I am so sick of the facile line that the 1950s and '60s were "baseball's golden era." In what way were those decades baseball's golden era?

I'm reading Robert Creamer's classic bio of Casey Stengel, and he writes about baseball in Stengel's youth in the early 20th century: "It's difficult now (1984) to appreciate the extraordinary hold that baseball had on the country at that time. It wasn't called the national pastime by some promotion-minded flak from the Baseball Commissioner's office; it was the national pastime. Every city had dozens and dozens of teams, and on Saturdays and Sundays and holidays there were ball games everywhere. Men would play ball at picnics for kegs of beer. There were sandlot teams and school teams and semiprofessional teams and minor-league teams everywhere. College baseball was big-time, with huge crowds going to stadiums to see games between, for example, Yale and Harvard."

The '50s and '60s represented the period when baseball went from that kind of dominance to being one of several major sports, no longer THE national pastime. In 1950, the NBA was just getting started and the NFL was a bunch of plumbers and bouncers wrestling in the dirt at baseball stadiums. By 1970, the NFL and NBA, as well as their college counterparts, were major sports, going toe to toe with baseball. The NFL really exploded in the '70s and basketball in the '80s, but the process was well underway in the '50s and '60s. Baseball's "golden age" was a period of loss of hegemony. Some golden age.

What I think is really behind this BS is that the '50s and '60s were the halcyon youth of the huge baby-boom generation, which since the '60s ended have dominated the media and therefore popular thought. The '50s and '60s were "the golden age" of an outsized group of people, and they've labeled it a golden age of baseball -- they do the same thing with other things, like TV, which in the '50s was somewhat akin to the NFL in the '40s, a primitive thing trying to find its way -- because it was a golden age for them. And it's been repeated so many times by so many people for so long that even younger generations -- such as this book reviewer, who says he is too young to have seen Mays play, so he is younger than a boomer -- now repeat it.

Similarly, the '50s and '60s, especially the '50s, were a golden age of baseball in New York, where, again, there are more people than anywhere else.

I am so sick of the facile line that the 1950s and '60s were "baseball's golden era." In what way were those decades baseball's golden era?

In one way, and one way alone: The combination of middle class prosperity and cheap tickets, all available on a walk-up basis in every city, not just the ones on the lower end. In all other ways (unless you lived in New York up through 1957), though, you're absolutely right: It's a complete myth.

What I think is really behind this BS is that the '50s and '60s were the halcyon youth of the huge baby-boom generation, which since the '60s ended have dominated the media and therefore popular thought.

There is something to that, but the media personalities that dominated sports coverage in the 60's and early 70's were from an earlier generation (Cosell, Garagiola, etc.), and a big proportion of the people you see on ESPN every night today regard the 50's and 60's as ancient history. I think that most of the current glorification of the 50's and 60's is centered on a few iconic names, and not so much on the game in general, and in part a reaction to the steroid scandal---the grass is always greener, etc.

a big proportion of the people you see on ESPN every night today regard the 50's and 60's as ancient history.

Maybe so, but they grew up hearing that the 50s and 60s were the golden age. It's received wisdom. I grew up hearing it, and didn't give a second thought to the idea until I was well into adulthood. And I'm the type who gives a second thought to everything.

And I'm a baby-boomer, technically! Though just barely, born in '63. I certainly have more in common, culturally and generation-wise, with the so-called Gen-Xers born in the late 60s/early 70s than with, say, Bill Clinton or Oliver Stone.

To bring this back to Mays, there's also a book out by John Klima called "Willie's Boys". It's the story of the Birmingham Black Barons and the end days of the Negro Leagues. I'm about 100 pages in and it's excellent.

a big proportion of the people you see on ESPN every night today regard the 50's and 60's as ancient history.

Maybe so, but they grew up hearing that the 50s and 60s were the golden age. It's received wisdom.

Sort of like the received wisdom that the early baby boomers (and "war babies" like myself) grew up with, which was that America could do no wrong, and that governments and corporations are always on the square. We managed to get over that, and eventually we'll get over whatever remaining nostalgia there is for the 50's and 60's, or at least be a bit more selective about it. The only true lesson is that there never has been any "golden age," other than the one that you can create for yourself.

I think that most of the current glorification of the 50's and 60's is centered on a few iconic names, and not so much on the game in general

I think this. When I think about the Hall of Fame inner-circle, a huge percentage of them come from this era -- Mays, Aaron, Musial, Williams, Mantle, Koufax, Gibson, etc. The '70s and '80s weren't close in this regard, which is why I think the title held on for so long.

Mays will be on the Daily Show this Wednesday, by the way.

When I was growing up in the 50s and 60s, I always heard that the 20s were the golden era of sports. It was most definitely personality driven -- Ruth and Dempsey were the leaders, I'm sure there were some horses and jockeys, other fighters, etc. This current "golden age" thing has evolved much like TEH FEAR of Jim Rice; I blame Ken Burns and Costas for the former and I guess CHB takes credit for the latter.

