Popular Sports in America during the 1920s

I put this post together for my HIST 1302 course (U.S. History, 1877-2000). It explains how in the 1920s the United States started becoming more and more the sports crazy nation it is today.

The 1920s, often referred to as the Roaring Twenties, was a decade marked by significant cultural change, economic growth, and the rise of mass entertainment. Sports became a major part of American popular culture during this period. In fact, the current sports craziness of American society really began in the 1920s, with several sports gaining widespread popularity.

1. Baseball

Baseball was undoubtedly the most popular sport of the decade, often called “America’s Pastime.” The 1920s is considered the Golden Age of Baseball, with legendary players like Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig making headlines. Babe Ruth’s power-hitting prowess changed the game forever, especially after joining the New York Yankees in 1920. Yankee Stadium, dubbed "The House That Ruth Built," opened in 1923, further cementing baseball’s dominance in American sports culture.

Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig at West Point, NY, 1927 (Click on photo for a better view)

2. Boxing

Boxing, sometimes called prize fighting, was immensely popular throughout the 1920s, particularly due to the charismatic Jack Dempsey, who held the heavyweight championship from 1919 to 1926. His fights attracted enormous audiences both in person and via radio broadcasts. The match between Dempsey and Gene Tunney in 1927, remains one of the most famous boxing events in history.

Jack Dempsey, c. 1921

3. College Football

College football was more popular than professional football during this era. Teams like Notre Dame, led by the iconic coach Knute Rockne and star player George Gipp, captured the nation’s attention. The use of radio broadcasts to cover games significantly increased the sport’s popularity, making it accessible to a nationwide audience.

4. Horse Racing

Horse racing continued to draw large crowds throughout the decade. The Kentucky Derby, in particular, was a highlight of the sporting calendar, with fans flocking to the tracks and placing bets. The excitement of betting on races contributed to the sport’s immense popularity.

Helen Wills, 1926

5. Tennis

Tennis saw considerable growth during the 1920s, especially thanks to players like Bill Tilden, who dominated the sport throughout the decade. Women’s tennis also gained attention, with stars like Helen Wills Moody emerging as champions.

6. Golf

Golf’s popularity soared, largely due to the success of players like Bobby Jones. Jones became the first golfer to win all four major championships in a single year (1930), an achievement known as the Grand Slam. The sport became more accessible to the general public during this time.

7. Basketball

Though not as popular as baseball or football, basketball was growing in popularity, particularly at the college level and within industrial leagues. The sport was still developing but laid the groundwork for its eventual rise to prominence.

8. Ice Hockey

Ice hockey began to gain traction, particularly in northern cities. The National Hockey League (NHL), founded in 1917, expanded its reach in the U.S. during the 1920s.

Conclusion

The 1920s saw sports become a central aspect of American culture, with advancements in radio broadcasting and media coverage helping to spread their appeal. Figures like Babe Ruth, Jack Dempsey, and Bobby Jones became national heroes, showcasing how sports could captivate the public’s imagination.

Good Quotes for Introducing the Parables of Jesus

Several months ago, I was asked to teach a Bible class at the Polk Street United Methodist Church here in Amarillo. The class wanted me to introduce the parables of Jesus. As I prepared for the class, I happened upon a couple of good statements. Here's how the class began:

One of the best-known Bible scholars of the twentieth century was a man named William Barclay. In one of his many books, Barclay wrote:

There are certain stories which are not so much the heritage of the scholar, or the material of the theologian as [they are] the possession of every person: and such are the parables of Jesus. Even in an age when people know less and less of the Bible, and care less [about] it, it remains true that the stories Jesus told are the best known stories in the world. (Barclay, And Jesus Said, p. 9).

More recently, Neil Lightfoot, a New Testament scholar who taught for many years at Abilene Christian University, said this:

The parables of Jesus will always remain the very center and heart of the teachings of Christ. They summarize what Jesus thought and taught and lived. They tell us what the good life is, and what the real values of life are. They speak to people and bind principles upon them, in terms they can understand. They are plain, practical lessons for all ages, [depicting an approach to life that is universal]. (Lightfoot, The Parables of Jesus, Vol. 1, Preface)

It's no wonder we keep coming back to the parables of Jesus.

