Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Sunday, August 24, 2014

David Justice Says Put Barry Bonds in Baseball Hall of Fame Despite Steroid Use Late In Career

Hail Barry!

Barry Bonds is one of the players whose careers and reputations have been destroyed by Roidgate. One of the greatest baseball players of all-time, Bonds will likely never be allowed into the Hall of Fame because of his alleged use of steroids. But David Justice, one of the Atlanta Braves’ most celebrated players of all time, says that Bonds should be let in at least on the strength of his pre-juicing days. The former power hitter says that he made it on his own merits for much of his career.

According to David Justice, the league is being petty. They are trying to punish people they think they can catch cheating, instead of acknowledging the accomplishments that have been made while clean.

“Yeah, Barry was probably juiced up from ‘97 to ‘07 ... and that’s bad. But BB was a BEAST from ‘86 to ‘97 ... BEFORE his head expanded 8 hat sizes. ‘I think they should put Barry in ... period,’ [said Justice].”

Repoz Posted: August 24, 2014 at 08:51 AM | 165 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: hof

Reader Comments and Retorts

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 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2
   101. Baldrick Posted: August 27, 2014 at 11:23 AM (#4779894)
whether we are talking about sports or any other aspect of life, one thing that has become very clear to me is that images (which are almost never accurate) far outlive the reality of a person.

The lack of self-awareness exhibited by this statement is amazing.
   102. Jimmy Posted: August 27, 2014 at 01:06 PM (#4780002)
i havent followed baseball in ages. is there something in the mix that would allow batters to wear something protective ?

i think there is a big difference between protecting one's safety, and using some substance that allows you to do something that you otherwise could not do.

i have always stated that you cant compare players of different eras. and i am not gonna talk about how good someone was or wasnt, if i havent seen him play.

so since i am not saddled with comparing stats of different eras, i would be all for protection for the batter. my ideal would have been something light that could still protect, so that his athleticism wasnt hampered.
   103. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 27, 2014 at 01:10 PM (#4780009)
as i said, some of you go along with "do whatever, if there isnt a specific rule against it"
There wasn't a "specific" rule against it, there wasn't a general rule against it, there was no rule against it.

putting something on your hands to make the ball stick is so far past the point, that if you dont see it, you never will.
You understand that your failure to be able to present a logical, coherent argument is not our fault, right?
   104. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: August 27, 2014 at 01:15 PM (#4780017)
as i said, some of you go along with "do whatever, if there isnt a specific rule against it"

putting something on your hands to make the ball stick is so far past the point, that if you dont see it, you never will.

they eventually made it illegal - i will let you guys make your own conclusions.

So.... hey, here is an analogy that works...



Spitball. Up until 1920, the spitball and all its variants was perfectly legal. Were pitchers who "put something on their fingers to make the ball break in crazy ways" cheaters? Not everyone did it. They eventually made it illegal, but grandfathered in a few who had established it as a major part of their arsenal. Some of them like Red Faber and Burleigh Grimes made it to the HOF. Were they cheaters?
   105. Jimmy Posted: August 27, 2014 at 01:18 PM (#4780024)
of course they were - just like guys using stickum when it wasnt illegal
   106. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: August 27, 2014 at 01:20 PM (#4780027)
i think there is a big difference between protecting one's safety, and using some substance that allows you to do something that you otherwise could not do.


So, every pitcher who threw a spitball pre 1920, and those specifically allowed post 1920 were cheaters?
   107. Jimmy Posted: August 27, 2014 at 01:20 PM (#4780028)
sorry david,

continue to go the drawing board - always interesting to see what your next rationalization will be of why something isnt wrong, unless it is specifically stated to be so.

   108. Jimmy Posted: August 27, 2014 at 01:22 PM (#4780030)
yes ml,

i think i answered that already.
   109. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: August 27, 2014 at 01:23 PM (#4780031)
of course they were - just like guys using stickum when it wasnt illegal


You have a strange sense of what's cheating. Flat sided bats used to be legal, now they're not. Cheating? In-play substitutions used to be legal, not they're not. Cheating? The pitcher used to throw from 50 feet, now it's 60. cheating?
   110. Srul Itza Posted: August 27, 2014 at 01:25 PM (#4780034)
I nominate Jimmy for Troll of the Year.

For the rest of you, please see a reconstructive surgeon about repairing the gaping facial wounds left by the hook(s).
   111. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 27, 2014 at 01:30 PM (#4780038)
continue to go the drawing board - always interesting to see what your next rationalization will be of why something isnt wrong, unless it is specifically stated to be so.
You have it backwards -- it's your job to explain why it is wrong. You are, however, apparently unable to understand what the word "cheating" actually means. Doing things within the rules to win is what one is supposed to do. By definition, if it's not outside the rules, it isn't cheating. Batters wear gloves; fielders wear gloves, pitchers use a rosin bag. All putting things on their hands to help them perform better, all perfectly legitimate because it's not against the rules. On the other hand, putting vaseline on a ball, not legitimate because it is against the rules.
   112. Ron J2 Posted: August 27, 2014 at 01:38 PM (#4780046)
#110 I don't think Jimmy's trolling. The arguments he's made here and in the HOM are all basically either, "trust me I was there" or "I know it when I see it".

He's not much given to supporting his arguments with details like logic.
   113. Jimmy Posted: August 27, 2014 at 01:39 PM (#4780048)
you need to understand the difference between the letter and spirit of the law

gloves are worn by all fielders.

stickum was hidden inside jerseys, etc., and was an oakland raider invention, who also just happened to be the dirtiest team in football.

like i said, if you dont get it, you never will.

i had a dad who would not have put up with that sort of rationalization, which is why i get it, today.

there was no rule in flag football about stickum. there didnt need to be. we all knew putting something on our hands to catch the ball was cheating.

   114. alilisd Posted: August 27, 2014 at 01:44 PM (#4780052)
I love that Jimmy's reply that reads "please quote me correctly" is in fact using the quote feature incorrectly.


Which is why he's such a good troll.

I don't think Jimmy's trolling.


You should think again.
   115. Jimmy Posted: August 27, 2014 at 01:51 PM (#4780059)
did you read any of the urls that i posted ?

it is COMMON for professional athletes to do all sorts of things that are not proper.

cuz they figure in the long run, it benefits them more than it hurts them, based upon a risk/reward basis.

is there a rule about grabbing a guy's testicles in sports ? if so, was there ever a time in any sport where there wasnt a rule about grabbing them ?

if there isnt a rule, does that mean that it is okay to do so. one of the urls that i posted talked about a specific nfl player who was known to try and do this.

some things are simply wrong, and against the spirit of the law.

   116. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: August 27, 2014 at 01:51 PM (#4780060)
Yep, it was well hidden. No one could possibly know they were using it.
   117. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: August 27, 2014 at 02:02 PM (#4780073)
some things are simply wrong, and against the spirit of the law.


And how is one to know a priori, what will eventually become illegal? If the league mandates a minimum diameter for bat handles (and there's talk that they might), such that most thin handled bats in use today are illegal, is everyone who used such a bat all of a sudden a cheater?

Spitballers acted in the open, and were widely admired for their skill. The spitball was outlawed not because of the advantage it gave pitchers, but in part because it was considered unsanitary, and following the death of Ray Chapman, who was hit by a dirty, harder to see ball, the league wanted to keep fresh clean balls in play and didn't want pitchers dirtying them up.

Stickum was banned for similar reasons: not because it gave players some sort of unfair advantage (though I fail to see how it could be unfair if everyone is allowed to use it), but because it was a goddamned mess. Impossible to clean, it got on everything, and the league said enough.

   118. The District Attorney Posted: August 27, 2014 at 02:11 PM (#4780079)
I dunno, who's trollin' more, the person pointing out that there's no rule against grabbing the opponent's nutsack, or the person pointing out that gloves help you field better? Both statements are useless strawmen.

A true troll (e.g. SugarBear Blanks on Jack Morris) would probably have come up with some wordy, convoluted, laughably illogical justification for how pre-1920 spitballers somehow weren't cheating. At least Jimmy flat-out said that they were cheaters too. That's a ####### insane position, but taking it is nonetheless inconsistent with trolling, I think.

Now, I do wonder what a person who a) hasn't watched baseball in decades and b) trusts no information other than his own eyes expects to get out of discussions on a baseball message board in the year 2014. But I suppose that's Jimmy's problem.
   119. Booey Posted: August 27, 2014 at 02:17 PM (#4780085)
Stickum was banned for similar reasons: not because it gave players some sort of unfair advantage (though I fail to see how it could be unfair if everyone is allowed to use it), but because it was a goddamned mess. Impossible to clean, it got on everything, and the league said enough.


Isn't that also the only reason pine tar was banned? Some treated it as cheating at the time (the George Brett incident), but really wasn't it prohibited just cuz it was messy and not cuz it provided any type of advantage?

