Mt. Rushmore of world Sports.

[QUOTE=miller-time]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:

[IMG]http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/1507/bradman.jpg[/IMG]

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[/QUOTE]

Very Interesting. Repped. Where did you get this?

[QUOTE=LJJ]
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.[/QUOTE]

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.



[QUOTE=LJJ]
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.[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=LJJ]And you couldn't even get the main objective of football right. The main objective of football is not scoring goals.[/QUOTE]

Really?! What is then?

[QUOTE=lakers_forever]Very Interesting. Repped. Where did you get this?[/QUOTE]

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

was just reading it, thought this was interesting to:

[quote]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?"[/quote]

[quote=lakers_forever]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?[/quote]

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.

43 points a game?:eek:

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

[QUOTE=darius15]43 points a game?:eek:

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

it has to be marketing, i'm not a cricket fan but i am an australian so i should know more about bradman than tiger right? but i don't.

[QUOTE=LJJ]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.[/QUOTE]

I'm soth american and love football history. Garrincha was not the best player in 1958. He was the best player in the 1962 World Cup. If you make some research, you can find out.

You don't even know me. How can you say that I don't no anything about brazilian football in the 60's?

All Santos games with Pele against italian teams;
Note that all games were played in Italy, Santos always playing as the away team:

Friday June, 5 1959 Santos 2 x 3 Internazionale (Italy) Goals by Pele = 2
Friday June 26, 1959 Santos 7 x 1 Internazionale - Goals by Pele 4
Tuesday June, 30 1959 Santos 4 x 0 - No goals by Pele
Thursday May, 12 1960 Brasil 2 x 2 Internazionale - 2 goals by Pele
Wednesday June, 1 1960 Santos 3 x 2 Roma - 1 Goal by Pele
Friday June, 3 1960 Santos 0 x 3 Fiorentina
Sunday June, 18 1961 Santos 2 x 0 Juventus 1 goal by Pele
Wednesday June, 21 1961 Santos 5 x 0 - 2 Goals by Pele
Saturday June, 24 1961 Santos 4 x 0 Internazionale - 1 Goal by Pele
Saturday June, 15 1963 Santos 4 x 3 Roma - 2 goals by Pele
Wednesday June, 19 1963 Santos 0 x 2 Internazionale
Saturday June, 22 1963 Santos 0 x 4 Milan
Wednesday June, 26 1963 Santos 3 x 5 Juventus - 1 Goal by Pele
Wednesday October, 16 1963 Santos 2 x Milan 4 - 2 goals by Pele
Monday September 5, 1966 Santos 4 x 1 Internazionale - 1 goal by Pele
Saturday June, 17 1967 Santos 2 x 1 Manotva - 1 goal by Pele
Tuesday June, 20 1967 Santos 1 x o Veneza
Saturday June, 24 1967 Santos 5 x 1 Lecce - 3 goals by Pele
Tuesday June, 27 1967 Santos 1 x 1 Fiorentina
Thursday June, 29 1967 Santos 3 x 1 Roma - 1 goal by Pele
Saturday August, 26 1967 Santos 0 x 1 Internazionale
Sunday June, 9 1968 Santos 2 x 1 Cagliari
Wednesday June, 12 1968 Santos 2 x Alessandria 0 - 1 goal by Pele
Friday June, 21 1968 Santos 4 x 2 Napoli - 1 goal by Pele
Wednesday June, 26 1968 Santos 6 x 2 Napoli - 2 goals by Pele
Friday June, 28 1968 Santos 5 x 2 Napoli - 2 goals by Pele
Tuesday June, 24 1969 Santos 1 x 0 Internazionale
Wednesday September 24, 1969, Santos 7 x 1 Combined Genova/Sampodria - 2 goals by Pele
Wednesday June, 23 1971 Santos 2 x 1 Bologna 1 - 1 goal by Pele
Sunday June, 27 1971 Santos 1 x 1 Bologna
Wednesday June, 30 1971 Santos 1 x 0 BOlogna - 1 goal by Pele
Friday March, 3 1972 Santos 2 x 0 Roma
Sunday March, 5 1972 Santos 3 x 2 Napoli - 2 goals by Pele
Saturday April, 29 1972 Santos 1 x 0 Napoli
Monday May, 1 1972 Santos 3 x 2 Cagliari - 2 goals by Pele
Sunday June, 25 1972 Santos 7 x 2 Catanzaro
Friday May, 25 1973 Santos 3 x 0 Lazio - 1 goal by Pele
Monday May, 28 1973 Santos 4 x 2 Lazio - 2 goals by Pele

41 goals in 38 games. That gives him a 1.07 goals per game, better than his career average of 0.93 goals per game.

