If my lifting experience gets to make the call, I'd say power lifting has less skill. But per my thread rule, technically I'm not allowed to comment.
The Mount Rushmore of....Athletes?
- Thread starter BaseballJones
- Start date
I get the Jordan love and I think he's probably the greatest basketball player ever, but there were a few seasons there where if you tuned in to watch a Bulls game you really had to pay attention to tell 23 and 33 apart. Before HD, but still I never confused Larry Bird with anyone on the court.
She also founded the WTA, pretty much the premier and most successful women's professional sporting competition. It's probably the only women's sport that could survive financially without support from its male-athlete counterpart. And she built it brilliantly. Without her, Peter Graf never trains Steffi, Anna Kournikova never graces a magazine cover, Richard Williams never jumps off his couch while watching TV and exclaims "they just gave her $40k for a a tennis game?! You both are learning tennis!". She took the brunt of an enormous amount of sexism, to give women the ability to earn not token amounts but millions by playing sports. You talk about dual threats? You might say she's both in her sport's HOF as well as the sporting-entrepreneurship HOF, which ain't bad. Who among our male nominees can say that? Jordan, I guess. George Foreman if you squint.
I don't know about the overall sportsverse, but if there's a Mt Rushmore of women's sports, she's definitely on there, along with Serena, Babe Didrickson, and probably an olympic swimmer.
Back on Phelps for a minute. Forget about the number of different swimming events there are. He competed in five Olympic games and won (multiple) golds in four of them. How many other individuals can say that?
He medaled in 4 olympics. 2004-2016.
Pyrros Dimas won gold in 3 Olympics and bronze in a fourth in a sport where he had a chance to win one medal, for being the strongest guy (in his weight class) on the planet.
Steven Redgrave won gold in 5 Olympics in a sport (rowing) every bit as physically demanding as swimming where he had mostly one or sometimes two chances to win a medal.
That’s just off the top of my head. Phelps is barely on the Rushmore of just Olympic athletes if you appropriately correct for the ridiculous number of chances at medals he had.
I have always thought that Emil Zatopek’s triple gold in 1952 is the most amazing Olympic performance. The 5,000 m, 10,000 m, and marathon are such different disciplines even though all are distance events. To even attempt all three is crazy. To win them all in Olympic record times is mind-boggling to me.
About 30-40 people have won gold at 4 different Olympics. A whole bunch of those competed at 5 or more*.
Birgit Fischer and Aladár Gerevich each won gold at 6 different Olympic games.
Steve Redgrave, Isabell Werth, Reiner Klimke, Pál Kovács, Rudolf Kárpáti, Elisabeta Lipă, and Valentina Vezzali each won gold at 5 different games.
*Granted, some in more niche events: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludger_Beerbaum also won 5 at the time but had one stripped after the fact.
Al Oerter, been there done that-the first athlete to win a gold medal in the same event (discus, 1956-1968) in four consecutive Olympic Games
Mia is there ahead of Serena, sorry. And either Mary Lou or JJK as the 4th. Agree with Babe and BJK of course.
Khorkina and Comaneci are head and shoulders above Mary Lou just in gymnastics; I'm not sure she cracks the top 10.
Mount Rushmore = United States of America.
You don't see Winston Churchill on Mount Rushmore, do you?
Well there are lots of Gretzky and Pele advocates here.
But even if you're only putting Americans on, it's tough to place them up there when they're pretty clearly not at the top in their own sport. Even among Americans, Simone and Shannon have much more impressive resumés. Retton's more like a much more influential Kerri Strug: she had an amazing touchstone cultural moment that had her plastered all over the press, but essentially a one-and-done.
And her lobbying on the wrong side of the current scandal hasn't covered her in recent glory.
This dude’s so famous his Wikipedia picture only needs to show half his face.
(Yes I know Wikipedia is constrained to using public domain images, hence the often poor quality biographical photos)
There is no Simone or Kerri without MLR.
Part of the reason she's on that side, I fear.
Cultural moments is what this topic is about. Why is Ali mentioned so many times? He wasn't the greatest ever no matter what he says. Cultural stuff and a photo went a long way.
Part of the reason she's on that side, I fear.
Cultural moments is what this topic is about. Why is Ali mentioned so many times? He wasn't the greatest ever no matter what he says. Cultural stuff and a photo went a long way.
If there's a Mount Everest?, and not Mount Rushmore,
I'd go with
Pele
Orr
Jordan
for sure
not sure about 4th, maybe Federer. Or probably a 2nd soccer player.
Or probably JR42 still.
I'd go with
Pele
Orr
Jordan
for sure
not sure about 4th, maybe Federer. Or probably a 2nd soccer player.
Or probably JR42 still.
It's got to be a blend of both, right? Retton was nowhere near as good an athlete nor as culturally impactful as Ali. Her victories came in the equivalent of a strike year (the Soviets and others weren't at the 1984 Olympics) and were completely one-and-done.
