Reply With Quote
Hank Aaron ADMITTED to taking ing greenies before games, why the does Aaron not have an * beore his name? If he does not have an * before his name, then Bonds does not deserve one either.
Congrats Bonds !!!
He's coming up second, 756 es!
Hank Aaron ADMITTED to taking ing greenies before games, why the does Aaron not have an * beore his name? If he does not have an * before his name, then Bonds does not deserve one either.
Congrats Bonds !!!
Well, use any reasoning you want (steroids, juiced balls, smaller parks), but every stat shows that it is clearly easier to hit HRs in the Bonds era than it has been in any previous time.
I don't know why the media and the rest of the haters are all of a sudden kissing Hank Aaron's ass now calling him a superstar and great player, when a for years they could hardly be bothered by him or the record. All Ruth all the time, only time Aaron's name was mentioned was either on the anniversary of the record or as the answer to a trivia game.
And any record from before 1947 deserve an *!!!Every record broken from 1985-present deserves an *.
you midge. go to ing . stupid ignorant pandejo mother er. anybody on this board could kick your pathetic ass.
It seemed to me that people cheered more than they booed when he hit the homer.
A Spurs fan knows all about a *
So I take your word for it
Actually they cheered him and gave him a standing O. there were some Boos, but for the most part it was a positive crowd
Actually they cheered him and gave him a standing O. there were some Boos, but for the most part it was a positive crowd
I don't know if I agree with that. I've never heard anybody try to say that Ruth was still the homerun king and I've certainly seen the clip of Aaron's 715 countless times more than Ruth's 'called shot.'
On the other hand, if Ruth is still held higher in baseball lore, there may be a few reasons for that. First, there is not much visual evidence from Ruth's time, so his feats are more of legend than of sportscenter highlights. Second, he was the first great HR hitter in baseball history, sometimes being first leads to more acclaim than being best. Third, he was a dominant HR hitter. He held the career record for about 40 years and the single season record for about 30 years. Aaron was more a spectacular model of consistency. He never popped 50 HRs in a season, let alone 60. (For example, even before he tested positive for steroids, many sportswriters were saying that Palmeiro was not a hall-of-famer because he was a compiler, never peaking as high as other great players). And finally, the Babe did hit 714 in only 67% of the ABs that Aaron used to get 755 (and in only 80% of the ABs that Barry has had).
Now, we all know that Ruth didn't have to play night games, travel to the west coast, compete with black players, or face late inning left-handed specialists. But there are clearly valid arguments in his favor beyond simple prejudice if someone still were to consider him the all-time HR king, despite the numbers.
It's one of the all-time great baseball debates.
This record will be forever tainted(until A. Rod passes him).
I don't know about tainted so much as having a good portion of its meaning taken away. Baseball was the one sport where the numbers meant something, but while baseball's owners were counting the $ as homeruns flew out of the park, none of them seemed to notice that they might be cutting open the golden goose.
I expect that 30 years from now, baseball's homerun record will invoke the same hollow feeling that Marino's career TD pass record has in football or Kareem's points do in basketball. They are nice records, but nobody really cares.
Time has a way of taking the cir stances out of things and leaving the stats to stand alone. In '61 people were jeering Maris left and right because he was breaking a legend's record, and because he was doing it in more games played than Ruth. They wanted an * there, but in 1998 nobody cared about that anymore. Bonds has taken performances enhancers, and he has also persevered through more than any player of recent history. He's been villified and has continued to pound home runs and perform through it all, which is damn impressive.
I doubt A-Rod will break the record unless he is taking HGH, which I am almost certain he is at this point. Look at him now compared to when he was with the Rangers or Mariners - big difference. He's getting a bigger head and getting that caveman type rigid brow that are signs of HGH use. Since MLB doesn't test blood A-Rod can be using without fear of being caught. I definitely think he's using.
That's the catch though. When you use performance enhancing drugs, you lose any right to complain about the media or fans calling you out, you've opened that door all on your own.
In addition, I'd say that plenty of guys (i.e. Eric Davis - cancer, B.J. Surhoff - child with autism, Preston Wilson - lost a child, and even the diva that is Curt Schilling - wife had cancer), have had to persevere through significantly more than Bonds has ever had to deal with on his worst day in baseball.
No offence but yes those personal things are brought public buy the player it self. Bonds issue and his perception is thru the media. Yes he is not very friendly to them, but lets be honest the media has dragged Bonds thru the mud even before the steroids era.
Bonds is the greatest and most of the haters are just jealous. Just like when all the hate comes to the Spurs from most NBA cities. If Bonds were on your team you'd be happy and almost all you morons would be happy to cash in on that baseball that will be worth millions soon.
The only time people talked about that was when the anniversary of his record breaking home run was approaching.So true, as if Hank Aaron wasn't getting sent 100s of death threats when he approached Ruth's record
No doubt, but being drug through the mud by the media is a far cry from losing a child in terms of difficulty to persevere.
And, in the steroids era, it's not like it's a false accusation. He's admitted to using them.
Who cares about ing steroids? If he did them then he will probly die faster witch will make more fools happier.
Please, I'd like to hear this argument!!!Now, we all know that Ruth didn't have to play night games, travel to the west coast, compete with black players, or face late inning left-handed specialists. But there are clearly valid arguments in his favor beyond simple prejudice if someone still were to consider him the all-time HR king, despite the numbers.
I don't follow baseball much anymore, so when did he do this?And, in the steroids era, it's not like it's a false accusation. He's admitted to using them.
I'm tired of people acting like lawyers about this issue.
"Innocent until proven guilty!!"
This is true. And in accordance with this legal principle, we are not sending him to jail, we're just refusing to accept the legitimacy of his accomplishments of the last ten years or so. He's still a free man, and a total asshole. "Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't mean anything in the Court of Public Opinion.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
