Update: Let this post be a witness to the inadvisability of blogging whilst consuming the first caffeine of the day. Much better to suck down dose 1 and probably 2 as well — else the rain (sic!) of (thankfully minor) error below. Yup, Mr. Pollack’s name is actually Pollock — a fact available even to this blogger directly in the block-quoted text; Doha is the capital of Qatar, not the fictious metropolis, Qatar City; and the alien consuming the souls of Republicans is a Tomato Hornworm lookalike, not a “hookworm.”
I need a nap. In other news: I kind of expected a “Pollock was a drunken fraud” theme to develop in the comments — no discussion of the man escapes that tired old trope, and it certainly gives the title of the post a bit more juice. But that several folks could get into it arguing over whether the Mays catch was or was not routine — that’s an example of what I love about the BJ crowd. For the record: that it was a no fuss and bother catch for Mays is the point, at least in the context of a discussion of high art and deep science. Routine for him ain’t exactly chopped liver for the rest of us; the very expected nature of that kind of outcome (after all, he caught the ball in stride, with no need to lay out or crash to the turf) is an element in our appreciation of the artistry Mays brought to the outfield.
With that, back to your regularly scheduled programming.
_____________________________________________
Man, I so need a break from politics now. Given that the Party of Lincoln has decisively transformed itself into that of — oh who the hell knows…say Tomato Hookworm-Space Aliens, and we can’t seem to build asylums fast enough to cage the crazy, I just hit the wall.
I know that I haven’t been posting much lately — the consequence of a summer deconstructed by the there-and-back-again frenzy of trips to surreal cities (Shanghai, Qatar Doha) and the blessed internet-free cloister of the mountains. But truly, my (unaccustomed) silence is born of the sense that the fools and knaves really have managed to gut the American, and perhaps the human experiment for good and all — or at least for that foreseeable future that includes my son’s maturity.
I don’t actually think that’s necessarily true, for a lot of reasons, including this one. But still and all, it is good to read some stuff that had nothing to do with dominion and the amount of creativity some people can bring to bear on screwing the most vulnerable among us.
Like this, for example:
At a glance, a painting by Jackson Pollock can look deceptively accidental: just a quick flick of color on a canvas.
A quantitative analysis of Pollock’s streams, drips, and coils by Harvard mathematician L. Mahadevan and collaborators at Boston College reveals, however, that the artist had to be slow — he had to be deliberate — to exploit fluid dynamics in the way that he did.
The linked article at the Harvard Gazette is a bit of bait and switch. Pollock wasn’t a physicist, of course, except in the sense that one of the qualities that distinguishes a great center fielder, for example, is the ability to solve the equation describing the curve traveled by a batted ball swiftly (and subconsciously) enough to make the most astounding catches seem …routine (almost).
But even if there is a difference between living physics and thinking about it, there is a crucial overlap as well:
“My own interest,” said [mathematician/physicist] L. Mahadevan, “is in the tension between the medium — the dynamics of the fluid, and the way it is applied [written, brushed, poured …] — and the message. While the latter will eventually transcend the former, the medium can be sometimes limiting and sometimes liberating.”
Pollock’s signature style involved laying canvas on the floor and pouring paint onto it in continuous, curving streams. Rather than pouring straight from the can, he applied paint from a stick or a trowel, waving his hand back and forth above the canvas and adjusting the height and angle of the trowel to make the stream wider or thinner.
Simultaneously restricted and inspired by the laws of nature, Pollock took on the role of experimentalist, ceding some control to physics to create aesthetic effects.
The hunt for a deep connection between science and art is an old preoccupation of practitioners of both of those creative crafts. I’ve written about instances of this cross-cutting desire in a couple of my books — Bach’s joining of the “society of musical sciences” in 1747; Einstein’s invocation of aesthetics, (calling Bohr’s 1913 theory of the atom an instance of “the highest form of musicality in the sphere of thought)” and so on.
Einstein’s quote captures what I think of as the nexus of the art-science connection: a shared sense of both method and motivation. For motivation: artists and scientists don’t always find it easy to articulate why they do what they do — but when they reflect out loud on such questions, they regularly do in language that sounds strikingly similar. Both guilds celebrate the pleasure of a rich problem, the joys of working things out, the sense of seeking deep truths and so on.
And by method, I mean not specific technique or intellectual apparatus: no one suggests that Pollock was actually solving the equations of fluid dynamics to derive the correct physical gestures he would need to produce the effects he wanted. Rather this is a thought about process — about the combined impact of experimentation and seemingly spontaeneous imagination on both artistic and scientific investigations. Here’s Mahadevan again:
The artist, of course, must have discovered the effects he could create through experimenting with various motions and types of paint, and perhaps some intuition and luck. But that, said Mahadevan, is the essence of science.
“We are all students of nature, and so was Pollock,” he explained. “Often, artists and artisans are far ahead, as they push boundaries in ways that are quite similar to, and yet different from, how scientists and engineers do the same.”
That’s a bit of a waffle, I’ll admit: artists and scientists work the same way — except when they don’t.
But still, I get the point imperfectly made in that quote: artful people across a wide range of domains share some crucial qualities of mind. Here, Mahadevan calls out the two I think of as vital: a delight in empiricism, and that sense of wonder in the face of material existence that sparks in the imagination glimpses of solvable problems.
That’s about all I would want to say on this, so I’ll sign off, with just this one last, probably unnecessary swerve back to my immediate political neuroses. There are lots of ways to parse the catastrophic state of the Republican Party now — and by catastrophic, I mean for the nation, in that I don’t care if the GOP goes the way of the Whigs, but I’d rather they didn’t do so by partying as if it were 1861.
You can see that party’s debacle as rooted in class warfare, with uber-wealthy elites bankrolling a faux-populist insurgency. You can, as Dennis G. does here, powerfully and accurately, trace the roots of the current fiasco in anxiety (and worse)n in the face of demographic (and, I’d add, technological and geo-political) transformation. You can see strains of the millenia-long urban/rural battle. (In that context, I’ve long thought that Jane Jacobs late and less well known book Systems of Survival had a lot to say. And if anyone were to suggest that there was pleasure as well as insight to be had in digging up the Mumford classic, The City in History, I’d not disagree.)
But to all of that I’d add this: what’s been striking in the know-nothing ascendency in the GOP — the Rick Perry phenomenon and all the rest — is not so much that a grifter-Texan would have a pitch-perfect feel for every neurosis of the Republican primary electorate. It’s that people who actually really do know better — I’m looking at you Mitt Romney — are trying to toe the same line, parroting the orthodoxy that empirical knowledge matters not in the face of certain revealed truths, and that active human agency (government!) cannot solve problems.
