The evening times., 1897-08-24
ANSON TALKS ON BASEBALL
The Veteran Lacquer Thinks Well
of College Players.
Believes His Present vocation Is s.n
HonorahIe One, and VIII Play
First in Chicago Next Year.

The Chicagos were always popular in this
.ity, aud the att enhance at the game last
week was an evidence of this fact. Anson
IL always a central figure, and as he has
leyees are numerous. Ever ready TO talk,
he IL at once congenial mad obliging. Dur
ing his last trip Times reporter found
him in his best mood, and said:
"Mr Anson. W hat of baseball of toda J?
Is it on solid basis and advancing with
other professions, enterprises, or indus
tnes?"
1T certainly is,'' was the reply, The
most earnest and enthusiastic patrons
and we'll wishers could not hope for bet
ter present conditions or brighter pros
poets for the national game. 1t is CON
Quoted On business principles as exact and
substantial as those of banking. The
game is here to stay alwa ys: that is as GER
tain n S is tie future Of any line of bust
ness"
lis ball playing desirable as calling
for young mani"
II think So, provided of course that he has
ambition and talents for lila mond achieve
ments. The standard of cha raoter is being
advanced right along in the baseball pro-
fession, and the sails ries paid are good, Cen
siderahy better than those to lie expected
1.-THE start in almostany other calling. The
yearly increasing number of recruits from
the colleges is having effect in the way If
raising the standa rd of character, or those
qualities commonly supposed to make up
the outfit of the gentleman and mode i citi-
zen.''
do you think that following the baseball
calling disqualifies In any degree, or is
generally considered as an obstacle in the
way of persons with ambition to shine So
ciall.?"
mo, / don't. I have never found it To
be considered otherwise than strictly
an honorable, much admired vocation.
OF course. 1 don't suppose that I coIld
mingle with the -Four Hundred nor do
I believe that l want to-
How about qualifying for business Ut
professional life-could young man spend
say five or ten years as a professional bal
player and not injure his prospects in other
directions?"
''of couTse, he would lose tie years from
the actual application to his other calling,
a
success as ball pla yer cannot think that
he wonld be permanently handicapped for
the average life struggle. Qualities that
win on the balffielG count in any sphere of
life.''
How about college men as players pure
and sinple-do they rank in skill with the
players with the unframed minds?''
college men rank rather above the
others even from the standpoint of fast
playing. In the first place, they are easier
to manage. There must be discipline, yon
know, and the students are accustomed to
it and also are naturally more apt to be
courteousand dconsiderateof conduct. Then
they Undoubtedly think faster, with all that
thatimptcs, in all stages of diamond work.
Again, the men OF trained minds are not
80 apt to go to the dogs; therefore are
more apt To put up good ball all the time
and for long time. 1t is the opinion of
many that had Mike Kelly been college
nan, or q man with a disciplined mind.
he would have been better able to with
stand the temptations that beset him, as
they particularly do all persons engaged In
entertaining or amusing the public.
'.Anottc. thing in favor of college-bred
playersis that they are gluttons for physi
cal training. No ball players or other class
Of athletes train as hard and con nscientiously
as docollege boys preparing for their games
and races"
''How would the players OF the early days
OF the game, say of twenty-five years ago.
rank with those OF today?''
well. there wereplayers then that were
stars. perhaps, OF equal magnitude with
those of the present. But they We're fewer
Teams then had probably two or three
stars each; now they have all stars but
two or three. perhaps"
do you think that II It We're possible to
take a player like George Wright, FOR In
stance, and wipe out the twenty-five years
of age. place him In the midst OF the best
players OF today. he would hold his own
with them?"
5 '.He certainly would. There never viii
be any better plA yers than George Wright,