18 year old Pele in a tour in Europe against European teams.

Wednesday June, 24 1959. Valencia 4 x 4 Santos. 1 goal by Pele
Friday June 26, 1959, Internazionale (Italy) 1 x 7 Santos. 4 goals by Pele. :bowdown:
Sunday June, 28 1959. Barcelona 1 x 5 Santos. 2 goals by Pele.

Santos was the best team in the world. Pele had a better goal average in hundreds of games agaisnt european teams than he did in his career.

If you want, I can give you a list of all Pele goals in his career.

South American Champion Santos against European Champion Benfica. Both teams played in Intercontinental Cup to decide who was the best in the world.
Santos beat Benfica 5 goals to 2 in Portugal. Pele scored 3 and gave on assist.

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdLCqvSO3SM&feature=related[/url]

Okay, that's cool. :cheers:

All those games played in june though, so they don't hold a lot of importance, but the European teams all on their home turf.

Still though, Maradona on the pitch is probably the most impressive I have seen. But I have only seen some of the early WC footage.

[QUOTE=LJJ]Okay, that's cool. :cheers:

All those games played in june though, so they don't hold a lot of importance, but the European teams all on their home turf.

Still though, Maradona on the pitch is probably the most impressive I have seen. But I have only seen some of the early WC footage.[/QUOTE]

:cheers:

It does hold a lot of importance. Old football journalists say that all those teams wanted to beat Santos and slow down the Pele "hype".
Check some Pele hilights in youtube. You'll be impressed on how he dominated evert aspect of football abilty. :cheers:

I'm ignorant on Golf. Never liked it. Can anyone tell me if Tiger Woods is already considered the best ever? Does he have all time records and stuff like that already?

BTW, last week the German newspaper Bild made a survey to chose the world's greatest sportsmen.

Here are the results:
1.Muhammad Ali
2.Pele
3.Michael Schumacher
4.Michael Jordan
5.Roger Federer
6.Franz Beckenbauer
7.Jesse Owens
8.Diego Maradona
9.Carl Lewis
10.Michael Phelps


A clear bias for German athletes. Maradona should be ahead of Beckenbauer and Jordan should definetly be ahead of Schumacher. Ali and Pele can be first or second place. You can't go wrong with either of them.


[url]http://www.bild.de/BILD/news/bild-english/sport-news/more-sport/2009/07/07/worlds-greatest-ever-sportsmen/roger-federer-fifth-place-in-top-ten-list.html[/url]

kwame brown, rick ross, michael jackson, george w

Peter Schmeichel >>>>>> Pele and Maradona.

[QUOTE=lakers_forever]BTW, last week the German newspaper Bild made a survey to chose the world's greatest sportsmen.

Here are the results:
1.Muhammad Ali
2.Pele
3.Michael Schumacher
4.Michael Jordan
5.Roger Federer
6.Franz Beckenbauer
7.Jesse Owens
8.Diego Maradona
9.Carl Lewis
10.Michael Phelps


A clear bias for German athletes. Maradona should be ahead of Beckenbauer and Jordan should definetly be ahead of Schumacher. Ali and Pele can be first or second place. You can't go wrong with either of them.


[url]http://www.bild.de/BILD/news/bild-english/sport-news/more-sport/2009/07/07/worlds-greatest-ever-sportsmen/roger-federer-fifth-place-in-top-ten-list.html[/url][/QUOTE]
What the hell is Shoe maker and Phelps doing on this list? Germans, gotta love em'.

in order

michael schumacher- goat
michael jordan
roger federer


gap.


ali/tiger etc.

Bump


I saw the thread in the nba forum and remembered this one.

So, most agree with Pele, Jordan and Ali. Who would be the 4th one?

I said Jesse Owens, but I'm not sure. Michael Schumacher, Bradman, Carl Lewis, Michael Phelps, Babe Ruth, Usain Bolt, Federer (maybe Nadal in the near future), Gretzky, Jim Brown. The problem with Gretzky, BRadman, Jim Brown and Ruth is that they have not transcended the sport. If you don't follow those sports and are not from their countries, chances are you never even heard of them.

