Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveGames that involve hitting a ball with a stick are ancient.
Aha - maybe to you they are. 😉
As early as the time of the battle of Hastings (1066), there are references to a game called "Stool ball" which may have been a precursor of baseball, cricket, and rounders.
Stool ball is mentioned in the doomesday book (1085).
The earliest reference to baseball or baste ball or base or baste is at Plymouth Mass in 1621.
The earliest reference to Rounders is 200 years later in 1828
There are a lot of myths about the origins of all of these early games. The precise truth will probably never be know. But, don't try to pass off the myth that Rounders was a pre-cursor of baseball on me.
Originally posted by Red NightWow! I learn something new every day. I knew basketball came from the Aztecs or something... but this info is very interesting.
Games that involve hitting a ball with a stick are ancient.
As early as the time of the battle of Hastings (1066), there are references to a game called "Stool ball" which may have been a precursor of baseball, cricket, and rounders.
Stool ball is mentioned in the doomesday book (1085).
The earliest reference to baseball or baste ball or base or b ...[text shortened]... know. But, don't try to pass off the myth that Rounders was a pre-cursor of baseball on me.
I bet the first game was some guy in a field hitting birds out of the air with a stick. Sparrows or Barn Swallows.... they buzz you if you stand too close to their nesting area, and you'd be a skilled hunter to knock some out of the air.
P-
Originally posted by Red NightDid you know that rounders was played in England at least as far back as 1744, and was also known as base-ball.
Games that involve hitting a ball with a stick are ancient.
As early as the time of the battle of Hastings (1066), there are references to a game called "Stool ball" which may have been a precursor of baseball, cricket, and rounders.
Stool ball is mentioned in the doomesday book (1085).
The earliest reference to baseball or baste ball or base or b ...[text shortened]... know. But, don't try to pass off the myth that Rounders was a pre-cursor of baseball on me.
http://www.malcomlagauche.com/id9.html
1 edit
Originally posted by Ian68There are many myths. The myth that Doubleday invented baseball is just that, a myth.
Did you know that rounders was played in England at least as far back as 1744, [b]and was also known as base-ball.
http://www.malcomlagauche.com/id9.html[/b]
The 1744 reference to "rounders" is actually a reference to baseball which was a variation of stool ball. (The very article you quote makes that clear.)
The first recorded reference to rounders is in 1828.
And who is Malcolm Lagouche; some conspiracy nut with a blog? I think we can find a better source. He did get one thing right: "Since the 1940s, no baseball historian mentions Doubleday and baseball in the same breath,..."
Originally posted by Red NightThe 1744 reference comes from an English book by an English author and has an illustration of 'base-ball' being played. This appears to be the earliest recorded reference to baseball, and comes from England. Although earlier you claimed that there was a reference from Massachusetts dated 1621, which would be interesting considering that Massachusetts was first colonized in 1620 - by the English.
There are many myths. The myth that Doubleday invented baseball is just that, a myth.
The 1744 reference to "rounders" is actually a reference to baseball which was a variation of stool ball. (The very article you quote makes that clear.)
The first recorded reference to rounders is in 1828.
And who is Malcolm Lagouche; some conspiracy nut with a ...[text shortened]... nce the 1940s, no baseball historian mentions Doubleday and baseball in the same breath,..."
Originally posted by Ian68Yes, that's right Governor Bradford complained that the colonists were playing at Baseball or stooleball on Christmas Day 1621.
The 1744 reference comes from an English book by an English author and has an illustration of 'base-ball' being played. This appears to be the earliest recorded reference to baseball, and comes from England. Although earlier you claimed that there was a reference from Massachusetts dated 1621, which would be interesting considering that Massachusetts was first colonized in 1620 - by the English.
If your point is that baseball and cricket share a common ancestry, I agree.
If your point is that the common ancestor is English, I say maybe. And maybe the common ancestor of both games pre-dates activities in England.
If your point is that rounders was the precursor of baseball, I say no. The historical evidence doesn't point in that direction, in fact it points in the opposite direction.
Stoolball-townball-cricket-baseball-rounders. And the evidence suggests that there were other games even more ancient than stool ball.
Originally posted by Red NightI guess you didn't read my post.
I guess you missed my earlier post.
This has been done already and the [b]Baseballers won EVERY game:
In 1874, a group of American baseball professionals toured England in an effort to sell baseball to the British public. Along with baseball exhibitions, the tourists, in a show of goodwill, agreed to play a number of cricket matches. The American ...[text shortened]... where near earth shattering, but not bad against some top British and Irish bowlers of the time.[/b]
I don't care about what happened hundreds of years ago.
If a game was organised for next week, next month or next year even - the baseball players would lose. And lose badly.
End of story.
Originally posted by CrowleyJust because you attempt to state it with authority, doesn't make it true; however much you wish it to be true.
I guess you didn't [b]read my post.
I don't care about what happened hundreds of years ago.
If a game was organised for next week, next month or next year even - the baseball players would lose. And lose badly.
End of story.[/b]
And, your heinous 911 forum avatar speaks volumes about your biases.
Originally posted by Red NightJust because you bring up some website (link please?) which says some americans beat some English blokes at cricket over a hundred years ago doesn't mean it could ever happen again.
Just because you attempt to state it with authority, doesn't make it true; however much you wish it to be true.
And, your heinous 911 forum avatar speaks volumes about your biases.
What in god's name are you talking about?
This is a new theory about 9/11 - please tell us more: Are you suggesting arsonists actually organised the whole thing?
1 edit
Originally posted by Red NightIt would be interesting, but I'm not sure the results would be what you're expecting.
I do think Crowley made one interesting point: the pitching motions are different. I'd love to see a good oufielder with a straight-armed throwing motion like Ichiro or Clemente try his hand at bowling. In a world where a good speed bowler rarely exceeds a dismal 75 mph, Ichiro's greased lightning would probably appear as a blur to most cricketeers.
I play pretty low level cricket. So I've played with quite a few people who have never played cricket before.
I've seen a number of people who have natural athletic skills and hand-eye coordination, who have turned out to be pretty good with a bat and/or fielders.
But I've never seen anyone completely new to cricket who is remotely competent as a bowler. The action seems to be completely unnatural to them. Most can't even bowl legally when they first pick it up.
(Oh, and plenty of bowlers exceed 75mph. To be considered fast-medium you have to be bowling over 80mph. 90mph is the usual boundary for "fast" bowling).