Peggy Noonan's Takedown of Kamala's New Book

Last weekend's Wall Street Journal contains the regular column by Peggy Noonan, one of my favorite opinion writers. Her most recent is titled "What Do Mainstream Democrats Stand For?"

The piece includes Noonan's comments on Kamala Harris's recent book. Here are some of the more trenchant ones:

"In Ms. Harris's memoir any guiding political philosophy is absent, which is odd in someone who wished to occupy the nation's highest office. You should at least go through the motions."

"Ms. Harris's book is insistently shallow, almost as if that were a virtue, a sign of authenticity."

Referring to the light tone of Harris's book: "I think she was trying to signal there will be no intellectual heavy lifting, but do readers need that warning?"

"The closest she comes to a political philosophy, a driving force that explains her career, is 'I want to keep people safe and help them thrive.' But few enter politics to see constituents endangered and withering. She sees herself as generous in her concern for others--'I've always been a protector'--and loyal. But these are personal qualities, not beliefs."

Is anyone really buying the idea that Harris lost the 2024 presidential election due to misogyny and racism? The political left in America has to figure out, if nothing else, that drivel doesn't energize anyone.

The Catch-22 of Calvinism

Episcopal scholar Gardiner H. Shattuck, Jr., has done a good job expressing the historic catch-22 of the Calvinist understanding of salvation. Describing Puritans in early America, Shattuck writes:

Calvinists believed that God would inevitably awaken faith within the hearts of the predestined elect, while those predestined to damnation would simply never experience a conversion. Yet if conversion were solely a divine action, indeed an event foreordained by God before creation itself, there would seem to be little justification for pressing a sinner to repent. To stress the importance of the human will in conversion was not only inappropriate, but might even signal a lack of faith in divine grace.

In other words, if the Calvinist understanding of grace and salvation is true, then what could be the need or justification for calling sinners to repent? Why tell people to do something you're convinced they're going to do anyway--and that by divine decree? This inconsistency, and the attempts by Calvinists to remedy the problem or to explain it away, is a major theme of Reformed history. Those who take a higher, dare I say biblical, view of the love of God for all humanity still wait for, but do not expect, a convincing answer to such questions.

Source: Gardiner H. Shattuck, Jr., "conversion," in The Encyclopedia of American Religious History, eds. Edward L. Queen II, Stephen R. Prothero, and Gardiner H. Shattuck, Jr., (New York: Facts on File, 1996), 1:161-62.

One Fine, Lazy Summer Nearly Gone

It's August 10, 2025. Public schools and Amarillo College will begin a new year within days. Educators are reporting earlier than students. That means our lives are starting to get very busy again.

Nearing the end of our summer, I have to say it's been pretty nice for us the last several weeks. This year, it didn't come close to 100 degrees until a few days ago. (The last time Amarillo went a calendar year without reaching 100 was in 2015). Also, for this part of the country we've received a good bit of rain this year. I don't know the current statistics, but it's certain that we are way ahead for the amount of rainfall we usually see by early August. With the exception of Spring it hasn't been very windy this year, and the rain has come fairly consistently. All that to say, weatherwise it's been mild and pleasant in Amarillo. We really haven't seen many "dog days of Summer" like we sometimes do.

Back in June, we traveled up to Springfield, Illinois, where I conducted the wedding of the couple who live two doors down from us. We had never spent much time in "the Land of Lincoln." I got to see the

Lincoln Presidential Library. I also got to tour the Lincoln Home. It was the only house Abraham Lincoln ever owned.

More recently, we've spent some time eating out at local restaurants. A place called Hoffbrau Steak and Grill House has become a favorite of ours. We also watched a crime drama series on Netflix called Seven Seconds. It's dark, not exactly edifying, and not for the faint of heart. It kept us entertained over the course of several nights. Earlier in the summer, we went to see the latest Mission Impossible movie, The Final Reckoning, which was well worth it. I know, Tom Cruise seems awfully weird and even creepy to some people. But the guy is a bona fide movie star who goes all out when it comes to entertaining audiences. This latest of his is pure movie escapism at its best.