I guess I would still choose Jesse Owens.

Bradman should be the unanimous #1.

Bradman
Jordan
Gretzky
Ali

Mohammed Ali
Michael Jordan
Diego Maradona
Michael Schumacher

MJ,Tiger, Ali and Pele

MJ, Ali, Pele, Gretzy

They each redefined sport.

MJ in the air
Ali with his flair
Pele (i actually dunno anything about him)
"The Great One"

Pele
Ali
Jordan

Bradman Can someone speak on Bradman's defense tho? I mean defense as a fielder. The metric I see is an offensive measure. Also was he an ambassador for the sport. Can't put him there if he lacks in those dimensions.

Feels kind of weird that Track and Field or the Olympic athletes don't win out - Phelps and Carl Lewis don't quite get it for me. We got air, Ali for fire so Phelps makes sense if you want to do water.

Gretsky is definitely up there.

On the side:

Pele meant much more to Futbol than Maradona even without the goals and winning being in his favor in a big way. More people came to the sport and wanted to be skilled because of Pele than anybody else anyway. He transcended the sport and rivaled Ali on the world stage.

Messi, Ali, Jordan, Schumacher.

99% of the posts in this thread are american centric.

With the exception of soccer most of the sports mentioned in this thread are basically popular north american sports. Basketball, boxing, golf, hockey, baseball etc

Badminton, Cricket, Rugby, Figure skating (its extremely popular in some countries), gymnastics, etc. Arent considered at all.

[QUOTE=sundizz]MJ, Ali, Pele, Gretzy

They each redefined sport.

MJ in the air
Ali with his flair
Pele (i actually dunno anything about him)
"The Great One"[/QUOTE]

Pele redefined football/soccer. First, a teen prodigy. Then a the first real super athlete (strong, fast, if you look the footages, specially in the early 60's, he looks like a player from the future playing in the past) and the first worldwide football superstar who transcended the sport. Dude literally put Brazil on the map. Before Pele, the Brazilian NT was only the third football power of South America. With him, it became the greatest in the world and Brazil synonymous with football.

[QUOTE=Pointguard]

On the side:

Pele meant much more to Futbol than Maradona even without the goals and winning being in his favor in a big way. More people came to the sport and wanted to be skilled because of Pele than anybody else anyway. He transcended the sport and rivaled Ali on the world stage.[/QUOTE]

Yep. Maradona himself was a huge Pele fan and like everyone after Pele, wore the 10 because of him. Because of Pele, the "10" became the symbol of the team's best player.

Apparently the 4 most popular sports are football, basketball, cricket and tennis.

Pele
Jordan
Tendulkar
Federer

[QUOTE=lakers_forever]Yep. Maradona himself was a huge Pele fan and like everyone after Pele, wore the 10 because of him. Because of Pele, the "10" became the symbol of the team's best player.[/QUOTE]

Hey, you have some great post in this thread! Thanks for the education.

[QUOTE=MavsSuperFan]99% of the posts in this thread are american centric.

With the exception of soccer most of the sports mentioned in this thread are basically popular north american sports. Basketball, boxing, golf, hockey, baseball etc

Badminton, Cricket, Rugby, Figure skating (its extremely popular in some countries), gymnastics, etc. Arent considered at all.[/QUOTE]
Hockey Golf and Boxing are world wide. Golf is an expensive sport so not that popular But resorts around the world have it. Both Ali and Jordan were considered among the most recognizable faces on the planet and this was before the internet.

Badminton? Really?

messi, jordan, lebron, federer, ali

MJ, Zidane, Tiger, Federer.

Kobe, Kareem, Magic, Shaq

Jordan, Ruth, Pele, Ali

[QUOTE=Pointguard]Bradman Can someone speak on Bradman's defense tho? I mean defense as a fielder. The metric I see is an offensive measure. Also was he an ambassador for the sport. Can't put him there if he lacks in those dimensions.
[/QUOTE]
Interesting thought, batting in cricket is just as much of an offensive measure as it is a defensive measure. A one-dimensional batsman is someone who only bats slow, or fast, or too defensively, etc. Versatility in batting style and temperament is a prerequisite to be even a "good" batsman at the top level, with a few exceptions (you can get away with being aggressive all the time if you have incredible hand-eye co-ordination and/or technique). So from a cricket POV he's got that well covered. He apparently had a great defensive technique that allowed him to bat for ages, while having an aggressive streak as well that allowed him to score a century in the first session of a Test match (a feat that is still unmatched I think). I mean that right there is video game stuff.

