Amongst those whose task it is to design tumbling mills and other comminution machines there is an almost religious divide between devotees of the Bond method and devotees of other methods developed in more recent times. For a decade or so the issue was between the Bond power-based methods and the JKMRC (JK) simulation based approach. The newest method to challenge the status quo is power-based and was developed by Steve Morrell. As the title suggests, this paper will take some liberty at concluding that Fred Bond and Steve Morrell may be separated by history, but not by their approaches to their individual contributions to the science of comminution. Another driver for the paper is that although it is good to have diversity of thought, the existing divisions are problematic for those of us signing public disclosure documents. If alternative design methods produce materially different outcomes for the mill duty, then at least one of them is wrong or being used incorrectly. At some point the unsustainable argument may need to be put in a court of law that we metallurgists have two or more materially different design methods, each of which is correct! Therefore, perhaps a resolution is needed before this occurs?The works of both Fred Bond and Steve Morrell are each directly related to their contemporary grinding mill design and operational environments. Both their approaches are empirical, borne of observing and measuring real world situations. Both worked with theories that preceded them, gathered their own data and then each saw shortfalls in the status quo.Fred Bond was an escapee from revolution, a victim of The Great Depression, and had several near death experiences during his early site-based career. Perhaps he was fortuitously rescued from himself when asked by Allis Chalmers (A-C) to set up its rock testing laboratory in Milwaukie in 1930. Fred's testing led him to conclude that neither the Kick nor the Von Rittinger theories explained his measurements. His writings on the failings of these old theories caused a divide between devotees of the old and new methods at that time. After many years, and much thought and plotting of data (the old way!), he came up with his now-famous equations (and his Third Theory) which have stood the test of time, certainly in the world of Bond-era machines.Coming from England via several African diamond mines, Steve Morrell immersed himself into the comminution world of the JK in Brisbane about a decade after Fred passed on. The JK had developed its semi-autogenous grinding (SAG) simulation framework using its own pendulum breakage tester, itself a derivative of the twin pendulum impact device invented by Bond decades earlier. At the JK Steve developed his authoritative Tumbling Mill Power equations and was involved in real world analysis of comminution problems on the global stage. Steve's JK experience coincided with the demise of the rod mill, the rise of autogenous grinding (AG) and SAG milling and a rapid expansion in concentrator capacity.Morrell left the JK to pursue his own interests, which included ongoing consulting work, now demanded by the comminution world. He then turned to investigating a growing list of discrepancies between the opinions of designers and theoreticians, and the factual outcomes. The Morrell Method of design arose from this re-examination of ore testing, real world operating data and these glaring and expensive discrepancies between design and outcome. The elements necessary for a relook at the world of rock breakage were in place!CITATION:David, D, 2017. Steve and Fred would have been mates - a comminution design evolution story, in Proceedings MetPlant 2017, pp 2-11 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne).