Mt. Rushmore of world Sports.

[takeittothehoop]

Melbourne Cricket Ground seats approximately 100,000 people. City of Melbourne has a population of about 3,000,000.

Been there, but I really don't like cricket. I know crazy.

My Mount Rushmore of Sports:

Jordan, Ali, Pele/Maradona, Rod Laver (tennis).

[takeittothehoop]

I don't like to put Armstrong on there because all cyclists these days have a steroid cloud over there heads.

[Kebab Stall]

Been there, but I really don't like cricket. I know crazy.

My Mount Rushmore of Sports:

Jordan, Ali, Pele/Maradona, Rod Laver (tennis).

Good choice. I'm sure some will argue Federer, myself included, but you can't go wrong with Laver.

[Hermit]

I would pick Tiger Woods (golfer), Kobe Bryant (The hottest figure in basketball. I don't know any other player right now) Albert Pujols (the only player not to test possitive for steroids who hits a lot of homeruns), and Wayne Gretsky because I like hockey and my dad say hes the best.

[Manute for Ever!]

I would pick Tiger Woods (golfer), Kobe Bryant (The hottest figure in basketball. I don't know any other player right now) Albert Pujols (the only player not to test possitive for steroids who hits a lot of homeruns), and Wayne Gretsky because I like hockey and my dad say hes the best.

Serious? And as for Gretzky, you don't need your Dad to tell you how great he was. I'm from a country that doesn't really have ice and I know about his greatness.

[Butters]

Pele
Babe
Gretzky
Jordan

[AJ2k8]

Actually i think ill take someone out of my mount rushmore to replace them with Rodman, he would be awesome carved in stone

[LJJ]

Ok then you're correct in placing him above Lance... But can you explain how Lance Armstrong, who has the 3rd most points total in HOF designated races wouldn't make the 8 face Mount Rushmore of cycling?

Lot at that graphic.

Let's compare some resumes (I highlighted where they blow out Armstrong to put them ahead):

Armstrong - 7 Grand Tours, World Champion, 2 classic wins

Indurain - 7 Grand Tours, Olympic Gold Medal TT, Time Trial WC, 6 classic wins.

Anquetil - 8 Grand Tour wins, 4 times highest ranked overall cyclist, over 10 classic wins

Coppi - 7 Grand Tour wins, World Champion, Over 10 classic wins, (Even though during most of his prime there was this war called the second world war, which lasted 5 years and during which there were no races)

Those are already 5 cyclists who have without a doubt much more impressive resumes than Armstrong. Then you have guys like Bartali and Zoetemelk who's resumes are as good as Armstrong.

Then add to that all of the legendary specialist riders such as sprinters and classics specialists. And all the cyclists from non road disciplines such as track cyclists, field cyclist, mountain bikers, etc. Those have not even entered the discussion yet.

[lakers_forever]

I am by no means educated when it comes to soccer so i will take your word for it... All i knew was that they were both greats of the sport and shared the title for FIFA player of the century(i believe). Thanks for the insight

[lazerface]

michael jordan
muhammad ali
jim brown
hank aaron

[lakers_forever]

Wisden hailed Bradman as, "the greatest phenomenon in the history of cricket, indeed in the history of all ball games".[1] Statistician Charles Davis analysed the statistics for several prominent sportsmen by comparing the number of standard deviations that they stand above the mean for their sport.[224] The top performers in his selected sports are:



but americans don't have cricket so i doubt he would be considered on this site.

i'd also add jordan, ali and michael schumacher

Very Interesting. Repped. Where did you get this?

[lakers_forever]

Football is a teamsport. Maradona didn't have the national teams Pele had.
Pele was only the best player on his team in one of those World Cup wins at any rate, so that puts him on par with Maradona.

The Maradona did not have a great NT excuse is pretty old. He did not play for Venezuela. He played for Argentina. Pele played with great teammates? Yep. But you can't forget that Brazil had never won a world cup before Pele. In a matter of fact, Brazil was only the third football power in South America. With Pele they became the top football power in the world. After Pele retired, Brazil spent 24 years without winning a world cup.
And although Didi was great in 1958, you can certainly claim Pele was the best in that cup. A 17 year old boy playing in the biggest tournament in the world, scored 3 goals in the semi final and 2 in the final. So, That can easily make Pele the top dog in 2 world cups, 1958 and 1970.
Also, Maradona joined the World Cup winning team of Argentina in 1978 in the 1982 World Cup and had an average World Cup. He had great teammates like Kempes, Passarella, Ardiles, Fillol and could not do anything.
Actually that favours Pele, because even playing with great players, he was considered the king of them all.

