PDA

View Full Version : Should The Reds Go Back To The Clean Shaven Look?



Krusty
08-12-2004, 04:12 PM
They enforce it in their farm system. They dropped the policy when the Reds acquired Junior. And their fortunes haven't been the same since.

So, is it time for the Reds to go back to the clean shaven look? Go back to a more professional style? The Yankees enforce still and no one seems to complain.

And while I'm at it.....get rid of the black in the uniforms. Seems to me these two things haven't worked in a positive way either.

I'm willing to try anything to lift this five year curse.

zombie-a-go-go
08-12-2004, 04:15 PM
I'm with you, Krusty.

I also want to see the stirrups return.

westofyou
08-12-2004, 04:16 PM
You mean Greg Vaughn.

I say no, it's not the 60's and the Hippies already lost anyway.

Super_Barry11
08-12-2004, 04:18 PM
Yes!! I can't stand the hamster residing on Ryan Freel's chin!!! ;)

KronoRed
08-12-2004, 04:20 PM
Sure why not

Matt700wlw
08-12-2004, 04:26 PM
I'd worry more about how to get the team in the right direction than their hair styles or facial hair preferences

Unassisted
08-12-2004, 04:29 PM
Yes! And bring back the all-black shoes, too! :thumbup:

Krusty
08-12-2004, 04:32 PM
I say no, it's not the 60's and the Hippies already lost anyway.
-------------------------------------------------------

But alot of professional jobs place emphasis on grooming and appearance. A form of discipline and control within the company.

Image means alot. Dress like a slob and that could have a bearing on promotions down the road. At the same time it says alot about your workers.

Frankly, what Bob Howsam institute set a form of discipline and commardie within the organization. Similar to the military. You march to the tune of the organization and you can overcome anything.

westofyou
08-12-2004, 04:34 PM
I say no, it's not the 60's and the Hippies already lost anyway.
-------------------------------------------------------

But alot of professional jobs place emphasis on grooming and appearance. A form of discipline and control within the company.

Image means alot. Dress like a slob and that could have a bearing on promotions down the road. At the same time it says alot about your workers.

Frankly, what Bob Howsam institute set a form of discipline and commardie within the organization. Similar to the military. You march to the tune of the organization and you can overcome anything.

But most Sports teams don't.

You can't overcome bad pitching with a haircut, I'd focus on real problems before I played the robotic card.

Krusty
08-12-2004, 04:37 PM
I'm not saying it is the answer. I just think all ballplayers should have grooming standards.

The Johnny Damon look really says alot about being a professional ballplayer.

Johnny Footstool
08-12-2004, 04:37 PM
You can't overcome bad pitching with a haircut, I'd focus on real problems before I played the robotic card.

:thumbup:

Unfortunately, some folks (Naehering) feel the need to exert some form of control. If they can't control a player's performance, they will darn sure control his haircut.

westofyou
08-12-2004, 04:39 PM
The Johnny Damon look really says alot about being a professional ballplayer.

.379 ob% OPS over .800, I don't care if he looks like Captain Caveman.

CTA513
08-12-2004, 04:40 PM
They should be able to do what they want, unless its some thing drastic like a foot long beard or hair halfway down there back.

They should have Acevedo stop dying his hair because he does look goofy.

:mhcky21:

Tony Cloninger
08-12-2004, 04:44 PM
I think the Lizard King look of Damon's should be required for a team like the Red Sox.....they can play "The End" after each loss... mainly in the playoffs.

Larkin411
08-12-2004, 04:48 PM
I like the clean shaven look but I don't see why they should enforce it. The ballplayers should be free to wear their hair however their wives like it.

That noted, I agree about Freel. The less hair he has on his head the better he looks.

Eric_Davis
08-12-2004, 04:48 PM
Mulletts!

Big Klu
08-12-2004, 04:51 PM
I agree with Krusty on this one.

