Property:Warning
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This is a property of type Text.
8
1
<p>In 2016, an 1845 edition of this book was discovered, and Protoball began to explore translations of its text. See http://protoball.org/1845.29.</p> +
<p>It appears that Fuess, the 1917 author, viewed this game as <strong>rounders</strong>, but neither the Mowry description nor the Hardy reference uses that name. It is possible that Fuess was an after-the-fact devotee of he rounders theory of base ball. The game as described is indistinguishable from <strong>round ball</strong> as played in New England, and lacks features [small bat, configuration of bases] used in English rounders during this period. The placement of the batter, the use of "tallies" for runs, and the 50-inning game length suggests that the game played may have been a version of what was to be encoded as the <strong>Massachusetts Game</strong> in 1858.</p> +
<p>It is not clear that this article reflects actual wicket play, or interest, in New Orleans in 1841.</p>
<p>The text appears have been 'borrowed' from a Cleveland paper: See [[1841.17]]</p>
<p>However, [[1844.13]] shows that a New Orleans wicket club did call a meeting in 1844.</p> +
<p>It is not clear whether this qualifies as the first intercollegiate game by modern rules.</p> +
<p>It is, of course, difficult to specify a reasonable date for a fictional account like this one.</p> +
<p>It would be desirable to locate and inspect the Josephus Clarkson diary used in Twombley [A, above.]. Clarkson, described as a ship's chandler before the war, does not yield to Google or Genealogy bank as of 6/6/2009 or 4/3/2013. John Thorn's repeated searches have also come up empty. Particularly questionable is Clarkson's very early identification of Cartwright as an originator of the NY game.</p> +
<p>John Thorn, on July 11, 2004, advised Protoball that "a challenge to the citation is a photo at the NBL of the Bostons of San Francisco, with a handwritten contemporary identification 'organized 1857'."</p> +
<p>John Zinn: <span>It feels to me that the author is conflating a number of different things (his role, for example) into a club that played in the late 1830's. However even if he is off by 10 years, a club of some kind in the late 1840's would be something new and, as John Thorn suggests, important.</span></p> +
<p>Lacking enclosed fields, turnstiles or ticket stubs, attendances are only visual estimates.</p> +
<p>NOTE: DEB SHATTUCK HAS SUPPLEMENTAL DATA ON THIS EVENT AND WILL BE AMENDING THIS ENTRY ACCORDINGLY IN DECEMBER 2013.</p> +
<p>None of these sources gives a reference to evidence of the 1856 formation of the Union Club, so we here rely on the documented reference to a planned 1858 game. </p> +
<p>Note Civil War historian Bruce Allardice's caveat, above: "In my opinion the clubs that played weren't 'corps' clubs, but rather regimental or brigade clubs that by their play other regiments/brigades <em>claimed</em> the Third and Sixth Corps championships."</p> +
<p>Note that while Wheaton calls his group the "first ball organization," in fact the Philadelphia club that played Philadelphia town ball had formed several years earlier.</p> +
<p>Note: Craig Waff asks whether clubs could formally claimed annual championships this early in base ball's evolution; email of 10/28/2008. He suggests that, under the informal conventions of the period, the Gothams [who had wrested the honor from the Knickerbockers in September 1856], held it throughout 1857.</p> +
<p>Note: as of January 2023, we are uncertain whether this game was played by modern (Knickerbocker) rules. See John Zinn's assessment, below.</p> +
<p>One wishes there was more evidence that this form of "base" was a ball-game, and not a game like tag or capture-the-flag. If "base" was a ball-game, this report of native American play nearly 3 centuries ago is certainly remarkable. </p> +
<p>Our dating of this reflection as c1850 is arbitrary. Parris writes only the the (unnamed) game was known before game the modern game arrived in 1864-65. This reflection was reported in 1945 -- 95 years after 1850, when Parris himself was in his mid-90s'</p> +