Artists, they are not. Scientists neither. In power they should not be.
Images: Jackson Pollock at work in his East Hampton studio, before 1956.
Willy Mays’ game-saving catch in Game 1 of the 1954 World Series.
Steve
I don’t know much about Qatar, but one thing I do know is that it is not a city.
Tom Levenson
@Steve: Yup. I meant Doha. Fixt above. (Brain bubbles seem to be my constant state these days.)
fasteddie9318
@Steve: Having spent some time there, let me say that it might as well be. Outside of Doha there’s not a whole lot of “there” there. I’m sure it would be fascinating for a cultural anthropologist or somebody who likes interacting with rural populations in foreign lands, but it wasn’t my cup of tea.
TheWorstPersonInTheWorld
Pollock’s drip paintings are utter crap.
Amir Khalid
@TheWorstPersonInTheWorld:
As opposed to, say, third-rate caricatures of celebrities?
Warren Terra
Certainly, I was a bit disappointed you didn’t lay down the deserved comeuppance when McArdle grudgingly decided there might be something to this Global Warming malarkey after all, because of the contributions to our knowledge made by “Reason’s Ron Bailey, Cato’s Patrick Michaels, and Jonathan Adler”, rather than decades of work by actual scientists.
Face
OT, and maybe discussed before, but….
Not Joe the Not Plumber likely running for Congress.
And he’ll get at least 48% of the vote. Country’s fucked, y’all.
artem1s
Please replace the photo of that embarrassingly lackadaisical performance with this video of some great catches by an actual baseball artist/god.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOSLMgu_AV4
/”don’t get no respect” snark
fasteddie9318
@Face: I have to believe that a district smart enough to re-elect Marcy Kaptur at ~60% isn’t going to suddenly turn out for Skippy the Lying Apprentice Dipshit.
Zifnab
Nobody running for President actually believes that, though. Not even Ron Paul. They all have faith in the ability of government to affect change. And they all believe government can affect change for (someone’s) good.
The sad truth is that Romney is no less a grifter than Perry. Romney’s style just doesn’t happen to be what is currently in vogue.
jibeaux
I can’t say Pollack doesn’t do anything for me, but I have always like Mondrian’s squares, which without doing any sort of physical analysis or being able to tell you why they’re perfect, just always strike me as being just perfect.
TheWorstPersonInTheWorld
@Amir Khalid:
As opposed to, say, third-rate caricatures of celebrities?
Gosh, yes. Even fifth and sixth rate caricatures have more integrity than Pollock’s slop.
Pollock staggered around drunk throwing paint on a canvas, then a crazy/eccentric art lady with more money than taste fell in love with and promoted him, and the “art world” sucked it up. Old story.
So…do you LIKE the drip paintings? Are they artistically valid as anything other than spilled paint? Can you articulate why that is?
Thanks!
Face
@fasteddie9318: But read the article — Ohio Republicans going to completely gerrymander that district to fuck her support. I doubt he has a chance to win, but who knows anymore. With $5 mill of Koch money, anything’s possible.
Judas Escargot
Also OT but IMO relevant: Cantor’s going to hold disaster relief funds hostage, as well. Seriously? You couldn’t write him as the villian in a 1980s movie, no one would believe it.
WTF is wrong with a society that lets a sub-moronic arsehole like that anywhere near the levers of power?
MonkeyBoy
Polllock would sometimes hide things in his paintings, like his signature.
Roger Moore
Anyone who looks at a Jackson Pollack painting and sees nothing but random splashes of paint isn’t looking very hard. The more you look at his work, the more it becomes clear that he was working deliberately to some kind of internal plan. He had a lot more control over what the paint was doing than it looks at first blush, and he was clearly using it to make the painting he wanted to make. I’m still not a fan of the New York School- I think they took their interest in technique beyond the point of diminishing returns- but they weren’t just a bunch of schlock artists.
MattF
I remember (many years ago) walking out of a class on condensed matter physics, then looking around me and suddenly realizing that I now understood why air was transparent. These theories really do explain something about the real world.
artem1s
@Roger Moore:
I wasn’t a big fan of Pollack until I had the opportunity to see one up close. Photos do not capture the complexity of his work or the loveliness of his palette.
Also, I can personally attest that action painting is not as simple to execute as it looks. It is extremely physically and mentally taxing to stay in motion and on task for the amount of time that it takes to execute a canvas of that size. To do it well, consistently takes a whole other level of expertise.
scav
@Amir Khalid: well, as TWPINTW’s chosen media is random vitriol dripped from a forked tongue onto blank comment boxes it’s either like recognizing like or professional jealousy.
jeffreyw
I have been dabbling in the arts myself.
Gin & Tonic
A nit, but you write “Pollack” three times, so it’s clearly intentional, yet his surname was “Pollock.”
TheWorstPersonInTheWorld
@Roger Moore:
I would respectfully disagree. My guess is Pollock was internally laughing his ass off at the people who were finding all this “meaning” and “direction” and “planning” in his paintings. I think the fact that he didn’t even respect his own work for which he was lauded, and made famous and wealthy, had a lot of do with his insane levels of alcohol abuse, which killed him at a young age.
AGain, an old story.
Amir Khalid
@TheWorstPersonInTheWorld:
Please re-read Tom Levenson’s post, as well as comments #15 by Monkeyboy and #16 by Roger Moore.
Grumpy Code Monkey
I wouldn’t call Perry a grifter; he’s just an old-school machine politician.
TheWorstPersonInTheWorld
@jeffreyw:
Awesome! I am amazed at the hidden meanings and levels of planning and expertise, not to mention Herculean stamina required to produce this masterpiece.
Thoroughly Pizzled
@TheWorstPersonInTheWorld: I don’t like all of them, but “Blue Poles” is exquisite.
BlizzardOfOz
Uh oh, what did the insane evil Republicans do this time? Refuse to support legislation they oppose? “Crazy”! Every good, sane Democrat knows to do the exact opposite.
Judas Escargot
@Grumpy Code Monkey:
There’s a difference?
TheWorstPersonInTheWorld
@Amir Khalid:
Already have. I just disagree as to their conclusions. It is not as if we’re discussing something to which there can be a certifiably TRUE conclusion.
Plus, you harbor resentments from earlier threads, rendering your opinions of MY opinions highly subjective and susceptible to…dare I say it?…butthurt.
Van Gogh is more to my liking.
Marc
@Amir Khalid:
Nothing good will come out of engaging this particular nym.
biff diggerence
Actually, the Wertz catch WAS routine for Say Hey.