I am so sick of the facile line that the 1950s and '60s were "baseball's golden era." In what way were those decades baseball's golden era?

Willie Mays should never have written this book.

When I was growing up in the 50s and 60s, I always heard that the 20s were the golden era of sports. It was most definitely personality driven -- Ruth and Dempsey were the leaders, I'm sure there were some horses and jockeys, other fighters, etc. This current "golden age" thing has evolved much like TEH FEAR of Jim Rice; I blame Ken Burns and Costas for the former and I guess CHB takes credit for the latter.

The very first issue of Sports Illustrated (August 16, 1954) had as one of its feature articles an essay by Gerald Holland entitled The Golden Age Is Now, using every conceivable statistic to show that the "Golden Age" of the 1920's had been eclipsed by the 50's.

And I'm a baby-boomer, technically! Though just barely, born in '63.

Technically, my ass. If you weren't old enough either to fight in Viet Nam, or to seriously wonder if the war would still be going when you were old enough, you're a little late to the party.

The very first issue of Sports Illustrated (August 16, 1954) had as one of its feature articles an essay by Gerald Holland entitled The Golden Age Is Now, using every conceivable statistic to show that the "Golden Age" of the 1920's had been eclipsed by the 50's.

Serves me right for not learning how to read 12 days before my 3rd birthday. Did he use Win Shares or WAR?

Technically, my ass. If you weren't old enough either to fight in Viet Nam, or to seriously wonder if the war would still be going when you were old enough, you're a little late to the party.

Yes: Technically. The baby boom was '46-'64. I was born in '63. So technically I am a baby-boomer, though, as I think you are agreeing, I come from pretty much a completely different generation than the generation one thinks of when one hears "baby-boomers." I was 6 when Woodstock happened. I was 9 when Watergate happened, which was one of the 30 or so times that the '60s ended, I hear.

Apparently you were not born during the Golden Age of baby boomers!

I was 9 when Watergate happened, which was one of the 30 or so times that the '60s ended, I hear.

Which cliche has been the subject of the greatest number of book subtitles: The end of the 60's; the end of "America's innocence"; or the event that "changed the world"?

I've gotta go with "When America Lost Her Innocence," but it's a close call.

I think I was born during the golden age of suicide doors. Love those things.

the event that "changed the world"?

There's also the event "heard around the world", though that's more a headline trope than a book subtitle trope.

I was born in early 1980. By some definitions, I'm a GenXer. I have a lot more in common, culturally and psychically, with GenX, than I do with anything that came after. But I'm pretty happily between generations, really.

I was born in early 1980. By some definitions, I'm a GenXer.

1978 is the usual end of that one.

I confess to being a no-doubts baby boomer (born 1947). IMO the reason that the 1950s (especially) and the 1960s get called the Golden Age of Baseball are four:

1. Us boomers, particularly the huge first wave born to the returning WWII soldiers, grew up with 1950s and 1960s ball. You're not very critical when you're a kid, and the previous edition of the game had been the WWII version, where many of the stars just weren't there. So we thought the game was great, and our dads told us that it really was, compared to its predecessor.

2. The 1950s and 1960s are the two decades where MLB actually got integrated, so writers about that time assign it a moral superiority that it really doesn't deserve. MLB integrated because it's hard to argue that someone who just fought Hitler should not be allowed to play MLB, not because the 1950s were full of Golden Guys.

3. Because MLB got integrated, there were a lot more superstars than there ever had been before, which made the whole game look better-played than it was.

4. Those two decades - the 50s especially - were completely dominated by teams from the New York area, and the spread of TV, among other things, allowed the New York media to dominate the national consciousness to a degree that may be unequalled in American history.

- Brock Hanke

I confess to being a no-doubts baby boomer (born 1947). IMO the reason that the 1950s (especially) and the 1960s get called the Golden Age of Baseball are four:

...
4. Those two decades - the 50s especially - were completely dominated by teams from the New York area,

and this is coupled with the fact that a very small but extremely vocal group of writers have maintained the model the that the move of the Dodgers to the west coast represented the end of western civilization as we know it

so the "Golden Age" by definition ended in 58

That's a good point. A "golden age" narrative has to have an end, and in this case is partly created by an end: the move of the Dodgers and Giants at the end of the '50s. That they moved at the end of the '50s and not the middle, or the early '60s, may have contributed to the "golden age" idea, too, since it made for a round end-point.

(T)he spread of TV, among other things, allowed the New York media to dominate the national consciousness to a degree that may be unequalled in American history.

When did TV become more of an LA thing?

In any case, I think this is largely Roger Kahn's fault.

and this is coupled with the fact that a very small but extremely vocal group of writers have maintained the model the that the move of the Dodgers to the west coast represented the end of western civilization as we know it

When the Lone Ranger turned to Tonto and said "Indians! We're surrounded by Indians!", his heretofore faithful companion replied, "What you mean, 'we,' Kemo Sabe?"