Super_Barry11
08-12-2004, 04:51 PM
They should have Acevedo stop dying his hair because he does look goofy.

:mhcky21:

Agreed!! :roll: :MandJ: But my friend thought he looked hot as a blonde... :eek:

15fan
08-12-2004, 04:52 PM
Personally, I'm a close cut, clean shaven, void of tattoo & body piercings kind of guy.

Would I like it if the Reds went back to that kind of look (along with the sweet black shoes that Unassisted referenced...)? Sure.

But I also realize that I'm probably a few generations too late, so I'm not holding out much hope that it's going to change as I'd like.

More importantly, though, I'd just like to see some classic uniforms sans gimmicks: solid red hats, white vests for home games, grey vests for road games, both with red shirts underneath, the absence of pinstripes, and some red socks.

And if they really want to make me happy, they'd get rid of names on the backs of the jerseys, too.

Eric_Davis
08-12-2004, 04:54 PM
Personally, I'm a close cut, clean shaven, void of tattoo & body piercings kind of guy.




Are you saying that's what you look for in a woman?

Well, that rules out the French.

Tony Cloninger
08-12-2004, 04:58 PM
Most ballplayers in regards to fashion seem to be monkey see ...monkey do.

Why not be original and show your stirrups and stop trying to become a mural or look like a reject from the grunge era.

LvJ
08-12-2004, 05:21 PM
Hell No.

Let the guys look the way they want. Enforcing such a thing really ticks me off, especially when it deals with a look of a person.

zombie-a-go-go
08-12-2004, 05:24 PM
Hell No.

Let the guys look the way they want. Enforcing such a thing really ticks me off, especially when it deals with a look of a person.

Yeah... that's what I told my boss when I started wearing shorts to work this summer.

Didn't last long.

LvJ
08-12-2004, 05:26 PM
Yeah... that's what I told my boss when I started wearing shorts to work this summer.

Didn't last long.

I didn't say lets wear shorts on the field, I said lets wear goatees! ;)

macro
08-12-2004, 05:49 PM
Personally, I'm a close cut, clean shaven, void of tattoo & body piercings kind of guy.

Would I like it if the Reds went back to that kind of look (along with the sweet black shoes that Unassisted referenced...)? Sure.

But I also realize that I'm probably a few generations too late, so I'm not holding out much hope that it's going to change as I'd like.

More importantly, though, I'd just like to see some classic uniforms sans gimmicks: solid red hats, white vests for home games, grey vests for road games, both with red shirts underneath, the absence of pinstripes, and some red socks.

Most ballplayers in regards to fashion seem to be monkey see ...monkey do.

Why not be original and show your stirrups and stop trying to become a mural or look like a reject from the grunge era.

These two quotes sum up exactly how I feel. Is there a player in MLB today that doesn't have a goatee? It's almost like it's a requirement among players. This fashion has gone on a lot longer than I hoped it would. Thing is, today's goatees are tomorrow's mullets. People will look back at them ten years from now and laugh.

Tony Cloninger
08-12-2004, 06:03 PM
Yup.... :lol:

I agree but see players get fashions late and leave them way after they are very done.

Think long hair and how they finally started to grow it in the early 70's.....and continued to have that Don Stanhouse...Oscar Gamble look way after it was done and over with.

Raisor
08-12-2004, 06:28 PM
The only problem I have with Johnny Damon is that my girlfriend loves him more then she loves me.

RANDY IN INDY
08-12-2004, 06:30 PM
Bring back the clean cut look along with the uniforms that signified the most successful period in Reds history (sans the trendy 70's beltless uniform look and striping that was modeled after the very beginning of the "Big Red Machine," 68-71 traditional Reds uniform) and emphasize a "Back to Winning" tradition. Re-enforce it with a front office attitude that matches the look on the field. I think it would be the greatest thing that the organization could do. Get the players of the period involved. Bring 'em to spring training. Let them share the "Reds Way." Promote it! Wouldn't it be great to see the old guys in uniform on the field at the ballpark more often? Not just for show, but as a tool for the players to use. Let the young guys pick their brains. I'm not saying to make these guys manager or coaches, but use them as the winning resources that they are.

