Who is the real home run king Bonds,Aaron or Gibson?

Answer 1

Gibson - played the hardest game against the greatest odds. He will never get the recognition he deserves.

Answer 2

Its very tough to compare eras when it comes to records you could find something wrong with all of these players.

1. Ruth...played in the pre-expansion, segregated era. Played with weaker competition because of this. Things going for him were the parks were bigger and he didn't have modern sports medicine or video to fall back on. Most certainly wasn't on the roids.

2. Gibson...as many have stated his "record" is highly in question. Like Ruth he didn't play against the best competition...though it wasn't of course any fault of his...***** leagues also played more games then the NL/AL counterparts if I remember correctly.

3. Aaron...basically set the record by being very good to great for a very long time. Most likely had some medicinal help that Ruth did not have, had more modernized travel, his career spanned a couple of expansions...However he did play in a pitching era and also had to travel far further then Ruth.

4. Bonds...most definately on something, but was a hall of fame player without it, and even without them could have found his way into this conversation. People tend to forget just how good Bonds was before all this.

In my opinion the home run record belongs to Bonds for better or worse. You really can't compare eras and who's to say that the greats that came before him wouldn't have done the same thing if they were in his shoes.

A untainted homer record holder I think would have to have a career that fell somewhere between 1945-1960. Baseball was finally desegregated, and expansion hadn't hit till the early 60's

The closest I can find to that is Ted Williams. Yes he played four years prior to Robinson breaking the color barrier but he also lost that many prime years to various wars. So I'm comfortable letting him slide a little on that.

Answer 3

I agree with "Sinatra". Babe Ruth hit 714 homers in a little over 8,000. Bonds took over 9,000+, and Aaron over 12,000. That being said, however, Bonds has the most regardless of at bats. But, pre-steroid era, Roger Maris holds the record for most pure homers in a season. Gibson was not in the major leagues, and does not count. If he did, you would have to say that Saduhara Oh (spelling?) from Japan was home run king with well over 800.

Answer 4

Babe Ruth is and will forever be the Home Run King.

Ruth was better then Aaron, non of Bonds' should count, and Gibson didn't play in the majors.

Answer 5

Not to disparage what Josh Gibson accomplished, but his home run numbers are very questionable.

According to John Holway and other ***** League researchers, he had only about 200 homers in ***** League and Mexican League play. The other 600 homers with which he's credited are not really documented, and they only get the 800-homer number by extrapolating his numbers over barnstorming tours. Those numbers, while impressive, often came against very sub-standard local pro teams.

No offense to a HOFer, but his accomplishments may be overstated.

Answer 6

Gibson, he hit over 800 HR in the days when Steroids weren't running around, and when the ball wasn't juiced. Plus Aaron had about 38 HR as his highest season. Bibson's lowest was probably 40.

Answer 7

Hank Aaron

Answer 8

Babe Ruth. Hank Aaron went to bat 2500 more times than Ruth, and Josh Gibson didn't face professional competition all the time.

Answer 9

Like the man above me, i am looking at Major League Baseball meaning, the entire world, More official homeruns than Hammerin' Hank and Babe Ruth, He was Babe ruth in Japan.

Sadaharu Oh. collected 2,786 hits (3rd alltime in Japanese baseball history) 2,170 RBIs, a lifetime batting average of .301, and 868 home runs (more homeruns than any other player in the recorded history of Baseball, even more than the number estimated hit by Josh Gibson).

Answer 10

Henry "Hammering Hank" Aaron

Answer 11

Bonds