In his early days on negro-only teams, outfielders were trained to run to the outfield on a hard hit ball and to look over their shoulder to make the catch.
Amir Khalid
@Judas Escargot: Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan remind me somewhat of the Thatcher-era Tory MP Alan B’stard.
scav
@Marc: but we’ve located the single person who’s individual likes and dislikes determine the validity and value of all artistic merit! Wonder if his magic works for scientific, political and existential truths as well. Golly ain’t we lucky. Besides, with that nym, we’ve simply got to be sure that we’ve established the Lowest Common Denominator (or Lowest Common Dominator).
jibeaux
@TheWorstPersonInTheWorld:
Look, you’re going to need to change your name. The worst person in the world is now officially the depraved poor guy.
Alexander
1. Not to be a dick about it, but anyone who performs a physical act “ced[es] some control to physics to create … effects.” Or, better, they exploit physics in order to create effects. In other words, if the laws of physics suddenly changed, the effects of their actions would be different. This is hardly specific to Pollock.
2. Re TWPITW: ‘It’s not REAL art!’ is never an interesting or insightful thing to say. (I’m assuming that looking for ‘artistic validity’ is equivalent to looking for ‘REAL art’.) It’s idiotic. Stop pretending that you’re artistic judgements are based on some special access to Objective Aesthetic Reality that everybody else but you sadly lacks.
Ruckus
@Roger Moore:
@artem1s:
Pollock’s work sure doesn’t appeal to everyone. I looked at pictures of it for years and didn’t see what I was supposed to see. Then I saw one in person. Up close there is order in the chaos, in the structure, in the texture. Step back and look at the whole picture and it makes sense. Of course it may not be the same sense to everyone. But it’s not the kind of work you can appreciate nearly as well in a book.
One of the things I like about work like his is that there is no accepted single idea about why it’s good.
Ken
@Tom Levenson: Tom, as long as you’re ‘fixing’ things, can you ‘fix’ it so that WMays drops that ball against the Tribe?
Roger Moore
@artem1s:
Very good point. I think there’s a lot of art like that where people develop an idea of what it’s like by looking at reproductions that can’t capture the soul of the work. Mark Rothko is another one where the reproductions just can’t do the work justice. I’m not a fan of either one, but I think much more highly of both of them for having seen their work in person.
@TheWorstPersonInTheWorld:
I think you need to sit down in front of one of Pollock’s large canvases and look at it critically for a while before you judge him as an artist. There was clearly a method to his work or he wouldn’t have been able to change stylistically over the course of his career. I think his paintings are more accurately seen as experiments in technique than expressive statements, but with that caveat they’re very impressive.
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
Well, it was a rather routine catch. Up until the last few steps, Mays was tracking the ball with his eyes, something that outfielders do thousands, if not- including fielding practice- tens of thousands of times in their lives. There are two things that differentiate that Mays’ play from that of mere mortals: His speed, which allowed him to get to the spot where he could make the catch, and, more importantly, the no-look throw to second base.
TheWorstPersonInTheWorld
@scav:
My vitriol and tongue aside, Pollock died a raging, desperate alcoholic at the age of 44. His professional success only deepened his depression and alcoholism. He made a U-turn at the height of his drip painting fame and attempted to return to figurative painting.
Pollock was almost always extremely drunk or extremely hung over or some combination of both. If you think someone in that condition is planning and visualizing and interpreting while they are staggering around a canvas, if you really believe that, then good for you. Believe it, it doesn’t matter to me.
I make a decent living solely from the sale of my work, which puts me in the 1% of working artists who are able to do so. Have I achieved anything remotely like the commercial success of Jackson Pollock? No. Would I like to? Yes. BUT definitely not at the cost of my life and my soul. I’d be very happy with ten percent of his success and a peaceful night’s sleep, and that is what I hope for.
I have read a great deal about Pollock and studied him in school. I have an opinion as a result. I think he stumbled onto the drip thing, and then onto a wealthy, bored lady who stumbled onto him. I believe he never respected his own work in that area of his career, and that his self-contempt was exacerbated by the fact that those paintings brought him all the attention. He didn’t believe he had earned or deserved it. I stated my opinion. Why does that piss you off?
Villago Delenda Est
@artem1s:
Little O is an AMAZING (pun intended) infielder. I used to watch him regularly, live, in person, in the Kingdome, back in the day, and, yes, he had that entire physics thing down pat. Especially on the double plays.
TheWorstPersonInTheWorld
@Alexander:
Hmmm…what the hell are you babbling about? You’re certainly not responding to anything I actually wrote. I stated my opinion which apparently runs counter to yours. But it’s hard to say, since you are responding to shit you made up.
TheWorstPersonInTheWorld
@Roger Moore:
I have sat with several of them on several different occasions. Walked away unimpressed each time. So we hold different assessments.
BTW…I specifically referred to his drip paintings.
Amir Khalid
@TheWorstPersonInTheWorld:
My opinions are susceptible to butthurt? Since when are they conscious entities with feelings of their own?
The fact is that I seldom reply to you. And when I do, it’s out of amusement, rather than any resentment I harbor toward the crushing brilliance of your comments.
You’re not the worst person in the world, by a considerable margin. But my dear fellow, there are days when you rank among the silliest.
scav
@TheWorstPersonInTheWorld: And, we know, you prefer Van Gogh who is well known as the very height of balanced sanity. Like who you fucking like, but your valuation of Pollock’s drinking habits, self-esteem, choice of pigments or customers isn’t the final arbitrator of all value in the world.
ETA: Does your extensive reading include the difference between statements of opinion and statements of fact and the ability to indicate said difference in a written format?
srv
@TheWorstPersonInTheWorld: I agree with you, as long as you don’t say anything bad about Rothko.
SiubhanDuinne
@Steve: @Gin & Tonic:
Well, as long as we’re piling on: that space alien thing is a Tomato Hornworm, not Hookworm.
/saving Anne Laurie the trouble
Xenos
Back when I took Art History in college the prof spent a good half hour working through 15 or so Pollocks, discussing color, line, technique, but the audience watching the slides could not make sense of the composition – it just looked too random. Then the prof had the assistant controlling the slide machine take out the slides, flip them upside down, and run through them again.