And of course Maradona didn't score as many goals as Pele. Completely different era's, different level of competetion, almost a completely different sport. In the Brazilian league when Pele played there scores like 5-4 where casual scores. Maradona played his entire prime in the Italian League during the hey days of the Catenaccio, and on top of that he wasn't even a forward.

Players like Zico, who played in the same era of Maradona, scored much more goals than him.
Pele was never a forward. He was an attacking midfielder. He was always the number "10", the guy who could create and score just like Zico was.
And you
Brazilian football in Pele's time was the best in the world. It had all the players from the brazil national team who won the 1958, 62, and 1970 World Cups. No starters from that teams played in Europe.
And Pele had a better goal average against Italian Teams than against Brazilian teams. He often destroyed Heleno Herrera Internazionale, you know, the coach theat invented catenaccio.

There's no argument against Pele. No one dominated his own era like he did. His Santos was considered the best team in the world. Another case for Pele there. Santos was not a major force before Pele. With him they became the best team in the world. Without him, Santos waited untill 2002 to win something revelant again.

And you couldn't even get the main objective of football right. The main objective of football is not scoring goals.

Really?! What is then?

[miller-time]

Very Interesting. Repped. Where did you get this?

donald bradman page on wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Bradman

was just reading it, thought this was interesting to:

The statistics show that "no other athlete dominates an international sport to the extent that Bradman does cricket".[2] In order to post a similarly dominant career statistic as Bradman, a baseball batter would need a career batting average of .392, while a basketball player would need to score an average of 43.0 points per game.[225] The respective records are .366 and 30.1.[225]

When Bradman died, Time magazine allocated a space in its "Milestones" column for an obituary:[226]

... Australian icon considered by many to be the pre-eminent sportsman of all time ... One of Australia's most beloved heroes, he was revered abroad as well. When Nelson Mandela was released after 27 years in prison, his first question to an Australian visitor was, "Is Sir Donald Bradman still alive?"

[LJJ]

The Maradona did not have a great NT excuse is pretty old. He did not play for Venezuela. He played for Argentina. Pele played with great teammates? Yep. But you can't forget that Brazil had never won a world cup before Pele. In a matter of fact, Brazil was only the third football power in South America. With Pele they became the top football power in the world. After Pele retired, Brazil spent 24 years without winning a world cup.
And although Didi was great in 1958, you can certainly claim Pele was the best in that cup. A 17 year old boy playing in the biggest tournament in the world, scored 3 goals in the semi final and 2 in the final. So, That can easily make Pele the top dog in 2 world cups, 1958 and 1970.
Also, Maradona joined the World Cup winning team of Argentina in 1978 in the 1982 World Cup and had an average World Cup. He had great teammates like Kempes, Passarella, Ardiles, Fillol and could not do anything.
Actually that favours Pele, because even playing with great players, he was considered the king of them all.





Players like Zico, who played in the same era of Maradona, scored much more goals than him.
Pele was never a forward. He was an attacking midfielder. He was always the number "10", the guy who could create and score just like Zico was.
And you
Brazilian football in Pele's time was the best in the world. It had all the players from the brazil national team who won the 1958, 62, and 1970 World Cups. No starters from that teams played in Europe.
And Pele had a better goal average against Italian Teams than against Brazilian teams. He often destroyed Heleno Herrera Internazionale, you know, the coach theat invented catenaccio.

There's no argument against Pele. No one dominated his own era like he did. His Santos was considered the best team in the world. Another case for Pele there. Santos was not a major force before Pele. With him they became the best team in the world. Without him, Santos waited untill 2002 to win something revelant again.



Really?! What is then?

The main objective of football is not to score goals, but to score at least one goal more than your opponent. Those are two different things, and LMAO at you not knowing this.

Pele was not the best player on the Brazilian team in 1958. Garrincha was.
And you don't know d1ck about football in the sixties. No shame to admit that, because none of us do. Especially not the intricacies like which leagues where better.

Please amuse me by pulling up a couple of facts and showing all of Santos' results against European teams.

[darius15]

43 points a game?

This Bradman guy must be to cricket what Tiger Woods is to golf, and cricket has more fans worldwide than golf, I think.