Barry Bonds: Discuss - Page 3

thomez · 08-08-2007, 08:12 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

And where is the proof he put on that size illegally? There's nothing but wild speculation.

I've never seen a natural workout that will make your head grow. Sounds like something HGH would do, however.

Donkey® · 08-08-2007, 08:14 PM

Originally Posted by thomez

I've never seen a natural workout that will make your head grow. Sounds like something HGH would do, however.

His head grow? What exactly does that mean? His skull grew? His hair? His hatsize? Is there proof of this or is this another "it looks bigger" thing?

thomez · 08-08-2007, 08:26 PM

hat size grew along with his foot size, according to the book

his growth was simply unnaturally fast and totally changed the build of his body

Donkey® · 08-08-2007, 08:32 PM

Originally Posted by thomez

hat size grew along with his foot size, according to the book

his growth was simply unnaturally fast and totally changed the build of his body

So a single source written by someone who didn't actually make any measurements? Right. Let's say, for argument's sake, that it is true. It's NOT unprecedented that a human experiences a growth spurt later in life. IF it's true, HGH COULD cause this...so what? I have yet to see ANY study saying HGH enhances athletic performance. It's for muscle tone. Anything else is anecdotal at best. That has nothing to do with his HR hitting. It is pretty ridiculous that people take ONE BOOK as the authority on Bonds to make their judgements. In Jose Canseco's new book, he says A-Rod did Roids. I believe him

thomez · 08-08-2007, 08:50 PM

his strength has nothing to do with homerun hitting ....

wait for it.....

Donkey® · 08-08-2007, 08:55 PM

Originally Posted by thomez

his strength has nothing to do with homerun hitting ....

wait for it.....

I'd like to laugh with you but I have no idea what you're talking about? Muscle tone has nothing to do with strength.

thomez · 08-08-2007, 09:22 PM

HGH

# It increases muscle mass through the creation of new muscle cells (which differs from hypertrophy)

Growth hormone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Publius · 08-08-2007, 09:59 PM

BTW, Mythbusters proved tonight that corking a bat actually IMPEDES the speed a ball leaves the bat ... Their sample had the ball leaving a corked bat at half the speed of an uncorked bat.

Donkey® · 08-08-2007, 10:14 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

BTW, Mythbusters proved tonight that corking a bat actually IMPEDES the speed a ball leaves the bat ... Their sample had the ball leaving a corked bat at half the speed of an uncorked bat.

Too bad it's not about that. It's about the speed of the bat.

nbiggershaft · 08-08-2007, 10:16 PM

Originally Posted by thomez

power is definitely a factor in how FAR you hit a baseball, which is what a homerun is, a feat of distance

if he was batting .400 and the question was still roids use, a very logical argument could be made that it has little or no effect on batting average

the same cannot be said for home runs

"2001 saw only one home run king, Barry Bonds. Bonds was not satisfied with breaking the now three year old single season home run record. He also set new records for slugging percentage (.863), walks (171), and home runs per at bat (6.52). He broke his personal record with one-hundred thirty-one runs batted in and finished the season with a .328 batting average. His on base percentage (.515), the best in the National League since John McGraw in 1900. Bonds became the oldest player to lead a league in home runs and also became the oldest player to reach the fifty, sixty, and seventy home run plateaus."

Roids don't do that, being possibly the best player in history does.

nbiggershaft · 08-08-2007, 10:18 PM

I tell you what, honestly, you give every pro in the league access to as much steroids as they want. How many would have a career that compares to bonds?

Scrum · 08-08-2007, 11:08 PM

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

I tell you what, honestly, you give every pro in the league access to as much steroids as they want. How many would have a career that compares to bonds?

Nobody is saying Bonds isn't an amazing athlete. It's just that he has had some help.

How much it's actually helped him is up for debate, but he and this record will always be associated with steroid use.

thomez · 08-09-2007, 12:25 AM

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

"2001 saw only one home run king, Barry Bonds. Bonds was not satisfied with breaking the now three year old single season home run record. He also set new records for slugging percentage (.863), walks (171), and home runs per at bat (6.52). He broke his personal record with one-hundred thirty-one runs batted in and finished the season with a .328 batting average. His on base percentage (.515), the best in the National League since John McGraw in 1900. Bonds became the oldest player to lead a league in home runs and also became the oldest player to reach the fifty, sixty, and seventy home run plateaus."

Roids don't do that, being possibly the best player in history does.

Hitting the ball harder is always helpful.

Without his abnormal gains as he aged, he would still be considered one of the greatest to ever play the game, nobody denies that.

Publius · 08-09-2007, 07:56 AM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Too bad it's not about that. It's about the speed of the bat.

wrong, the myth is that corking the bat will put extra speed on it in order to make the ball leave the bat faster (and thus go farther).