Starting back in late June, I began teaching a summer course in post-1877 American History. I met with students 9:30 to 11:20, Monday through Thursday. It was a relatively small class, about sixteen of them. 

Ever since I was in college, I've always enjoyed summer sessions. Not many people are on campus. The common extra-curricular activities aren't happening. So the whole thing feels both more relaxed and more focused on what we're presumably there to do. I like it. Last week was the sixth and final week. Nowadays, I'm getting a ten-day break before returning faculty have to report.

Back on the Fourth of July, the two of us went to a home game of the Sod Poodles, our very own Double-A baseball team. The Soddies won, and the concert and fireworks afterward were great. As it turned out, we had the chance to go to another game with a group from church on Sunday, July 13. A member of the congregation who's part of a law firm here in Amarillo managed to get us the firm's sky box, a great venue for the twenty or so people who went.

Oh, and back on August 3, we got to see Bachman-Turner Overdrive with opening act the Marshall Tucker Band. A friend was able to get tickets at his workplace. We got to share a nice dinner just before the show, which was really great. Randy Bachman is 81-years old these days and still touring. What a treat to see him perform.

It's been one fine, lazy summer.

Pre-History of Jackson County, Oklahoma (3)

By 1891, a few short years after its founding, the town of Frazer was home to several businesses. These included a hotel, drug store, a general merchandise store, and even a jewelry store. A medical doctor, J. E. Fowler, and his family lived in the drug store. The proprietor of the general store was C. C. Hightower, for whom the Altus High School football stadium is named: Hightower Memorial Stadium. In 1887, J. R. McMahan came to Frazer and became the first school teacher in Greer County, Texas. Eventually, he would replace Mrs. P. H. Holt as postmaster.[1]

Residents of Frazer likely knew their town was in a vulnerable spot. Although it was nice to have the Frazer River (known today as the Salt Fork of the Red River) and Bitter Creek nearby, Frazer stood where the creek and the river met. The dangerous potential turned into reality in 1891. On the night of June 4, torrential rains fell just north of Frazer, in the area that feeds Bitter Creek and the Salt Fork. The two currents overflowed and formed one very wide and swift river running at least three feet deep. Decades later, Dr. Fowler's daughter, only four years old in 1891, recalled: "I remember Mama walking from bed to bed on chairs because there was so much water on the floor." Townspeople got up in the middle of the night, gathered what they could, and moved to safety on higher ground. For many years after the flood, old-timers would say, "The average rainfall here is twenty inches a year and I remember the day it fell."[2]

When residents of Frazer fled their homes, they knew of a higher settlement just two and a half miles to the east-northeast. A post office had been established there the year before, in 1890. At some point, W. R. Baucum, who had formerly lived in Altus, Arkansas, and who knew the Latin word Altus meant "high," suggested that name for the new town.[3]

This traditional telling of the story about how and why Altus got its name leaves a question: if a post office was established there the year before the flood at Frazer, then what was the name of Altus prior to that event? The story assumes that Altus was given that name only after the people of Frazer moved to "higher ground." However, every U.S. post office has a registered name. So, again, what was the name of Altus in 1890, the year before the flood? If the original name of the settlement was Altus, then the story about the town being given that name after the flood doesn't add up.

Notes

[1] Chesser, Across the Lonely Years, 139, 179; Barbara Kay Shelton, "Altus on the Hill Above Frazer in Old Greer County," Chronicles of Oklahoma 40, no, 4 (Winter 1962-63): 390-92.

[2] Chesser, Across the Lonely Years, 139-40; Shelton, "Altus on the Hill Above Frazer," 392.

[3] George H. Shirk, Oklahoma Place Names, 2nd ed. (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1974), 8; Chesser, Across the Lonely Years, 141.