I think it would be a signal to players, fans, and all of baseball that the organization is dead serious about getting rid of the lackluster performance of the current period and replacing it with the "Reds Way" that produced consistent winning in the decade of the 70's. I think it all hinges on the willingness of the front office to change it's thinking, the visual change of the uniform and look, an outward sign of the commitment to excellence and winning and a great tribute to the teams of that great period in Reds history.

Get rid of the BLACK eye image that the organization is suffering, and get back to the business of winning. It would be treading on hallowed ground. It would signify a huge step, but it would have to be matched by a tremendous commitment and willingness to follow through. You couldn't take it lightly. Promote it. Work it. Eat drink and sleep it. Create an aura. This organization needs an overhaul.

The Reds organization of the 70's was one of the greatest in all of baseball history. No one involved with the Reds, from the Front office, to the players, to the fans, should be ashamed of saying, this was the way the Reds won. The players should be proud to create the look of the winners of the past. To put on that uniform and look, should be sacred to any player in the organization.

Just spell it out. We want it again. We will attain it again.

jmcclain19
08-12-2004, 06:35 PM
The only problem I have with Johnny Damon is that my girlfriend loves him more then she loves me.


That's a tough nut to crack. The Jesus look is all the rage these days.

Chip R
08-12-2004, 07:11 PM
OK, all you guys who want to go back to the clean-shaven look, what would you do if some player - like a pitcher - who was a top caliber player who had facial hair was in negotiations to come here and felt that the clean shaven look was dumb and if the Reds enforced that look, he wouldn't come here?
I liked the clean shaven look but that was of a different time and place. I even like it in the minor league system. But I don't see any benefit in keeping it at the big league level. If you have a policy of neatly trimmed mushtaches, hair and beards, then I don't see anything wrong with that.

Unassisted
08-12-2004, 07:16 PM
OK, all you guys who want to go back to the clean-shaven look, what would you do if some player - like a pitcher - who was a top caliber player who had facial hair was in negotiations to come here and felt that the clean shaven look was dumb and if the Reds enforced that look, he wouldn't come here? I would be disappointed in the ballplayer and happy with the policy. :D But I admit that you have probably zeroed in on the main reason it will never happen.

RANDY IN INDY
08-12-2004, 07:18 PM
Create a consistent winner and it wouldn't be a problem. Nobody has a problem shaving off their beard to play for the Yankees. When it is all said and done, winning, and playing for a winner, gets rid of a lot of those hangups.

Tony Cloninger
08-12-2004, 07:54 PM
The REds in those days had Rose and Bench and then Morgan to help enforce it. HOF superstars that were as big as the game.

You think Griffey cares about doing that?
Or Larkin?

Not that they are not proff. type players but they are not going to enforce something like that....and the rem. Gen X types like Graves and Dunn are sure as heck not going to care.

It works for the Yanks bec. George pays above and beyond what anyone else does .....so the players figure what is the big deal.
Plus they have a Derek Jeter and a Joe Torre to help enforce their way. They are respected and people fall in line.

Just like Morgan did when he was traded to the Reds.

LvJ
08-12-2004, 08:15 PM
The Reds need talent. Not haircuts.

westofyou
08-12-2004, 08:29 PM
The REds in those days had Rose and Bench and then Morgan to help enforce it. HOF superstars that were as big as the game.

The Reds in those days had parents that grew up in a different era, in the depression and during jim crow.

Different eras makes different people and a different value system to teach their kids.

Today's Reds grew up in post war suburbia with cable TV and a "Free to be You Free to be Me" soundtrack pounding through pop culture.

