Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame...

Whether it's football, basketball, hockey or tennis, share your love for the game in Forumosa's Sports Forum!

Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame...

Never (Charlie Hustler)
4
36%
Now (Charlie is Humbler, and times have changed)
4
36%
When he is Dead (Charlie Hustle's posthumous muscle...a.k.a. rewarding the sportsman and not the man)
3
27%
 
Total votes : 11

Pete Rose should be in the Hall of Fame...

Postby chodofu » 11 Jan 2004, 11:35

http://sportsillustrated.CNN.com/2004/magazine/01/05/rose_excerpts/index.html

Baseball's alltime hits leader. An inspiration to millions, a scapegoat for the moral majority. He was to gambling what Mcquire was to steriod use, except for the fact that he got caught.

So, should he be reward for his on field heroic's or forever damned for his off field shennaigans?

Chou
chodofu
 
ORIGINAL POSTER



Postby Mother Theresa » 11 Jan 2004, 14:14

Chou, your SI article was clearly written by a fan, or at least for his fans. Other articles don't treat Charlie Hustler so kindly and are bothered by the fact that he's clearly still addicted to gambling, is a liar, doesn't really seem to be remorseful, and is a crappy role-model. Your article had this ridiculous excerpt from Rose's second autobiography (in which he finally admits that he lied for 14 years about betting on his team):

In the book, Rose claims . . . "Mr. Selig looked at me and said, 'I want to know one thing. Did you bet on baseball?'" Rose writes. "I looked him in the eye. 'Sir, my daddy taught me two things in life -- how to play baseball and how to take responsibility for my actions. I learned the first one pretty well. The other, I've had some trouble with. Yes, sir, I did bet on baseball.'"
http://sportsillustrated.CNN.com/2004/m ... index.html

Here's what less glossy-eyed writers have said:

After denying for 14 years that he had bet on baseball, Pete Rose admits . . . "I'm sure that I'm supposed to act all sorry or sad or guilty now that I've accepted that I've done something wrong," he says in the epilogue of the book . . ."But you see, I'm just not built that way. . . So let's leave it like this. . . Let's move on."

. . . Dowd concluded in his report in 1989 that Rose, as a player-manager and as a manager, made 412 wagers on baseball from April 8, 1985, to July 5, 1987, including 52 on the Reds to win. Rose, who wrote a book in 1989 claiming that he had not bet on baseball . . .

. . . What concerns Selig, the official said, is whether it is in the best interest of baseball to allow Rose to hold a job in the sport again, after he had lied for so long about betting on games. And, the official said, Selig also wonders if he can trust a longtime gambler who had lied to uphold whatever agreement they make regarding reinstatement
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/06/sport ... gewanted=1

For 14 years, Rose had publicly denied that he gambled on baseball while managing the Cincinnati Reds . . . Rose eventually said, in his feisty way, that he was remorseful.

"I know you're not going to sit there and think that I'm not sorry this happened, that I don't understand I made a big mistake," Rose said. "I'm not going to put an act on and try to cry. That's not the way I am. But I do understand what I did, and I'm willing to stand up and be counted. And, if it's not enough, I'll continuously say I'm sorry. I'll get down on my knees and say I'm sorry."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/09/sport ... gewanted=1

In his latest autobiography and accompanying interviews this week, baseball's hits king says he's still wagering at race tracks, but insists that his gambling isn't a problem and shouldn't be a concern . . . Rose ended 14 years of denials and confessed in ``My Prison Without Bars'' that he bet on Cincinnati Reds games while he was their manager. He acknowledged that he let his gambling get out of hand.

. . . Rose's adviser and spokeswoman in 1989, was stunned to see Rose petting a race horse and talking about his visits to the track in a nationally televised interview the previous night. ``Seeing those pictures of him with the horse and having him say he's still betting at the track and that was OK, that just cemented the door against him getting back in baseball,'' Pinzka said. ``He clearly doesn't understand that he has a problem.''

. . . After Rose completed his jail sentence for tax crimes in 1991, he talked about how he had little in common with other gamblers and regretted saying he had a problem. . .

Also Friday, Rose balked at apologizing to those whom he has attacked over the years for saying he bet on baseball. Asked on ``Good Morning America'' whether he owes an apology to . . . baseball investigator John Dowd, Rose said emphatically that he did not. Dowd uncovered evidence that Rose had bet on baseball. ``I don't think it was fair, the way he came to his conclusions,'' Rose said. ``The end result -- he was right. But I just didn't like the way he went about it.''
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/sports/ ... bling.html
"The internet is a monster over which we have no control. We can’t even turn it off." Jeremy Clarkson
Forumosan avatar
Mother Theresa
Maitreya Buddha (Mílèfó)
 
Posts: 12159
Joined: 13 Sep 2002, 07:53
Location: Taipei
14 Recommends(s)
45 Recognized(s)



Postby ImaniOU » 11 Jan 2004, 14:52

He was still a great player. Many Cincinnatians are proud of Pete Rose, including myself. Where would the Big Red Machine have been without him?
"We're talking about Taiwanese media whose attention spans make your average goldfish look like the Amazing Kreskin."
- ImaniOU
Forumosan avatar
ImaniOU
Almost a God (jīhū shì shén)
Almost a God (jīhū shì shén)
 
Posts: 6586
Joined: 20 Jul 2001, 16:01
Location: On Ihla Forumosa.com, waiting for the babelfish to kick in
2 Recommends(s)
7 Recognized(s)



Postby flike » 11 Jan 2004, 15:07

As a baseball lover, I guess I see it this way. In the world of entertainment, ball sports have one primary strength, the ultimate source of their appeal. That strength is the idea that what you see is not decided beforehand, that the outcome of a game is determined by decisions and talent only. Anything that threatens this threatens baseball. If professional baseball became a sport like the WWE, where outcomes are scripted and events known in advance, it will die. All baseball really has going for it is the idea that games are never decided until the last out, no matter what.

With that in mind, compare Charlie H. to another great-stat game-thrower: Shoeless Joe Jackson. In 1919, Shoeless Joe did fix the outcome of the games in which he played (he acted in ways to purposely lose them). He was banned by then-Commish KM Landis for life, and he's still not in the HoF. Although Jackson (outfielder; he started as a pitcher on a S. Carolina mill team but was moved to the outfield shortly after he broke his catcher's arm-with a pitched baseball) and Rose played different positions and during different eras (Rose was primarily an infielder, with some time in the outfield), Jackson's stats outshine Rose's in every area but total hits and fielding percentage (0.987 for Rose, 0.964 for Jackson; btw, Jackson's FP was 0.962 in 1919, with only 9 errors that season, and he hit a paltry 0.351 while using a 36-in., 48 oz. bat, a lathed telephone-line pole, apparently).

In my opinion, baseball is great entertainment but it's professional athletes should never, repeat NEVER, be seen as a source of role models for children. In fact, no professional athlete should be a role model for children, imo, at least in the US. I'll never forget running into a certain first-round HoF player (playing for a baseball team located between StL and Denver, and Ft. Worth and Minneapolis/St. Paul, this fan favorite once nearly batted 0.400), in a bar, and seeing for myself what poor role-model material he most certainly is. But what a clutch hitter! Besides, I think nearly every American knows or knows of an athletic prodigy who was subjected to a double standard, one that allowed him to ignore certain societal norms, if not laws.

So, baseball is not nor never has been a wellspring of virtue. Let both Shoeless Joe and Charlie Hustle in the HoF, but not until after Pete Rose croaks. No need to let that guy, especially, see his career stats as merely further evidence that he still deserves special treatment.

Jackson's career stats: http://www.baseball-reference.com/j/jacksjo01.shtml
Rose's: http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/rosepe01.shtml

And there's a movement afoot to use Rose's putative HoF election to shoehorn in Shoeless Joe: http://www.shoelessjoejackson.com/index.php
flike
Mandarin Marvel (Guóyǔ gāoshǒu)
Mandarin Marvel (Guóyǔ gāoshǒu)
 
Posts: 1876
Joined: 16 Nov 2003, 09:06
23 Recommends(s)
25 Recognized(s)



Postby Mother Theresa » 11 Jan 2004, 15:12

ImaniOU, I was a Reds fan when he was playing and I never did like the guy, though his headfirst slides were impressive. Where would the Reds have been without him? Rose was great, but the Reds had lots of great players back then: Joe Morgan, Johnny Bench, Ken Griffey, Dave Concepcion, George Foster. . .

GO REDS!
"The internet is a monster over which we have no control. We can’t even turn it off." Jeremy Clarkson
Forumosan avatar
Mother Theresa
Maitreya Buddha (Mílèfó)
 
Posts: 12159
Joined: 13 Sep 2002, 07:53
Location: Taipei
14 Recommends(s)
45 Recognized(s)



Postby Mother Theresa » 11 Jan 2004, 15:24

flike, what do you mean by: "professional athletes should never, repeat NEVER, be seen as a source of role models for children. In fact, no professional athlete should be a role model for children"

Professional athletes are role models for children and there is no way that can be avoided. They make a living by playing games and having their images broadcast on tv, radio, newspapers, magazines, etc. Kids play the same games and look up to those who are great at the sport. Kids see the good and the bad (Latrell Sprewell choking his coach and shouting obscenities; Dennis Rodman spitting on people; Bobby Knight throwing chairs; Iron Mike raping a beauty queen and biting an ear; Pete Rose betting on his own team) and it's only natural that some kids may feel that's appropriate behavior because their idols do it. I'm not saying they should emulate them, but it's no surprise that many do. By making a living as they do, one of the roles professional athletes inevitably assume is that of role model.

