You are, like the typical modern revisionist, failing to realize the context in which the person on whom you sit in judgment actually existed.
You may not believe it, but there was a time when people didn't walk around worried about "the rules" and instead they, and the society they existed in, judged them according to the various standard of right or wrong.
You are also failing to note the pragmatic purpose that the rhetorical flourish you cite originated with. That is, to promote the game of baseball as the public became disillusioned.
Of the whole movie, the only part that speaks to your issue is when Roy goes to see the judge for the first time, and Pop says, "Maybe I should go with you." And Roy says, "I can handle it." In the idealized world of your quote, Pop would have been very interested in getting some dirt on the judge and exposing him to quasi-government authorities.
In the both the fictional world of the film and the real world, the character traits of being able to hold your own, self-reliance, inner judgment and ethics, and distrust of outside meddling, were prized polit bureau uniform compliance - in America at the time the film was set in at least.
reply
share
HowYaLikeDemApplesWill
9 years ago
"Of the whole movie, the only part that speaks to your issue is when Roy goes to see the judge for the first time"
Not true...during the playoff game with Pittsburgh, Roy knew one or more teammates were in on throwing the game. He calls timeout after pitcher Al Fowler gives up a bomb, comes all the way in from RF to the pitcher's mound:
Hobbs: Don't do it!
Fowler: If this is for show, you can cut the crap.
Hobbs: Give them the real stuff, Al.
Fowler: I'll start pitching when you start hitting.
So just like the Shoeless Joe situation that prompted the Landis quote, Hobbs was apparently not in on the fix, but was well aware others were....as the OP mentioned.
Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it?
reply
share
baran_erik
9 years ago
There's no revisionism, ask Buck Weaver's ghost. Landis was still the commissioner, so had he been found out, he would have been gone, as Hobb's knew about more than just what was said in the first meeting, he knew the pitcher was in on it, too. No different than Weaver's situation.
"You may not believe it, but there was a time when people didn't walk around worried about "the rules" and instead they, and the society they existed in, judged them according to the various standard of right or wrong."
Too many people have your way of thinking. I'll bet you're the kind of person who says that "it ain't cheatin' if ya don't get caught" and "if ya ain't cheatin', ya ain't tryin'". Your way of thinking means I wouldn't trust you at all. Nobody's perfect, but many of us strive to be, obviously you aren't one of those.
Life is pain. Anyone who says differently is selling something.
reply
share
strntz (12773)
7 years ago
"There's no revisionism, ask Buck Weaver's ghost."
Bad example.
Modern revisionism has people believing that Buck Weaver was in actuality John Cusak who wanted nothing to do with the fix - his only crime being he didn't report it.
Interviews by the actual players show that while Buck may not have taken money (unknown), he was all for dealing with both gambling factions competing at that time for throwing the series, and screwing them by playing to win if the gamblers didn't fork over the money as promised.
Old Bucky was in deep.
reply
share