Every single painting looked completely… wrong. Off balance, odd, out of sync. In the half hour of looking at the slides we had begun to appreciate them at a subconscious level even when we could not make sense of them at a conscious level.
artem1s
@Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again):
yes, it was fucking ballet. for Indians fans though, the mere sight of that photo creates a visceral shudder of despair. the long, dark championshiplessness of the soul. Every freaking review of baseball history slaps it right up there front and center. Ken Burns waited a whole 10 seconds into his documentary to show it. It reeks of endless season of ‘basement by the Fourth of July’ intermittently broken up by falling short of the playoffs by one win in late September. Don’t get me started on the travesty of game 7 of the 1997 series.
Cubs fans may join me in my lament. Everyone else can DIAF. ;)
Alexander
@TWPITW. You said:
Now maybe you meant something else, but you invoked the notion of artistic validity. Validity of any kind is objective (nothing is valid for you but not for me.) Hence my babbling.
TheWorstPersonInTheWorld
@scav:
OMG…could you please try to miss the point any more completely?
Van Gogh was highly depressed most of his life. But the order and form and planning and dance in his paintings is right there on the canvas, self evident for all to see. One doesn’t have to convince oneself to see things that aren’t there to appreciate it.
Also…I missed the part in my comments where I attempted to establish myself as the final arbitrator of anything…guess you must be projecting, and a tad overeactive and defensive too.
Also, too, furthermore, and additionally…as with many of the BJ Kool Kids, your use of the pronoun “we” is very telling. :D
Paul in KY
Re Willie May’s catch of Vic Wertz’s smash, it wasn’t the catch that was so astounding (although it’s a pretty damned good over-the-shoulder grab), it’s the throw he made after the catch that was so great (IMO).
TheWorstPersonInTheWorld
@Xenos:
THAT is very interesting.
So maybe something purely spiritual/universal was going on between Pollock and those who “got” his paintings?
He moved around, sort of danced around his drip paintings as they took shape; looking at them from all different sides and angles. How could he be forming a composition that “makes sense” from one perspective if he was painting from random perspectives.
Was there something greater than him moving THROUGH him?
And yes, I am completely serious.
PurpleGirl
@jeffreyw: LOL. Awesomeness in a pan.
On topic: I have a 500-piece jigsaw puzzle of a Pollock painting that a college friend gave me. I worked on it over the summer of the Bobby Fischer/Boris Spassky chess tournament. I had the puzzle on a TV table by my bed and the TV on as background noise. (I never really learned to play chess, although several boyfriends have tried to teach me.)
scav
@TheWorstPersonInTheWorld: Ain’t one of the cool kids, I’m usually ignored. Just struggling through getting yelled at for not using “we” when I was in an unfortunately managed business environment. However, it is also illuminating that you choose to find meaning in the use of “we” — looking for a quick emotional hit from being persecuted? Tit for Tat.
One could make an equally meaningful statement about the chaos of Pollocks’ life being visible on the canvas — it’s just not an argument that you find valid.
Amir Khalid
It’s true of any athlete who excels in a sport that involves a ball in flight — be he Rafael Nadal, or Lionel Messi, or Joe Montana, or Michael Jordan, or Jack Nicklaus — that he has a reflexive understanding of the physics of the flight of the ball, acquired by hours and hours (and hours) of practice. Appreciating that, I think, only adds to the beauty of great athletic performances.
PurpleGirl
May I recommend an interesting site:
http://www.theiff.org/
From their website:
The Institute For Figuring is an organization dedicated to the poetic and aesthetic dimensions of science, mathematics and the technical arts.
The Institute’s interests are twofold: the manifestation of figures in the world around us and the figurative technologies that humans have developed through the ages. From the physics of snowflakes and the hyperbolic geometry of sea slugs, to the mathematics of paper folding, the tiling patterns of Islamic mosaics and graphical models of the human mind, the Institute takes as its purview a complex ecology of figuring.
I contributed to their Hyperbolic Crocheted Coral Reef.
Xenos
@TheWorstPersonInTheWorld: I don’t think there is something spiritual going on, just one person trying to be random within narrow parameters of art, and his subconscious programming that randomness into a presentation that other people read and understand at a subconscious level.
Try the experiment yourself: go the the library, get a book of Pollock’s paintings, spend half an hour looking carefully at them. And then flip the book around and look at the pictures upside down. You will immediately see a compositional structure, with margins, weight, balance, like a three dimensional object suspended in space.
It is a bit magical, but not magic. I was reminded of it when reading ‘Blink’. The subconscious brain is processing enormous amounts of visual information and is constantly interpreting it, and communicating those interpretations by generating emotions.
You’re the neurology student, right? I would have thought this was trite and old hat to you.
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
@artem1s:
Jesus, man, hadn’t the Tribe won the Series within the previous decade? Have visceral reactions to ’97, forget ’54. I have to point out the futility of Phillies fans up until 1980, Dodgers fans until ’55. St. Louis Browns fans never got to throw a parade for their guys. And you shouldn’t compare yourself to Cubs fans: Your team has made it to the WS 3 times- and won once- since 1945.
And with that…Go, Tigers!
Roger Moore
@TheWorstPersonInTheWorld:
And I think his status as a depressive and alcoholic is essentially irrelevant to his value as an artist. Plenty of representation artists have been raging alcoholics, and that doesn’t seem to have made it impossible for them to plan their works. Lots and lots of successful artists have been depressives, but that doesn’t mean their success caused their depression. You’re arguing both post hoc propter and argumentum ad homenim, and neither one is relevant.
licensed to kill time
Peoplewhosenymshavenospacesinthem? When their comments hit the ‘Recent Comments’ sidebar? Break the page style or spacing or whatever you call it? Make a big ugly scroll bar appear at the bottom of my browser? Do I like that? Huh? Well, do I?
TheWorstPersonInTheWorld
@scav:
Now THAT is intriguing…I do find that potentially valid. But INTENTION is what I’ve been arguing about here.
TheWorstPersonInTheWorld
@Xenos:
Wow, what was that?
TheWorstPersonInTheWorld
@Roger Moore:
oooh…fancy words. You must know what you’re talking about.
FlipYrWhig
Meh. I always feel like Jackson Pollock is more of a contribution to art history than to art. Anyone whose big idea is playing with form and composition and the nature of The Artist… I get the point, but I don’t get the thrill from it. The exception I make is Malevich, whose stuff creates for me that kind of frisson I never get from Pollock. To a degree I have the same cold reaction to Picasso. It’s kind of like reading film-studies criticism rather than seeing an actual film.