They set up a rig that fired a ball at 80mph and swung a bat at 62mph every time. When the uncorked bat hit the ball, it left the bat at almost exactly 80mph, when the corked bat hit it the ball left at just over 40mph. Every time they tested it.

Unless corking a bat allows you to more than double your swing speed (in their experiment, to 124mph) it actually reduces the power of your hit. The mass of the bat plays just as big a part, if not a bigger part, in how hard it hits a ball.

It's simple physics, really. Momentum = Mass X Velocity. I'm not a big baseball fan, so I don't know exactly how much weight corking removes from a bat. But let's say it's somewhere between 25% and 50% for example's sake.

If corking a bat shaves 25%-50% off the mass of the bat, the velocity of the swing must increase by more than that in order for the momentum of the bat, and thus the energy it can transfer into the ball, to be more than that of an uncorked bat.

I don't know about you, but I doubt a major league hitter is going to get that kind of increase in swinging velocity just by reducing a bat's weight. You're going to hit the limits of how quickly the human body can move at some point.

motivez · 08-09-2007, 08:57 AM

When you artificially enhance your performance, the victory is not your own.

It's no different than any other sport. When cyclists inject blood to increase red cell count and win a race, they didn't win it because of their skill, they won it because they had an unnatural advantage.

It's simple really. He's a cheater, all the crap about whether or not there was a rule or whatever doesn't negate what he did.

Those same arguments could be made if someone created a robot to hit the ball out of the park and run the bases at warp 9.. so long as "everyone had access to a similar robot" or there was no "official rule" then the victory is still theirs?

Please.

nbiggershaft · 08-09-2007, 10:27 AM

Originally Posted by Publius

wrong, the myth is that corking the bat will put extra speed on it in order to make the ball leave the bat faster (and thus go farther).

They set up a rig that fired a ball at 80mph and swung a bat at 62mph every time. When the uncorked bat hit the ball, it left the bat at almost exactly 80mph, when the corked bat hit it the ball left at just over 40mph. Every time they tested it.

Unless corking a bat allows you to more than double your swing speed (in their experiment, to 124mph) it actually reduces the power of your hit. The mass of the bat plays just as big a part, if not a bigger part, in how hard it hits a ball.

It's simple physics, really. Momentum = Mass X Velocity. I'm not a big baseball fan, so I don't know exactly how much weight corking removes from a bat. But let's say it's somewhere between 25% and 50% for example's sake.

If corking a bat shaves 25%-50% off the mass of the bat, the velocity of the swing must increase by more than that in order for the momentum of the bat, and thus the energy it can transfer into the ball, to be more than that of an uncorked bat.

I don't know about you, but I doubt a major league hitter is going to get that kind of increase in swinging velocity just by reducing a bat's weight. You're going to hit the limits of how quickly the human body can move at some point.

You are right about everything here. But I have definitely never heard of anyone corking the bat to take off that much mass. I think we are talking about just a few percent. But you know mythbusters they gotta do things big.

nbiggershaft · 08-09-2007, 10:35 AM

Originally Posted by motivez

It's no different than any other sport. When cyclists inject blood to increase red cell count and win a race, they didn't win it because of their skill, they won it because they had an unnatural advantage.

It's not cycling though. Or track. Or swimming. And you know the difference.

motivez · 08-09-2007, 10:56 AM

There is no difference, it's an unnatural performance boost. Simple as that. He cheated.

He might still be a great athlete without it, but he certainly wouldn't be where he is now, and his legacy will always be tainted by the fact that he cheated

nbiggershaft · 08-09-2007, 11:01 AM

Originally Posted by motivez

There is no difference, it's an unnatural performance boost. Simple as that. He cheated.

He might still be a great athlete without it, but he certainly wouldn't be where he is now, and his legacy will always be tainted by the fact that he cheated

Of course there is a difference, Me+steroids+training = could compete at a high level in track. Me+steroids+training = I could still never hit a major league pitch. We could just as easily be talking about playing billiards. Bigger muscles may be able to make you break better, but 99% of billiards and batting is skill.

Publius · 08-09-2007, 11:05 AM

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

Of course there is a difference, Me+steroids+training = could compete at a high level in track. Me+steroids+training = I could still never hit a major league pitch. We could just as easily be talking about playing billiards. Bigger muscles may be able to make you break better, but 99% of billiards and batting is skill.

Motivez has a point though. While Bonds may be a talented baseball player without steroids, with steroids he is stronger and can use that talent differently. It could mean the difference between hitting the ball 15 feet further on 'roids than he could not on them, and that 15 feet can easily be the difference between a fly ball in the outfield and a home run.