McGwire...say it ain't so!

[CigarStone]

One needs only to look at the size of an average fairway in golf to see that it is not only larger than any ball park there are no distractions in the primary field of view

Spoken like a true novice Of course most know that golf requires leaving the fairway and eventually achieving a target roughly the size of a softball. Not to mention that it is required every time, eighteen times in a row, rather than 30% of the time four or five times per game. Again, landing a baseball anywhere in a three acre lot can produce the coveted prize.

 

[NASTY]

You can't possibly believe this, do you? You believe that Bonds obtained the records fair and square? I guess I'm a traditionalist as well in that I don't like the DH and I almost always get a grin on my face when I see a 3-6-3 double play. Having said that, it will be a cold day in Hell when I recognize Bonds, McGwire and Bonds as the betters of Maris and Ruth. God I sound old. :sign:

If by fair and square you mean without steroids, no, I never said that Bonds attained his records without steroids. My point was that Aaron's and Maris' records were broken and no longer standing. Bonds is the HR king and should be recognized as such, whether he did it cleanly or dirty, I really don't care. It's baseball and it's entertainment.

Yeah you do sound old :laugh: Bonds and McGwire are definitely better than Maris although you do have an argument with Ruth.

 

[pembroke3355]

Roger Maris' record still stands as far as I'm concerned.

Doc.

That, and he owes the whole Maris family an apology. Remember what a big thing it was for all of them back in 98.

The Maris family? More importantly, McGwire owes an apology to Sammy Sosa, the "true" Home Run King of '98...

x2
Guys if taking steroids is conceder cheating then taking meds to live longer or taking Viagra for sex is cheating, the new medicine is to enhance your life.. Right now I know that all major athlete are on HGH cause they’re not testing for that right now and in 10yrs they’re be a new drug on the market, that’s the way it is.

100% correct. With that much money on the line and with the huge ego's you would be foolish to think it is still not happening and will continue to happen.

 

[AVB]

Not as novice as you might think but that is neither here nor there. I thought the primary discussion was about hitting and so I'll stand by what I said. If you want to talk about all the other aspects of the sport then be prepared for a very long discourse. I'll start with you have unlimited times to get the ball into the cup. You may suck at golf but eventually you'll do it. Not so with baseball.

One needs only to look at the size of an average fairway in golf to see that it is not only larger than any ball park there are no distractions in the primary field of view

Spoken like a true novice Of course most know that golf requires leaving the fairway and eventually achieving a target roughly the size of a softball. Not to mention that it is required every time, eighteen times in a row, rather than 30% of the time four or five times per game. Again, landing a baseball anywhere in a three acre lot can produce the coveted prize.

 

[gibu]

No, it is unquestionably still happening all the time. The question is what if anything do we do about it? Steroids are harmful to the user and professional athletes are enormously influential to youth that want to make it to the pro's themselves someday. I would think baseball would want to make every effort to root out use and punish users. The Olympics aren't perfect but I think it would be hard to say that they don't make a big effort to at least try to keep up.

Perhaps theres a case for who cares, but I think MLB has to make a huge effort if they want to keep their fans and therefore their profits.

 

[pembroke3355]

No, it is unquestionably still happening all the time. The question is what if anything do we do about it? Steroids are harmful to the user and professional athletes are enormously influential to youth that want to make it to the pro's themselves someday. I would think baseball would want to make every effort to root out use and punish users. The Olympics aren't perfect but I think it would be hard to say that they don't make a big effort to at least try to keep up.

Perhaps theres a case for who cares, but I think MLB has to make a huge effort if they want to keep their fans and therefore their profits.

There is nothing that can be done. The athletes using IGF-1 LR3 are at no risk(health risk maybe another question). Unless they change laws you cannot make someone submit to a muscle biospy. There is zero chance of detecting it in blood or urine. It is still legal as it is sold as a peptide. When we are talking millions of dollars people will take a risk with health. Cheating in sports in one form or the other has been happening for many many years. How do people feel about Willie Mays who use to pop greenies like candy.

 

[LilBastage]

I had a whole post typed up about the romanticism of baseball and how it has disappeared. You know what? MLB just isn't worth it.

Baseball used to have meaning. Now, it's just another "reality" TV show. The NFL is headed in the same direction.

 

[MOBIG]

I had a whole post typed up about the romanticism of baseball and how it has disappeared. You know what? MLB just isn't worth it.

