But That's Not the Weird Part

So this book, Six Frigates, also has a bit about Teddy Roosevelt.  I'm reading along and suddenly it's full-on Roosevelt time, speeches about how great war is, the White Fleet, and all that.  In his spare time while at Harvard he wrote a book about the naval aspects of the War of 1812.  Well, actually, he wrote the definitive book about the naval War of 1812.  A book that refuted outright, with characteristic rigor and good humor, the chauvinistic pretensions of the British author of the standard reference.  Thus:

In other instances it is quite enough to let his words speak for themselves, as where he says (p. 155) that of the American sailors one third in number and one half in point of effectiveness were in reality British. That is, of the 450 men the Constitution had when she fought the Java 150 were British, and the remaining 300 could have been as effectively replaced by 150 more British. So a very little logic works out a result that James certainly did not intend to arrive at; namely, that 300 British led by American officers could beat, with ease and comparative impunity, 400 British led by their own officers. 

He also forgets that the whole consists of the sum of the parts. He accounts for the victories of the Americans by stating (p. 280) that they were lucky enough to meet with frigates and brigs who had unskilful gunners or worthless crews; he also carefully shows that the Macedonian was incompetently handled, the Peacock commanded by a mere martinet, the Avon's crew unpractised weak and unskilful, the Java's exceedingly poor, and more to the same effect. Now the Americans took in single fight three frigates and seven sloops, and when as many as ten vessels are met it is exceedingly probable that they represent the fair average; so that James' strictures, so far as true, simply show that the average British ship was very apt to possess, comparatively speaking, an incompetent captain or unskilful crew. 

But that's not the weird part.

I bought a new book.  I thought I might try a little lighter topic, so I picked up (electronically) a copy of Layden's Blood, Sweat & Chalk which tells you about how different football plays evolved and has interviews with coaches and stuff.  And I get a couple of pages in chapter one, and there's fracking Teddy Roosevelt again.

"People ask me all the time who started the single wing," says Racely.  "I tell them it was Teddy Roosevelt."  The line is delivered as if it's a joke, but a visitor is unsure whether to laugh or not because Racely's one-liner is based on a popular mythology:  that early in the 20th century Roosevelt intervened in football when he felt the game had become too violent, and that he changed the rules.  This much is generally accurage:  In 1905 Roosevelt was a participant in a process that pushed college football toward rules changes designed to make the game safer, outlawing dangerous mass-momentum closed-formation plays like the flying wedge.  These rules gave rise to the game of modern football, including the forward pass and the single wing. 

Roosevelt was pretty tough.  He gave a speech once right after someone tried to kill him.  He took a bullet, but it didn't do much damage.  And he said:   

I cannot tell you of what infinitesimal importance I regard this incident as compared with the great issues at stake in this campaign, and I ask it not for my sake, not the least in the world, but for the sake of common country, that they make up their minds to speak only the truth, and not use that kind of slander and mendacity which if taken seriously must incite weak and violent natures to crimes of violence. Don't you make any mistake. Don't you pity me. I am all right. I am all right and you cannot escape listening to the speech either.