I mean, you took Hamm over Chastain despite Chastain having the big moment and photo.
A lot more girls in the US want to (or I guess wanted to, ugggh) grow up to be gymnastics champions than boys being boxing champions.
(Sorry, Marciano)
(Sorry, Marciano)
Actually hockey is a little too regional.
Pele and Jordan for sure
then 2 of (Federer, Laver, BJK, Ruth, JR42, Marichal, Messi, Cruyff, Hamm, Phelps, Spitz, Karelin, Owens, Moses, Lewis, Bolt, JJK, Comaneci, Aamodt)
I think Wilt Chamberlain's name has to be on there. Didn't win the titles that Russell did but revolutionized the game and had rules added because he was so dominant. And averaged 50 points a game???? in 62. For hockey I could see sneaking Gordie Howe and Mario Lemieux on there.
And Roger Federer has won more titles in tennis but did anyone dominate the 90's more then Pete Sampras???
Athletic skill is just so removed from "societal impact" that I think you have to choose one or the other - so I'll go with the latter and say Ruth, Ali, Jordan and Robinson. While I agree with many of the things being said about Billie Jean King the (perhaps sad) bottom line is that while tennis is somewhat of an outlier women's sports is still not anywhere near as impactful on society as men's. Perhaps this simply reflects a more rational approach to sport's rightful place - but given this is P&G, f*ck rational.
More interesting to me is the Rushmore of Boston sports. Brady is clearly now up there - supplanting either Bird or (gasp) Russell. So the easy route is to say Orr, Russell, Williams, Brady. But my sense is that Bird was actually bigger in terms of popularity and local impact than Russell. Shouldn't have been - but was. And am I just imposing a generational bias by insisting on Williams over Ortiz? Doesn't winning and stepping up post marathon mean as much to someone who is now 25 as hitting .400 three quarters of a century ago? (No, it doesn't, but how do I explain that to the 20 year old whose earliest memory is cemeteries draped with Red Sox jerseys?) I worry about this shit. I really do.
Are you asking did anyone dominate a decade like Sampras dominated the 90's? If so the answer is 'of course'. Sampras won 12 of his 14 majors in the 90's. Emerson won all 12 of his majors in a 7 year span (61-67) and his countryman Rod Laver won 11 more that decade as well. Both men won at least two of every major whilst Pete never won the French.
Federer has won 15 of his 20 in the 2000's and 11 in a 4-year span of 2004-07. Nadal has won 10 of his 16 in the current decade (and still has 7 majors to go to add to that total) and Djokovic has won 11 of his 12 this decade as well.
On the women's side Margaret Court won 16 of her 24 grand slams in the 60's, 10 of Serena's 23 were in the 2000's and 12 more have come this decade so far and in the actual 90's Steffi Graf won 14 of her 22 titles and a staggering 21 in a 9-year period from 88-96. Oh, and Martina won 15 of her 18 in the 80s.
One might argue that making a dent in the relevance of women's sports is therefore a bigger deal societally than is making men's sports even more important, or using men's sports as a platform to speak to social issues. Women's sports are a social issue, and a harbinger of equality and feminism, in a way men's sports are not going to be except as counter-pressure.
I mean, clearly the most significant event in the history of global women's sports was the US passing Title IX, which is the big bang of the US having competent female athletes in every discipline, and world class female athletes in most disciplines. The WTA was founded formally a year later, but had already been in incubation, essentially, for 3 years, as the top women pros were organizing other tournaments and fighting against a pay ratio that had become astronomical. This history is sobering. But the point is, both efforts were probably mutually reinforcing. Women's sports are a total sideshow in every part of the world except the US, Japan, and a handful of other places - except in tennis and the olympics, where they're treated as effectively co-equal. That should tell us a lot about who's made a difference.
<confused Nick Young face>
If you make me pick......Hockey-Gretzky....If he didn't score a single goal he would still be the all time leading NHL scorer just from his assists. And Hockey would not be in the south and southwest without him. Pro Football-Jim Brown and Jerry Rice, tie. Baseball-TheBabe. Pro Basketball-Jordan. Boxing-Joe Louis, just so dominant. Mens Tennis-Federer. Womens-Steffi Graff and Serena Williams. Mens golf-Jack Nicklaus. It could have been Tiger but Jack was obviously better in his older years.Womens Golf-Annika Sorenstam. All time athlete-Jim Thorpe?? Olympics??? There have been so many.
Against the bum of the month club before losing to a 39 year old Ezzard Charles, who was a jumped up middleweight? No way.
Plus Gretzky had 9 MVPS and 10 scoring titles. Nobody in sports ever had that. And 4 Stanley Cups.
Ali always believed that Sugar Ray(Robinson of course) was the best pound for pound.