Baseball used to have meaning. Now, it's just another "reality" TV show. The NFL is headed in the same direction.

so true but that's why we watch it enjoy all the drama that comes with it " Its call entertainment with a lot of bullshit " :laugh:

 

[CigarStone]

Not as novice as you might think but that is neither here nor there. I thought the primary discussion was about hitting and so I'll stand by what I said. If you want to talk about all the other aspects of the sport then be prepared for a very long discourse. I'll start with you have unlimited times to get the ball into the cup. You may suck at golf but eventually you'll do it. Not so with baseball.

One needs only to look at the size of an average fairway in golf to see that it is not only larger than any ball park there are no distractions in the primary field of view

Spoken like a true novice Of course most know that golf requires leaving the fairway and eventually achieving a target roughly the size of a softball. Not to mention that it is required every time, eighteen times in a row, rather than 30% of the time four or five times per game. Again, landing a baseball anywhere in a three acre lot can produce the coveted prize.

We can agree on the long discourse (a lot of people just don't get it ). The time statement is irrelevant because we are talking about being successful, if you don't play golf in a set period of time you will never be successful. The statement about sucking but eventually doing it is also a bad comparison, you "could" suck at hitting a baseball and with enough attempts you would eventually do it.

Now for some valid points.....The great ones at hitting a baseball (the ones who can put it in play 30% of the time) have exceptional eye hand coordination and therefore make contact more than most but they still have an entire 3 acre park to use to make an acceptable result. Some great hitters can actually hit the ball to a specified general area of that park. An acceptable golf shot, for a great golfer, has a result measured in square yards down to square inches on wildly varying landing surfaces.

If you required a great baseball hitter to get a hit "this particular time at bat" the great ones would succeed maybe 35% of the time. A great golfer will succeed in making a combination of intricate shots (not just one) culminating in success (par or better) 90+% of the time.

The two feats require vastly different skill sets, one involves a great deal of luck and thus is measured at 30% success, and the the other involves pure skill. Luck, good or bad, is not part of the equation, and success is measured at 100%

Edited to add....If you're talking about hitting a baseball vs hitting a golf ball i.e. "making contact" then yes, hitting a moving baseball is infinity harder. That's where the comparison ends.

 

[CigarStone]

No, it is unquestionably still happening all the time. The question is what if anything do we do about it? Steroids are harmful to the user and professional athletes are enormously influential to youth that want to make it to the pro's themselves someday. I would think baseball would want to make every effort to root out use and punish users. The Olympics aren't perfect but I think it would be hard to say that they don't make a big effort to at least try to keep up.

Perhaps theres a case for who cares, but I think MLB has to make a huge effort if they want to keep their fans and therefore their profits.

I guess this is the real point. They say that some of the steroids used are "undetectable" I think if they can give me a pill to make my dick get hard we can "detect" steroids if we want to.

The real shame in this is going to materialize someday soon in a real sport where violent contact exists. Someday an NFL player is going to die on the field from a violent collision with a 280 pound guy who can run a 4.4 forty and bench press a truck.....when the guys family sues the NFL for gross negligence then it may get fixed.

 

[MoeCizlak]

Not as novice as you might think but that is neither here nor there. I thought the primary discussion was about hitting and so I'll stand by what I said. If you want to talk about all the other aspects of the sport then be prepared for a very long discourse. I'll start with you have unlimited times to get the ball into the cup. You may suck at golf but eventually you'll do it. Not so with baseball.

One needs only to look at the size of an average fairway in golf to see that it is not only larger than any ball park there are no distractions in the primary field of view

Spoken like a true novice Of course most know that golf requires leaving the fairway and eventually achieving a target roughly the size of a softball. Not to mention that it is required every time, eighteen times in a row, rather than 30% of the time four or five times per game. Again, landing a baseball anywhere in a three acre lot can produce the coveted prize.

We can agree on the long discourse (a lot of people just don't get it ). The time statement is irrelevant because we are talking about being successful, if you don't play golf in a set period of time you will never be successful. The statement about sucking but eventually doing it is also a bad comparison, you "could" suck at hitting a baseball and with enough attempts you would eventually do it.

Now for some valid points.....The great ones at hitting a baseball (the ones who can put it in play 30% of the time) have exceptional eye hand coordination and therefore make contact more than most but they still have an entire 3 acre park to use to make an acceptable result. Some great hitters can actually hit the ball to a specified general area of that park. An acceptable golf shot, for a great golfer, has a result measured in square yards down to square inches on wildly varying landing surfaces.

