04-18-2002, 04:23 AM
Galt makes a very compelling arguement. But I still don't think its possible to compare them. They are from different eras with different circumstances and different variables at play. I am inclined to agree with you on all your points but somehow I can't choose Ruth or Bonds because you can't put them on a level playing field. My gut just somehow says Ruth but perhaps thats just nostalgia. Bonds is a monster and i'm glad I get to see a Ruth-ian type player in his prime playing in my time.