 |
Updated Daily | |
|
|
||
|
       |
Barry Bonds' 756 home runs is no more offensive than Tiger Woods' records or Jack Nicklaus records
Thursday August 9, 2007 | 00:32:53 334 words, 2954 views
Those declaring Barry Bonds breaking Henry Aaron’s home run record the end of sports civilization are as in touch with reality as Paris Hilton or well … a reality TV star. Yes, there is more evidence linking Bonds to steroids than Sergio Garcia to bad fashion sense. Bonds broke the record under the standard conditions of his times. If you don’t think the majority of major league baseball was on performance enhancing drugs - and still is on the more potent and undetectable HGH - the Tooth Fairy is probably offering you a ride along on her rounds tonight. Those big jumps in radar gun fastball readings in the late 90s aren’t just happenstance. And do you really think it’s coincidence that pitchers started rediscovering their dominance in their 40s and started racking up Cy Youngs again? There is virtually no competitive imbalance in Bonds’ home run binge - except the fact that he may have been more meticulous about the extra boost that most of his peers were also getting. Bonds earned his record under the playing field of his time, just like Tiger Woods dominates in the circumstances of his time and Jack Nicklaus set the majors mark under the conditions of his time. Now no one thinks that Woods and Nicklaus took steroids themselves. But you can be sure that Tiger’s played against a number of guys on some form of the juice. If anything Gary Player’s numbers seem low. The reason steroids are a bigger deal in golf than in baseball, as I wrote in this column, is because golf fans believe it’s still a gentleman’s game. Golf fans care much more about steroids than baseball fans do. The majority of baseball fans are indifferent to what these guys put into their bodies. Actual baseball fans are much more reality based than most sportswriters. Golf fans still hold onto their naivity and fantasies of fair play. Which isn’t a bad thing. Just don’t rip on Bonds for dealing in the reality of his time. Bookmark/Search this post with:
Comments:
Comment from: Mark Nessmith [Visitor] · http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38mOexBigeI
Even if you take steroids out of the mix, Bonds' record still deserves a big fat asterisk. How many did Hank hit without the comfort of that ridiculous body armor Bonds clings to? For that matter, how many did Hank hit before MLB mandated batting helmets!? Think those factors don't change a hitter's approach to an at-bat? Aaron had a hammer and balls ...... Bonds has armor and a pharmacist.
2007-08-09 @ 06:27
Comment from: Ron Mon [Member]
Yes, but ask yourself if Bonds fence was moved nearly as close as Hammerin' Hank's was. How much did he have to clear in left field in Atlanta, 325-330 feet? It bordered on ridiculous. How many times did Hank get targeted by pitchers?
I agree with the hirsute one that it is equal to the times. Babe set the standard, doing whatever he did, when no one paid attention and/or swept it under the carpet. All who come after will be held to standards that blur with the passage of time. Remember the Maris asterisk? 61 homers in more games with fewer at-bats. Explain the logic in that one. If the science of pitching has surpassed the science of hitting, or vice-versa, this is not the same game that Babe nor Henry played.
2007-08-09 @ 07:43
Comment from: Rick Montenegro [Visitor]
· http://bp3.blogger.com/_qSO0DS51Xmg/RrMwli8M18I/AAAAAAAAAZQ/4mp_eRFA-wA/s1600-h/stacyp7.jpg
There are always going to be people who don't want a record broken and since conditions will never be exactly the same they will point to those things to qualify the new record as not being as good.
That said, steroids is illegal, no matter how many MLB players are taking them. (I'd say 90% have at some point). Those drugs can take you from a hitter to a home run banger like what happened with Bonds. People don't want to see their old favorites taken out by illegal means. That makes for double the controversy.
2007-08-09 @ 07:51
Comment from: Kenny Morrison [Visitor]
Ron Mon - Can you direct me to anything that backs up your repeated assertions about the Braves moving in the fences at Fulton County Stadium so Hank could hit more homers? Did this happen? If so, when? And how many did Hank hit in Fulton County Stadium after the alleged shift?
Also, do you really not think the Giants' park was designed with Barry's stroke in mind?
2007-08-09 @ 08:21
Comment from: 2under [Visitor]
Chris,
I agree with some of what you say. Comparing generations, and the accomplishments between generations, is an exercise in futility. How can I compare Hogan to Woods? I can't. Different equipment, different courses, etc., etc., etc. It's a fun exercise, but we can't draw definitive conclusions from such a comparison. I do disagree with the slippery slope you present with regard to PED's. I can make a conclusion that PED's are bad, and they present an unfair advantage. So if it is proven that Bonds did take steroids, knowingly or unknowingly, baseball will have to qualify the accomplishment somehow.
2007-08-09 @ 09:24
Comment from: ToddCommish [Visitor]
Kenny, you pretty clearly know NOTHING about baseball. PacBell is one of the top three or four PITCHER'S parks in baseball. It is statistically harder to hit a home run there than say, Fulton County Stadium (aka, "the launching pad").
And Mark, the elbow guard is legal. Helmets are legal. Don't blame Bonds. Other players are wearing helmets and elbow guards. They haven't hit 757 homers. And Aaron used performance-enhancing drugs. And admitted it in his own book. Greenies, if anything, are worse. Amphetamines pump you up for a game, steroids will pump you up for a workout.
2007-08-09 @ 15:01
Comment from: Booger [Visitor]
"Now no one thinks that Woods and Nicklaus took steroids themselves."
Why would NO ONE think that Woods hasn't taken steroids? If Bonds looks the part physically, how can one dismiss the changes in Tiger?
2007-08-09 @ 18:42
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
All you relativists are missing the most salient point: Taking steroids is contrary to the rules and, therefore, constitutes cheating. Doesn't ethics mean anything anymore?
What amoral slugs so many of you are.
2007-08-09 @ 20:05
Comment from: Kiel Christianson [Visitor]
· http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/kiel.christianson
Steroids have been illegal for some time.
HGH, growth hormones, Andro, etc. are not (with a doctor's perscription), and they were banned by baseball only relatively recently. So if they took these things prior to the rule change, it was OK? I think many here would contend that they were not. Seems to me that a purely rules-based view is is more relativistic (actually, pragmatistic) than some of the previous comments.
2007-08-10 @ 11:19
Comment from: 2under [Visitor]
Kiel,
Steroids are legal with a prescription as well. Using any prescription beyond its intended medical use IS illegal, whether it is steroids, HGH, etc. I don't think the Judge is making a rules-based commentary. I think he is also making a broader commentary that it is against the moral intent as well, which is cheating.
2007-08-13 @ 20:39
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
I had written a long response to Kiel, but the system wouldn't let me post it. I sent it to TravelGolf, but I no longer have it. They ought to get the bugs out of the system.
2007-08-14 @ 13:05 Leave a comment: |
 |
My Latest posts
Check it out!
Misc |
||||||||
 |
Add GolfPublisher.com articles/headlines to your web site |
| © Copyright 1997-2008, WorldGolf.com, LLC. For questions, comments or suggestions on any of our network publications, Contact Us! |
|
The Daly Golf Show:
Ron Mon:
Golf for Beginners:
Dot Wong:
William K. Wolfrum:
