I still remember pleading with my mom to let me stay up late to watch Hammering Hank Aaron, the night he bested Babe Ruth's home run record.

I watched on a 12" black-and-white TV, riveted. When he struck the record blow, I even took a Polaroid photo of the TV screen as they replayed the shot.

Over the weekend, Barry Bonds launched his 755th homer into the left-center field stands in San Diego. I wonder how many kids even cared? Do you?

The question now facing baseball is - should Bonds get credit for the HR record, or should it be marked with an asterisk?

Bonds' achievement, long awaited and long dreaded, has been clouded by the now-familiar allegation about steroid use. But the questions don't stop there. A simulation done for ESPN.com attempts to project how many homers Hank would have hammered if he played in the Bonds era. The folks at Image Sports who developed the simulation say Aaron would have hammered 766, and still hold the record.

Also today, Universal Medical Systems, Inc. of Ohio released a fascinating study of how the baseball itself has changed from the Aaron era to the Bonds era. Their results, using sophisticated imaging technology, conclude that Major League baseball itself colluded to "juice" the ball to purposely increase home runs.

Their research suggests the 'new, improved' baseballs added 30 feet to the carry of a home run blast, and they note that, in the first year Rawlings became the exclusive supplier for the League's baseballs in 1977, the majors witnessed a 63% increase in home runs (2,235 in 1976 vs. 3,644 in 1977) with the new baseball composition.

So, asterisk or no? Click on "comments" and tell us what you think.