BigJermaineFromQnz Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 ...to understand why Barry Bonds is really cheating. This drug is really like the fountain of youth, apparantly. It makes everything better from your ability to gain muscle mass and lose fat with even a casual workout regimine, to improving your vision. It increases your body's ability to heal as well. It is not fair to "normal mortals" that played and did not have this aid. Personally, growing up Ken Griffey Jr was always one of my favorite players, and no one knows where he would have been if he was injecting this stuff. THATS why it's cheating. At the same time, Ruth in essence was "cheating", perhaps not by choice, but still cheating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt39 Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 Wait. How was Ruth cheating? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NIGHT STALKER Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 Wait. How was Ruth cheating? Yeah, Matt, I was wondering also WTF does that mean...Ruth in "essence" was cheating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigJermaineFromQnz Posted May 9, 2006 Author Share Posted May 9, 2006 Yeah, Matt, I was wondering also WTF does that mean...Ruth in "essence" was cheating. He was playing in an era where only white men were allowed to play. I thought we went over this already... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt39 Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 He was playing in an era where only white men were allowed to play. I thought we went over this already... That's not cheating. That's called being a victim of the circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigJermaineFromQnz Posted May 9, 2006 Author Share Posted May 9, 2006 That's not cheating. That's called being a victim of the circumstances. it's still playing with an unfair advantage. that's called cheating. that is why his record means little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt39 Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 it's still playing with an unfair advantage. that's called cheating. that is why his record means little. Thats a pretty ignorant statement. But I'm not going to argue with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NIGHT STALKER Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 it's still playing with an unfair advantage. that's called cheating. that is why his record means little. Wow...that's all I can say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DireJet38 Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxman Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 Stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigJermaineFromQnz Posted May 9, 2006 Author Share Posted May 9, 2006 Thats a pretty ignorant statement. But I'm not going to argue with you. What's ignorant about it? He played with against a MUCH THINNER field of competition. Do you know that over the course of segregated baseball in 438 offical games, White teams only won 129? What's so ignorant? Owned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt39 Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 What's ignorant about it? He played with against a MUCH THINNER field of competition. Do you know that over the course of segregated baseball in 438 offical games, White teams only won 129? What's so ignorant? Owned. Whats ignorant is to call him a cheater. Ruth had no say on who is competetion was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigJermaineFromQnz Posted May 9, 2006 Author Share Posted May 9, 2006 Whats ignorant is to call him a cheater. Ruth had no say on who is competetion was. You dont seem to be understanding. Whether or not he had a say who is competition was is irrelevant... I am talking about the era in which he played, and why those records are not as relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugg Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 Ruth had no control over that variable; he didn't make baseball's racist rules. By many accounts he was taunted as if he were black given he was from Baltimore and had been grown up in an orphanage. By all accounts, he barnstormed with anyone he could make a buck with including Satchel Paige. He may have benefited from that circumstance, but that's not cheating. Bonds, on the other hand, with what he is ingesting, is very much in control of a variable. He's willfully changing his own lot to the benefit of himself and to the determiment of all the other players who don't do that. And that is without a doubt cheating. The real shame is Bonds was on his way to having a career very similar to Frank Robinson's and being one of the 5 best ballplayers ever statistically anyway. It wasn't enough for him, so he cheated to get past even that, which is such ego it's a wonder his brain doesn't explode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NIGHT STALKER Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 What were there like 8 teams in each league at that time...the best "white" players were on the rosters...in other words, they weren't flooded with mediocre players like today. Secondly, do you think every black player that played in the Negro Leagues was a super star? Give me a break. And finally, where are all the black ball players in the majors today? Maybe when the hispanics take over the record books in 50 years you can call them cheaters as well because there won't be many blacks or whites playing. It's almost coming to that now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
