"A New York Treasure" --Village Voice

BGS: The Flower of America

For a taste of Lenny Shecter’s no-bullshit, take-no-prisoners style, check out this excerpt from “The Flower of America” chapter of his 1969 book of essays, The Jocks.

By Leonard Shecter

There are famous Yankee players whose public images bear little relation to the kind of men they actually are—Joe DiMaggio, Yogi Berra and Mickey Mantle, to name three.

Suave, sure, husband of Marilyn Monroe, Joe DiMaggio holds a unique place in Americana. He is super-hero. Sixteen years after he completed his remarkable feat of hitting in 56 straight games he was immortalized (if a god can obtain new immortalization) by Simon and Garfunkel in “Mrs. Robinson.”

Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio?

A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.

In fact, the nation has not turned its lonely eyes to Joe DiMaggio. As Gay Talese showed in a remarkable article in Esquire in 1966, DiMaggio is a vain, lonely man, who is a tyrant to the sycophants who surround him. Wrote Talese. “His friends [know] . . . that should they inadvertently betray a confidence . . . [he] will never speak to them again.” Talese then described a scene in a restaurant called Reno’s in San Francisco which DiMaggio would often drop into.

They may wait for hours sometimes, waiting and knowing he may wish to be alone; but it does not seem to matter, they are endlessly awed by him, moved by the mystique, he is a kind of male Garbo. They know he can be warm and loyal if they are sensitive to his wishes, but they must never be late for an appointment to meet him. One man, unable to find a parking space, arrived a half-hour late once and DiMaggio didn’t talk to him again for three months. They know, too, when dining at night with DiMaggio, that he generally prefers male companions and occasionally one or two young women, but never wives; wives gossip, wives are trouble, and men wishing to remain close to DiMaggio must keep their wives at home.

His friends fawn on him, call him “Clipper” (one must wonder why a grown man would tolerate that), introduce him to mindless young women and pick up his tabs. At her death he turned a marriage to Marilyn Monroe that didn’t work (she complained that all he wanted to do was watch television) into a maudlin lost love. He held a permanent grudge against Robert Kennedy because he once spent a lot of time at a party dancing with Marilyn. This was aftertheir marriage had disintegrated.

And in the end he took a coaching job—not a managing job, a coaching job—with Charles O. Finley, the erratic owner of the Oakland Athletics. It was the act of a lonely, probably bitter man. No one had offered him a job as manager. In the fall of 1968 Joe DiMaggio was in Japan to teach the batters there how to hit. One suspects he had no more difficulty communicating with them than he did with American batters.

Yogi Berra is a particularly glowing example of an image which has outstripped the man. Of course, it is not his fault. It is not his fault that he is not a lovable gnome bubbling over withbon mots. Nor is it his fault that he is a narrow, suspicious man, jealous of the man other people supposed him to be and which he knew he was not. He was supposed to be a humorist because he said things like “Bill Dickey learned me all his experiences,” and “I want to thank you for making this award necessary.” In fact, there is severe doubt that Yogi Berra ever said anything intentionally funny in his life. The late Tom Meany used to tell this possibly apocryphal story about Berra which, at the least, illustrates the breadth of his knowledge. Berra was introduced to Ernest Hemingway at a party in a restaurant. When he returned to his table, he was asked what he thought of him. Said Berra: “He’s quite a character. What does he do?”

Well, he’s a writer.

“Yeah? What paper?”

After a while Berra and his wife, Carmen, came to believe that he was indeed something of a man of the world, raconteur, sophisticate. After all, weren’t they rich? (Berra has had enormous financial luck. He sold his interests in a bowling emporium at a great profit shortly before the bottom dropped out of the bowling business. And he took a block of stock in return for endorsing a little-known chocolate ”drink”-which means no milk and very little chocolate: the stock sky-rocketed.

There was an autobiography called Yogi. It was a typical baseball autobiography, all shiny and bright for the kiddies, naturally written by somebody else, a man who could have done better. But by the time the world was ready for a book about Berra, the Bern1s were not interested in reality. They wanted the book to be about Berra as they would have liked him to be. So it turned out to be a terrible book, cheap and phony and transparent I reviewed it that way.

It was a lovely spring day in St. Petersburg. The palm trees waved shiny green against the high blue sky. Yogi Berra saw me as soon as I arrived.

“You son of a bitch,” Berra said. “You cocksucker.”

He never said that in Yogi.

But that is not what I remember about him most. I remember most that the other ball players always complained that Yogi Berra would stand naked at the clubhouse buffet and scratch his genitals over the cold cuts.

Mickey Mantle is a quite different man. He was never shoe-horned into a role which, like Berra, he was unprepared by nature and intellect to play. Mantle was a country boy, ill-educated, frightened, convinced at an early age by a series of deaths in his family that he was doomed to live only a short life.

He was simple, naive and, at the very first, trusting. It did not take him long to misplace his trust. He soon found that he was trusting the wrong people and, when this cost him money, it made him withdrawn and sullen, as well as poor. Fortified by Yankee tradition—watch out for outsiders-Mantle was soon responding only to his teammates and the glad-handers and celebrity fuckers who flocked around him. (Mantle is almost universally liked by his teammates because he goes out of his way to be outgoing and friendly with them. He vigorously denies that he decided to behave that way after he, as a rookie, was ignored by the aloof, morose DiMaggio, but a young ball player I trust swears Mantle told him this and I have no reason to disbelieve him.) Pretty soon, as his skills blossomed, it became Mantle and his hedonistic enclave against the world.

