[jingram058]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

I couldn't disagree more more. Of course, anything in the realm of art is always a matter of taste. You like today's music? Fine, you listen to it to your heart's delight. I have my Beatles, Stones, Zeppelin, Who, Airplane, Dylan, etc., etc., etc., compilations that never get old for me. You like today's TV, with its frenetic editing and ridiculous story lines? Give me my Twilight Zone, Star Triek, Gunsmoke, old movies from the 30s and 40s, etc., reruns any day over that crap, but you binge on today's overproduced vapidity all you want. I can't remember the last time I didn't come out of a movie thinking it was too long, too loud, too jacked up for limited attention spans, but you go see "Barbie" as many times as you like. The movies of my youth were about real people, the real world, things that mattered, which is what art should illuminate, IMO, not just blow away your eyeballs and ears for enough time to get them away from a tiny screen for a nanosecond. And yes, there has always been a lot of junk catering to the masses produced to cash in, but I do think the 60s and 70s actually had more of the cream rising to the top in terms of that, too. "I'm talkin' 'bout my g-g-generation!" and damn proud of it.

Totally agree with every word.

As I said, if you think all they were throwing is 85 mph at the major league level in the 1920s, you're dumber than a box of rocks. Ask Ray Chapman about that 85 mph ball that effing killed him. How did you ever successfully make it in life? Certainly not by playing or understanding the game of baseball. My God, I'm 66 years old and I can hit 85 mph, as proven by batting cages a couple of weeks ago. If all they were throwing was 85 mph, and I could time travel, you would be collecting my cards!