Big Klu
08-12-2004, 09:39 PM
Jim Kern began growing a beard in 1982 because he wasn't happy, and he wanted to try to force the Reds' hand. (He was well-known for an Amish-style beard when he played for the Indians and Rangers in the 70's.) The Reds promptly traded him to the White Sox for Wade Rowden and Leo Garcia.

I remember that Dave Parker voluntarily shaved off his beard and moustache before the press conference announcing that he had signed with the Reds. When he was asked about his new look, Parker responded that the club's policy was well-known, and he made the gesture to show that he wanted to be a part of the Reds organization.

The Reds and Rollie Fingers were said to have had a mutual interest some time in the the 80's, but Fingers insisted on keeping his handle-bar moustache. The Reds said no, and the two sides parted ways and never came to an agreement.

When the Reds signed Jeff Reardon in the early 90's, he reluctantly shaved his beard and moustache. He wasn't crazy about it, but he did it because it was a team rule.

Greg Vaughn insisted on keeping his goatee when he joined the Reds, because "his kids had never seen him without it." The Reds relented. (Interestingly enough, Reardon had tried this same argument six years before, with less favorable results.)

Bowden's Ghost
08-12-2004, 10:12 PM
Carl Linder has a heck of a head of hair for an old geezer, doesnt he? I wonder if it's real? He'd look great with a Fu-Manchu.
I remember when Naehring played on the Red Sox, he sported the "mullet" look that was popular at the time. Now all of a sudden (two years ago actually) he institutes the short hair/no beards or earrings policy in the minors. I'd say that's either a double standard or just a sign that he grew old. Shame on him, he should worry about more important things.
I agree with those that say the Reds need more talent, not haircuts. Their personal styles aren't our business and shouldnt be the Reds either. They shouldnt be forced to cut hair or shave just like they shouldnt be ordered to grow a beard or long hair. Freel's beard and Larkin's hair arent the way i'd wear mine, but kudos to them for going against the grain. But I kinda like Wily Mo's fro, it's quite stylish. And I wouldnt want to be the one to tell him he needs a haircut.

Far East
08-12-2004, 10:21 PM
The idea of trying to enforce a clean-shaven, head-scalped, knee-high pants style is equally as futile and equally as arbitrary as trying to require all players to grow full beards, all grow foot-long hair, or all wear the pants completely down to the shoe tops.

I've seen it tried, and I maintain that it is the attemped imposition by someone who wants to control just for the sake of controlling, and its prime source is a conservative yearning for the way things used to be.

How would those of you who admire, approve of, or want the hair/face/pants rules suggested by Krusty and others like to have the tables turned on you to demand that you adopt the facial whiskers, long hair, long pants look that you disapprove of?

And I don't buy any of the discipline, team-togetherness, winners-dress-this way arguments, particularly for adult athletes.

Krusty
08-13-2004, 12:10 AM
And I don't buy any of the discipline, team-togetherness, winners-dress-this way arguments, particularly for adult athletes.
------------------------------------------------

Funny thing is it has worked for the military for how many years? You dress the same and groom the same. No one stands out. Signifies being part of a team. Maybe that is what I'm trying to say......the Reds need to enforce the team concept. One way of doing it would be a dress code.

StillFunkyB
08-13-2004, 01:57 AM
Bring back the clean cut look along with the uniforms that signified the most successful period in Reds history (sans the trendy 70's beltless uniform look and striping that was modeled after the very beginning of the "Big Red Machine," 68-71 traditional Reds uniform) and emphasize a "Back to Winning" tradition. Re-enforce it with a front office attitude that matches the look on the field. I think it would be the greatest thing that the organization could do. Get the players of the period involved. Bring 'em to spring training. Let them share the "Reds Way." Promote it! Wouldn't it be great to see the old guys in uniform on the field at the ballpark more often? Not just for show, but as a tool for the players to use. Let the young guys pick their brains. I'm not saying to make these guys manager or coaches, but use them as the winning resources that they are.