Pre-History of Jackson County, Oklahoma (2)

Among the most important pioneers in what is now Jackson County, Oklahoma, were the family of John and Susan McClearen. In 1885, the McClearens, along with their two daughters and two sons-in-law--the J. B. Walkers and P. H. Holts--moved from Grayson County to Greer County, Texas (present-day southwest Oklahoma). At first, they lived in tents, a half dug-out, and a log cabin about three miles south and east of present-day Altus. Soon, they were joined by the family of Tom Eaton.[1]

Frazer, the fledgling town they began, took its name from the nearby Frazer River, known today as the Salt Fork of the Red River. In February 1886, John McClearen established a post office at Frazer. That spring, he began farming. Cowboys driving cattle along the Western Trail would sometimes venture over to Frazer to pick up mail and drink some of the McClearen's fresh buttermilk, kept cold in a well. The cowboys called the place "Buttermilk Station."[2]

Notes

[1] Cecil R. Chesser, Across the Lonely Years: The Story of Jackson County (Altus, OK: Altus Printing Company, 1971), 137-38.

[2] Ibid., 138; George H. Shirk, Oklahoma Place Names, 2nd ed. (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1974), 95.

Pre-History of Jackson County, Oklahoma (1)

Spanish explorers were the first Europeans to pass through what is now southwest Oklahoma. But they never stayed in the region. Later, in the nineteenth century, members of the U.S. Army also came to this place. One of them was George Armstrong Custer, who traveled through what is now Jackson County in 1869. It was not until the 1870s that people began to take interest in permanently settling in what was then Greer County, Texas.[1] Around that time, the Western Trail began to replace the Chisholm Trail as the best, most direct route for cattle drives going from Texas to railheads in Kansas and Nebraska. The Western Trail was blazed by John T. Lytle in 1874 and crossed the Red River ten miles north of Vernon, Texas. Cowboys who came through on cattle drives following the Western Trail noticed the potential of present-day Jackson County, Oklahoma.[2]

Cattle ranchers came to southwest Oklahoma more than a quarter century before Jackson County was established. As early as 1881, L. Z. Eddleman started the Cross S Ranch around present-day Olustee. About that same time, Cornelius T. Herring began the Herring Ranch near what is now Navajoe. Another operation, the H Cross N Ranch, was established south of present-day Altus.[3] In 1885, the Day Land and Cattle Company leased 203,000 acres in Greer County, Texas (which eventually formed Jackson, Greer, Harmon, and parts of Tillman and Beckham Counties in today's Oklahoma). Livestock was becoming one of America's largest industries, and Greer County, Texas, was home to some 60,000 cattle.[4]

Notes

[1] Cecil R. Chesser, Across the Lonely Years: The Story of Jackson County (Altus, OK: Altus Printing Company, 1971), 137-38; Webb L. Moore, "Greer County,," Handbook of Texas Online, accessed May 5, 2025. https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/greer-county.

[2] Chesser, Across the Lonely Years, 137; Carl N. Tyson, “Western Trail,” The Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History and Culture, https://www.okhistory.org/publications/enc/entry?entry=WE025.

[3] Linda D. Wilson, "Jackson County," Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History and Culture, https://www.okhistory.org/publications/enc/entry?entry=JA001; Cecil R. Chesser, Across the Lonely Years, 137.

[4] Anonymous, “Day Land and Cattle Company,” Handbook of Texas Online, accessed May 15, 2025, https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/day-land-and-cattle-company; John D. Heisch, “Old Greer County,” The Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History and Culture, https://www.okhistory.org/publications/enc/entry?entry=OL002; Moore, “Greer County."

Jim Jones and the Peoples Temple

The most recent issue of the Stone-Campbell Journal includes an article by Kelly Tyrrell titled "Strange Bedfellows: Jim Jones and the Disciples of Christ."

Tyrrell tells the story of the Peoples Temple. It was a popular church in 1960s and 70s California with thousands of members. But when Jim Jones, the church's charismatic pastor, was placed under investigation, he convinced hundreds of church members to move with him to Guyana, South America. There in the jungle they established an enclave called Jonestown.

