Chronology:The Ball
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 |
| Prominent Milestones |
| Misc BB Firsts |
| Add a Misc BB First |
| About the Chronology |
| Tom Altherr Dedication |
| Add a Chronology Entry |
| Open Queries |
| Open Numbers |
| Most Aged |
-2600c.1 "The Ball Enters History"
Tags:
Age of Players:
When the ball finally enters history, it arrives as a bizarre and homoerotic form of polo played on the backs not of horses, but of humans. The account of this strange sport is fond in the Epic of Gilgamesh, one of the first works of literature ever written. It was carved into cuneiform tablets around 2600BC. . . . "
[A translation of the text: "[(His) comrades are roused up with his ball (game), the young men of Uruk are continually disturbed in their bedrooms (with a summons to play)"]
Sources:
John Fox, The Ball: Discovering the Object of the Game (Harper Perennial, 2012), page 36.
For the later Asian game, see https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/found-ancient-balls-xinjiang.
Warning:
Comment:
Fox places the setting for the Gilgamesh story in what is now southern Iraq.
John Fox observes (Fox, p. 37) that this ancient piggy-back ball game also is seen in Egypt's Middle Kingdom a few centuries later, and in ancient Greece, where it was known as ephedrimos.
He also reports that "the actual balls used in [Egyptian] games have turned up with some frequency in Egyptian tombs . . . . Stitched leather balls, bearing an uncanny resemblance to modern-day hacky-sacks, were stuffed with straw, reeds, hair, or yarn. Balls made of papyrus, palm leaves, and linen wound around a pottery core have turned up as well." (Fox, p. 39)
Note: In 2020, it was reported that around 1000 BCE stuffed leather balls were possibly used by Uighurs in what is now norther China, plausible in an ancient form of equestrian polo.
Query:
Do we know of speculation -- or evidence -- as to how this piggy-back ball game might have been played, and how it could have been made attractive to it players?
Circa
2600 B.C.
-1000s.1 Thirty Century-Old Leather-Covered Hardballs Found
Tags:
Age of Players:
In an excavation of burial grounds in 1970, "a leather ball, around the size of a human fist" turned up. That ball, and two others found in the area, have been dated as a little over 3000 years ago. "The results were published in the open-access Journal of Archeological Science: Reports.
"'We can now confirm that these three leather balls from Yanghai are the oldest leather balls in Eurasia,' says Patrick Wertmann, an archeologist at the University of Zurich and lead author of the recent study. "'They were life tools, used for play or useful training.'"
"The balls -- which are stuffed with wool and hair, wrapped in treated rawhide . . . are no joke. 'They're actually really hard,' Wertmann says. 'You could compare these leather balls from Yanghai with modern baseballs'"
Sources:
"Leather Balls and 3,000-Year-Old Pants Hint at a Ancient Asian Sport."
See https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/found-ancient-balls-xinjiang. Accessed 11/25/2020 via search of <Balls Yanghai Tombs>.
Patrick Wertmann,et al;, "New evidence for ball games in Eurasia from ca. 3000-year-old Yanghai tombs in the Turfan depression of Northwest China." Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports (journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jasrep) Supplemental Text, below, for the
Comment:
"More recent art from elsewhere in China shows polo-like games being played on horseback with sticks"
evidence for ball games in Eurasia from ca. 3000-year-old Yanghai tombs in the Turfan depression of Northwest China Patrick Wertmanna,⁎,
"'We cannot determine based on current evidence that these balls can be linked with polo,' says Jeffrey Blomster, an archeologist at George Washington University . . . 'the fact that all three are nearly the same size suggests a similar use for all three.'"
For comments on the game played with these balls see Supplemental Text, below.
[] For information on balls found from even earlier times, in Egyptian tombs from 2600 BCE, see -2600c.1
Decade
1000 B.C.s
1858.70 Indirect acknowledgement of varying size of baseballs.
Location:
War game held at West Point Academy. "Presently a fire ball was discharged so as to fall a little short of the fort, and by its light reveal the situation and condition of the enemy and his works. These balls, though no larger than a good-sized baseball, burned for twenty minutes, or more, so brightly as to made [sic] all the line of attack distinctly visible and illuminate the whole plain".
Sources:
Alexandria Gazette (Alexandria, VA), 06/18/1858
Comment:
"though no larger than a good-sized baseball" indicates that baseball sizes were not standardized.
Year
1858
1869.15 Teams Hassle Over Choice of Game Ball -- The Redstockings Liked the Less-elastic Variety
Location:
Game:
Age of Players:
"Over a quarter of an hour’s time was wasted in a dispute as to what ball should be played with, the Athletics insisting that a lively elastic Ross ball should be used, whilst the Cincinnatis claimed that as they were the challenging party, they had the right o furnish the ball, and therefore proposed to use a ball made expressly for them, of a non-elastic nature, by which they hoped to equalize any advantage that the Athletics might possess over them in batting. The dispute was finally decided by the Cincinnatis agreeing to play with the ball furnished by the Athletics, as it always has been the custom for the club on whose ground a match is played to furnish the ball."
The game was Cincinnati vs. Athletic 6/21/1869.
Sources:
Philadelphia Sunday Mercury, June 27, 1869
Comment:
Richard Hershberger explains (email to Protoball, 12/17/2021): "The elasticity of balls varied wildly in this era. Typically clubs that were better hitters than fielders preferred more elastic, i.e. lively, balls, while clubs that were better fielders preferred less elastic, i.e. dead, balls. This was a frequent source of dispute before games. The problem was eventually solved when the National League adopted an official league ball for all championship games."