   120. Rennie's Tenet Posted: August 27, 2014 at 02:20 PM (#4780090)
And had some run-ins with the press over being called, "Bobby".


Someone had a great line that Clemente didn't mind Bob Prince calling him "Bobby," but you had to keep in mind that Prince also named him "The Great One."
   121. Jimmy Posted: August 27, 2014 at 08:30 PM (#4780404)
observation 1) close to 100% of the people accused of trolling is when the accusers dont have a solid argument to present. but you got it right - i have nothing better to do with my life than see if i can create arguments of forum discussion boards !!

observation 2) i am presenting thoughts that the vast majority of people in real life would agree with. and that includes you guys. but in order to admit to it, you would also need to admit to a huge amount of lack of integrity in sports. which you are not yet willing to admit, but probably will be some day

observation 3) how do i know this, you may ask ? the vast majority of parents do not teach their kids to "get away with it, if you can". the vast majority of parents do not teach their kids that it is okay to do something, if you can find a loophole around it. the vast majority of parents do teach their kids some form of ethical behavior, so that they will grow up and be able to make fair and ethical decisions for themselves. and i dont believe for a second that the vast majority of you parents on this site are not part of the vast majority of parents in real life.

observation 4) with regards to a priori, not needed. fairness, honesty, correct behavior have all evolved as part of human behavior.

as i said earlier, all of us kids knew that it was cheating to put something on our hands so that we could do the job better. and please dont give me the ridiculous example of gloves. gloves are a part of baseball. they are wide in the open, everyone uses them. and while they have certainly improved, i dont think pro baseball ever played bare-handed ? we knew that we would not only get kicked out of the game, but more than likely get kicked off the team. why did we know this ? because we were all taught a code of ethics that easily allowed us to realize that it was cheating.

did you read what lester hayes said about stickum ? he would not have been nearly as good without it. so please dont give me the ridiculous argument that it didnt help. like these guys are gonna spread all this messy crap all over their hands, etc. because it didnt help ? please do not insult my intelligence or your own, as i am not claiming to be any more intelligent than any of you. it doesnt take a rocket scientist to understand that sticky stuff on your hands helps a person hold onto something that he is trying to catch. or in the case of defensive backs, it helps them bump and run and hold onto the receivers, causing it to be more difficult for the receiver (lester haye's admission).
   122. Jimmy Posted: August 27, 2014 at 08:37 PM (#4780412)
with regards to clemente - i dont find his objection even slightly objectionable.

first, he is black. a nickname like bobby is likely to be taken in the same vein as if he was called "boy".

i doubt if clemente would have cared if his friends called him bobby, because it would have been out of personal affection.

but for a sportswriter, or business person, etc. to call him that - i totally understand why he might dislike that.

the bottom line for me, is i try to call people the name that they ask me to.

i have always gone by jimmy. when i got to high school, i changed to jim. but it never stuck, cuz once a high school friend heard an older friend call me jimmy, he would start calling me that.

once i realized that people just naturally related to me as 'jimmy', i stuck by it. and i like the name, anyways - so no big deal. but if i had been black, or just sensitive about it, i might have preferred jim or james (because it sounds more grown-up).

if that is the biggest beef anyone has about clemente, you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel.
   123. Jimmy Posted: August 27, 2014 at 09:25 PM (#4780463)
now for an ever more difficult task - does anyone know something bad about the poster boy model of baseball, mr. al kaline ?

maybe he forgot to brush his teeth once ?????

kaline, along with bill russell were my 2 favorite athletes when i was a boy. i guess i stuck with number 6 !!!!!!
   124. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: August 27, 2014 at 09:45 PM (#4780480)
does anyone know something bad about the poster boy model of baseball, mr. al kaline ?


The most basic ballplayer in history.
   125. Tom Nawrocki Posted: August 27, 2014 at 10:18 PM (#4780512)
Yep, it was well hidden. No one could possibly know they were using it.


He put it on his freakin' helmet! I kept waiting for him to have a ball stick to his head.
   126. Ron J2 Posted: August 28, 2014 at 11:43 AM (#4780810)
#125 Thought I'd check SI. They mention that Hayes used about 9 ounces a game and have a picture of the stuff just dripping off him. Beside a photo of Biletnikof and his socks.

I honestly don't know how anybody can claim to have followed the game at the time and be unaware of stickum use.

