?Send requests, along with $1.50 and size (small, medium, large, extra large) to Chaparral Cars, Route 1, Box 62, Midland, Texas.—ED.
SISTERS AND BROTHERS
Psychologist Joyce Brothers may be right about the male baseball fan using the game as a symbolic release from his inability "to prove his masculinity by besting another male in a fencing match or bringing fresh bear meat back to the cave" (PEOPLE, May 1). But she is all wet when she says the women go to a ball game "simply to please the men"—or are my daughter and I, my neighbors and my cleaning lady all freaks?
Perhaps a visit to a ball game might provide her with some much-needed background before she makes her next pronouncement.
NORA W. KORTLUCKE
Richmond Hill, N.Y.
Joyce Brothers is putting you on. Good heavens, does she really know the difference between a third baseman and a catcher, a tight end and a flanker, or a middleweight and a miler—except from the books?
I feel sorry for Joyce, for evidently she has not had the pleasure of spending a day at the ball park with her husband. I only wish my husband and I could go more often.
Now how about letting the baseball fan analyze the psychologist? Dr. Brothers is way out in left field on her conclusions about both male and female fans.
MR. AND MRS. JOE GILMORE
Following your recent comments about time-outs for commercials during televised sports events, there are, I think, three legitimate considerations. First, six to eight minutes per hour of commercials is the price the TV fan must pay for his "free" seat. It's a fair price. Secondly, the fact that the structure of some sports, such as football, basketball, hockey and soccer, must be artificially changed to accommodate all this advertising, can be counted at least as an annoyance and at most as a hardship for the paying customer. Finally, the real danger in TV time-outs is that the artificial interruption of the rhythm and tempo of the contest might affect the result. While the chances of this happening in any given game are slim, no sensible TV fan, paying customer, sponsor, promoter, journalist or athlete wants to run even the slightest risk of it.
The answer has been suggested—and tried—before, but it seems worth repeating. TV coverage should begin live, as always. When it is time for a commercial, and play has stopped momentarily, TV should run its commercial. Meanwhile, play should resume at its normal pace, with the telecast going ahead on tape, which will begin running at the conclusion of the commercial. I assume TV would catch up during half times or intermissions.
This procedure would accommodate all interests and leave the TV fan no more than three or four minutes behind the actual event, though he would hardly be aware of it. This would also shorten half times and intermissions slightly (no loss) and give TV experts a moment or two to ponder then-summaries (a decided gain).
ANTHONY L. FLETCHER
JUDY AND ETHEL
There is little question that Judy Devlin Hashman is the greatest woman badminton player the world has known (Judy Takes a Final Curtain Call, April 24). I do think, however, that some mention should be made of the woman who was next best in the U.S., Ethel Marshall, particularly since, in that same tournament in Flint, Mich. of which Kim Chapin wrote so well, Ethel earned two more national championships—20 years after she had won the national singles for the first time. This brings the total of her U.S. titles to an even dozen.