New review of Montville's TW book

New review of Montville's TW book

Rick
Rick

April 25th, 2004, 10:32 pm #1

Here's a new review of Monteville's book about TW. [+. Apparently, it's a tome of a book-- exhaustive and unfocused with lots of retreaded material and tiring to read. I think Monteville probably failed to hit a home run with this book by the sounds of it. He should have chosen a particular angle, and with TW that would have to be "how to hit a baseball". I think reviewing TW's life always needs to be done in the context of what TW's focus was. More needs to be said on how he managed to hit the ball so often. Monteville does quote TW, according to this review, on hitting the ball at the top in the first half of the game, and hitting it at the bottom at in the second half. I've never heard that. I wonder if players use that strategy today?

As far as understanding TW goes, I think the best book to read would be "The Science of Hitting". If any one book represents him as his best self, it would have to be that. I've been meaning to get a look a copy but haven't managed to do so yet. It represents the closest possible connection to science, too, which would be interesting to cryonicists.
Quote
Share

TWrelated
TWrelated

April 25th, 2004, 11:29 pm #2

I think Montville's book is the best ever written on TW. Truthful, revealing, unbiased.

Rather than just reciting statisics and play by play, he describes the influences of his life as those things are happening, and brings in the people who knew him to let you know how he thought and reacted to them.

I'm not sure what review you linked, so far I've only read one bad one.

Do you read books or just reviews?

BTW, I doubt the "Science of Hitting" is as much about science as you're imagining. I'll reread my copy and give you a synopsis, since you haven't looked at one.
Quote
Share

Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

April 25th, 2004, 11:32 pm #3

Yeah, if you reread Science of Hitting quickly and just give me an idea, I'd like that. Thanks for the update on that latest Monteville book from your point of view and welcome back. I do read books, but right now it's an erotic romance novel. And I hate paying for hardcovers. I don't have a library card, though I should. I'll see what I can do about finding Teds books in the Pheonix library system.
Quote
Like
Share

TWrelated
TWrelated

April 25th, 2004, 11:49 pm #4

"He should have chosen a particular angle, and with TW that would have to be "how to hit a baseball"."

TW could hit a baseball because that's all he lived for from the time he was 11-12. He hit all the time, and when he wasn't hitting he was practicing his swing, and when he wasn't practicing his swing he was carrying a bat everywhere he went.

I doubt there was anyone in baseball who worked harder, studied the pitchers more thoughly and committed it all to memory to be used in the future. He understood the pitcher's minds better than they did themselves. He could accurately predict the next pitch many times based on a pitcher's past behavior. If a pitcher got one by him once, you could guarantee he'd never do it with the same pitch again.

The best quote I ever read was an opposing coach talking to his pitcher, giving advice about how to pitch to TW:" He won't swing at anything that's not a strike, but whatever you do, don't give him anything he can hit."

He was an amzing man.
Quote
Share

Rick
Rick

April 26th, 2004, 2:45 am #5

I intend to read Science of Hitting. My advertising that fact here will force me to fulful my intention. I agree with you that he was amazing simply on the grounds that he was a baseball player who wrote a book (how many of them do that) AND he wrote a book about hitting balls. (only one did that that I know of-- tW, though there MAY be others). That quote was funny. I think all the stuff about Teds' personal life is secondary to his main contribution to the universe-- and I mean that seriously-- to the "universe"! What exactly was it that he was able to determine? I think "God is found in the details" and he found God. He took an area of life that paid his bills and he maximized it to the ultimate degree. I hope he actually does get to stay preserved and hopefully reanimated as I'm more and more confident that even if he did not state his wishes this way, he would have been able to come to appreciate what WE are doing as cryonanotechnologists! We're pushing the envelope too. He would have liked us, I think, and been one of future-goers if he had had the chance. JHW had a little bit of that too-- maybe he recognized that.
Quote
Share

TWrelated
TWrelated

April 29th, 2004, 9:59 pm #6

Here's a new review of Monteville's book about TW. [+. Apparently, it's a tome of a book-- exhaustive and unfocused with lots of retreaded material and tiring to read. I think Monteville probably failed to hit a home run with this book by the sounds of it. He should have chosen a particular angle, and with TW that would have to be "how to hit a baseball". I think reviewing TW's life always needs to be done in the context of what TW's focus was. More needs to be said on how he managed to hit the ball so often. Monteville does quote TW, according to this review, on hitting the ball at the top in the first half of the game, and hitting it at the bottom at in the second half. I've never heard that. I wonder if players use that strategy today?

As far as understanding TW goes, I think the best book to read would be "The Science of Hitting". If any one book represents him as his best self, it would have to be that. I've been meaning to get a look a copy but haven't managed to do so yet. It represents the closest possible connection to science, too, which would be interesting to cryonicists.
http://www.newsday.com/features/booksma ... -headlines
Quote
Share

Rick
Rick

April 30th, 2004, 3:48 pm #7

He managed a .406 in 1941, but his goal was a perfect 1.0. I find that interesting because that's as much of a cognitive effort as a physical one. And it's a conceptual thing too-- a very philosophical endeavor. There had to be a spiritual component to the pursuit of 1.0. I can't help but think that our efforts in cryonics to achieve a "perfect preservation" is related somehow. The biggest criticism of cryonics is not that it won't work, but rather that the current level of preservation integrity isn't good enough. If we assigned a number to "perfect preservation" as "1.0", meaning perfect fidelity in terms of molecular level preservation, then we might say that we're "batting a 0.1" at this time. The more I find out about Ted, the more I become convinced that he would have thought cryonics would be a great pursuit-- a pursuit of perfection just like his own. (Thanks for that link! That was indeed a great review and leads me to think that I will indeed read this tome at some point)
Quote
Share