Search by property

Jump to navigation Jump to search

This page provides a simple browsing interface for finding entities described by a property and a named value. Other available search interfaces include the page property search, and the ask query builder.

Search by property

A list of all pages that have property "Warning" with value "<p>Dup of 1862.20?</p>". Since there have been only a few results, also nearby values are displayed.

Showing below up to 11 results starting with #1.

View (previous 20 | next 20) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)


    

List of results

  • 1859.17  + (<p>Anachronism alert-- in 1862 Princeton was known as the College of New Jersey.</p> <p>See also item #[[1857.23]] </p>)
  • 1848.19  + (<p>As of 2016, recent scholarship ha<p>As of 2016, recent scholarship has shown little evidence that Alexander Cartwright played a central role in forging or adapting the Knickerbocker rules.  See Richard Hershberger, <em>The Creation of the Alexander Cartwright Myth (</em><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Baseball Research Journal</span>, 2014), and John Thorn, "<em>The Making of a New York Hero" dated </em>November 2015, at <a href="http://ourgame.mlblogs.com/2015/11/30/abner-cartwright/.">http://ourgame.mlblogs.com/2015/11/30/abner-cartwright/.</a></p></br><p>John's concluding paragraph is: "Recent scholarship has revealed the history of baseball's "creation" to be a lie agreed upon. Why, then, does the legend continue to outstrip the fact?  "Creation myths, wrote Stephen Jay Gould, in explaining the appeal of Cooperstown, "identify heroes and sacred places, while evolutionary stories provide no palpable, particular thing as a symbol for reverence, worship, or patriotism."</p> provide no palpable, particular thing as a symbol for reverence, worship, or patriotism."</p>)
  • 1799.1  + (<p>Block advises, August 2015: </<p>Block advises, August 2015: </p></br><p><span style="color: #333333; font-family: Arial; font-size: small;">That Cassandra Cooke, writing in the late 18th century, would have her readers believe that baseball was part of the vernacular in the early 17th century is certainly interesting, but since one contemporary reviewer labelled her book "despicable" there is absolutely no reason to think she had any more insight into the era than we do 216 years later.</span></p>e insight into the era than we do 216 years later.</span></p>)
  • 1862.9  + (<p>Caveats: Admission was charged in<p>Caveats: Admission was charged in 1858 for the Brooklyn-New York games at the Fashion Race Course, Queens, which was enclosed but not a 'ball field'. </p></br><p>             Before the Union Grounds, there were no ball field enclosed for the purpose of charging admission.</p>rging admission.</p>)
  • 1829.5  + (<p>Citing the makeup of these player<p>Citing the makeup of these players as differing from that of early town ball players' reports, and seeing the 1829 account as more of a morality tale than a reliable report, Richard Hershberger (email of 10/31/12) discounts this item as an account of the origins of Philadelphia town ball.</p></br><p>In 1831 two organized groups, which later merged, played town ball: for a succinct history of the origins of Philadelphia town ball, see Richard Hershberger, "A Reconstruction of Philadelphia Town Ball," <span style="text-decoration: underline;">Base Ball</span>, volume 1 number 2 (Fall 2007), pp 28-29.</p>>Base Ball</span>, volume 1 number 2 (Fall 2007), pp 28-29.</p>)
  • 1840s.45  + (<p>Dating this entry in the 1840s is highly arbitrary.  It is included only because it suggests that round ball and wicket were locally seen as common past activities at this fine college as of 1871.</p>)
  • 1830s.33  + (<p>Dating this remembered practice to the 1830s is somewhat arbitrary, as the writer's age in 1847 is unknown.  Locating the practice in NY State is also uncertain.</p>)
  • 1850s.60  + (<p>Dating this throwback game to the 1850s is arbitrary.  Correction welcomed.</p>)
  • 1858.10  + (<p>David Nevard raises vital questio<p>David Nevard raises vital questions about this account: "I have my doubts about this item - it just doesn't seem to fit. 1) The club names don't sound right. The famous club from Medway was the Unions, not the Medways, and I haven't seen any other mention of Union Excelsiors. 2) Lowry's evolution of the longest Mass Game does not mention this one. He shows the progression (in 1859) as 57 inns, 61 inns, 211 inns. It seems like a 4 day game in 1858 would have lasted longer than 57 innings. 3) It's a recollection 50 years after the fact. $1000, 10,000 people." [Email to Protoball, 2/27/07.]</p>,000 people." [Email to Protoball, 2/27/07.]</p>)
  • 1850s.31  + (<p>Douglass is not explicit about the period referenced here, but that it is before the Civil War.</p>)
  • 850c.1  + (<p>Even Homer nods</p>)
  • 1853.2  + (<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>)
  • 1853c.1  + (<p>It appears that Fuess, the 1917 a<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>lt;strong>Massachusetts Game</strong> in 1858.</p>)
  • 1841.15  + (<p>It is not clear that this article<p>It is not clear that this article reflects actual wicket play, or interest, in New Orleans in 1841.</p></br><p>The text appears have been 'borrowed' from a Cleveland paper: See [[1841.17]]</p></br><p>However, [[1844.13]] shows that a New Orleans wicket club did call a meeting in 1844.</p>[[1844.13]] shows that a New Orleans wicket club did call a meeting in 1844.</p>)
  • 1859.2  + (<p>It is not clear whether this qualifies as the first intercollegiate game by modern rules.</p>)
  • 1830c.28  + (<p>It is, of course, difficult to specify a reasonable date for a fictional account like this one.</p>)
  • 1862.17  + (<p>It would be desirable to locate a<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>tor of the NY game.</p>)
  • 1859.5  + (<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>)
  • 1836c.11  + (<p>John Zinn: <span>It feels t<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>s John Thorn suggests, important.</span></p>)
  • 1857.39  + (<p>Lacking enclosed fields, turnstiles or ticket stubs, attendances are only visual estimates.</p>)