SI photos
   127. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: August 28, 2014 at 12:02 PM (#4780831)
Jimmy likes his chicken spicy.
   128. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 28, 2014 at 12:24 PM (#4780849)
you need to understand the difference between the letter and spirit of the law
Which law are you discussing "the spirit" of? Please identify it.

gloves are worn by all fielders.
So they are all cheating, I guess.

stickum was hidden inside jerseys, etc.,
No, it wasn't. It was open. There was no need to hide it, because there was no rule against it.

i had a dad who would not have put up with that sort of rationalization, which is why i get it, today.
Sounds senile.

there was no rule in flag football about stickum. there didnt need to be. we all knew putting something on our hands to catch the ball was cheating.
How did you 'know' that?
   129. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: August 28, 2014 at 12:31 PM (#4780861)
Halle Berry


That reminds me of my favorite all time post on this site. Post 30 from this thread
   130. Jimmy Posted: August 28, 2014 at 05:24 PM (#4781129)
hi ron,

i dont know how old some of you guys are - i am 59. most of my memories are before lester hayes.

as i stated earlier, the originator of it (biletnikof) was not known to the fans at the time i was watching.

that would have been enough disgusting to me that i would have remembered it.

and nothing that the fans would have approved of.

more in line with all the stuff about jfk being held from the public.
   131. Jimmy Posted: August 28, 2014 at 05:30 PM (#4781134)
i should have said "most, if not all"

my removal of sports was not instantaneous - it just dwindled until nothing was left.

if i recall, kaline left after 73, when i gradutated from high school

russell in 69, when i graduated from grade school.

mccovey was younger than kaline, so he was still around.

my following probably went right along with my favorites retiring.

in any case, i have nothing more to say, unless someone has a specific question or point that has not been brought up yet.

and i need to keep my "trolling up" !!!!
   132. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 28, 2014 at 05:40 PM (#4781139)
as i stated earlier, the originator of it (biletnikof) was not known to the fans at the time i was watching.
No, it was not known to you. It was not secret. It was written about in the papers and talked about openly.
   133. Rennie's Tenet Posted: August 28, 2014 at 07:08 PM (#4781193)
Just for fun, I went to the "SI Vault" website for Sports Illustrated's earliest use of the word "stickum." That may have been in January, 1976. It might not be, though, because the website says "Loading 20 of 35," and isn't functional when you press the "Load More" button. Also, the articles aren't in chronological order. In the old days - say, a couple of months ago - the SI Vault searches gave you a list of articles that you could sort in a couple of ways, including chronological or reverse-chronological.

You do get a pretty picture next to each article they supply, though. My best guess is that articles 21-35 that wouldn't load actually post-date the "Vault" era, and that SI started using "stickum" early in 1976.
   134. AuntBea Posted: August 28, 2014 at 07:23 PM (#4781203)
Anyone who hasn't clicked on those photos yet in 126 really should do so. I hope the stuff was banned primarily for hygienic reasons. Yuck!
   135. Random Transaction Generator Posted: August 28, 2014 at 07:50 PM (#4781213)
one thing (in football) that i found astonishing is that fred biletnikof put some sort of stick-em on his hands.

not a thing one could hide for long - players knew, no doubt refs would have eventually found out.

but as far as i know, nothing was ever said to him.

i know i did not know about it while he was playing, and no mention of it in public - cuz that would have garnered big attention.


December 26th, 1974

An AP article that mention his use of the stickum, and how the defending player admits that he also uses it (but not as much as FB).
The photo headline even says "he has been known to use stickum".

So please stop saying it was "hidden" or "unknown", or that fans didn't have a clue.
   136. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 28, 2014 at 08:05 PM (#4781224)
And if you read other coverage -- such as the NY Times -- there's nothing judgmental about their discussion of the topic. It's treated as amusing, not as sleazy. (Fun fact: according to the Times, the product used by Hayes was called "Kwik Grip.") The only real issue people had with it was that it was kind of disgusting, especially as much as Hayes used it. But lots of people used it, and there was some talk about it being psychological as much as anything, and the word "cheating" wasn't even mentioned.
   137. Jimmy Posted: August 28, 2014 at 09:58 PM (#4781273)
did you guys read the article that i presented ? in lester hayes own words, he would not have been as good without stickum.

balls stick to sticky stuff. allows one to catch it easier. and even moreso, if we are talking about cold or wet weather.

once again, dont insult the intelligence of the posters on this forum. it was physically helpful. the players admitted it. and the slightest bit of common sense indicates the same.

so here is an article in the newspaper (in 1974), and this means that most of the fans were aware of it ?

and btw, are you aware that biletnikof started in 1965 ?

you guys keep picking dates that are somewhat past when i was doing most of my watching.

i have attempted to see how early in his career he first started using the stuff, but i have not been able to find any article that talks about it.

anyone else have any proof or article that even mentions when he first started using it ?
   138. Random Transaction Generator Posted: August 28, 2014 at 10:20 PM (#4781285)
so here is an article in the newspaper (in 1974), and this means that most of the fans were aware of it ?


If there is an article by a major wire service (which AP was at the time), and in the article they reference the stickum matter-of-factly, and the defensive player talks about how he uses it too, I'm going to assume that the stuff was well known by anyone that followed the sport even passively. I'd be willing to bet that television announcers would mention it any time FB made his first catch in a game.

I think it's silly to assume your ignorance on the subject means that everyone else is also ignorant about it, especially since lots of people have provided proof of how out in the open the use of stickum was at the time.

and btw, are you aware that biletnikof started in 1965 ?


Sure, and according to your previous posts, that means you would have been only 10 years old at the time (if you are 59 yrs old now).
The fact that you didn't know about stickum when you were 10 years old is probably more an indication that you were unaware of what everyone else might have known at that time.
   139. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: August 28, 2014 at 10:27 PM (#4781289)
137. Jimmy Posted: August 28, 2014 at 09:58 PM (#4781273)


once again, dont insult the intelligence of the posters on this forum.


Pot, meet kettle.
   140. Rennie's Tenet Posted: August 28, 2014 at 11:15 PM (#4781309)
I'd be willing to bet that television announcers would mention it any time FB made his first catch in a game.


You obviously never heard Curt Gowdy call a Raiders game.
   141. Jimmy Posted: August 28, 2014 at 11:29 PM (#4781315)
Sure, and according to your previous posts, that means you would have been only 10 years old at the time (if you are 59 yrs old now).
The fact that you didn't know about stickum when you were 10 years old is probably more an indication that you were unaware of what everyone else might have known at that time.


i would buy that argument in some things. not this case.

it would have "stuck" with me that some football player was cheating. especially fb, since the one thing that people bragged about him was his ability to catch the ball.

it would have been ridiculously hypocritical to talk about someone catching the ball, and having glue on his hands !!

if someone has info about when fb started using and/or when it was known, please provide any article, even if it is not all that trustworthy.
   142. AuntBea Posted: August 28, 2014 at 11:36 PM (#4781317)
My dad liked to talk about stickum in the late 70s and early 80s. I also specifically remember Hayes playing for the Raiders as a child, and everyone being well aware that he was a heavy user. The first game I remember watching was the Eagles/Raiders superbowl (after the 1980 season). I was rooting for the Eagles because they wore green. I think my dad was amused and disgusted by the physical substance of stickum... and I know we talked about it as kids as sort of a joke (though never as cheating of course). I don't think I've ever seen the stuff in person.

Edit: by "we" talked about it, I mean my brother and our friends, who played a lot of touch football in the street.
   143. Jimmy Posted: August 29, 2014 at 12:07 AM (#4781335)
some posters are making ridiculous arguments about gloves and such.

how about this - if an athlete wants to start using something that is not a big part of the game already, then he gets permission from the commissioner to do so.

things like gloves on the fielders and the rosin bag on the mound are all wide in the open, a part of baseball, etc.

stickum never came close to being in that category.

but if the sport wants to allow some foreign substance, then that is their choice.

but to simply start using some foreign substance as a way to have an advantage is CHEATING.

so if no batters wear gloves, and now some batter wants to start wearing them, he gets approved.

an approval by the commissioner is an open statement that no player will be unaware of.

so not only is permission granted, but it is clearly communicated to all teams and players.

if i am commissioner, i find out what this request entails, and what this new thing does for the players. then i make my decision.

i am not opposed to everything. when i played paddle tennis, i might play all day long. so i brought many pairs of "handball-like" gloves. it sole purpose was to keep the sweat from my hands off the paddle. i would have approved that.

on the other hand, if these gloves gave me more power, or some other physical attribute that i could not get without them, then i would not allow them.

but whether i like the rule change or not, i would not say it was cheating if it went thru an official process that i just described.
   144. Jimmy Posted: August 29, 2014 at 12:12 AM (#4781337)
or to put it another way - NOT ALLOWED UNTIL AND UNLESS PERMISSION IS GRANTED.
   145. Greg K Posted: August 29, 2014 at 12:42 AM (#4781347)
al kaline is perhaps the best player that no one has ever heard of.

go beyond this forum, and ask a young fan of today who he is - i doubt if even 1 person in 100 would know who you were talking about.

Growing up my dad kept the spare key for the house in the tool cupboard in the garage. Each slot was numbered so he put it in "Al Kaline's number". Drove my mom crazy since she isn't a baseball fan and had no idea what number that might be. Which is kind of weird because he grew up an Indians fan in Ontario.

I think if you know anything about baseball history, you know Al Kaline. I don't doubt that New York players have a greater media profile...but Al Kaline isn't exactly being lost in the mists of time (amongst weirdos who actually think about baseball players who played before they were born anyway). Greatest player the average fan has never heard of is likely some 19th century or Negro League star. Arky Vaughan is a popular answer I would think...not sure who the post-war guy would be. Jimmy Wynn? In 30 years I can see someone like Alan Trammel being forgotten because the kids learn the old stars through Hall of Fame books (as I did).
   146. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 29, 2014 at 06:46 AM (#4781450)
how about this - if an athlete wants to start using something that is not a big part of the game already, then he gets permission from the commissioner to do so.

...

or to put it another way - NOT ALLOWED UNTIL AND UNLESS PERMISSION IS GRANTED.
They could implement such a policy. I think it's dumb and ultimately unworkable, but they could do it. And then one could label it as "cheating" to do otherwise, because then there would be an actual rule against it. But -- and here's the thing you don't seem to grasp: THAT ISN'T THE ACTUAL RULE IN EFFECT. The actual rule in effect is ALLOWED UNTIL AND UNLESS A RULE IS PASSED AGAINST IT.


i am not opposed to everything. when i played paddle tennis, i might play all day long. so i brought many pairs of "handball-like" gloves. it sole purpose was to keep the sweat from my hands off the paddle. i would have approved that.

on the other hand, if these gloves gave me more power, or some other physical attribute that i could not get without them, then i would not allow them.
Uh, not-sweating is a "physical attribute that you could not get without them." In any case, however, whether "Jimmy" "would have approved" is not the definition of cheating.
   147. Ron J2 Posted: August 29, 2014 at 09:37 AM (#4781513)
No, it was not known to you. It was not secret. It was written about in the papers and talked about openly.


As you can tell by the SI photos I linked to. Biletnikof wasn't like Hayes of course. I mean the stuff is just dripping off him in that photo.

As for memories, the first Super Bowl I can clearly recall is Super Bowl III. The first World Series I can clearly recall (watching highlights on a newsreel) was 1965.

And Jimmy, I may be older than most here, but there are people on the board who can recall attending games in the 1950s.
   148. Jimmy Posted: August 29, 2014 at 10:14 AM (#4781561)
ron,

you mean some are older than me ??????? LOL.

do you specifically recall tv announcers referring to stickum on biletnikoff in the 60s ?

in either case, i think we are getting off the main point.

using something like stickum to help you catch the ball is so obviously cheating that it doesnt seem worth talking about.

or i will put it another way - for those of us who were raised in a system of ethics such that we would call it cheating - you are not gonna change that opinion to that degree. we are not talking a little bend, but a huge break.

thank you guys (yes, even you david - LOL) for the conversation. perhaps i left you something to think about ? perhaps not..
   149. Ron J2 Posted: August 29, 2014 at 10:59 AM (#4781621)
#148 Pretty sure the first mention I heard of it was in his Superbowl MVP win.

But there was a lot less football on TV back then -- and nothing like the NFL network.

#174 cites a 1974 article but I'm highly doubtful I'd have noticed it. But I'd be surprised it it was not mentioned in SI before 1976 -- the earliest that we can document. At that time my reading of TSN and SI was kind of hit and miss. Not always easy to get in my neck of the woods.
   150. Ron J2 Posted: August 29, 2014 at 12:00 PM (#4781686)
Did a little more digging. Best I can tell, the first reference to stickum goes back to 1957.

"The yellowish substance on the shoes is a resin many ball carriers dab on their fingers to get more tack on the ball."

Lennie Moore

Note that this says that it was actually in common use in 1957.

   151. Jimmy Posted: August 29, 2014 at 12:56 PM (#4781760)
i remember lenny moore - he must have played past 57.

darn good player. unitas, moore and berry. and they also had a top-notch tight end, whose name escapes me, at the moment.

when i was a kid, you could watch college football all day saturday, and pro ball all day sunday.
   152. just plain joe Posted: August 29, 2014 at 01:40 PM (#4781816)
when i was a kid, you could watch college football all day saturday, and pro ball all day sunday.


