Clipping:George Wright on the history of the bat
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 |
| Add a Clipping |
| Date | Monday, April 23, 1888 |
|---|---|
| Text | “There is one curious thing,” said Mr. George Wright, the veteran base ball player, “in connection with base ball bats and their use by both professionals and amateurs throughout the country, which, I think, has not as yet been noticed, or at least received due attention. “I refer to the very marked changes which have taken place within my own recollection in the size and shape of base ball bats. It is queer what an effect experience, change in playing rules, and especially the science of curving the ball, have had upon them. Formerly long bats were all the rage, and players, both professional and amateur, held up logs of wood, some of them 3½ feet in length, and fanned the air in a way that would seem perfectly ridiculous to the average player today. “Henry Chadwick, of Brooklyn, the veteran among base ball reporters, was the first to introduce what was known as the square bat. It was 42 inches in length, and was truly an immense affair. That was about the year 1860, away back in the days of the Knickerbocker, Eagle and Gotham clubs. Chadwick was always present at the games, sitting on the benches, invariably carrying an umbrella under his arm. The square bat, however, proved a fizzle, as the claim that more force was gained in the strike with less labor to the batsman proved untenable when put to the practical test. “At about the same time a hollow ash bat, loaded with a movable ball of lignum vitae, was used as an experiment by some players. A hold was bored some distance into the larger end of the bat, the lignum vitae ball inserted, and the hole stopped up. This ball played freely back and forth in the hollow, and whenever the batsman brought forward the bat for the strike the ball rolled toward the end away from the handle, and the ball sent in by the pitcher struck the bat at a point opposite the lignum vitae ball. There was little advantage gained by this, however, as the rolling and snapping of the ball inside the bat often sounded like the ‘tick’ of a foul ball and occasioned considerable trouble. “About the year 1873-4, in the Red Stocking nine, a couple of bats made of willow, with cane handles, like those of cricket bats, were introduced. They had a certain spring and snap to them, but cost about $5 apiece, and as one would last on average only one game, it was rather expensive. The ball went off with a snap and a spring, but the handles proved weak and were constantly breaking. “One of the most curious bats ever gotten up was one that was put into my hands to test. From the larger end, on the outer surface of the bat, a number of grooves were run up toward the handle for about six inches perhaps. This artful contrivance was to do away, if possible, with any such things as foul or ‘ticks,’ the claim being that the ball on striking the bat would catch upon the grooves and always be hit ‘fair.’ “This, however, was soon abandoned. A laughable thing happened in connection with another ‘crank’ bat once while I was testing it, which is perhaps worthy of mention. Some person had taken a bat, bored a hole in the larger end for about six inches, inserted several small rubber balls about two inches in diameter and plugged up the end with cork, so as to give to the bat no addition weight. The idea was to have a springy bat that would not crack. “I was striking, and neither the pitcher nor catcher knew anything at the time about the ‘crank’ bat. A ball was pitched and I struck at it, but unfortunately the stopper in the end of the bat came out and three or four of the rubber balls flew out in all directions, some at the pitcher, some at the basemen and some at the short stop. There was a pretty lively scrimmage for those balls, I can tell you. I was put out on a ‘foul,’ one ‘liner,’ one ‘pop fly’ and two ‘sky-scrapers,’ all at once. This was certainly discouraging for a batsman, and I need hardly say that this unfortunate episode brought its career to a timely close. “The reason for the substitution of the short for the long bat is its ligher weight and the sharp, quick blow which one can give with it. In an ‘in-curve,’ for instance, the long bat would have to be brought in near the body to hit the ball at all, although the striker generally allows the ‘in’ and ‘out’ curves to pass him, and strikes at the ‘drops’ and ‘risers.’ If anyone would invent a base ball bat that would last a season without breaking a player would willingly give $5 for it. But bats made of the very best stuff are constantly breaking., quoting the Boston Herald |
| Source | Cleveland Plain Dealer |
| Tags | |
| Warning | |
| Comment | Edit with form to add a comment |
| Query | Edit with form to add a query |
| Submitted by | Richard Hershberger |
| Origin | Initial Hershberger Clippings |
Comments
<comments voting="Plus" />