I think the 1950s are certainly a very interesting period in baseball history and there are some good things about them. The rise of the media bought MLB into more homes than ever. Television is obvious, but it was in the 50s when baseball fully embraced radio and teams stopped doing recreations and started bringing their broadcasters home and away. Outside the Major League markets the Mutual Radio Network, Gordon McLendon's inventive recreations with Liberty and such vastly increased the exposure of Major League baseball. Sports Illustrated was started. Sport magazine hit its stride. I think we started to see the seedlings of the growth of merchandising. You have relocation, new stadiums, the fan experience being redefined a little bit. Off the field, the 50s is really fascinating.

On the field, not so much, unless you were from New York.

I think as Gen Xers begin to take a prominent position in the media we're seeing the 70s be redefined into a Golden age somewhat. That's not a bad thing in my opinion. 70s and 80s baseball is interesting off the field (especially the 80s with player sponsorships hitting their golden age and the rise of ESPN) and interesting on the field too. I grew up in the 90s, but I doubt I'll ever write paeans to it. The 2000s on the other hand have been an excellent decade for baseball.

I think as Gen Xers begin to take a prominent position in the media we're seeing the 70s be redefined into a Golden age somewhat. That's not a bad thing in my opinion. 70s and 80s baseball is interesting off the field (especially the 80s with player sponsorships hitting their golden age and the rise of ESPN) and interesting on the field too. I grew up in the 90s, but I doubt I'll ever write paeans to it. The 2000s on the other hand have been an excellent decade for baseball.

It's an impossible term to pin down, but as a (barely) pre-boomer who grew up in the 50's, I'd say that the 70's and 80's would easily outstrip the 50's and 60's in any "Golden Age" competition. You had a nearly unparalleled sense of competition on the field (from 1979 to 1987 you had a different champion every year, and a different AL East winner every year from 1981 to 1986), and you hadn't yet seen the explosion of ticket prices.

It's largely subjective, but there's no extended period that combined intense on-the-field competition and low ticket prices in all the ballparks, not just in the Kansas Cities and Tampa Bays. And really, what else is there?

low ticket prices in all the ballparks

That's great for those who live in big leagues cities, but what about us bumpkins who live in the (relatively speaking) hinterlands? Maybe the Golden Age for us was when quality players would barnstorm.

"What you mean, 'we,' Kemo Sabe?"

Better punch line: "What this 'we' sh**, Kemo Sabe?"

I think there's a more prosaic explanation for calling the 20s and 50s "Golden Ages". Take a look at AROM's WAR data. Of the 20 greatest players of all time, 7 were active in the 1920s, 6 in the 1950s. The rest are scattered from the 19th C to the present.

If you're a fan of offensive baseball -- especially a fan of home runs -- those 2 decades really do stand out.

low ticket prices in all the ballparks

That's great for those who live in big leagues cities, but what about us bumpkins who live in the (relatively speaking) hinterlands? Maybe the Golden Age for us was when quality players would barnstorm.

Good point, but hell, that was even before my time, unless you're talking about The King and His Court.

But if I lived in the hinterlands, my Golden Age would have begun the year they introduced Extra Innings, which Back In The Day would've been part of some sort of futuristic utopian novel. I still can't believe I can just walk downstairs and watch every game in the Majors for 50 cents a day.

I found this, from the SI article Andy linked, interesting:

In sports' new golden age, football is at its peak of popularity and a significant change in the rules last year may well produce individual stars to match those of the '20s. For more than a decade, the rules had permitted unlimited substitutions. Out of this came the two-platoon system. Now limited substitutions are again the rule and as a result, players must be more versatile and durable. And of versatility and durability the Red Granges and the J. C. Carolines (J. C. is performing brilliantly on Red's old campus at the University of Illinois) are made.

Now limited substitutions are again the rule and as a result, players must be more versatile and durable. And of versatility and durability the Red Granges and the J. C. Carolines (J. C. is performing brilliantly on Red's old campus at the University of Illinois) are made.

Dewey Defeats Truman

from this web site

SUBSTITUTIONS:

1876--Fifteen players to a team and few if any substitutions.
1882--Replacements for disqualified or injured players.
1897--Substitutes may enter game at any time at discretion of captains.
1922--Players withdrawn during the first half may not return until the second
half. Players withdrawn during the second half may not return to
the game.
1941--Players may substitute at any time but may not be withdrawn or the
outgoing player returned until at least one play has intervened.
"Platoon" football made possible.
1948--Unlimited substitution on change of team posession.
1953--Two-platoon abolished and players allowed to enter game only once in
each quarter
1954-64--Changes each year toward more liberalized substitution and platoon
football.
1965--Platoon football returns. Unlimited substitutions between periods and
after a score.
1974--Substitutes must be in for one play and replaced players out for one
play.
1993--Players who are bleeding or whose uniforms are saturated with blood
must come out of the game until their return has been approved by
medical personnel.