Libby's Person
Tom, I have also been fighting a potentially overwhelming feeling of impending doom. The Josh Marshal post you linked to was definitely encouraging. However, I wouldn’t be verging on despair if the transitions we’re going through were limited to politics. I believe that we’ve passed a couple of critical and inter-related tipping points: climate change, population, food shortages (reflecting both changes in precipitation patterns and invasive insects and diseases), and diminishing water resources. I sometimes feel like I’m in 14th century Europe, hearing the first reports of the plague, only I can all to vividly imagine what’s coming. The work that I do is closely tied to dynamics of complex adaptive systems (like the Earth’s climate and biosphere and any human society or economic system); system instability followed by abrupt state change / system re-organization is what happens when you push a CAS too far. The planet will be just fine, but the next 50-100 years are likely to be pretty damned unpleasant for humans and much of the rest of what lives on Earth.
Now I’m really bummed!
Someone yesterday complained about the animal, food, and garden posts on this site. I value them as much as I do the (usually!) pragmatic and sane political discussion here. We all need a little bit of pretty and fun to balance out the crazy!
The Other Chuck
I’ve only really been able to appreciate Pollock’s drip paintings as a snapshot of the process that went into them, the result of a performance as opposed to merely the thing in itself. I suppose all art needs to be viewed in proper context, but sometimes context is all there is: it wouldn’t have been art if Duchamp called it “Urinal”.
iLarynx
Seems somewhat related, so I’ll recommend “Gödel, Escher, Bach”
From Amazon:
Twenty years after it topped the bestseller charts, Douglas R. Hofstadter’s Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid is still something of a marvel. Besides being a profound and entertaining meditation on human thought and creativity, this book looks at the surprising points of contact between the music of Bach, the artwork of Escher, and the mathematics of Gödel. It also looks at the prospects for computers and artificial intelligence (AI) for mimicking human thought. For the general reader and the computer techie alike, this book still sets a standard for thinking about the future of computers and their relation to the way we think.
Bago
In what way is this related to the Palin Hookworm Conjecture?
jeffreyw
We all need a little bit of pretty and fun to balance out the crazy! Well, fun, if not pretty.
Culture of Truth
An artist who drank? My innocence is gone forever.
Libby's Person
@jeffreyw:
Yum! One advantage of a feeling of impending doom is feeling like I might as well eat food like that.
Judas Escargot
@TheWorstPersonInTheWorld:
And Jimmy Hendrix inhaled his own vomit in the bathtub at 27.
Your point?
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
@Culture of Truth:
Thank you! :D
These intertubes are yours for the day. Do with them what you will.
honus
@Paul in KY: Saw too many great throws in Pittsburgh to be impressed by that one by Mays. As Maury Wills said “there’s a player that’s a whole lot better than Willie Mays…”
Culture of Truth
He died young. Any art he made before that is invalid.
Ruckus
Tom
I worked in professional sports for decades and have met people who at first glance and discussion one would think could barely tie their own shoes without help. And this sport required not that one understood physics in the educational way, but knew how to apply it. Very rapidly and with fluid movements. But doing what they did best? Wow. And over the decades talking to many of them showed me that what we take for intelligence is usually just window dressing. I have known math professors at CalTech and MIT, people who could discuss things most people can/could not ever understand even a glimpse of and they had no idea how to move and use the world around them like these athletes. We all have our strengths, some of us get to use them, many of us never get to find out what they are.
Villago Delenda Est
@Paul in KY:
For great throws from waaaaay out in right field, Jay Buhner is your guy.
TheWorstPersonInTheWorld
@Culture of Truth:
Yes, that is PRECISELY what I said. Idiot. Thinking is hard, isn’t it? On second thought, you wouldn’t know about that…
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
@honus:
Oh, horseshit.
Yes, Clemente was great, and he had an accurate cannon of an arm- good right fielders do, having to make that throw from the right field corner to third base. But he never had to make a strong, accurate, off-balance throw in a clutch situation on such a large stage as did Mays in this case.
Never forget: center fielders> right fielders> left fielders.
ETA: Consider the source, too.
Xenos
@TheWorstPersonInTheWorld: I have mistaken you for another commenter who frequently changes her nym. Enough said.
de stijl
Gastritis may have broken McMegan’s calculator, but sleepiness broke Levenson’s whole reference library!
Mark D
Especially when one considers that, back then, those outfield fences were 420+ feet away (440 in a few cases). Dude had to run a country mile just to track the thing down. And that is, in fact, artistry of a sort.
Of course, that hit would’ve been a home run nowadays due to the fences being so close in (another reason for all the inflated HR numbers in recent decades).
Oh, and (//grabs pointy stick with which to poke folks//) I don’t care how much form there is to it for those who know art—to me, Pollock’s work looks like colored spaghetti shot onto a canvas with a t-shirt gun.
Roger Moore
@honus:
Which, of course, is just silly. There’s been a grand total of one player in baseball history who was “a whole lot better” than Mays, and he was retired before Maury Wills was old enough to understand baseball. Clemente was a great player and deserved to go into the Hall the moment he was eligible, but he doesn’t belong in the same conversation as Mays when it comes to greatness as a player. Clemente may have thrown better than Mays, and he hit for better average, but that’s about it. Mays covered more ground in the outfield, ran the bases better, knew the value of a walk, and (most importantly) hit as many homers in his best season as Clemente hit in his two best seasons combined.
MattR
@Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again):
Not really true when it comes to throwing arms. More often than not, the right fielder has the best arm in the outfield. The center fielder is generally the fastest, best fielder. And the left fielder is the guy who can barely field but has a huge bat :)
Roger Moore
@Mark D:
I hope you realize that ball was hit in a stadium that was about 250 feet down the line in both left and right field. The Polo Grounds may have had a deep center field, but there were more cheap home runs there than any other field in Major League history.
SiubhanDuinne
Tom, your update was every bit as gracious, funny, and elegantly conceived as your main post; it really is a great pleasure, always, to read your comments. I invariably learn something new, and hope you continue to front-page here for a long time to come. Thank you, and thanks to John for inviting you.
Paul in KY
@honus: I think it was amazing to stop & spin around & fire a perfect throw to second.
I’m sure you are talking about Roberto & I know you saw the best defensive right fielder ever.
Culture of Truth
@TheWorstPersonInTheWorld:
I don’t recall directing a comment to you.
Raven (formerly stuckinred)
@MattR: Ah, Gary “The Sarge” Matthews! Remember when they had a sign in right at Comiskey that said “Claudell Slept Here!”?
Roger Moore
@MattR:
Not really true. A center fielder’s main qualification is covering a lot of ground, but he can also benefit from having a strong arm to make throws from deep center field. Nobody ever got moved from center to right because his arm was too good to waste there, but plenty of players have been moved that way because they couldn’t run enough to be center fielders but had good enough arms for right.
de stijl
@jibeaux:
I concur – hence, my handle.
