Should The Reds Go Back To The Clean Shaven Look?

[Yachtzee]

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?




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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

discipline is good

[RedsBaron]

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]

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.

[Raisor]

I would like to propose that all RedsZone members must be clean shaven, especially the chicks.

Thank you.

[Far East]

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]

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.

[westofyou]

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]

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]

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]

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.