And obviously the world didn’t count. The world was made up of crowds of sweaty, smelly little kids who demanded autographs and smeared ice cream on your new stantung suit, middle-aged slobs who accosted you in restaurants in ·mid-forkful to simper about getting an autograph for their little kiddies at home, and cloddish newspaper and magazine people who never got anything right and only wanted to hurt you anyway. When he was playing poorly or when he was especially plagued by one of his numerous injuries, Mantle would become particularly withdrawn and sulky, turn his back even on well-wishers. A great deal of this was sheer self-protection. For Mantle always doubted himself and, most of all, his knowledge of the game.

He had reason to. Mantle was never much of a student of baseball. Born with marvelous skills, he played it intuitively, never having to pay much attention to what was going on. More than once I heard him ask a teammate about a rival pitcher, “What’s he throw?” This is not an unusual question around a ball club-except if the pitcher had been in the league five years and pitched against the Yankees maybe 30 times.

It is possible that Mantle was incapable of even the minimum amount of concentration the finer points of baseball require. Certainly he refused to work on his own physical conditioning during the off-season, a refusal which, if it not actually shorten his career, obviously did nothing to prevent the pulled muscles in legs and groin which plagued him during almost every season. Year after year Mantle was told to go home and lift weights with his legs. He was begged to keep in good enough physical condition so that he would at least not disarrange a hamstring, as he did so often, in the opening days of spring training. But Mantle’s idea of keeping fit was to have an active social life and play golf out of an electric cart which was outfitted with a bar. He had fun. He also had pulled muscles.

It has become a cliche to wonder how great Mantle would have been had he been physically healthy during his career. What I wonder is how great he might have been had he even tried to keep physically healthy.

In the early years of his career Mantle was booed by the fans because he refused to live up to his promise. Later on the boos turned to cheers as he became known as a man who made a gallant effort despite enormous physical pain. I’m not sure the fans weren’t right in the first place.


1 RagingTartabull   ~  Jul 1, 2013 2:03 pm

Jesus, Lenny. Don't hold back or anything.

2 RagingTartabull   ~  Jul 1, 2013 2:14 pm

"The Chipmunks" were important because they took sportswriting out of the dark ages, that's good for everyone. But the more I read from and about them the more miserable a lot of them seem. Roger Kahn was never anyone's idea of a ray of sunshine, Dick Young...well that's well established, Murray Chass came a few years later but I think he fits the mold.

They're all incredibly talented, served an essential role, and the writing holds up wonderfully...but yikes. Maury Allen would tell anyone who would listen that he would never vote for Munson for the HOF because Munson wouldn't give him a quote. This is for 25 years after the guy was dead mind you.

3 Alex Belth   ~  Jul 1, 2013 2:33 pm

2) You've got a lot in that graph. Chass was no Chipmunk. He was later, as you mentioned. And I think it's important to put what those guys did in context, during a period of time where they was so much chumminess between the ballclubs and the writers. Shecter's piece was written in the late '60's after all. And I doubt that anyone else was puncturing the PR-versions of the Yankee Gods at the time.

I'm not sure they were all miserable either, even if they were sardonic. And Kahn and Young were not considered Chipmunks.

4 RagingTartabull   ~  Jul 1, 2013 2:51 pm

3) Like I said I think what they did was extremely important, they dragged the profession out of the stone age and did away with "God-ing Up" the players. The importance of that can't be overstated. My opinion is only based on my reading, I think there's a line between taking off the rose colored glasses re: your subject and doing a hit piece. The line about "Maudlin Lost Love" in this piece illustrates that I think. That to me is a cheap shot, plain and simple.

Maybe "miserable" is a strong word, but they were definitely the first to bring snark to the table. And that's a double edged sword I think. Skepticism is a good thing (IMHO), but when it turns into cynicism you can run into trouble.

I've heard Young cited by some of those guys (Stan Isaacs maybe) as a major influence, so even if he wasn't "officially" a Chipmunk I think he's still part of the conversation.

5 Alex Belth   ~  Jul 1, 2013 3:11 pm

Young was a generation older and is often credited, along with Milt Gross, of being the first guy to go into the locker room, talk to the players and get quotes. That was after the War and in the Fifties. So he was an influence for sure because he was tireless and a great beat writer. His sensibility couldn't have been more different from the Chipmunk guys, though. He was a street guy, and as he got older, was increasingly reactionary. Most of the Chipmunk guys I'd say were bleeding hearts outside of the sports world.

But you are right to call Shecter a cynic. He was ruthless in that way for sure.

6 MSM35   ~  Jul 1, 2013 4:53 pm

Dick Young may have been a horse's backside but he could write circles around today's scribes. His game stories were wonderful.
Shecter, on the other hand, thought it was his job to bring the players down a peg or two. His cynicism made him think he was more important than he was.

7 OmarSaleh   ~  Jul 1, 2013 5:13 pm

Yeah, too cynical to me by at least half. I don't mind the DiMaggio and Berra parts that don't discuss baseball, but the Mantle bit rubs me the wrong way-- "never much of a student of baseball"? "refused to live up to his promise"? Holy shit, go look at Mantle's stats from 52-62...

8 RagingTartabull   ~  Jul 1, 2013 6:12 pm

I just think trolling is trolling, wether or not you wrap it up in great prose and age it 40 years. (7) makes a great point, if that was Skip Bayless writing in 2013 about Miguel Cabrera we'd call him a hack...which he would be.

feed Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email
"This ain't football. We do this every day."
--Earl Weaver