Let's see, now the mound is lower, the pitching is more diluted, and the ballparks are smaller, not to mention rumors of steroids, improved bat technology, and possibly juiced balls. Look at all of the other guys hitting 40 or 50 home runs. Bonds is a little bit above the other guys now. Ruth was a man among boys. The one who should really draw comparisons to Ruth is Ted Williams.
I doubt it, but were there any non-whites in the league during Ruth's era? I don't think there were, and with only white players, you are talking about a very different talent pool against which Ruth faced. I still think The Babe was better, though.
You're right about the minority issue. The fact that there were no blacks or hispanics sort of evens out the fact that the pitching and quality of players is more diluted these days due to the number of teams. I still believe that Ruth was the better player.
Just when I think I can like Bonds a little bit, he has to make himself into the most gigantic ass alive. There is no question he is one of the best hitters ever, but as others have pointed out, he has played in an era where 40 plus homers are the norm, small ballparks, expansion teams with mediocre pitching, etc. The bottom line is that Babe Ruth SAVED baseball from extinction thanks to the Black Sox Scandal. Also, add the fact that the man was a pretty good damn pitcher and it is clear-cut that the Babe is the better overall player than egomaniac Bonds.
To me, it's kind of like comparing apples and oranges. Ruth was a spectacular ballplayer. He set many records that stand today. He did them in a 154 game season. However.... Ruth never played at night. Ruth never had to travel cross country. And the quality of play is vastly superior today than it was during Ruth's time. To put it bluntly, this could be argued until the end of time, and all anyone would be doing is going around in circles.
Then again, playing so may day games is one of the reasons the Cubs use that they aren't more successful. The wear and tear of playing games during the summer sun wears the players down more. While Ruth didn't have to travel cross country, his trips took longer because they had to go by train or bus. As you mentioned, this could be argued to the end of time, for every plus there is a minus.
Bonds is a much better basestealer and runner. That's it. In virtually every other area, Ruth is superior. As a hitter, Bonds is arguably the best of his era, although there are competitors; McGwire and Sosa in terms of power, and many in terms of all around hitter. In terms of the period he has probably been recognized as the best hitter, it's a blink of an eye...three years ago we were all talking about Mark and Sammy...and A-Rod, Nomar, Manny, Griffey Jr., Edgar, Bagwell, etc. along with barry...and many of them play more important defensive positions. Ruth was pretty much seen as the best for his entire career...Cobb and Hornsby were challengers early on, Lou and Double X a little towards the end...but it was pretty much Ruth all along. Ruth was, as George Will decribed him, " like an Everest in Kansas." He set the record for homeruns mid way through, I think, his second full season as an outfielder, and went on to break his own record over 650 times. When he retired, the man in second place on the all time list, Gerhig, had less than half of Ruth's total. And he wasn't just a slugger...he hit for average at a level few would match today in that area alone. As an outfielder he played a more demanding position that Bonds, and had one of the best arms of his era. He wasn't fast, ( faster than he looked) but he was a smart baserunner, the Series ending pick off aside... And as a pitcher he was simply the best left-handed pitcher of the American League for his entire pitching career, and would, as one has mentioned, gone to the Hall had he not been the hitter that he was for pitching alone.
Hell no. Bonds is a whiny ass b**** upset that he'll never get the respect and reverence that other great players have received. He's got personal trainers, a small ass strike zone, and wears armor to the plate. He's the best Nintendo player going though, I'll give him that.
To me you actually missed the only argument against RUth...yeah, he didn't play at night...but he played under other conditions, ball quality/age, lesser equpiment, etc...and the filed was still level, and Ruth stood head and shoulders above his peers, whereas Bonds has only even argualby been the best player for a few years. The only legit argument against Ruth, and it's not nearly enough, was the color barrier. He didn't have to face Paige, he didn't have to compete with Gibson, etc. That might have narrowed the filed a little. But Buck O'Neal saw them both play, and played with Gibson ,and he said that Ruth was the best hitter he ever saw by far.
Sounds like the argument of why Russell and Wilt were better than Mike Jordan Rocket River I hate baseball so I have no earthly Idea.
When was Babe Ruth such a great guy, when he was cheating on his wives or when he was playing drunk??
Interesting debate. Bonds gets enormous advantages based on the talent level in the league, particularly with regards to african-americans hispanics and advances in medicine - i.e. there are a number of very good players in the game that would've had their careers ended with injuries that are cured now. Ruth has enormous advantages in his performance. Bond's has been very, very good the past two years - Ruth was a monster, and no one will ever be that dominant. So the question becomes is the monumental difference in talent enough to outweigh the significant advantages in performance by Ruth? I don't know. But Ruth wins hand down for two reasons : He saved baseball after the Black Sox scandal. He invented the home run as a viable offensive weapon - before then it was considered common knowledge that you couldn't be good offensively if you took an uppercut swing, because all you would do was hit loooong outs; so you chopped at the ball and slashed line drives and made base hits. Ruth changed that, he proved between 1919-21 that you could be succesful taking an uppercut swing, and be good offensively. For those two reasons, Ruth wins.
Sorry if I was confusing...what I meant was look at someone like Cobb's stats to see the league averages and how low they were before. Also, the league wasn't that small so that only a few players can cause that much of a jump in overall stats. The jump is so significant it makes you wonder if baseball did something after the 1919 scandal.
i don't think either ruth or bonds are the kind of men i would want my son to look up to. nobody's perfect...but ruth basically drank himself to death and bonds is just a flat out ass.
Ruth was more dominant, Bonds is the better athlete. Thats the way I see it. Ruths #'s are amazing but so are Wilt Chamblins, were they much better than the Bond's and your Shaqs? No I dont think so they played against inferior competion. Ruth played against all whites, and in an era when players didnt really want to hit HR's (Ty Cobb). If Ruth played today he would not hit more HR's than teams combined like Wilt would not put up 40ppg in todays game. Its impossible to compare players in differnt era's Ill say Ruth is the greatest player pre 1950, and Bonds is the best post 1950. BTW from my experience Bonds is a really good guy, back in the early 90's some friends and I were taunting him like crazy ( though we were only 10) so he probaly got a kick out of it, he ended up giving us about a half dozen balls throughout the game. I realize Bonds is known as an A-hole throughout the country, but I have never seen him act up or hear about him in trouble with the law, I have seen him be a good guy, thats what Ill remember.
