I'm one of those who believes that winning championships is part of what makes someone the best, not just their individual stats ot their natural talent. Only when the stars align do you get both. That's why they call Gretzky "The Great One." IMHO, Bonds and Gretzky don't belong in the same pantheon or conversation. Look at the list for other sports BB: Jordan/Bird/Magic Football: Montana/Jim Brown/Elway Hockey: Gretzky Baseball: Ruth/Damaggio/Mantle (and I hate the Yankees) Does Bonds really belong anywhere near these guys? I think not. Barry Bonds is the only player in baseball history who completely changes the dynamic of a game simply by being in it. Every team adjusts for him. That was not the case for Ruth, whose HRs were not a lock ( and btw his defensive skills were average). If you pitch to Bonds, he will knock it out of the park. It was not the case that Dimaggio single handedly altered the dynamics of every game he entered nor was it for Mantle. I am btw, a huge Yankees fan. Jordan in basketball might have also caused this phenomenom but I was speaking about baseball. Jordan is also credited with ruining the the team ethic of the sport (Even if unintentionally) while baseball has always had a degree of isolation between players by the nature of the rules. Jim Brown was an incredible play maker but I dont know that he singlehandedly changed the sport as much as say LT did. Montana and Elway did not force other teams to radically alter their strategies. Gretzky Bonds is only denied a ring because of Dusty Baker's incredibly stupid change in pitching in Game 6 of the 2002 World Series.Bond's is incredibly unlikeable at the moment but he is the greatest player the sport has ever seen. And about winning championships and being great, do we consider Nolan Ryan, Dan Marino, Patrick Ewing and Ted Williams, Don Mattingly, and Barry Sanders 2nd rate because they didnt win a championship? Or Derek Jeter super duper bc he won 4?