Not if you are really 59 you couldn't. I'm a few years older than that and even through my high school years there was only one, or at most two, college football games telecast on Saturday. The NCAA had strict rules about this that weren't successfully challenged and overturned until the early 1980's, by the CFA. Now, on most Saturdays, one can watch 20-25 different college games, and this is not counting the ones on Thursday night or whenever else they figure someone might be willing to watch.

The same thing with pro football; back in the sixties there was one or two NFL games on and usually one AFL game. Monday night football didn't start until the early seventies, after the merger. Gradually the NFL has expanded their coverage to where all of the games are available if you are willing to spring for the appropriate package.
   153. Jimmy Posted: August 29, 2014 at 08:22 PM (#4782100)
LOL - 2 nfl games and 1 afl game was all day to me !!

   154. Jimmy Posted: August 29, 2014 at 08:26 PM (#4782103)
i also got to watch a lot of college football.

but gosh, if there were 2 games, that would have been like all day, for me, as well.

we usually had a flag football game that we played every saturday morning. then games or chores.
   155. Jimmy Posted: August 29, 2014 at 08:54 PM (#4782114)
john mackey - i guess it rose from my subconscious

unitas, moore, berry and mackey - that was a heckuva offensive punch

the packers with hornung, taylor, starr, dowler, mcgee, dale was my favorite team, until they traded hornung and taylor to the saints, if i recall.

then i favored dawson, taylor, and the best defense in football
   156. Jimmy Posted: August 30, 2014 at 02:28 AM (#4782230)
hi ron,

your url just showed a pic of moore, for me - did not get to read anything.

here are some things that my research found

1) stickum was not used heavily until the 70s, and then banned in 81

2) biletnikoff was the first person to "abuse" it, regarding the amount he used

3) teammates said that he could sometimes catch it with his fingertips, because of it

4) in the huddle, the raiders would pick off dirt and grass from fb's hands

simply no doubt in any rational mind that stickum allowed bf to catch passes that he otherwise would not have been able to catch.

whatever use before bf, not sure that it made that much of a change to the player's abilities.

apparently some backs would use a little, to help with fumbling. but the choice word here is LITTLE.

my main complaint is when something external is allowing the player to have more skill than he otherwise could exhibit.

and if something wants to be used, it is approved, and communicated to everyone, so that all players and teams are aware.

i view sports from a sporting stance. unfortunately, most everything that occurs has business reasons to it.

one article said that some tennis players used it, to help with grip on the racket.

i have played lots of tennis, racketball, and paddle tennis. sweat from hands to racket is the only problem.

one needs to shift grips depending upon stroke, so having the grip at all sticky is not a good thing, if it is sticky enough such that it interferes with the speed at which one moves the hand on the racket.
   157. JL Posted: August 30, 2014 at 12:44 PM (#4782383)
i also got to watch a lot of college football.

but gosh, if there were 2 games, that would have been like all day, for me, as well.

we usually had a flag football game that we played every saturday morning. then games or chores.


If you ever wonder why you get the crap you do, look at this response. You make a broad statement, get called on it, and rather than admit you were wrong, you just change the definitions. So it becomes clear that what you write has no meaning beyond what you want it to mean at the time.
   158. Jimmy Posted: August 30, 2014 at 01:09 PM (#4782393)
when i was a kid, if you spent 4-6 hours straight, watching 2 full football games, you watched all day long.

on sunday, i got home from early church, started watching football, until it ended at about 4.

played catch at the park after that.

there doesnt have to be 5 million games on 3 million channels to be watching "all day".

i am sorry if you took "all day" to mean 24 hours, or whatever it is that you took it to mean.
   159. Jimmy Posted: August 30, 2014 at 01:43 PM (#4782406)
my original comment was on a conversational level

any of us boys would have described it as watching all day long

our parents certainly would have described it as watching all day long

what was amusing to me about the reply is that i wasnt even aware that that many games were available !!

professional sports has turned me off for a very long time. so i no longer have any involvement, and have made that abundantly clear quite a few times.
   160. The District Attorney Posted: August 30, 2014 at 02:06 PM (#4782417)
my original comment was on a conversational level
Yeah, well, you do the same thing with everything. When someone proves that Biletnikoff's stickum use was public in 1974, you respond by asking them to prove it was public in 1965. What difference would that make??? Your argument is that it was always considered cheating, and there was never a time when it was public and condoned. As soon as someone proves that there was a time when it was public and condoned, you have been proven incorrect.