I think it would be a signal to players, fans, and all of baseball that the organization is dead serious about getting rid of the lackluster performance of the current period and replacing it with the "Reds Way" that produced consistent winning in the decade of the 70's. I think it all hinges on the willingness of the front office to change it's thinking, the visual change of the uniform and look, an outward sign of the commitment to excellence and winning and a great tribute to the teams of that great period in Reds history.

Get rid of the BLACK eye image that the organization is suffering, and get back to the business of winning. It would be treading on hallowed ground. It would signify a huge step, but it would have to be matched by a tremendous commitment and willingness to follow through. You couldn't take it lightly. Promote it. Work it. Eat drink and sleep it. Create an aura. This organization needs an overhaul.

The Reds organization of the 70's was one of the greatest in all of baseball history. No one involved with the Reds, from the Front office, to the players, to the fans, should be ashamed of saying, this was the way the Reds won. The players should be proud to create the look of the winners of the past. To put on that uniform and look, should be sacred to any player in the organization.

Just spell it out. We want it again. We will attain it again.

I like it.


OK, all you guys who want to go back to the clean-shaven look, what would you do if some player - like a pitcher - who was a top caliber player who had facial hair was in negotiations to come here and felt that the clean shaven look was dumb and if the Reds enforced that look, he wouldn't come here?
I liked the clean shaven look but that was of a different time and place. I even like it in the minor league system. But I don't see any benefit in keeping it at the big league level. If you have a policy of neatly trimmed mushtaches, hair and beards, then I don't see anything wrong with that.

Chip, then I don't want that PLAYER on the TEAM.

westofyou
08-13-2004, 02:09 AM
And I don't buy any of the discipline, team-togetherness, winners-dress-this way arguments, particularly for adult athletes.
------------------------------------------------

Funny thing is it has worked for the military for how many years? You dress the same and groom the same. No one stands out. Signifies being part of a team. Maybe that is what I'm trying to say......the Reds need to enforce the team concept. One way of doing it would be a dress code.

Sports are sports.

Sports rookies get 300 K a season

Miltary guys get nothing like that and get to sleep in the same room with all those guys who look just like them, they do it for a reason.

Winning a ballgame isn't one of them.

Military is not sports, never will be.

Seems pretty clear to me.

So why now?

5 games below .500 why not the hair deal last year when they were even worse?

dman
08-13-2004, 03:01 AM
I'll chime in with the "YES" group on this. First off, the players are employed by the Cincinnati Reds. That being said, if the Reds adopt a dress code that includes clean shaven and certain haircut styles, then the players should abide by it the same as if they would in the regular workforce.

The second point I'll make is that if you look sharp, then your competition views you much differently and you make them question how adequate of a foe they are to you. Being in police work for nearly 10 years now, I've read a number of studies on use of force and keeping youself out of hostile situations. The study that most caught my eye was one where it was found that nearly 65% of violators saw that if an officer looked sharp (well pressed uniform, sharp haircut, close shave, shined shoes, good physical dispostion) they were less likely to pick a fight with that officer due to feeling that they were outmatched. This same study also found that several individuals convicted of killing officers on traffic stops saw that the officers presented a disposition that made them fell that they stood a better than average chance of taking that officer down. Of course these studies aren't always what happens when the actual situation comes down.

I make these comparisons because if a team looks like professionals they will be more apt to play like professionals.

When the competition sizes them up, they will think differently.

RedsBaron
08-13-2004, 07:01 AM
I voted no. I'd love to see the Reds go back to uniforms similar to the 1968-71 style; I'd really love to see a return to the caliber of play the team had in the 1970s; and I'm fairly conservative myself-but I just don't care whether or not the players are clean shaven and I don't believe it has any effect upon whether or not the team wins.