124 Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 Name one black hitter in Babe Ruth's time that came close to Ruth's numbers Jermaine. Please, inform me of this man who could've challenged The Babe. Please do not bring this racist bull**** to the board either because it's laughable. Barry Bonds is a cheater. You may be black and have something against every white person for your past but we don't need it here. Barry Bonds is 100x more the cheater of anyone else who has played the game of baseball. Get used to it. Yeah, your body does change as you get older but NOT that much, it's ridiculous. Stop being a racist and look at the bigger view of things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shawn306 Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 Name one black hitter in Babe Ruth's time that came close to Ruth's numbers Jermaine. Please, inform me of this man who could've challenged The Babe. Please do not bring this racist bull**** to the board either because it's laughable. Barry Bonds is a cheater. You may be black and have something against every white person for your past but we don't need it here. Barry Bonds is 100x more the cheater of anyone else who has played the game of baseball. Get used to it. Yeah, your body does change as you get older but NOT that much, it's ridiculous. Stop being a racist and look at the bigger view of things. 124:Go take a look at Josh Gibson's numbers in the Negro Leagues or ask Blackout about Gibson. Jermaine: You are wayyyyyy out of line with Ruth. Bugg is dead on. Ruth had no control over who he played against. That was the owners and it was probably 10-15 years after Ruth was past his prime before Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier. Bonds on the other hand controlled what he put in his body to help get to where he is right now. He was already on his way to a HOF career but I guess that wasn't enough for him. And since was are nitpicking we can also add the fact that he Bonds played in smaller ballparks with a juiced up baseball, against more teams with watered down pitching. People also seem to forget that it isn't Ruth he is chasing. The main goal should be Aaron and 755. So Bonds passing Ruth to me is no big deal. Why everyone is making this a big deal is beyond me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
124 Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 So Gibson "almost" hit 800 homeruns in 17 seasons in the Negro League. Okay, fair enough, he could've contended. But would have he hit that much off the major league pitchers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NIGHT STALKER Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 So Gibson "almost" hit 800 homeruns in 17 seasons in the Negro League. Okay, fair enough, he could've contended. But would have he hit that much off the major league pitchers? And not only that my fellow Ramsey booster, but what was the size of the ballparks the Negro League was playing in? Josh Gibson was a righthanded hitter, I would have loved to see him hit in the old Yankee Stadium where it was 457 feet in left center. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigJermaineFromQnz Posted May 9, 2006 Author Share Posted May 9, 2006 What were there like 8 teams in each league at that time...the best "white" players were on the rosters...in other words, they weren't flooded with mediocre players like today. Secondly, do you think every black player that played in the Negro Leagues was a super star? Give me a break. And finally, where are all the black ball players in the majors today? Maybe when the hispanics take over the record books in 50 years you can call them cheaters as well because there won't be many blacks or whites playing. It's almost coming to that now. not gonna respond to 124's racist garbage... anyway, JetFan there would be no problems with anyone taking over the record books at this point in time... because there is no laws against which races can and cannot play. Right now the way it is, or the idea is, that the best players will play for a team no matter what race or nationality. However, the records seem to prove that the negro league teams were much better than the white teams back then... therefore Ruth was not hitting home runs of the best, regardless of how he felt about the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LionelRichie Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 What's ignorant about it? He played with against a MUCH THINNER field of competition. Do you know that over the course of segregated baseball in 438 offical games, White teams only won 129? What's so ignorant? Owned. dude - you have a real bad case of the stupids Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigJermaineFromQnz Posted May 9, 2006 Author Share Posted May 9, 2006 dude - you have a real bad case of the stupids dude- you have a real bad case of calling people names without any type of argument Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shutout Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 calling ruth a cheater because the league didn't allow everyone to play is absurd. There are a lot of words you could use for it Jermaine,but cheating isn't one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigJermaineFromQnz Posted May 9, 2006 Author Share Posted May 9, 2006 calling ruth a cheater because the league didn't allow everyone to play is absurd. There are a lot of words you could use for it Jermaine,but cheating isn't one of them. i was using the word as a metaphor for how the era was flawed and numbers should not count. try to look past it toward my actual argument, instead of sweating bullets at your computer because someone called your All-American Hero Yankee Babe Ruth a cheater Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharrow Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 Some think that none of them are cheaters cause they didn't break the rules. Not their fault the people running the game were idiots. Might consider it dirty, low, etc. on Bonds part, but if it wasn't against the rules... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PFSIKH Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 He was playing in an era where only white men were allowed to play. I thought we went over this already... So. Do you have a point? Josh Gibson hit 900+ homeruns in small parks and against inferior talent. Oh hit his 900+ homeruns in the Japan League. None of these great players faced a Latin America player. Using your flawed logic, they cheated. Using the race card might apply if this was basketball or even football, but baseball is still predominantly white. Or have you not noticed that? Did you read the article on Josh in this forum? You might want to a little looksey at it before spouting off any more posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigJermaineFromQnz Posted May 9, 2006 Author Share Posted May 9, 2006 So. Do you have a point? Josh Gibson hit 900+ homeruns in small parks and against inferior talent. Oh hit his 900+ homeruns in the Japan League. None of these great players faced a Latin America player. Using your flawed logic, they cheated. No. My logic is that these players were playing the same brand of baseball but were locked OUT OF THE RECORD BOOKS. If we found out there was a league in South America that was playing baseball with roughly the same amount of players and they were approximately 3 times better than what we have in the American MLB, then all our records today wouldnt mean much if the two leagues were to merge. you understand now? That is an example that is equivalent. you might want to re-read that and try to understand it before spouting off any more posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonEJet Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 you might want to re-read that and try to understand it before spouting off any more posts. BJQ In the past, I have not agreed with one thing that you have written here on JN But, you finally hit a grand slam. This PFSIKH dude is by far the least knowlegeable, most idiotic poster on these message board. He is never around when the **** hits the fan,,,,,he is what you call a fair weather poster. The best thing he could do for us is serve our country, and rake his backyard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbn007 Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 it's still playing with an unfair advantage. that's called cheating. that is why his record means little. You have reached new lows in your postings. May the One Above have mercy on your soul, because you sure seem to need it................badly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 Jermaine-By your reasoning, every record post 1960 should be thrown out. After 1960, was teh expansion years. They rapidy brought more teams into teh league over the next 30 years, greatly diluting the talent pool from what it was formerly, allowing players to face fare lesser competition. Thus, by your numb reasoning, that would be cheating? Kinda silly, huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbn007 Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 Jermaine-By your reasoning, every record post 1960 should be thrown out. After 1960, was teh expansion years. They rapidy brought more teams into teh league over the next 30 years, greatly diluting the talent pool from what it was formerly, allowing players to face fare lesser competition. Thus, by your numb reasoning, that would be cheating? Kinda silly, huh? Also, in 25 years from now, there may be a major influx of Canadian, or Indian talent. SO all records from prior to those days need to be wipped out also. Silly, sick, logic. Circumstances vs. personal choice. There is a WORLD OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NIGHT STALKER Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 Jermaine-By your reasoning, every record post 1960 should be thrown out. After 1960, was teh expansion years. They rapidy brought more teams into teh league over the next 30 years, greatly diluting the talent pool from what it was formerly, allowing players to face fare lesser competition. Thus, by your numb reasoning, that would be cheating? Kinda silly, huh? Plus, they lowered the pitching mounds by 8 inches in 1968 taking away a pitchers advantage...guess everything after 1968 is "cheating". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PFSIKH Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 No. My logic is that these players were playing the same brand of baseball but were locked OUT OF THE RECORD BOOKS. If we found out there was a league in South America that was playing baseball with roughly the same amount of players and they were approximately 3 times better than what we have in the American MLB, then all our records today wouldnt mean much if the two leagues were to merge. you understand now? That is an example that is equivalent. you might want to re-read that and try to understand it before spouting off any more posts. Your logic is flawed. You are saying throw out the record book because African American players were not allowed to play. Unto itself, that is a valid point if there were only Black and WHite players, but you missed my point. Using your logic, the Negroe League records also need to be expunged. They did not have the best White, Latin or Asian players. Do you see my point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharrow Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 Not to mention that NL pitchers are cheating compared to AL pitchers. This is ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 Not to mention that NL pitchers are cheating compared to AL pitchers. This is ridiculous. That means AL hitters are cheating, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.05f3dc52804d5fd84cf09ccfcd7bd10b.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.