Pre-1920 spitballers are the better example, honestly. No one prior to 1920 was hiding that they threw a spitball. You don't have to have been alive then to know that. Everyone knows that.

(For fun, though, I will give you a quote to prove it. In 1924 -- after the ban, even -- Burleigh Grimes, one of the pitchers "grandfathered" in to still be allowed to throw it, said in an interview with Baseball magazine, "The spitter is my main defence, that and my fastball." This is quoted in The Neyer/James Guide to Pitchers [ISBN 0-7432-6158-5], p. 224.)
   161. Jimmy Posted: August 30, 2014 at 08:33 PM (#4782539)
i said during the time that i watched.

i would not make a comment about something that i did not see.

i am not at all convinced that it was public knowledge when i watched biletnikoff. i do believe that most people would have seen it as being extremely hypocritical - listening to what a great catch someone made, while he had glue all over his hands.

50 years from now :

poster on this site to young kid : when i was younger, we watched football 24 hours a day

young kid to poster on this site : no, no, no, as he shows poster the tv guide. see, you only got to watch 14.845623 a day. now we got this chip that pummels it straight into our brain every second of the day.

poster on this site to himself, as he scratches his head - OUCH !!!!!
   162. Jimmy Posted: August 30, 2014 at 08:38 PM (#4782542)
i never argued with you about the spitball - cuz i didnt live back then.

however, if i had been commissioner, i would not have allowed it.
   163. Jimmy Posted: August 30, 2014 at 08:52 PM (#4782547)
i dont have a problem admitting to being wrong.

i truly would like to know.

is super bowl 2 from january 1968 available anywhere on the net ?

the packers beat the raiders. i was certainly following football thru super bowl 4, when the chiefs won.

i checked youtube, and they just had a few clips about it. but nothing with the original announcers.

   164. Jimmy Posted: August 31, 2014 at 12:51 AM (#4782649)
i just checked amazon.

all they have is detailed commentaries.

but not the actual games.

i am a bit surprised. i would have thought at least the super bowls would have been put out on disc for the public.
   165. Jimmy Posted: August 31, 2014 at 03:44 AM (#4782663)
oh well, it would not have told us much, anyways.

i just looked up the stats.

biletnikoff only had 2 receptions for 10 yards.

also, in my research, i have found no mention of just when fb started using the stuff ?

it wasnt until his 3rd season, 1967, when his receptions went up, and stayed there, until his last couple of years.
Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Sheer Tim Foli
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(2770 - 4:48am, Oct 21)
Last: BrianBrianson

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(8367 - 3:29am, Oct 21)
Last: Randomly Fluctuating Defensive Metric

NewsblogHitting coaches blamed for lack of offense - Sports - The Boston Globe
(16 - 3:26am, Oct 21)
Last: ptodd

NewsblogSielski: A friend fights for ex-Phillie Dick Allen's Hall of Fame induction
(71 - 1:20am, Oct 21)
Last: Jacob

NewsblogCalcaterra: So, if you’re not a fan of the Royals or Giants, who ya got?
(93 - 12:26am, Oct 21)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogDealing or dueling – what’s a manager to do? | MGL on Baseball
(15 - 12:12am, Oct 21)
Last: Ray (RDP)

NewsblogFan Returns Home Run Ball to Ishikawa; Receives World Series tickets
(33 - 11:52pm, Oct 20)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogBrisbee: The 5 worst commercials of the MLB postseason
(133 - 10:26pm, Oct 20)
Last: zonk

NewsblogCould the Yankees ever be Royals? Young and athletic K.C. is everything that Bombers are not - NY Daily News
(28 - 10:18pm, Oct 20)
Last: Barry`s_Lazy_Boy

NewsblogPitch from Zito helped sell Hudson on Giants | MLB.com
(6 - 9:15pm, Oct 20)
Last: the Hugh Jorgan returns

NewsblogWhy Royals great Frank White no longer associates with the team whose stadium he built - Yahoo Sports
(19 - 9:06pm, Oct 20)
Last: A New Leaf (Black Hawk Reign of Terror)

NewsblogAngell: Gigantic
(38 - 8:22pm, Oct 20)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(272 - 7:27pm, Oct 20)
Last: andrewberg

NewsblogMorosi: Could Cain’s story make baseball king of sports world again?
(97 - 6:24pm, Oct 20)
Last: BDC

NewsblogESPN: Brian Roberts retires
(22 - 6:19pm, Oct 20)
Last: Captain Supporter

Page rendered in 0.8682 seconds
53 querie(s) executed