==
Colleague and ballmaker Corky Gaskell adds, (email of 12/20/2021): "George Ellard made the base balls for the Cincinnati club. I am not 100% sure when he started doing that, but if my memory serves me right, he was making them during the 1869 season, and it wasn't uncommon for them to want that less lively ball to help their defense do its thing."
==
On 12/21/21, ballmaker Gaskell replied to a prior Protoball query for #1869.15: "Was the official NABBP ball relatively elastic or relatively inelastic, compared to the range in available base balls? Were cricket balls, which had very similar dimensions and weights, more or less elastic than base balls in the years prior to the pro leagues? Prior to the NL, was the convention that the home club furnished the ball?"
Corky's Answer: "'Official' base balls came later. . . not so much in the late 60s or early 70s.
From 1869 through 1872, the ball got slightly smaller, ranging 9 1/4" circ to 9 1/2" in 1869, to 9" to 9 1/4+ circ in 1872. The ball didn't get any lighter in weight, ranging 5 to 5 1/4 oz in all 4 years. The ball has not changed size or weight since 1872. A modern ball today has same dimensions. It just got harder with use of machines. In all 4 of those years, the materials specified are India rubber, yarn and a leather cover.
In 1869 it was specified that the "challenging club" would provide the ball. In 1870 through 1872, it was added that the "challenged club" would provide the ball in game 2, and if it were just a single game being played (vs match play) the ball would be provided by the "challenging club".
In 1871 they stipulated the rubber core would weigh 1 ounce. In 1872 they added not only the 1 ounce, but it would be vulcanized into a mould form. Other than that, there were no stipulations on elasticity. Ball makers were known for their type of ball and as long as it met the weight and size and materials guidance, it was a ball.
They did eventually require all match play base balls be stamped with the size, weight and manufacturer.
Cricket balls were 5 1/4 ounce and 9 inches.. very similar to where the base ball finally ended up in 1872. It was written that the larger base ball (from 1858 thru 1868) was probably cause for more injuries to the hands. Cricket was not known as much for hand injuries and they felt the size of that ball (smaller) was a safer ball. I don't think it is a coincidence that the 1872 ball ended up where it did in size and weight. I have not heard of the start of cricket games being delayed over ball elasticity, so would assume they were more consistent in their ball making."
Year
1869
1870.9 Lively Ball Suspected in Mutual-Olympic Game
Tags:
Game:
Age of Players:
"It was supposed that a lively ball was played with, on account of the heavy batting [Mutual had 31 hits and 29 runs]. Both the Olympic games of yesterday and Monday were played with a ball that contained but half an ounce of rubber; the yarn and covering bringing it up to regulation weight."
Sources:
New York Tribune, September 14, 1870.
For a concise account of rules on baseballs, see Chapter 17 ("The Ball and Bat"), in Richard Hershberger, Strike Four: The Evolution of Baseball, (Rowan and Littlefield, 2019, pp 121-126.
Comment:
Richard Hershberger annotation, 9/14/2020: "Missing from [the formal rule on ball makeup] is any discussion of relative proportions of rubber and yarn. In other words, how much rubber? Rubber is denser than yarn, so the size and weight requirements imply a range of legal proportions between the two. Some clubs were rumored to get around this, having illegal balls made with extra rubber, balanced by cork. . . . There were learned discussions of the merits of lively and dead balls, and arguments before the game started over what ball to use. Also, the occasional surreptitious switch mid-game."
Ball Four points out [pp 124-125) that a limit of one ounce of rubber was defined for a regulation ball in 1871. In 1876, the new National League addressed the issue by requiring clubs to use a standard Spalding ball in its games, thus lessening suspicion the club that provides a game ball thereby gains competitive advantage.
Query:
Were the weights and/or circumferences of balls subject to impartial tests at or before games?
Year
1870
1870.11 Chicago Switches to the Dead Ball, Starts Winning Again
Location:
Game:
Age of Players:
"Circumstances prevented any improvement in the organization of the [White Sox] nine until some weeks after their return from their disastrous [New York] tour; finally, however, the nine was re-organized . . . the muffin players' rubber ball was re-placed by a dead ball, and from the[n] . . .the Chicago club has been marked by a series of uninterrupted victories, the crowning triumph being the defeat of the strongest nine in the United States in two successive contests."
Sources:
New York Clipper October 29, 1870
Comment:
Richard Hershberger, 150 years ago in baseball, FB posting 10/29/2020:
Chadwick on the improvement of the Chicago Club. They wisely took his advice and switched from a lively to a dead ball. Success inevitably followed.
Much as I enjoy tweaking Chad for this sort of thing, in fairness it was pretty standard in this era. A newspaper would publish helpful advice to the local club. If the club did something that could plausibly be taken as consistent with the helpful advice, the paper would claim credit for the suggestion. Say what you will about modern sports talk radio, even those guys don't usually claim that the GM turns to them for trade ideas.
Does the claim about the deal ball make a lick of sense? It is classic Chad, but there is a kernel of truth. Good and poor fielding teams generally favored a dead or lively ball respectively, on the grounds that a dead ball gave the infielders a chance to show their stuff while a lively ball was more likely to get to the outfield. The Red Stockings revolution was mostly about improved fielding, so they favored a dead ball. As clubs' fielding caught up, they followed suit. The eventual consensus was a relatively dead ball, with later discussions being how live or not, within the range of a relatively dead ball. So as the White Stockings got their act together, it is entirely plausible that they moved to a dead ball. In other words, they didn't get getter because they switched to a dead ball; they switched to a dead ball because they got better. And certainly not because Chadwick convinced them.
Year
1870