Quote Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg View Post
How do you know? Did you see Ruth play?

If not, then you?re just going off what someone told you rather than your own opinion

Ruth was the best of his era but it takes about 5 seconds of comparing the two on YouTube videos to realize that Barry was way way way more talented.

Production was basically a wash
This is where people get unnecessarily stuck when talking about this.

You can't compare athletes currently to athletes 100 years ago. If Bonds were around in 1920, or if Ruth were around today, that difference would be mostly eliminated. LOL if you think Ruth wasn't absurdly athletic and talented. We see a guy with some fat on him who didn't run real fast when trotting around the bases, but the guy was an elite pitcher and then the greatest hitter of all-time and completely changed the game single-handedly. He didn't do that because he was big, or because he swung a big bat.

He did that because he was a phenomenal athlete, had fantastic hand-eye coordination, pitch recognition, fluidity, etc. He was an amazing athlete.

You have to compare athletes to the era in which they played. Before roids, Ruth was better compared to his era. Once he was roided out, Bonds was roughly equal to Ruth, at best. Therefore, I'm saying Ruth had the better career.