When concerned U.S. officials visited Jonestown, several in their entourage were shot and killed. Shortly after that, 918 residents of Jonestown died in a mass suicide orchestrated by Jones himself. The pastor convinced church members to drink a beverage laced with cyanide. More than 300 of the dead were children.

While the news media often identified Jones as the leader of a cult, they overlooked the fact that Peoples Temple was affiliated with the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) denomination. That's the point this article emphasizes. Tyrrell notes that the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement has historically been characterized by independent, autonomous congregations. Only in the twentieth century did the most liberal branch of the movement, the Disciples of Christ, establish something of a denominational structure. However, even after doing that, the network of congregations was loose.

This was something Jim Jones had noticed. And he took advantage. On the one hand, connections to a recognized denomination would lend Peoples Temple status and credibility. How could someone be pegged as a cult leader when his church was in good standing with a major denomination? On the other hand, the Disciples of Christ was the denomination least likely to keep tabs on its member churches and their pastors. So affiliation with the Disciples was perfect for Jones: credibility without oversight.

Anyway, a few of the sources in this article could have been stronger. But aside from that, it's a fine piece that makes an overlooked point about Jones and his church.

J. W. McGarvey on the Elders in Acts 14:23

Acts chapters 13 and 14 narrate what is often called Paul's First Missionary Journey. In this story, the Apostle is accompanied another great New Testament character, Barnabas. For a time, a relative of Barnabas, John, was with them (13:5 and 13).

The missionaries traveled from their home church in Syrian Antioch (modern Antakya, Turkey) to the island of Cyprus. From there, they sailed to south-central Anatolia where they taught many people about what God had recently done through Jesus of Nazareth.

Once they started back home, Paul and Barnabas retraced their steps and visited many of the newly-formed congregations of those who believed in Jesus. As they did so, they "appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust" (14:23). But, someone might ask, if according to 1 Timothy 3:6, an elder "must not be a recent convert," how does that square with the appointment of new Christians to this role in Acts 14:23?

Back in the nineteenth century, this question had occurred to J. W. McGarvey (pictured here) one of the best biblical scholars the Disciples movement ever produced. In commenting on Acts 14:23, McGarvey wrote:

If anyone is surprised that men were found in these newly founded congregations possessed of the high qualifications for the office laid down by Paul in his epistles to Titus and Timothy, he should remember that although these disciples had been but a comparatively short time in the church, may of them were, in character and knowledge of the Scriptures, the ripest fruits of the Jewish synagogue; and they needed only additional knowledge which the gospel brought, in order to be models of wisdom and piety for the churches. They were not "novices" (I Tim. III. 6) in the sense of being newly turned away from wickedness. [1]

Here we see deep understanding, an appreciation for ancient Judaism as the primary matrix from which earliest Christian grew. McGarvey's knowledge and good judgment shine through in this and so many other sections of his classic commentary.

Note

[1] J. W. McGarvey, New Commentary on Acts of Apostles (Cincinnati: Standard Publishing Company, 1892), vol. 2: pages 50-51.

Below is a link to an online copy of volume 2 of McGarvey's commentary, the one quoted in this post:

https://archive.org/details/newcommentaryona02mcga/page/50/mode/2up

Is "Revisionist History" Redundant? Not Always.

At first glance, this title seems to contradict my previous post, where I argued that revisionist history is redundant because all historical writing revises existing interpretations. Without change or new perspectives, what would be the point of writing history?

Now I’m saying revisionist history isn’t always redundant. Why? In some fields, the term revisionist has evolved into a label for historians who take a distinct and often controversial new direction in their research. Here are two examples: the English Reformation and America in Vietnam.

The English Reformation: A Revisionist Turn

For many years, historians of the English Reformation portrayed it as inevitable, overdue, and widely welcomed. They argued that Roman Catholicism had grown stale and oppressive, making the Reformation a relief. Prominent historians in this tradition include A.G. Dickens and G.R. Elton.

But starting in the 1980s, historians like J.J. Scarisbrick and Eamon Duffy challenged this narrative. They focused instead on what was lost during the Reformation, presenting evidence that many English people resisted or lamented the changes. They argued the old system was effective, meaningful, and didn’t need replacing.

