So, Dayn Perry wants us to shrug off the Bambino's accomplishments like they were something any mortal could have and should have done in the past, oh 75 years, or so. Let's take everything Dayn has to say and examine it, shall we? First of all, there is this statement: "Back then, the right-field line was only 295 feet from home plate, and it was only 350 feet to straightaway right field. Contrast those with the current dimensions of Yankee: 314 feet down the line and 353 to straightaway. Yankee Stadium, over the last three full seasons, inflated the home-run rates of left-handed batters by seven percent. While we don't have the necessary data to get the figures from Ruth's day, it's safe to assume that Yankee Stadium back then was even more beneficial to lefty power hitters." Hmmmm....are you sure about that, Dayn? Is it really safe to assume that Yankee Stadium was even more beneficial to lefties? Have you done any more research to find out just exactly how many dingers were just outside the park or cleared by a great distance, or hoe many were just inside the foul pole, or just outside the boundaries of right-center field? And I think you mean that the right-field wall was 295 feet from home plate, not the right-field line. Now you say the porch in right is 314, compared to 295, which encompasses a whole 19 feet. So 19 feet really makes that big of a difference? 7%. Let's see...how many times did Ruth actually hit dingers to right field, of his total of 714? How many of those were in Yankee Stadium, and how many were affected by the wind, weather, hecklers and the number of beers and cigars Ruth had the night before? Have all of these been tallied? Okay, let's move on. "More important, however, is the social context of Ruth's era. Ruth played when black Americans and dark-skinned Latinos were barred from playing in the major leagues. This evil arrangement - besides being symptomatic of the racism of the day - also made things easier for Ruth. The artificially restricted talent pool meant that Ruth was thriving (and piling up all those numbers) against a lesser peer group. For instance, imagine the kind of stats, say, Lance Berkman could put up if he never had to face a Pedro Martinez, a Dontrelle Willis, a Johan Santana, a Carlos Zambrano or a Mariano Rivera and never had the likes of Andruw Jones, Torii Hunter or Mike Cameron turning doubles into fly outs." How can you even suggest this fallacy with a straight face? So, Ruth's numbers are artifical because he had to play in an all-white environment? Well, when I pick apart your next allegation, it'll put this myth to rest, but for the sake of argument, let's not forget that Ruth also played in an era that saw much heavier lumber and much softer balls, as well as those woolen uniforms. You also must be suggesting that the merits of Honus Wagner, Shoeless Joe Jackson, Ty Cobb and Cy Young should all be negated, as well. Hmmmm....and how many of their records have been eclipsed by modern day players? Not many. Moving on... "Ruth was a drunk (he was experimenting with alcohol by age 7 and drank heavily throughout his career), a glutton (his diet consistent mostly of hot dogs and soda), a malcontent (as a Red Sox, he ignored signs at the plate, once threatened to punch his manager in the face, went AWOL from the club on a semi-regular basis and ritually broke curfew) and a philanderer (he was unfaithful to his wife on a number of occasions, and it was rumored that a 1925 illness was the result of a runaway case of gonorrhea). As a result, Ruth neglected his obligations to the team by failing to stay in even passable physical shape." Hey, what else needs to be said? If you ask me, I think Ruth's accomplishments speak even louder when you add this bit of qualitative analysis to the equation. Just think of what Ruth's numbers would have looked like had he "juiced up" and had mega-million dollar doctors attending his every need to stay healthy. We could play this game all day long, Dayn. "Were the media of Ruth's age not so chummy, they would've etched a thoroughly different portrait of the man. These days, when many parents outsource their role modeling to celebrities, you can be sure Ruth would be derided as a bad influence to American's youth because of his lifestyle and frequent insubordination." This is a purely subjective statement, just like the rest of your story, Dayn. The fact is, Ruth was fun to be around. He took care of those around him, too. He was chummy, with everybody, including the press, and if Bonds were the same way, he would probably receive better treatment, as well. The fact is Bonds is Bonds; he has the personality and charm of an asp and he is villified because of it. Ruth had a really great side to him that you never mentioned in this article, either. Ruth was raised in an orphanage and loved helping kids because of it. He gave gifts and large sums of money to scores of kids and orphanages and hospitals everywhere. He inspired thousands of people because of his big heart, his philanthropy, and his enthusiasm for baseball. What has Barry Bonds done to endear himself to the public? Bottom line? I can see somebody trying to engender a little support for Barry Bonds because of the huge microscope he is under, but do NOT try to sully the name of an actual bonafide sports hero and legend. Babe Ruth is who he is because he became baseball. He epitomized what the game is all about, having fun and enjoying the game. He lived as he did because he didn't care about chasing or setting records. He knew who he was and what he could do. Let's not forget that in the twilight of his career, he hit the first home run balls out of a supposedly un-homerable ballpark, Forbes Field. And he didn't just hit one, he hit three, all in that same game. Babe Ruth, not an icon worth revering? Puh-Leeze!