Raven (formerly stuckinred)
Buncha bitches arguing about boring-ass baseball. Seven days till kickoff.
Oh yea, Braves 5 Cubbies 3 top 5.
LanceThruster
Theory of multiple intelligences
MattR
@Roger Moore: Sure, but the end result of all that is that most teams have their best arm in RF.
@Paul in KY:
I am pretty confident that none of us have ever seen the best defensive right fielder ever. I have no idea who it is, but I’m gonna bet its someone who spent little to no time in the majors because they couldn’t hit. ;)
honus
@Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again): Never use “horseshit” in relation to The Great One. And Roger Moore, I doubt that you know more about baseball than these guys. Next you’ll bring out the old canard that Clemente wasn’t great because he couldn’t hit with power.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Roberto_Clemente%27s_%27Toolbox%27_%E2%80%93_The_Total_Package#Al_Barlick
Paul in Ky- thank you.
Raven (formerly stuckinred)
@LanceThruster: The inevitable backlash has been upon us for quite a while now.
Amir Khalid
@Tom Levenson:
I checked a couple of online dictionaries. No such word as “fictious”. I think you meant “fictitious”.
Raven (formerly stuckinred)
@Amir Khalid: No no, we use that in the south. “I’s fictious to get dinner”.
Paul in KY
@MattR: Roberto was pretty damned good. I saw him kick serious ass back in 1971 (on TV).
Villago Delenda Est
I may have missed it, but I don’t think anyone has praised Tom for the snarky goodness of the title of the thread.
MattR
@Raven (formerly stuckinred): Jeff Foxworthy, is that you?
@Paul in KY: Unfortunately, I am too young to have that pleasure. Clemente is definitely in the conversation for best defensive right fielder to play extensively in the majors. But if I had to bet, I would say there have been other minor league (or HS or college) outfielders who were better in the field but were so pathetic with the bat that they never got considered (Think someone like Rey Ordonez only in the OF and worse with a bat)
Redshift
@Face:
“Tito the Builder,” yet another wingnut spawn of Palin, is running for state senate in VA. I’ve gotten several phone messages from his campaign, despite the fact that I’ve never voted for a Republican in my life and he’s not even running in my district.
Clearly, he’s shooting for the same level of competence that characterized Snowbilly Snooki…
artem1s
@Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again):
wasn’t comparing, just acknowledging Cubs fans have a valid position whilst whinging. unlike those whose teams are currently in a playoff hunt. ;P
someone, think it may have been Frank DeFord did a piece on rating a playoff team’s chances of winning by how many ex-Cubs were on the teams. All things being equal, the team with the most ex-Cubs was doomed to failure. The Indians have a reverse history of sending players off to WIN World Series. Can’t say that’s worse than what the Cubs fans face, But it hurts man, it hurts!
Raven (formerly stuckinred)
@artem1s: It was a painful death to change from a Cub fan to a Braves fan but 14 division championships in a row will do that to ya.
Amir Khalid
@Xenos:
TheWorstPersonIntheWorld is a different commenter from m_c. TWPITW is, if I’m not mistaken, the former Trollenschlongen and before that Tim, Interrupted. Notice the absence of m_c’s “cudlip”, “wallah”, references to WECs interfering in MENA, fixation on ED Kain, usw.
However, they do resemble each other in their comically inflated self-regard, particularly their claim of intellectual superiority, and in their indignant denial whenever factual error or sloppy thinking on their part is pointed out to them.
artem1s
@Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again):
thank the FSM there isn’t really a single image that shows up repeatedly to react to. The Willie Mays photo, it’s like Elvis, just never really goes away.
TooManyJens
@TheWorstPersonInTheWorld:
I can tell it doesn’t matter to you by the way you keep arguing about it.
Raven (formerly stuckinred)
@TheWorstPersonInTheWorld: Sound like Kerouak
Dave
the only non-irritating thing about this post is the pic of willie mays
Linkmeister
@artem1s: Late to the party, but I can sympathize. One of the indelible images (and audio!) in my mind is that damned home run that Bobby Thomson hit off Branca in 1951. As a Dodgers fan, I cringe every time it shows up on the tube when baseball is the subject (and it does. It always does!). Accompanied as it is by Russ Hodges “The Giants win the pennant! The Giants win the pennant!” it drives me out of the room.
TheWorstPersonInTheWorld
@Culture of Truth:
Oops. I claim justifiable paranoia as my excuse. Sorry.
geg6
Wow. According to someone on the internets says self-destructive, self-hating substance abusers cannot possibly produce anything of artistic merit. I used o like Pollock, but now I hate his dribblings. Edgar Alan Poe sucks, too.
cleek
@Redshift:
i’d vote for Tito The Vodka Maker. that’s some good shit.
honus
@MattR: It’s hard to imagine that there were players who were better athletes than Mays and Clemente (and Kaline, Musial, DiMaggio and Mantle) that were better fielders than those guys, but couldn’t hit well enough to get out of the minors. They were all fast, they could all hit for power and average, and they could all throw. And unquestionably, Clemente had the best arm of all, which you put in RF where you’ll save the most bases and get the most assists.
TheWorstPersonInTheWorld
@geg6:
Wow. According to someone on the internets says self-destructive, self-hating substance abusers cannot possibly produce anything of artistic merit. I used o like Pollock, but now I hate his dribblings. Edgar Alan Poe sucks, too.
My god, you’re a willful idiot. Your summation is nowhere near what I wrote. Making you a dishonest fuck.
It is fascinating how many commenters here sum up the comments of others in entirely erroneous ways, and then proceed to argue against their own bullshit. That technique is central to your political arguments too, so at least you are consistent…
Stupidity or assholism? YOU decide!
honus
@Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again): “But he never had to make a strong, accurate, off-balance throw in a clutch situation on such a large stage as did Mays in this case.”
Well, you got me there. Everybody that ever saw him play agrees that Clemente never made any strong, accurate, off-balance throws in critical situations. Never hit a ball out of the strike zone to drive in a run either.
artem1s
@Mark D:
he might well have used one if presented with the choice. I believe one of his aims was breaking the boundaries of what was considered ‘traditional’ painting methods and techniques. It’s the sort of thing that bedevils traditionalists who view painting as primarily a vehicle for recording history. He wouldn’t have cared what tool he was using as long as it created the effect he was after. Conservators have been pulling their hair out trying to keep his paint from eating away and popping off the canvases. He studied with Thomas Hart Benton. I’m sure he new how to paint archivally. it just wasn’t important to him at the time.
Raven (formerly stuckinred)
What a great thread.