I think that's probably as safe a bet as any. There were some guys in the teens and 20s who did some pretty amazing things, but without footage, it's hard to tell how good Greb and Walker and Leonard were.
If we're talking about Athletes then I would put Thorpe, Pele, Bo Jackson, and probably Michael Phelps. Phelps is probably the greatest olympic athlete next to Thorpe. Pele was a marvel that completely revolutionized Soccer. Bo? The career was cut short but how many people could have done what he did? Play two top sports at a very high level? Not many. Probably no one.
37 I think. He also was naturally 10-15 pounds bigger than Marciano; and there isn't anyone - myself included - who puts Marciano as a top ten all time fighter, because his best victories are over Louis, Walcott, Charles Moore and La Starza, most of whom were old or not natural heavyweights.
Louis was obviously a great fighter, but his most impressive win was probably over Schmeling who beat him in their first fight, and only got a shot because Jack Sharkey was DQ'd for hitting him low.
Don't foreget Bo also ran track at Auburn his first two years and qualified for NCAA championships in the 100m. That being said I'd be hard pressed to pass up Jackie Robinson and Jim Brown for best athletes. Jackie was NCAA long jump champion, and also played on UCLA's football and basketball teams. Jim Brown was a 2x All-American in lacrosse, second in the nation in scoring his senior year, was the second leading scorer on the basketball team, and finished 5th in decathlon at the USA Track and Field championships in 1955. You also have guys like Dave Winfield and JoJo White (RIP) who were selected in the NBA, MLB, and NFL drafts.
The amazing thing to me about Phelps isn't so much the number of golds he won in a given Olympiad (though that is incredibly impressive as nobody has ever won 8 besides him), but that he's won golds in so many different Olympiads.
Phelps' career:
2000 in Sydney: Youngest male to make an Olympic swim team in 68 years. At the age of 15, he finished 5th in the 200m butterfly. At 15. Holy cow.
2004 in Athens: At age 19, he won 6 golds (100m fly, 200m fly, 200m medley, 400m medley, 4x200m free relay, 4x100m medley) and 2 bronze (200m free, 4x100m free). He set one world and three Olympic records.
2008 in Beijing: At age 23, he won 8 golds (200m free, 100m fly, 200m fly, 200m medley, 400m medley, 4x100m free, 4x200m free, 4x100m medley). 7 world records and one Olympic record. Unbelievable.
2012 in London: At age 27, he won 4 golds (100m fly, 200m medley, 4x200m free, 4x100m medley) and 2 silvers (200m fly, 4x100m free).
2016 in Rio: At age 31, he won 5 golds (200m fly, 200m medley, 4x100m free, 4x200m free, 4x100m medley) and one silver (100m fly).
To win at least 4 gold medals in four straight olympiads, to win 6 medals in four straight olympiads, is just mind-boggling. I know swimming is quirky in that it's strange to get rewarded for swimming in just a different way, but there are different distances and skill sets involved and the fact is, even though it's quirky, nobody else in history has managed to do what he has done. And his olympic schedule is just insanely grueling with all those events.
I have no doubt that if he put his mind to it and focused on just, say, two events, he could win gold in 2020 at age 35. No doubt in my mind at all. No way could he compete in as many events but if he wanted to win just ONE more gold...yes he could do it.
I think Russell was as great as Jordan - 1A and 1B IMO
For Orr vs Gretsky, this has been a long running debate. Of course I pick Orr but I'm a totaly biased Boston homer. But the argument for Orr is that he was as brilliant offensively as Gretsky PLUS was strong defensively (Gretsky was not) AND an excellent checker (not Gretsky) and revolutionized the game. But Gretsky's career was much longer and so his overall career scoring numbers were jaw dropping. So to me, if the criteria is who was best in his prime, it was Orr. If the criteria is who was best over his entire career, it was Gretsky
For Orr vs Gretsky, this has been a long running debate. Of course I pick Orr but I'm a totaly biased Boston homer. But the argument for Orr is that he was as brilliant offensively as Gretsky PLUS was strong defensively (Gretsky was not) AND an excellent checker (not Gretsky) and revolutionized the game. But Gretsky's career was much longer and so his overall career scoring numbers were jaw dropping. So to me, if the criteria is who was best in his prime, it was Orr. If the criteria is who was best over his entire career, it was Gretsky
I love Bobby Orr as much as you did but Gretzky set 40NHL regular season records and 16 playoff records. And he revolutionized the euro style of hockey. And like i said there would be no NHL teams in the south or southwest without him. Plus 9 MVPs and 10 scoring titles. Greatest in any of the 4 major sports.
And he was a great fighter in the day when that was important. No one messed with him and the few who tried ended up in a bloody mess. Pat Quinn and Keith Magnuson come to mind. Those few years when he wasn’t hurt were glorious. I won’t live long enough to look back 40 or 50 years to Brady.
I’m guessing kids today will look back on Brady the way I look back at the great Bobby Orr.