"Hustle" the Pete Rose movie commentary

DeutscherGeist

I did not see the beginning of it, but I did enjoy whatever I could see. Baseball fans would appreciate this movie since it was about one of the greatest controversies ever in sports.

Now, one must bear caution that this was a movie, and not the ultimate truth, although it was certainly based on a true story. My comments are directed at the movie not how this whole investigation really took place. The way Rose was protrayed is less than flattering. To me, friendship is one of the most important bonds and the movie depicted Rose as just using his "Friend" Paul Janzsen. To add insult to injury, he gave Paul a watch with the inscription that read something like #1 friend. I guess the Pete Rose in the movie used that term very lightly or he was just flat out a user/manipulator, like Paul's girlfriend, Danita Marcum, alluded to.

Janzsen was depicted as truely believing that Rose was his friend and he really went out on a limb to watch his back and cover for Rose's mishaps. I don't understand why Rose didn't give the money to Janzsen that would have been used for gambling, instead, Janzsen had to take money from his own pocket many times throughout the story. Janzsen was the middle man, yes, but he did not need to suffer like he did with financial troubles and the pressure to make up more money through other means, like the sale of steroids, just because his "friend" was too negligent in paying his dues. Rose should have given the money Janzsen was to use in placing bets all in advance. I am not judging gambling here for that is a separate problem all together, but Rose was protrayed as someone who really can care less about his friends--that's the impression I got. He has no friends, simply people he uses as Marcum eloquently stated.

Janzsen was protrayed as a co-dependent in his relationship with Rose. Janzsen was being treated badly by Rose for the mere fact of his negligence in making timely payments and not taking responsibility of his gambling. Marcum pointed it out to Janzsen many times that Rose was a user. She was good in sticking out even though things got real critical with the finances. Marcum showed character by staying with Janzsen for a while longer and helping him finally see the light. She supported him when he wanted to cooperate with the FBI and things got better afterward. Rose was dumb in first suggesting to Janzsen to go to his lawyer and then not following through that everything will be taken care of. What was Rose thinking? Janzsen needed to be taken care of. Rose wrote his own fate when he stiffed Janzsen that one final time. Didn't he understand what was coming. Had Rose paid the full $30,000 Janzsen would not have needed to plea bargain with the FBI. What was a cornered and abandoned Janzsen suppose to do at this point otherwise? He finally had to watch out for himself.

While I say Janzsen was the co-dependent, Rose was certainly the narcissist. He was only into himself. He did not care for the game, cheated on his wife and used people under the guise of friendship--not good qualities by any measure. I know we live in the post-modern time where moral relativism has creeped to become the norm, but not all of us have to ride that bandwagon.

Gambling is the cardinal sin in baseball and since Rose finally admitted to doing it, why lift the lifetime ban now? Just because he is the hits leader? If it was a guy in Rose's situation with the numbers of say a Pat Kelly, then I don't think we would even be discussing this right now. One must not let the individual be greater than the game. Its a shame that the hits leader will not be enshrined, but who is going to lose sleep over that, truthfully, guys? It won't bother me when I one day grow older and take my kid to Cooperstown and show him Cobbs' plaque and he turns around and asks me where the real hits leader is. I will simply tell him that it is a rule in baseball that one cannot gamble, or else one is banned from baseball forever. If he turns around still and points out that Ty Cobb was a racist and probably shouldn't be enshrined either, I will tell him that those were not in the rules and Cobb played in an era where most people were racist to some degree.

I personally can handle a Don Mattingly in Cooperstown and would like that, but a Pete Rose? never! so long as the rules are in effect. Those of you who want Rose in, that's OK by me, but the rules of baseball must change too by not making gambling punishable only with a lifetime ban. We live in a society of laws. It is against the law to let Rose be eligible. But since we are in a democracy, let the baseball fans and officials vote on it to see if they want to modify this old baseball rule.

DeutscherGeist

ttt

noclass

As I have stated before - Pete Rose was my idol growing up. I loved the way the guy hustled, the way the guy made the all-star in 6 different positions and his love for the game. He was not blessed with size or speed but made the most of what he had with his all-out play.

I think that Pete's records for hits, at bats, MVPs etc should all be part of the HOF and they are - however the Hall should not have a bust to honor Pete Rose. Just my 2 cents....

1420sports

however the Hall should not have a bust to honor Pete Rose.

but they should have a plaque. He is a HOFer as a player, and should be in the Hall. Back in baseball - no. Hall, yes.

lclugza

I do not think betting ON (not AGAINST) your own team merits a permanent ban. Therefore, I think Rose should be allowed back in baseball and in the HOF (if the writers elect him to the HOF).

Perhaps instead the team owners who keep false financial records, who claim "small market" and "bottom line" and "we can't aford that" and "If we son't get a new stadium, we'll move"- perhaps they should instead be banned from the game. Perhaps Mr.Fehr the player's union head, and Mr. Selig the sleazy used car dealer whose team has 12 straight losing seasons- perhaps they should instead be banned from the game.

I won't even discuss George SWINEbrenner here.

DeutscherGeist

Its not about gambling being a big deal or not. The MLB has a zero tolerance on gambling so they reacted unhypocrtically. Steinbrenner spends a lot of money on his team, but those are not against the rules. If you feel that gambling should not be considered a severe crime in MLB, then that's fine with me, just as long as you can convince the powers of baseball to alter the rules not just for Rose, but for all. It would not be right to just grandfather Rose in the HOF while keeping the zero tolerance on gambling---that would show favoritism and be hypocritical.