Barry's BACK!
- Thread starter SLAB
- Start date
O
I hate barry bonds. Anyone who opens their mouth against ruth should be slapped in the face. Quote from barry(can't really remember everything):"I'm going to take all his numbers and his records. Don't talk about him anymore"(reffering to ruth). What an ***. I hope he never surpasses 714 homers. Someone should remind barry there were no steroids in the 20's and 30's.
Was it Ruth that chewed tobacco and drank coffee religiously before each at bat to give him that extra push that a lot of players didnt have. Same thing OneZero. There have been things like that all through baseball history. Ruth isnt a God.
If you are going to quote someone can you please post your source?
He was impressive last night. Like they said on PTI, most guys after not facing major league pitching in 6 months would struggle to make contact. It looked like he had no problem last night.
If you are going to quote someone can you please post your source?
He was impressive last night. Like they said on PTI, most guys after not facing major league pitching in 6 months would struggle to make contact. It looked like he had no problem last night.
Oh... my... God.
Are you serious? Now you're saying that chewing tobacco and drinking coffee gave Ruth an edge? Give me a bleeping break. This is just beyond ridiculous.
It's not about Babe Ruth. And for you to have to dredge up something that lame to try and justify Barry Bonds is indicative of just how blind some Giants fans are when it comes to Bonds.
I'm too lazy to post Kreidler's article about Bonds in today's Bee, but it's worth reading for those who care. Giants fans will forgive him anything, provided he steps up and is "impressive."
Just another in the long list of reasons why I do not bother watching baseball any longer.
Are you serious? Now you're saying that chewing tobacco and drinking coffee gave Ruth an edge? Give me a bleeping break. This is just beyond ridiculous.
It's not about Babe Ruth. And for you to have to dredge up something that lame to try and justify Barry Bonds is indicative of just how blind some Giants fans are when it comes to Bonds.
I'm too lazy to post Kreidler's article about Bonds in today's Bee, but it's worth reading for those who care. Giants fans will forgive him anything, provided he steps up and is "impressive."
Just another in the long list of reasons why I do not bother watching baseball any longer.
O
hahahaha, ur kidding right? it was all over tv. no source needed. and how the hell are u all gonna compare chewing tobacco and drinking coffee to STEROIDS??? ruth was half drunk when he hit his homers. they all did what he did in his time, but why did he dominate the way he did? cause he was just that good. theres 3 untouchables in sports: jordan, ruth, and ali.
why am i even arguing this, i dunno.
why am i even arguing this, i dunno.
I still hate trading the youngsters, but I really think both players have been good.
Since the All Star Break, Hawk has been almost unhittable, minus the pressure games against his ex-team, where he continually insisted on giving up runs...Hawk + Pressure = Earned Runs...I'll live with it, as long as he's lights out against everyone but the Cubbies.
Randy Winn has been above and beyond anything I could have expected. I expected the second coming of Jason Ellison, but we got ourself a nice little lead off man.
And to all the bashers, I'm not necessarily the biggest Bonds fan around, but it's just nice to know that your getting the most dominant player of his era back for what could turn into a playoff run...I think that could be consisdered a boost to a ballclub...Hence, my excitment.
Since the All Star Break, Hawk has been almost unhittable, minus the pressure games against his ex-team, where he continually insisted on giving up runs...Hawk + Pressure = Earned Runs...I'll live with it, as long as he's lights out against everyone but the Cubbies.
Randy Winn has been above and beyond anything I could have expected. I expected the second coming of Jason Ellison, but we got ourself a nice little lead off man.
And to all the bashers, I'm not necessarily the biggest Bonds fan around, but it's just nice to know that your getting the most dominant player of his era back for what could turn into a playoff run...I think that could be consisdered a boost to a ballclub...Hence, my excitment.
When I first heard it I didnt believe it but when sanity said it I assumed he was being serious. I heard it last week from my US history teacher, also a baseball nut. Believe me its nothing I did research on or came up with myself. Thats why I said "Was it..."
If you would like to talk to someone WHO DOES believe that I can give you his contact info. Seeing how he is obviously not right and how sanity was being sarcastic (i shouldve known
) I apologize for saying that.
If you would like to talk to someone WHO DOES believe that I can give you his contact info. Seeing how he is obviously not right and how sanity was being sarcastic (i shouldve known
) I apologize for saying that.
T
Bibby_Is_Clutch said:
When I first heard it I didnt believe it but when sanity said it I assumed he was being serious. I heard it last week from my US history teacher, also a baseball nut. Believe me its nothing I did research on or came up with myself. Thats why I said "Was it..."
If you would like to talk to someone WHO DOES believe that I can give you his contact info. Seeing how he is obviously not right and how sanity was being sarcastic (i shouldve known) I apologize for saying that.