Hoosier Red
08-13-2004, 08:48 AM
Those uniforms sure helped in the early 80's didn't they.
Or this year on the weekend trip to Pittsburgh.
Do things to help players feel more comfortable. A more comfortable player is more likely to produce.

RANDY IN INDY
08-13-2004, 09:53 AM
Conversely, sometimes being uncomfortable makes a player work harder for fear of losing his place or position on the team.

Yachtzee
08-13-2004, 10:01 AM
They should be able to do what they want, unless its some thing drastic like a foot long beard or hair halfway down there back.

They should have Acevedo stop dying his hair because he does look goofy.

:mhcky21:

Who say's players can't have long beards and hair?


http://www.peppergame.com/uniform/images/1928.jpg

Seriously, I'm all for presenting a professional look on the field, but I think it starts with professionalism toward honing their craft (pitching, fielding, hitting) first. The rest is just superfluous.

Chip R
08-13-2004, 10:03 AM
Chip, then I don't want that PLAYER on the TEAM.
Even if it were someone like Josh Beckett or Kerry Wood or Ben Sheets? You value the clean shaven look over a winning team? And people talk about the owners not being committed to a winner.

Krusty
08-13-2004, 10:05 AM
I still believe if you're a professional, grooming standards should be required. If the Reds have the intentions of returning to the Big Red Machine days by developing their players through the farm system and building for the longhaul, then why not institute a policy of being clean shaven with the exception of having mustaches? No earrings or jewelry while on the field?

Working for the Bureau of Prisons, image is half the job. Come in and look like a slob and the staff and inmates will look at you as some kind of joke. But if you come in well groom and dressed, that sets the tone.

Maybe it is different in sports. But I do believe several teams have dress codes for how they dress on the road. I'm not saying the Reds should ban facial hair. Mustaches would be allow but no earrings and jewelry while out on the playing field.

This won't correct the deficiencies with the major league roster. But, it sets the tone that the Reds are going back to that image of professionalism during the Big Red Machine era instead of the three-ring circus that was incorporated during the Marge Schott/Jim Bowden era.

Chip R
08-13-2004, 10:15 AM
I still believe if you're a professional, grooming standards should be required. If the Reds have the intentions of returning to the Big Red Machine days by developing their players through the farm system and building for the longhaul, then why not institute a policy of being clean shaven with the exception of having mustaches? No earrings or jewelry while on the field?

Working for the Bureau of Prisons, image is half the job. Come in and look like a slob and the staff and inmates will look at you as some kind of joke. But if you come in well groom and dressed, that sets the tone.

Maybe it is different in sports. But I do believe several teams have dress codes for how they dress on the road. I'm not saying the Reds should ban facial hair. Mustaches would be allow but no earrings and jewelry while out on the playing field.

This won't correct the deficiencies with the major league roster. But, it sets the tone that the Reds are going back to that image of professionalism during the Big Red Machine era instead of the three-ring circus that was incorporated during the Marge Schott/Jim Bowden era.How'd that no facial hair policy help the Reds win in 1971? Or 1982-1984? What about 1989? That 1999 team had guys with facial hair and they had a pretty good season.

I don't think these players look like slobs out there. If they have goatees they are usually neatly trimmed and look like any normal guy who has a goatee. As for jewelry, if a guy wants a diamond stud in his earlobe, why not? If it isn't affecting the way he plays then who gives a crap?

But I'm all for tradition. So I think we should have players look like the Reds did when they were most successful.

IslandRed
08-13-2004, 10:43 AM
Count me in as a "no."

There are rules that accomplish something meaningful, and there are rules for the sake of having a rule. There's a popular epithet starting with "chicken" for the latter. I'm OK with the idea of keeping facial hair neat, but eliminating it? Needless. (I'll pass on the larger, sillier implication that growing facial hair is some sort of character flaw.)

And if we'd turn away good ballplayers and productive citizens for the sake of facial hair, I'd suggest there are some serious misplaced priorities at work, as well as misconceptions about cause and effect.

