"... Well, if they all suited up in the same era against the same competition and they all happened to play every game in Montreal's Stade Olympique, then, no. No sir, he wouldn't."

I give athletes of yesteryear credit and subscribe to acknowledging greatness relative to era; but this statistical nonsense that claims Ruth would beat Bonds head to head in the same era is NONSENSE.

Ruth was a fat drunk, easily the best of his era; but, he played against only the best from a small pool that didn't even include black, Latin or Asian players. The pitchers of his era completed games and pitched many. To think that Ruth could beat Bonds facing 100mph fastballs, crazy curves, sinkers and pens of mid reliever lefties and righties and specialist closers does not pass the common sense test.

For objective comparison of athletes of Ruth's era, note that todays track and field champions blow the 1932 Olympians away in every event. Today's best women could beat the men's 1932 Olympic 5k champion.

But we're supposed to believe that Ruth would be the best right now, today, compared with the best modern athletes. I don't think so.