If you required a great baseball hitter to get a hit "this particular time at bat" the great ones would succeed maybe 35% of the time. A great golfer will succeed in making a combination of intricate shots (not just one) culminating in success (par or better) 90+% of the time.

The two feats require vastly different skill sets, one involves a great deal of luck and thus is measured at 30% success, and the the other involves pure skill. Luck, good or bad, is not part of the equation, and success is measured at 100%

Edited to add....If you're talking about hitting a baseball vs hitting a golf ball i.e. "making contact" then yes, hitting a moving baseball is infinity harder. That's where the comparison ends.

Jeff, here is where I think you are wrong. The great ones don't simply put it in play 30% of the time, they successfully hit the ball where no fielders are. That is infinitely harder than simply making contact. I realize that golf has obstacles/hazards as well that you could equate to fielders in baseball, but think of this: if a golfer does everything perfectly in his swing, reading the green, understanding his lie in the rough etc, he is guaranteed a successful shot. No, it won't go into the cup everytime, but it will go within a few yards of where the golfer intended it to go. Now if a baseball player does everything perfectly in his swing, reading the pitch etc, he is not guaranteed success. He could line a great hit right at a fielder. A good hitter will put the ball in play around 70-80% I would guess, which would be not too far off that of a golfer. Secondly, your claim that hitting it anywhere in a 3 acre lot is not true. If I put the ball into play 80% of my at bats but never got a hit, I wouldn't last long in the major leagues. The coveted prize you reference when you say, "landing a baseball anywhere in a three acre lot can produce the coveted prize." is not simply putting the ball into play, but having it land somewhere a fielder cannot get to it. Unless one of the other golfers starts batting Tiger's putts away as they are about to reach the hole, I think successfully getting a hit is harder than golfing.

 

[jfields]

Cello on, or cello off?

 

[LilBastage]

Cello on, or cello off?

You get more distance with cello on, but finding the sweet spot is easier with cello off.

 

[CigarStone]

Not as novice as you might think but that is neither here nor there. I thought the primary discussion was about hitting and so I'll stand by what I said. If you want to talk about all the other aspects of the sport then be prepared for a very long discourse. I'll start with you have unlimited times to get the ball into the cup. You may suck at golf but eventually you'll do it. Not so with baseball.

One needs only to look at the size of an average fairway in golf to see that it is not only larger than any ball park there are no distractions in the primary field of view

Spoken like a true novice Of course most know that golf requires leaving the fairway and eventually achieving a target roughly the size of a softball. Not to mention that it is required every time, eighteen times in a row, rather than 30% of the time four or five times per game. Again, landing a baseball anywhere in a three acre lot can produce the coveted prize.

We can agree on the long discourse (a lot of people just don't get it ). The time statement is irrelevant because we are talking about being successful, if you don't play golf in a set period of time you will never be successful. The statement about sucking but eventually doing it is also a bad comparison, you "could" suck at hitting a baseball and with enough attempts you would eventually do it.

Now for some valid points.....The great ones at hitting a baseball (the ones who can put it in play 30% of the time) have exceptional eye hand coordination and therefore make contact more than most but they still have an entire 3 acre park to use to make an acceptable result. Some great hitters can actually hit the ball to a specified general area of that park. An acceptable golf shot, for a great golfer, has a result measured in square yards down to square inches on wildly varying landing surfaces.

If you required a great baseball hitter to get a hit "this particular time at bat" the great ones would succeed maybe 35% of the time. A great golfer will succeed in making a combination of intricate shots (not just one) culminating in success (par or better) 90+% of the time.

The two feats require vastly different skill sets, one involves a great deal of luck and thus is measured at 30% success, and the the other involves pure skill. Luck, good or bad, is not part of the equation, and success is measured at 100%

Edited to add....If you're talking about hitting a baseball vs hitting a golf ball i.e. "making contact" then yes, hitting a moving baseball is infinity harder. That's where the comparison ends.

Jeff, here is where I think you are wrong. The great ones don't simply put it in play 30% of the time, they successfully hit the ball where no fielders are. That is infinitely harder than simply making contact. I realize that golf has obstacles/hazards as well that you could equate to fielders in baseball, but think of this: if a golfer does everything perfectly in his swing, reading the green, understanding his lie in the rough etc, he is guaranteed a successful shot. No, it won't go into the cup everytime, but it will go within a few yards of where the golfer intended it to go. Now if a baseball player does everything perfectly in his swing, reading the pitch etc, he is not guaranteed success. He could line a great hit right at a fielder. A good hitter will put the ball in play around 70-80% I would guess, which would be not too far off that of a golfer. Secondly, your claim that hitting it anywhere in a 3 acre lot is not true. If I put the ball into play 80% of my at bats but never got a hit, I wouldn't last long in the major leagues. The coveted prize you reference when you say, "landing a baseball anywhere in a three acre lot can produce the coveted prize." is not simply putting the ball into play, but having it land somewhere a fielder cannot get to it. Unless one of the other golfers starts batting Tiger's putts away as they are about to reach the hole, I think successfully getting a hit is harder than golfing.