Redleg75
08-13-2004, 10:45 AM
discipline is good

RedsBaron
08-13-2004, 11:00 AM
How'd that no facial hair policy help the Reds win in 1971? Or 1982-1984? What about 1989? That 1999 team had guys with facial hair and they had a pretty good season.

I don't think these players look like slobs out there. If they have goatees they are usually neatly trimmed and look like any normal guy who has a goatee. As for jewelry, if a guy wants a diamond stud in his earlobe, why not? If it isn't affecting the way he plays then who gives a crap?

But I'm all for tradition. So I think we should have players look like the Reds did when they were most successful.
Is there any way we could get the other teams to just use amateurs while the Reds pay their players, as was done when the photo of the 1869 team was taken? :mhcky21:

Chip R
08-13-2004, 11:03 AM
Is there any way we could get the other teams to just use amateurs while the Reds pay their players, as was done when the photo of the 1869 team was taken? :mhcky21:
It probably wouldn't help. :lol:

Raisor
08-13-2004, 11:06 AM
I would like to propose that all RedsZone members must be clean shaven, especially the chicks.

Thank you.

Far East
08-13-2004, 11:12 AM
but no earrings and jewelry while out on the playing field.
Krusty, but if I were in charge, maybe I'd decide that my team was not allowed on the field unless they all had earrings and jewelry.

Whether with or without jewelery, with or without beards, with or without long hair, with or without stirrups, I see it as too arbitrary and basically someone trying to impose his version of what's proper and trying to make others conform.

Tony Cloninger
08-13-2004, 11:24 AM
I know i liked that look myself......but it's not going to be that big of a deal if they do not. I love the 68-71 look and the high stirrups, i see no big deal in at least enforcing that.

The Reds traded away Ross Grimsley and Andujar beacuse they thought outside the box. People made fun of them back then beacuse of it but it worked for them...but like evryone says it was a diffrent time.

They were trying to keep the hippies away from Cincy i guess. :thumbup:

westofyou
08-13-2004, 12:36 PM
Lamenting for something that was 35-25 years ago is akin to the 70 Reds wanting to go back to the baggy wool uniforms or no night games.

It's the past, it's over.

Look ahead.

Johnny Footstool
08-13-2004, 12:52 PM
Haircuts and white uniforms won't reincarnate the Big Red Machine. Outward appearance does not necessarily equate to a winning attitude. If this organization wants to get back to a winning attitude, it needs to get smarter and invest wisely.

savafan
08-13-2004, 01:02 PM
I would like to propose that all RedsZone members must be clean shaven, especially the chicks.

Thank you.

Sorry, but I refuse to cut my long hair, shave off my beard or take out my earrings.

traderumor
08-13-2004, 01:06 PM
The further we get removed from the BRM, the more legends begin. The Reds would have been just as successful regardless of their grooming habits. Hard to believe we lost to those grubby A's in '72 with our clean cut look, isn't it? It is a logical fallacy to think that one game was won because the Reds had a dress and grooming code. "The Reds way" was great defense, average starting pitching, above average bullpen, and an incredible offense. When that went away, so did the championships, even when the uniforms and grooming remained. I'm with WOY, can we move on please? The BRM stands alone.

westofyou
08-13-2004, 01:07 PM
The further we get removed from the BRM, the more legends begin. The Reds would have been just as successful regardless of their grooming habits. Hard to believe we lost to those grubby A's in '72 with our clean cut look, isn't it? It is a logical fallacy to think that one game was won because the Reds had a dress and grooming code. "The Reds way" was great defense, average starting pitching, above average bullpen, and an incredible offense. When that went away, so did the championships, even when the uniforms and grooming went away. I'm with WOY, can we move on please? The BRM stands alone.