If you would like to talk to someone WHO DOES believe that I can give you his contact info. Seeing how he is obviously not right and how sanity was being sarcastic (i shouldve known
) I apologize for saying that.
Sure is... if you teach AP US History you are no dummy.
It is funny. Thats why I believed you. I figured that if my teacher said it so confidently and then you said the same thing (although I have no idea about the brand) that it must have been true. You really made that up by yourself?... beacuse Im sure my history teacher isnt the only one who believes that so others must have heard it before.
Lucky Padres today eh?
It is funny. Thats why I believed you. I figured that if my teacher said it so confidently and then you said the same thing (although I have no idea about the brand) that it must have been true. You really made that up by yourself?... beacuse Im sure my history teacher isnt the only one who believes that so others must have heard it before.
Lucky Padres today eh?
No, the same can't be said for "Kings that can do no wrong." I absolutely refuse to rehash the particulars but I can recall a LOT of very angry to very disappointed people a couple of years back. There is a significant difference, however, in the actions of the players involved AND the eventual outcomes of their situations.
I'm not going to argue this any further, however, because it's not an argument I care about winning. If people want to comment about the emperor's new clothes, I guess I should quit trying to point out he's not wearing any.
I'm not going to argue this any further, however, because it's not an argument I care about winning. If people want to comment about the emperor's new clothes, I guess I should quit trying to point out he's not wearing any.
Bibby_Is_Clutch said:
Sure is... if you teach AP US History you are no dummy.
It is funny. Thats why I believed you. I figured that if my teacher said it so confidently and then you said the same thing (although I have no idea about the brand) that it must have been true. You really made that up by yourself?... beacuse Im sure my history teacher isnt the only one who believes that so others must have heard it before.
Lucky Padres today eh?
It is funny. Thats why I believed you. I figured that if my teacher said it so confidently and then you said the same thing (although I have no idea about the brand) that it must have been true. You really made that up by yourself?... beacuse Im sure my history teacher isnt the only one who believes that so others must have heard it before.
Lucky Padres today eh?
Sorry, but trying to justify Bonds' steroid use by defaming Ruth just doesn't do it for me...
T
Bibby_Is_Clutch said:
Sure is... if you teach AP US History you are no dummy.
It is funny. Thats why I believed you. I figured that if my teacher said it so confidently and then you said the same thing (although I have no idea about the brand) that it must have been true. You really made that up by yourself?... beacuse Im sure my history teacher isnt the only one who believes that so others must have heard it before.
Lucky Padres today eh?
It is funny. Thats why I believed you. I figured that if my teacher said it so confidently and then you said the same thing (although I have no idea about the brand) that it must have been true. You really made that up by yourself?... beacuse Im sure my history teacher isnt the only one who believes that so others must have heard it before.
Lucky Padres today eh?
Just wondering since what you made up is something quite a few people believe. He gave a 15 minute discussion about it with many reasons. If you would like to contact him PM me. I dont remember all his justifying of it but what I did remember was him talking about tobacco and smoking, etc. AP clases theses days are equivalent to college clases and US history is US history. The man is no dummy, trust me.
Dude, ALMOST everyone smoked and drank coffee back then. It was the rule, not the exception.
And how do you quantify "quite a few people"?
US history is US history. That doesn't mean your teacher is the all-knowing source of information on baseball factoids. Most historians have areas of expertise. Simply being certified to teach AP US History doesn't make him an expert in every field of the subject.
I mean no disrespect at all, but you really need to start questioning things you hear instead of blinding accepting them.
Do you know, for example, what the percentage of Americans who smoked back then was? Do you know, for example, what IF ANYTHING, the correlation is between tobacco use and increased proficiency in sports? I smoked for 35 years. The one thing I noticed the most was that tobacco had a NEGATIVE effect on my breathing, running, etc. It did not improve any of my skills in any way, shape or form.
If you're in AP classes, don't accept things as fact just because a teacher says them, especially if they're subjective comments like this. Ask questions. Determine for yourself whether or not the statement is fact or opinion. And to go one step further, make sure the fact is appropriate and valid for the discussion.
Tobacco doesn't improve athletic ability. So the fact that Ruth used tobacco is irrelevant in discuss how that could have influenced the number of home runs he hit. If anything, the fact he was a habitual smoker - primarily of cigars - might indicate he would have had MORE home runs not less.
And how do you quantify "quite a few people"?
US history is US history. That doesn't mean your teacher is the all-knowing source of information on baseball factoids. Most historians have areas of expertise. Simply being certified to teach AP US History doesn't make him an expert in every field of the subject.
I mean no disrespect at all, but you really need to start questioning things you hear instead of blinding accepting them.