Clint, well put and pretty clear but it's not the obstacles on the golf course that matter. A sand trap or body of water is fairly easy for an accomplished golfer to avoid.

It's hitting a low draw or high fade from the tee because of the way the fairway slopes. It's spinning a ball left to right so it will slowly walk to the hole on a slightly right to left sloping green from 160 yards. It's hitting a low, hard spinning ball 13 feet past the hole and drawing it back to the hole because there is a soft ridge which the ball fire off of at 12 to 15 feet behind the hole. It's hitting a high minimally spinning ball, from 135 yards, in to a hard green which won't hold, and having only a coupe square feet to land it on or end up in a hazard. It's hitting a ball form the tee 284 yards because at 287 there is a swale which will cast the ball in to the rough. What a great golfer can do with a golf ball is infinitely more difficult than what a great hitter does by making solid contact with a baseball and hoping it falls in a hole.

Only the very best hitters can do what you mention in putting the ball in play 70-80% of their at bats and the areas available to them are enormous by comparison to where a golfer can successfully place a ball from much further away; granted a baseball player is dealing with a dancing bullet, but there is a great deal of luck involved as evidenced by the fact that 30% is the measurement of success. 70-80% success in golf will make you a double digit handicap, weekend golfer.

As I pointed out, it's the ability to do it on command that makes the difference. A great golfer can probably complete an entire bogey free round of golf with more regularity than a great baseball hitter can have a 2 for 4 day.

It's a great debate though :thumbs:

 

[MoeCizlak]

Hey, smile when you use the phrase "double digit handicap, weekend golfer" dammit.

Good debate Jeff.

 

[punk_lawyer]

A great golfer can probably complete an entire bogey free round of golf with more regularity than a great baseball hitter can have a 2 for 4 day.

Doesn't this appear to go contrary to your argument? That statement suggests that golf is indeed a much easier game.

 

[CigarStone]

A great golfer can probably complete an entire bogey free round of golf with more regularity than a great baseball hitter can have a 2 for 4 day.

Doesn't this appear to go contrary to your argument? That statement suggests that golf is indeed a much easier game.

Would a sniper's job be simple because they are able to hit a small target at a long distance every time?

Would a lawyers job be a piece of cake because he has a 100% conviction rate?

Would a NASCAR drivers job be easy because he can drive at high speeds in tight quarters and not wreck?

 

[punk_lawyer]

A great golfer can probably complete an entire bogey free round of golf with more regularity than a great baseball hitter can have a 2 for 4 day.

Doesn't this appear to go contrary to your argument? That statement suggests that golf is indeed a much easier game.

Would a sniper's job be simple because they are able to hit a small target at a long distance every time?

Would a lawyers job be a piece of cake because he has a 100% conviction rate?

Would a NASCAR drivers job be easy because he can drive at high speeds in tight quarters and not wreck?

But you said a great baseball hitter has a harder time succeeding than a great golfer. The natural conclusion is that if both are great at their games and one succeeds with more regularity than the other then the one who succeeds less is competing in a harder game.

Besides, don't you have another thread that you need to be reading?

 

[CigarStone]

But you said a great baseball hitter has a harder time succeeding than a great golfer. The natural conclusion is that if both are great at their games and one succeeds with more regularity than the other then the one who succeeds less is competing in a harder game.

Besides, don't you have another thread that you need to be reading?

You're thick for a lawyer (that just doesn't sound right) ???

If you are a world class billiards player and and I am world class player at dropping pool balls in the pockets, I will never lose to you.....who is more skilled?

If you are a world class brain surgeon and I am world class burger flipper, I can probably succeed at flipping burgers at a higher rate than you can succeed at saving brainetcomy patients (Browns fans, lawyers, etc.) ....who is more skilled?

Is the most successful attorney in your firm a slacker by comparison to the bozo who loses 50% of his cases, since he obviously has a much easier job?

 

[AVB]

Now we know why he thinks golf is difficult

I am world class burger flipper, I can probably succeed at flipping burgers at a higher rate than you can.