The Truth About Sandow

[Guest]

Sybersnott,

You're right.  Wrestling was a legitimate sport.  As was boxing

and weight-lifting.  They were also difficult to market.  Boxing

eventually adopted rules to keep it exciting for the general

public (rounds with breaks, no holding, etc.), amateur

wrestling in the twentieth century tried similar rule changes

but was less successful.  

Professional wrestling and weight-lifting are different.  Since

it didn't seem possible to make the sports themselves more

exciting the focus was turned to the performers themselves.

Unlike athletes of other sports, these personalities stand out

from the pages of history in what appears to be sharp

detail.  The kind of sharp detail you only find in cartoon strips.

Babe Ruth is an obvious exception.  He does stand out, but

then he knew how to play the press.  Nothing was written

about the Babe that he didn't approve of.  But for the most

part baseball was devoid of this cult of personality.

The Black Socks scandal is a good example.  I disagree that

the scandal somehow saved baseball from the fate of

wrestling.  I don't think it was ever in danger of that.  When

news of the scandal broke it shocked everyone.  One can

still feel the heartbreak even from this distance ("Say it aint

so, Joe!").  

On the other hand, I don't think you'd shock the weight-

lifting fans of the day if it were revealed to them that

much of what they saw was fake.  I think the caricature

of the strongman that I referred to above supports this

view.

Cheers to any historian willing to wade into that mess.

And cheers to anyone who reamains a fan in spite of

it all.

[supersqueeze]

Attention Historians:

I was watching a show on Thomas Edison on The History Channel last night and much of the show was devoted to the invention of the motion picture. Apparently, one of the first movies ever made (by Edison himself) was of Sandow going through a number of muscle poses. They showed about 5-10 seconds of the film; it was of surprisingly clear resolution. I believe they said it was shot in about 1894, but I forgot the exact date. Do any of you historians know anything about this film?

Mike M.

[Roark]

Supersqueeze,

See David Chapman's definitive book on Sandow:

Sandow the Magnificent page 76. Date was March 6, 1894

for the Kinetoscope.

Chapman's book was published by the U of Illinois Press, and

the morning of the day it became available I went to campus

and bought what may well be the first available public copy on

Feb 7, 1994. If Sandow interests you, get this book!