These historians embraced the label revisionists. Over time, their arguments reshaped the conversation so thoroughly that scholars now describe the field as post-revisionist. The key point is that revisionist wasn’t used as a slur in this context—it became an accepted term for a distinct school of thought.

U.S. Involvement in Vietnam: Another Revisionist Turn

A similar dynamic exists in the historiography of America’s involvement in Vietnam. The dominant view—advocated by journalists like Neil Sheehan and historians like John Prados—holds that U.S. intervention was a mistake: poorly planned, poorly executed, and ultimately disastrous. This perspective is exemplified in Ken Burns’ The Vietnam War documentary.

However, a small group of historians, described as revisionists, offer a different take. They argue that U.S. involvement in Vietnam was justified to prevent the spread of communism, that the war was winnable, and that the United States withdrew prematurely. Among these historians, Mark Moyar stands out with works like Triumph Forsaken and Triumph Regained.

My Take

In both cases, I find myself siding with the older, traditional interpretations. At the same time, I recognize that the revisionists often make insightful points. What’s important here is that the term revisionist history isn’t always redundant or pejorative. Sometimes, it’s a meaningful label for a specific approach embraced by its proponents.

In these contexts, revisionist history is not just about change—it’s about redefining the conversation entirely.

Why "Revisionist History" is Redundant

I want to make a case: The expression revisionist history is redundant. It's like tooth dentist.

The origin of the phrase seems clear enough. It's come along as part of the history front of the culture wars in the United States, and perhaps in other parts of the world, too. In my experience, the expression is used in the following imaginary statement:

When I was a kid, we learned basic history. You know, Ben Franklin, George Washington, the American Revolution, and the U.S. Constitution. But today, the schools are teaching revisionist history. They've changed things.

There is no doubt that standard or typical narratives of American history are different now than they were forty and fifty years ago. For example, today, compared to decades ago, it is much more common for American historians to include in their narratives information about Native Americans, women, African-Americans, Hispanics, and all sorts of minority or outsider groups.

Of course, those people were there all along. But in previous generations, the contributions of those people to our collective past were not often acknowledged or even noticed. That is a big part of what has changed, which is mainly why some complain about revisionist history.

My point is not that recent changes in the way historians investigate and write about the past are either good or bad. (It's a mixed bag, I think. Pluses and minuses). My point is that what people sometimes call revisionism is just another name for the next generation of people writing about and teaching the subject of history. In the Introduction to his 1972 book, The World Turned Upside Down: Radical Ideas during the English Revolution, historian Christopher Hill captured the idea:

History has to be rewritten in every generation, because although the past does not change the present does; each generation asks new questions, and finds new areas of sympathy as it re-lives different aspects of the experiences of its predecessors (13).

In other words, revision is the essence of writing history. It is not the case that an older generation of historians was right and the current generation is wrong. It is not that an earlier approach, necessarily superior, has been abandoned for a new approach, which is obviously inferior. Nor is the difference the result of current historians fudging on the facts. Again, Hill: "No amount of detailed working over the evidence is going to change the factual essentials of the story." The difference stems from the fact that every generation is, in at least some ways, unique, like the uniqueness of every individual no matter how much she might look like her grandmother. "But," says Hill, "the interpretation will vary with our attitudes, with our lives in the present. So reinterpretation is not only possible but necessary" (13).

Much more recently Ned Blackhawk, in his book The Rediscovery of America: Native Peoples and the Unmaking of U.S. History, has expressed the same ideas:

Revising interpretations of the past is an inherent part of the study of history, and as each generation reinterprets, it does so in response to new circumstances, ideas, and conditions (4).

And that is why revisionist history is redundant. If someone's interpretation is just wrong, then we should say so, and say why. But it will never do to dismiss someone's interpretation of the past simply because it is different from something one has heard and believed before.

Sources: 

Ned Blackhawk, The Rediscovery of America: Native Peoples and the Unmaking of U.S. History. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2023.

Christopher Hill, The World Turned Upside Down: Radical Ideas during the English Revolution. New York: Viking Press, 1972.