He was also a part time bowler (leg break) which would be baseball's equivalent to a relief pitcher. Though that is nowhere near as impressive as it sounds. Almost every experienced cricketer is a part time bowler of some sort.

I am not sure how much has been written about his fielding, but I'm curious now and shall start digging. I'll let you know if I find something. :cheers:

What do you mean by ambassador of the sport? Does this apply?

[QUOTE]After retirement Sir Donald Bradman remained a great ambassador for the sport. He was knighted for his services to cricket and remained open to an adoring public, even though he remained publicity shy throughout the period. In 2001, the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, said he was the greatest living Australian.[/QUOTE]

[url]http://www.biographyonline.net/sport/cricketers/donald-bradman.html[/url]

[QUOTE=nightprowler10]Interesting thought, batting in cricket is just as much of an offensive measure as it is a defensive measure. A one-dimensional batsman is someone who only bats slow, or fast, or too defensively, etc. Versatility in batting style and temperament is a prerequisite to be even a "good" batsman at the top level, with a few exceptions (you can get away with being aggressive all the time if you have incredible hand-eye co-ordination and/or technique). So from a cricket POV he's got that well covered. He apparently had a great defensive technique that allowed him to bat for ages, while having an aggressive streak as well that allowed him to score a century in the first session of a Test match (a feat that is still unmatched I think). I mean that right there is video game stuff.

He was also a part time bowler (leg break) which would be baseball's equivalent to a relief pitcher. Though that is nowhere near as impressive as it sounds. Almost every experienced cricketer is a part time bowler of some sort.

I am not sure how much has been written about his fielding, but I'm curious now and shall start digging. I'll let you know if I find something. :cheers:

What do you mean by ambassador of the sport? Does this apply?

[url]http://www.biographyonline.net/sport/cricketers/donald-bradman.html[/url][/QUOTE]
Thanks, good stuff!

Usain Bolt and Takeru Kobayashi deserve spots.

Bradman, Jordan, Gretzky, Ali

Pele is not the consensus greatest football player like the guys above are usually regarded as the greatest in their own respective sport. He's more like the Bill Russel of football.

[QUOTE=HardwoodLegend]Usain Bolt and Takeru Kobayashi deserve spots.[/QUOTE]
Bolt has been accused of roiding (I don't believe it though) and Kobayashi got screwed over by the establishment. Though he is, in my opinion, the greatest in his craft

Muhammad Ali
Michael "Air" Jordan
Pele
Wayne Gretzky



-Tiger Woods came close but the big drop in performance last 5 years since the scandal has closed the book on him permanently.
-Babe Ruth comes very close, but I feel as if quite a few other mlb players come close to him in shear impact.

[QUOTE=bladefd]Muhammad Ali
Michael "Air" Jordan
Pele
Wayne Gretzky
[/QUOTE]

If we omit Babe Ruth we also omit any f*cking cricket player.

These are the consensus global sports (golf is not a sport, cricket is a colonial pass time).

I'd drop Ali for a track and field star but it is too tricky to find consensus.

[QUOTE=Manute for Ever!]Melbourne Cricket Ground seats approximately 100,000 people. City of Melbourne has a population of about 3,000,000.

[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/Mcg_internal_odi_medium.jpg/800px-Mcg_internal_odi_medium.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/MCG_Crowd.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://media.lifehacker.com.au/mt/MCG_stadium.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]

Whoop-dee-f*ckin-doo! Baseball draws half of that in 30 cities 81 times per year. Math skews baseball.

And leave the 'world sport' shit at home, it is ONLY popular in ex-colonial haunts and the numbers skew large because of India's participation.

We could make using chopsticks a sport and it would be the most popular because 2 Billion Asians use them.

UK, Aus, NZ, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, SA, and West Indies...dassit! The only countries that can compete for a world championship.

That puts you similar to hockey or baseball. Take away British India (India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh) and you got a bunch of tiny countries, with small populations.

This is Mt. Rushmore, not Mt. Rushhour, cricket gets cut, so does baseball.