Do you know, for example, what the percentage of Americans who smoked back then was? Do you know, for example, what IF ANYTHING, the correlation is between tobacco use and increased proficiency in sports? I smoked for 35 years. The one thing I noticed the most was that tobacco had a NEGATIVE effect on my breathing, running, etc. It did not improve any of my skills in any way, shape or form.
If you're in AP classes, don't accept things as fact just because a teacher says them, especially if they're subjective comments like this. Ask questions. Determine for yourself whether or not the statement is fact or opinion. And to go one step further, make sure the fact is appropriate and valid for the discussion.
Tobacco doesn't improve athletic ability. So the fact that Ruth used tobacco is irrelevant in discuss how that could have influenced the number of home runs he hit. If anything, the fact he was a habitual smoker - primarily of cigars - might indicate he would have had MORE home runs not less.
VF I wasn't saying YOU forgave the various Kings players, but the fact still stands there were a lot of people that turned a blind eye.
For me, its a question of holding the athletes that the fans look up to accountable for their mistakes or not. Either go one way or the other. If someone does something stupid then let them be stupid for doing it. It shouldn't matter if something was done to cheat the game or not. Either he did something wrong or he didn't.
With Webb (my obvious example), people should either hold him accountable for what he did in the court of public opinion, or they shouldn't, but that is their choice to make. It seems kind of two faced to say that its ok for a player to do something they consider bad off the court/field, but not ok when it affects the game they play.
Did that make any sense at all?
For me, its a question of holding the athletes that the fans look up to accountable for their mistakes or not. Either go one way or the other. If someone does something stupid then let them be stupid for doing it. It shouldn't matter if something was done to cheat the game or not. Either he did something wrong or he didn't.
With Webb (my obvious example), people should either hold him accountable for what he did in the court of public opinion, or they shouldn't, but that is their choice to make. It seems kind of two faced to say that its ok for a player to do something they consider bad off the court/field, but not ok when it affects the game they play.
Did that make any sense at all?
I think you need a new history teacher if he was even remotely implying that somehow smoking and drinking coffee were making people BETTER athletes. I mean, duh. And that's of course ignoring the fact that everybody did it, and many still do today. "It" being drink some coffee to wake up in the morning.
You can tell your teacher I think his argument is weak.
I mean, duh. And that's of course ignoring the fact that everybody did it, and many still do today. "It" being drink some coffee to wake up in the morning.You can tell your teacher I think his argument is weak.
It makes sense, but I don't necessarily agree.
What Webber did was lie about something that had happened back in college, that wasn't a crime and was only being addressed because of the person he accepted the money from. Webb himself wasn't the criminal. He was guilty of perjury...not of anything else. So, to say that people turned a blind eye towards Webber is unfair IMHO because it's not like that. Some people thought the whole issue was ludicrous and that whatever Webber had done in the past was IN THE PAST (14 years is a very long time) and should not be the focus of so much animous now. Webber was the target - the pawn - in an investigation into illegal activities by Martin. It was primarily Martin's word against Webber's on a lot of the details. It wasn't germane in any way, shape or form to Webber's conduct on the court, his tenure as a King, his dedication to the game, etc.
What Bonds did was to KNOWINGLY take a drug that would improve his performance and give him an unfair advantage over other players IN THE PRESENT.
To me there is a clear and obvious difference.
At this point, I will agree to disagree because it's obvious that there are always going to be different opinions.
Bottom line, however, is that I don't think you can summarize all situations into one convenient package. To do so is unfair to everyone. Each situation is unique; each situation - especially when you're comparing non-performance related activities to activities that tie DIRECTLY to athletic performance - demands evaluation on its own merits.
What Webber did was lie about something that had happened back in college, that wasn't a crime and was only being addressed because of the person he accepted the money from. Webb himself wasn't the criminal. He was guilty of perjury...not of anything else. So, to say that people turned a blind eye towards Webber is unfair IMHO because it's not like that. Some people thought the whole issue was ludicrous and that whatever Webber had done in the past was IN THE PAST (14 years is a very long time) and should not be the focus of so much animous now. Webber was the target - the pawn - in an investigation into illegal activities by Martin. It was primarily Martin's word against Webber's on a lot of the details. It wasn't germane in any way, shape or form to Webber's conduct on the court, his tenure as a King, his dedication to the game, etc.
What Bonds did was to KNOWINGLY take a drug that would improve his performance and give him an unfair advantage over other players IN THE PRESENT.
To me there is a clear and obvious difference.
At this point, I will agree to disagree because it's obvious that there are always going to be different opinions.
Bottom line, however, is that I don't think you can summarize all situations into one convenient package. To do so is unfair to everyone. Each situation is unique; each situation - especially when you're comparing non-performance related activities to activities that tie DIRECTLY to athletic performance - demands evaluation on its own merits.
Last edited: