Barry Bonds

I didn't mention the lack of evidence vs Bonds. Yes, you can say the fields were bigger, the mounds higher, and even the balls today are spun tighter, but if you're playing with less athletic players it throws it all out the window.
Hank is just like Wilt Chamberlain. Do you think Wilt would score 100 points today? He played far inferior competition, so he did what he did. Sugar Ray Robinson same way. While these guys were great, the people they were playing simply were not.
If I play 1on1 basketball game with a Junior Varsity player, I'll probably murder him. Even if you raise the goal a foot. Even if you move my 3 point line back 2 feet. Even if you make me play in sandals.
Hank's record is beaten already by A-Rod, so whether he earned it or not he was going to lose it soon. Unless A-Rod just randomly retires and pulls a Tiki Barber or something.
We always view players in the past as better than they were. Mainly because we only remember their highlights. Today on the best damn sports show they had a top 50 catches of all time count down. The number 2 was Willie Mays' catch running toward the wall. Why was it number 2? Why does everyone act like it was such a great catch? He simply ran backwards and caught over his head. We see it a few times a week in baseball today. But since it was a classic moment, it's magnified to extremes. This is why people think Muhammed Ali would beat today's talents. Wilt was better than Michael, and Babe Ruth would pass a physical in today's sports.

 

See, that is an entirely flawed argument.

Take athletics. Jesse Owens winning time at the 1936 Olympics for the 100m was 10.3 seconds. That wouldn't even get you qualified for te Olympics today. Does that mean he was a scrub? Training techniques, access to information, diet techniques, money that allows athletes to train full-time, advanced starting blocks and electronic timing all contribute to today's sprinters being much faster. Had Jesse Owens had all these benefits he may still be the world record holder. An athlete can, and should, only be judged on how they performed against their competition at the time.

The fact that his opposition were inferior to him doesn't mean they were scrubs. Jesse Owens lost the world record many, many years ago, yet his feat of winning the 100m, 200m, long jump and 4 x 100m relay should still be considered a great achievement.

Don't ask "could Wilt Chamberlain have scored 100 in a game today", ask "could Wilt Chamerlain have scored 100 in a game today if he had been born into the same era and followed the same training approach etc". The fact that Kobe scored 81 should tell you that it is not inconceivable.

 

You know how ignorant you sound right now?

 

Wouldn't you be LOUDLY protesting your innoncence if that was you and you were truly innocent?