lawyers and the law than pool, and lawyers are always deriding something in them as being inauthentic. There probably are but a handful of people who appreciate the niceties that Jolly Old insist are necessary for the movie and Newman's performance to be realistic.
And it's not as if I'm demanding perfection. I found Chadwick Boseman's mimicking of Jackie Robinson's form to be perfectly credible in "42", which I just saw today. And since Tom Selleck once hit a ball into the upper deck at Tiger Stadium, I doubt if I would have found much to kvetch about in Mr. Baseball.
I'm usually the first person to say "Let it go, it's just a movie" when it comes to these things.
It's funny; I don't care about stuff it'd take external knowledge to catch ("That's clearly a later-model Ford, so the whole movie is ########"),
but it really bugs me when movies aren't true to their own internal reality: for example, once you've thoroughly established that a character is so lazy and atrophied that he's literally never stood on his own feet, you can't just have him stand up (and be super-strong) late in the movie, simply because the plot demands it.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (9 members)
Page rendered in 0.9352 seconds, 58 querie(s) executed