I'm not convinced! What you fellers forget is that you can't change pints into square feet—and you dang sure can't bounce a baseball on a "steel plate imbedded in concrete" and compare it with the swish of a bat (Yes, It's Livelier, Aug. 28).
You did not compare a Ruthian baseball with a modern-day one, and until you do so there is still no definite proof that the baseball Ruth used was not even livelier than the one the M boys are using.
What was the temperature, wind and humidity factor in 1953? Was it the same as in the 1961 test? What about the scales? Were they calibrated the same? Was the ball as dry in '61 as in '53? Being a science major myself, I doubt that the Ward test proves much of anything.
ROBERT C. WACHTER
?Tester Ward—another science major who understands the technique of controlled experiment—disagrees.—ED.
Why keep up this nonsense about the hopped-up ball anyway? Mantle and Maris and the fans don't seem to be too concerned.
JOHN P. BADER
This is the first conclusive story I have seen giving facts, reasons and figures on the subject.
In an editorial in your issue of August 29, 1960 entitled A Matter of Record, you quoted Roger Maris as saying, "Nobody's ever going to break [Ruth's] record, not me or anybody else."
New York City
Congratulations on another fine article (The Way to Beat a Heavy Thinker, Aug. 28). So often a swimming meet like this one in Los Angeles has a hidden story of great sportsmanship. This was especially true of Murray Rose, who was suffering from intestinal trouble and insomnia for two weeks prior to the meet. Rather than disappoint his fine opponents and many supporters, Rose concealed his condition.
J. F. ROSCOE
New York City
Has anyone investigated the water used in the AAU outdoor swimming championships in Los Angeles? I have it on good authority that the 10 world records set there will not be allowed to stand because the official 1961 AAU water is 8% livelier than water previously issued by the Department of Water and Power.