Maybe the Cubs should look at some game photos of the 1908 Cubs, Tinker and Evers didn't talk to each other, maybe if Walker and Nomar tried that.......

traderumor
08-13-2004, 01:20 PM
Maybe the Cubs should look at some game photos of the 1908 Cubs, Tinker and Evers didn't talk to each other, maybe if Walker and Nomar tried that.......
Take it a step further, want a Babe Ruth, just have all your minor leaguers drink, chase wild women, gain 100 pounds, and tippy toe around the bases.

Larkin411
08-13-2004, 02:11 PM
Take it a step further, want a Babe Ruth, just have all your minor leaguers drink, chase wild women, gain 100 pounds, and tippy toe around the bases.

And cork their bats :) .

RANDY IN INDY
08-13-2004, 04:50 PM
I wish that the players that come to the Reds organization would respect the tradition and feel a little of the pride that you see Yankee players displaying when they put on the same "pinstripes" that have been worn by every Yankee player since the Babe. The look is timeless, and I wish the Reds would try to capture a little bit of that in their look. The look that is most identified with Reds success is the clean and simple look of the 70's.

I'm really not as big a stickler for the clean shaven look, but neatly trimmed mustaches and beards is not asking too much, as well as wearing the uniform the way it was meant to be worn.

GAC
08-13-2004, 04:55 PM
I'm not saying it is the answer. I just think all ballplayers should have grooming standards.

The Johnny Damon look really says alot about being a professional ballplayer.

It's funny what some will require of others, that is not necessarily reflective in their own lives maybe?

I say bring back Mr Red with the handlebar mustache! :thumbup:

Far East
08-13-2004, 06:18 PM
wearing the uniform the way it was meant to be worn.
I'm not very knowledgeable about the Rule Book. Is there a rule about how it's to be worn? Seriously. Just asking.

Krusty
08-13-2004, 06:28 PM
So, I guess it's alright for ballplayers to wear their hats backwards, shirttails out, gold chains dangling down from their necks, and ear rings that I only can dreamed about getting my wife. Next thing you know MLB will turn into a WWE version of the game.

Far East
08-13-2004, 06:45 PM
So, I guess it's alright for ballplayers to wear their hats backwards, shirttails out, gold chains dangling down from their necks, and ear rings that I only can dreamed about getting my wife.
At last we agree; I knew you'd come around. ;)

GAC
08-13-2004, 07:50 PM
So, I guess it's alright for ballplayers to wear their hats backwards, shirttails out, gold chains dangling down from their necks, and ear rings that I only can dreamed about getting my wife. Next thing you know MLB will turn into a WWE version of the game.

Maybe they should have a dress code for the fans at the stadium too. Nothing is more demoralizing to a player then playing before a bunch of fashion slobs! :roll:

Eric_Davis
08-13-2004, 10:15 PM
During the 1995 season, Buck Showalter openly criticized Ken Griffey, Jr. and Barry Bonds for sloppy dressing, which he considered insulting to baseball's history. In his first year with the expansion Arizona Diamondbacks Showalter outlined his managerial philosophy in a 300-page tome distributed to players which included bans on earrings, beards, goatees, and laziness.

traderumor
08-13-2004, 10:18 PM
During the 1995 season, Buck Showalter openly criticized Ken Griffey, Jr. and Barry Bonds for sloppy dressing, which he considered insulting to baseball's history. In his first year with the expansion Arizona Diamondbacks Showalter outlined his managerial philosophy in a 300-page tome distributed to players which included bans on earrings, beards, goatees, and laziness.Do tell what Bucky has done to enhance baseball's history and I'll consider him worth listening to. (chirp, chirp, chirp) That's what I thought
;)

Big Klu
08-13-2004, 10:50 PM
<deleted>

Eric_Davis
08-13-2004, 11:03 PM
Do tell what Bucky has done to enhance baseball's history and I'll consider him worth listening to. (chirp, chirp, chirp) That's what I thought
;)


No opinion one way or another...just thought it was topical.