I is obvious that Bonds is better than Ruth. Bonds makes like 10 million a year, and Ruth only made around a hundred grand!
But seriously, I see no point in comparing players from the past and present because there are TOO many factors to consider. It annoys me to read things like 'Ruth didn't play in as competitive an era'. So what? He can't control that. That's like saying Bonds has an unfair advanage because he was a second generation player. Then there's the talent pool differences, the larger or smaller stadiums, the weight training, the diets, the Advil commercials, different dental care... It literally could go on forever.
The way I see it is this. Babe Ruth dominated HIS era. When he hit 60 HR's, the second most in the AL was 55. By PHILADELPHIA. Ruth outhomered every AL team and most NL teams that year. He hit for average. He hit for power. He drove in runs, and held many records. Likewise, Barry Bonds (so far) has dominated HIS era. Four MVPs. 10 times in the top 8 in MVP voting. You gotta admit the intentional walks record is impressive. People won't pitch to him. Add eight Gold Gloves to the mix, and (Steve, you're welcome to disagree
) you've got the best player of the 90's.