Additionally, as you pointed out, betting on ones team is especially bad becasue it causes people to lose confidence in the fairness of the game. Didn't fixed baseball games in Taiwan cause a huge (temporary) slump in baseball's popularity here?
"The internet is a monster over which we have no control. We can’t even turn it off." Jeremy Clarkson
Forumosan avatar
Mother Theresa
Maitreya Buddha (Mílèfó)
 
Posts: 12159
Joined: 13 Sep 2002, 07:53
Location: Taipei
14 Recommends(s)
45 Recognized(s)



Postby flike » 11 Jan 2004, 15:34

Mother Theresa wrote:flike, what do you mean by: "professional athletes should never, repeat NEVER, be seen as a source of role models for children. In fact, no professional athlete should be a role model for children"

Professional athletes are role models for children and there is no way that can be avoided. They make a living by playing games and having their images broadcast on tv, radio, newspapers, magazines, etc. Kids play the same games and look up to those who are great at the sport. Kids see the good and the bad (Latrell Sprewell choking his coach and shouting obscenities; Dennis Rodman spitting on people; Bobby Knight throwing chairs; Iron Mike raping a beauty queen and biting an ear; Pete Rose betting on his own team) and it's only natural that some kids may feel that's appropriate behavior because their idols do it. I'm not saying they should emulate them, but it's no surprise that many do. By making a living as they do, one of the roles professional athletes inevitably assume is that of role model.

Additionally, as you pointed out, betting on ones team is especially bad becasue it causes people to lose confidence in the fairness of the game. Didn't fixed baseball games in Taiwan cause a huge (temporary) slump in baseball's popularity here?

I mean that parents should actively discourage their children from seeing a professional athlete as anything other than a person who can do certain things better than others. You do that by making sure children understand that hitting 0.400 is a tremendous feat, but it's separate from being a tremendous person. It should be part and parcel with the wants/needs lecture, the "life isn't fair" lecture, and the life-long development of ones bullshit detector. But you're right, if kids are allowed to see only the media's side of an athlete's virtue, if ESPN is allowed to define virtue in your home, then your kids likely will see Latrell Sprewell as a great player and a guy whose more colorful behavior can be thus excused or justified.

And yes, fixed baseball will kill any baseball-cum-entertainment, imo.
flike
Mandarin Marvel (Guóyǔ gāoshǒu)
Mandarin Marvel (Guóyǔ gāoshǒu)
 
Posts: 1876
Joined: 16 Nov 2003, 09:06
23 Recommends(s)
25 Recognized(s)



Postby chodofu » 11 Jan 2004, 16:41

Flike, I think you nailed it, not just for baseball either but for many other sports and walks of life. The HoF is for imortalizing what goes on in the game not foor arbitrating the good and evil of its inductees. Its a double standard when you consider that Ty Cobb was no prince and the Babe was a wife beater. Keeping Rose, Shoeless Joe and other notables out is like denying Bill Clinton a Presidential library. It tells only part of the story.

The men may be despised for their poor ethics, and punished by never recieving that ultimate respecct the sport affords them in their lifetimes. Denying fans the record of their feats leads only to the accumlation of historical asterix (what is the plural of that word?), a biased histroy book if you will.

After all is said and done there will be no denyinng Rose's fame. One need merely look at the way Shoeless Joe's legend propagates. The HoF would do well to evenntually include those outcasts and control the story for posterity and for thee integrity of the institution.

Chou
chodofu
 
ORIGINAL POSTER



Postby Mother Theresa » 11 Jan 2004, 16:58

flike also hit the nail on the head when he mentioned that life's not fair.

WHAT ABOUT ROGER MARIS???

Check out the following and tell me why he's not in the Hall of Fame?

http://pw1.netcom.com/~houdini/maris.html

Perhaps you should campaign for him instead of the Hustler.
"The internet is a monster over which we have no control. We can’t even turn it off." Jeremy Clarkson
Forumosan avatar
Mother Theresa
Maitreya Buddha (Mílèfó)
 
Posts: 12159
Joined: 13 Sep 2002, 07:53
Location: Taipei
14 Recommends(s)
45 Recognized(s)



Postby chodofu » 11 Jan 2004, 18:03

Mother Theresa wrote:flike also hit the nail on the head when he mentioned that life's not fair.

WHAT ABOUT ROGER MARIS???

Check out the following and tell me why he's not in the Hall of Fame?

http://pw1.netcom.com/~houdini/maris.html

Perhaps you should campaign for him instead of the Hustler.


Holy Cow! I had asumed that Maris was already in. I can get proactive on that one.

Chou
chodofu
 
ORIGINAL POSTER



FRIENDLY REMINDER
   Please remember that Forumosa is not responsible for the content that appears on the other side of links that Forumosans post on our forums. As a discussion website, we encourage open and frank debate. We have learned that the most effective way to address questionable claims or accusations on Forumosa is by engaging in a sincere and constructive conversation. To make this website work, we must all feel safe in expressing our opinions, this also means backing up any claims with hard facts, including links to other websites.
   Please also remember that one should not believe everything one reads on the Internet, particularly from websites whose content cannot be easily verified or substantiated. Use your common sense and do not hesitate to ask for proof.
Next




Proceed to Sports



Who is online

Forumosans browsing this forum: No Forumosans and 2 visitors

Time is painted with a lock before, and bald behind, signifying thereby that we must take time by the forelock; for, when it is once past, there is no recalling it -- JONATHAN SWIFT