Tom S.
Center field in the Polo Grounds was huge, compared to almost any other ballpark. Mays had the ball all the way, but his throw was phenominal.
honus
@Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again): “Never forget: center fielders> right fielders> left fielders.”
Must be why Matty Alou played center during Roberto’s prime. He was so much superior defensively.
Maybe you should watch or play a little baseball before making such definitive pronouncements.
Amir Khalid
@TheWorstPersonInTheWorld:
@Amir Khalid:
I should add, though, that TheWorstPersonInTheWorld is often angrier and more prone to ad hominem abuse than m_c.
Roger Moore
@honus:
Are you seriously claiming that we should simply ignore that Mays hit HR at more than twice the rate that Clemente did? I’m not saying that Clemente was a bad player, an average one, or even just good. He was clearly a great player, one who deserved his awards and honors including election to the Hall of Fame.
But that doesn’t mean that you can ignore sides of the game where he wasn’t an all-time great. For example, he may have been a great right fielder, but that still means he had less defensive value than a great defender at a more important position, like your namesake. More important, he simply couldn’t match the power or the on-base ability of the very best hitters of his time. He may have hit for better average than Mays, but that’s a small difference compared to Mays’s enormous advantage in HR power and much higher walk rate. Clemente was great, but he wasn’t perfect, and you can’t ignore his weaknesses.
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
@honus:
It’s horseshit of you and Maury Wills- the enemy- to say Clemente was better than Mays. Clemente was great. Greatest defensive rf ever. Thin is this: Mays could have filled Clemte’s shoes without a hitch. Clemente couldn’t fill Mays’ shoes. Sorry. Truth.
artem1s
@Raven (formerly stuckinred):
yes, but just think how much better life would be if all threads digressed into a discussion about baseball instead of going Godwin.
Also.too.Carlin got it right. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om_yq4L3M_I
scav
@Amir Khalid: Tops from the bottom is one interpretation of said behavior. One takes ones bursts of serotonin where one finds them.
@Raven (formerly stuckinred): Thread has rather taken the abstract form of one of Pollock’s own making. Now we can go all meta and fractal about it.
Tom S.
Mays was faster than Clemente, too; and he played a more challenging position. The only rival to Mays would have been an uninjured and in-shape Mickey Mantle.
handy
@Roger Moore:
Aside from the quote attributed to Dodger player Maury Wills (consider your source indeed), I don’t recall ever reading or hearing many players who knew that era claim Mays was the best of his contemporaries. I have read several on the other hand who have, and some emphatically. And he has the numbers to match it, all across the board.
And people please do you HAVE to invoke the Cubs 100+ years of futility and near-misses? It’s just rubbin’ salt in the wounds.
jprfrog
Worst person:
I suggest that if you can, see an original Pollack. I did once, and I “got it”. Up to that point, I would have rather agreed with you. It was a very large canvas called, I think “Convergence” and it was in the Allbright Gallery in Buffalo (this was in 1965, so I may have fudged details). I was utterly transfixed for at least an hour, and I am not a sophisticated art-lover, nor do I go along with fashion. Most of what I have seen over the past 40+ years I consider garbage, not because it is abstract (if it is) but because it is shallow and derivative, at least to my untrained eye.
My only claim to expertise in this is that I am a practicing and fairly successful artist in an entirely different medium, music. I’m used to giving somethig unfamiliar a fair trial, knowing that if it is a sincerely motivated work and has its own internal logic, it will get to me. I can also spot a phony with some accuracy. Pollack does and many others (e. g. Dali with his fabulous technique and da-da posing) do not.
Before you make such a categorical judgement take a trip and see an original, not a reproduction, if you haven’t already.
BTW, I have also some training in math, physics, and computer science, but by understanding of the parallels and connections is somewhat informed, but can’t be explained at scarcely less than book length IMO. Obviously this is not the place.
Bmaccnm
@geg6: And Van Gogh. And Degas. And Modigliani. And Fitzgerald. And Faulkner. ad infinitum.
I agree with jprfrog. I scoffed a bit at Pollack, until I saw an original, then I got it. You can say that you dislike Pollack, or anyone else whose style you dislike, but you cannot say that he lacks motivation, technique, internal logic or skill. I remember seeing “Lavendar Mist” and feeling the same joy that I feel when hearing Mozart. If it evokes that kind of response for me, it’s art. I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it.
Tom Levenson
@SiubhanDuinne: Many thanks for such a kind note.
suzanne
@TheWorstPersonInTheWorld:
Your aesthetic analysis is truly penetrating.
May I inquire as to your credentials as an art critic?
Lojasmo
@Amir Khalid:
dude clearly never reads things once. Waste of time.
Omnes Omnibus
@suzanne: Pollock did drink, you know.
One of the issues with modern art, of almost any kind, is that to really see what the artist is doing/trying to do, one must have a reasonable understanding of what previous artists were doing and also understand the techniques and styles of the medium. Most artists either build on, or reject, the work of those who went before them. Therefore, they must be seen in context. In music, the Sex Pistols and Ramones cannot really be understood without an awareness of ELP, Rick Wakeman, and the rest of that ilk.
ETA: One can also just see a pretty painting or hear a cool song. Appreciation at that level is also important.
Roger Moore
@Tom S.:
Or Henry Aaron. You’d think the guy who broke Ruth’s record for career HR and is still the all-time leader in RBI, Total Bases, and Extra Base Hits would get a bit more respect. Yes, he wasn’t as flashy as Mays and didn’t play on the big stage quite as often, but he was a genuine rival to Mays as the best player of the era.
suzanne
@TheWorstPersonInTheWorld:
What you like is absolutely irrelevant.
That’s Rule #1 of art criticism.
suzanne
@FlipYrWhig:
For me, it’s Johns. And in architecture, it’s Mies van der Rohe.
Fucen Pneumatic Fuck Wrench Tarmal
put two guys on mays, have them physically try to drag him down, and put another player out there to block the ball from getting to second base and he will be a physicist on par with mario lemieux, pre-cancer, and pre-back spasms.
Fucen Pneumatic Fuck Wrench Tarmal
put two guys on mays, have them physically try to drag him down, and put another player out there to block the ball from getting to second base and he will be a physicist on par with mario lemieux, pre-cancer, and pre-back spasms.
suzanne
@Omnes Omnibus:
I have an art degree, my friend. Yo comprendo.
@Amir Khalid:
(S)he spells better than Bellatrix Lestrange, though.
Omnes Omnibus
@suzanne: I was just using my reply to you for general exposition.
honus
@Roger Moore: Sparky Anderson, among others, disagrees with you that Clemente had any weaknesses. In fact, any half-knowledgeable baseball observer completely dismiises the idea that Clemente lacked the ability to hit with power. He chose not to, because he was more valuable to his team hitting for average. Sprky will explain:
“In my 22 years as a manager, I never saw a better player than Roberto Clemente. No player at any position could do anything better than he did it.” [2] “Everyone talks about Mays being the greatest. I never got to see Mays in his prime so I can’t make a judgment.” [3] “Bobby could do more things than any player I’ve ever seen.” [4] “He could hit for power when he had to. When he wanted to slap it to right, he shot the ball like a bullet. Plus, he could fly. When he hit a ground ball to the infield, he was flying to first. That fielder better not be napping.” [5] “People didn’t realize how fast he was. He only stole bases if it meant something…” [6] “Walking away… Roberto Clemente is my premier outfielder – period.” [7] “Clemente wrote the book about playing right field. He made every play; he also knew how to trick you. Preston Gomez warned me about that when I coached third base for him at San Diego in 1969. He told me to watch Clemente on a base hit to right with the runner rounding second.” [8] “‘Clemente’ll play a game with you. If we have a man on first and there’s a base hit to right field, he’ll pretend to be loafing in on it. The moment you start to wave for that runner to come to third – look out, there’s gonna be an explosion.’ Well, sure enough, I don’t know what inning it was, but the situation came up, he put me in his trap and I did it. And let me tell you, my runner was about two-thirds of the way to third when the ball arrived.” [9] “His arm was a laser.” [10] “I came into the dugout and Preston was laughing. He said, ‘What did I tell you?’ But that was Roberto. There wasn’t anything he couldn’t do.” [11]
honus
@Roger Moore: From Danny Murtaugh, who of course was biased, but also knew baseball:“If Clemente were a selfish player, he could hit 25 to 40 home runs a season. But he’s always been content to set up a lot of runs for the fourth and fifth place hitters. That’s why I always hit him third in the lineup. That has been my argument all along with the press. I’ve told the writers time and time again; nobody ever takes into consideration the amount of runs he sets up with singles and doubles.”
Every contemporary says that Clemente was the equal or better of Mays. And while some include Aaron or Mantle, most of the time they don’t even mention anybody else. You, and most other baseball fans never saw Clemente play. Those who saw him never talk about any weaknesses in his game.
Tom S.
Roger Moore:
Got out the handy-dandy Baseball Encyclopedia to compare. Aaron certainly has better numbers in a number of areas. Mays had a (slightly) higher career slugging average, more triples and stolen bases. Interestingly, their home run pct. was identical (6.1). Aaron was a good left fielder, until he shifted to first base and then DH. Mays was a nonpareil center fielder, and that’s where the comparison breaks down.
TheWorstPersonInTheWorld
@suzanne:
Oh…I see. How very profound. And stupid.
CaliCat
Willie Mays is God.
That is all.
Oh, and GO GIANTS.
Calming Influence
Our brains do amazing things, but doing flight trajectory physics calculations in order to catch a fly ball isn’t one of them.
Outfielders learn (without realizing it) that if they move so that the ball in the air stays stationary in their field of view, their path and the ball’s path will intersect. If the ball seems like it’s moving left in their field of view, they run more to the left; if it appears to be moving to the right they run more to the right. If the ball looks like it’s not moving right or left, but is moving down, the outfielder needs to speed up; if the ball appears to be moving up, the outfielder slows down. if they match the trajectory exactly, the ball will appear motionless, just gradually growing larger as it approaches.
Ever notice how outfielders always seem to catch fly balls while they’re moving, even if the catch is just a short distance from where they started? It’s because they’re not figuring out where the ball is going to land, and then moving to that spot; they’re matching their trajectory with the ball’s.
It may not be actual physics calculations, but it’s still pretty fucking amazing.
honus
Clemente led the league in triples once; in 1969, at the age of 35. His 3000th hit, at the age of 38, was a stand up double. His last four seasons he batted .345, .352, .341 and .312, and played right field every day. End of discussion.
Uncle Ebeneezer
@ Amir #56- Totally agree. One of the greatest things ever written on my sport, tennis, had a great breakdown of the physics angle:
The only gripe I would have with your statement is whether “understanding” is really the appropriate word. Cheers– Uncle Eb
handy
@honus: @honus:
Willie Mays had 50 home run seasons in what was arguably a pitcher’s era. His rookie year he hit .345, and had a .600 slugging percentage five times. He was also a prolific base stealer, particularly early in his career when he joined the 30-30 club.
Au contraire, this discussion is far from over!
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
@honus:
That’s a helluva caveat there, one you can’t just gloss over.
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
@honus:
And if Clemente had been a been a faster, more rangy outfielder, he would have played center. Center fielders have a much larger responsibility. The only thing that differentiates a right fielder from a left fielder is the ability to throw from the right field corner to third base. THAT’S IT. But neither of them needs to cover the same amount of ground as does a center fielder, nor do the corner outfielders, over the span of a season, get nearly as many chances at put-outs.
Fucen Pneumatic Fuck Wrench Tarmal
@Uncle Ebeneezer:
did i mention, mario was on ice at the time.
Paul in KY
@MattR: I see your point. Guess we’ll never know.
Paul in KY
@honus: Bo Jackson is probably the only player I’ve ever seen with a stronger arm than Clemente.
Uncle Ebeneezer
@FPFWT- Yes, the things that hockey players do are pretty astounding as well. The biggest points I would add for tennis over hockey would be 1.) serves coming in now regularly at 130-150 mph (I believe pucks rarely break 100?, according to the occasional skills competitions I have briefly watched in NHL all-star week). 2.) as a tennis player (singles) you must get to EVERY shot. There is no period of time when you go 30 seconds or a couple minutes without touching the puck. So it’s endless concentration. Of course this is also one of the things that I think makes it easier as a player. No need to watch a dozen other people and pass etc. Just watch the ball, move and outsmart one other player. 3.) 4-5 hour matches, (sometimes in triple digit heat), are not uncommon.
One of the major things that makes it my favorite (as a viewer and a player) is the amazing amount of things you can do with the ball with spin. Watching two great players is like watching two great pitchers slinging 100mph curve balls, sinkers, and sliders back and forth, while both pitchers are moving side to side. The flight path of the ball is a major aesthetic reason why I love tennis so much.
I love all sports, and used to play alot of pond hockey in the winter in Boston, so I definitely appreciate what those guys do. Arguments about what sport is best is about as useful as arguing about the validity of art.