Which 4 heads would you put on a cricketing Mount Rushmore?

[cnerd123]

Well, I did just spell out my criteria, and being 'iconic' wasn't the be-all and end-all. That said, I do think as 'iconic' as Viv and Sachin both were/are, Sobers was at least their equal in this regard. I'm not basing this on the population of their respective fan-bases either, but by how 'iconic' Sobers was held within the cricketing community. If there's anyone with their nose in front of 'Viv' in terms of being a West Indian icon, it has to be Sobers.

To say 1 billion Indian fans dont count as part of this 'cricketing community' is a bit elitist IMO.

 

[mr_mister]

how about

taylor
warner
langer
sachin


mount midgetmore
mount smallmore


either work fine

 

[mr_mister]

garner
ambrose
moody
mohammed irfan

mount tallmore

 

[Zinzan]

but the population thing is very, very relevant. One of the biggest reasons M. Ali was so iconic was because he was Ameircan, black and represented the fact that black men could be the best at their field in a field as incredibly popular as boxing at the time. If he wasn't American or black or was at the top of a field less prominent than than boxing or wasn't born at that particular time when racial tensions were high etc., he wouldn't be as important a cultural symbol though he'd be as awesome a boxer.

To determine if someone is iconic, fortune, circumstances etc. obviously come into play. You can't wash them away.

Sorry, had missed this earlier.

Agree with all of it, particularly Ali needing to have been born in the US & not some obscure African country to have been known. Had he been born in Zaire, he'd be a Neville-nobody.

This is different though, all these cricketers we're discussing are famous in their own right, but of course the player most famous in the country with twice the population of the rest of the cricketing world combined will be most well-known. If this population/popularity thing is important to your criteria, then I totally understand why you wouldn't hesitate in choosing Tendulkar.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

but the population thing is very, very relevant. One of the biggest reasons M. Ali was so iconic was because he was Ameircan, black and represented the fact that black men could be the best at their field in a field as incredibly popular as boxing at the time. If he wasn't American or black or was at the top of a field less prominent than than boxing or wasn't born at that particular time when racial tensions were high etc., he wouldn't be as important a cultural symbol though he'd be as awesome a boxer.

To determine if someone is iconic, fortune, circumstances etc. obviously come into play. You can't wash them away.

Muhammad Ali may be iconic, but not for the reasons given by you in bold. Jack Johnson and Joe Louis, to name but a few, had already done that.

Muhammad Ali is widely regarded as the greatest ever boxer. His timing coincided with African American civil rights movements in America, as well as the Vietnam War, and Muhammad Ali is iconic for his name change from Classitius Clay to the Islamic name he is now known by, and for his opposition to the war in Vietnam. Religious freedom, racial equality and peace in Vietnam were all contentious political issues he took strong positions on, that were not always in the majority of popularity even if greeted favorably by modern writing of history, all while being a currently active professional sports person.

For most USA people of his era, when they hear the name Muhammad Ali, they think of the name change and the religious and racial issues that evokes as well as the Vietnam War conscription that he opposed and was stripped of his title for, as well as being a great boxer.

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Agree with all of it, particularly Ali needing to have been born in the US & not some obscure African country to have been known. Had he been born in Zaire, he'd be a Neville-nobody.

Disagree with this. Boxing is a truly international sport, and a boxer does not need to be from the USA to obtain recognition and be known as being a great boxer. A boxer from smaller or poorer nations may well have a harder road to the top, but a great world champion is a great world champion.

 

[Zinzan]

To say 1 billion Indian fans dont count as part of this 'cricketing community' is a bit elitist IMO.

The 'cricketing community' I refer to is anyone who is well educated on the history of the game, which incidentally refers to pretty much everyone I know on this forum for a start.

You think I'd take the opinion of Amrita Patel of Rajasthan, who could name no more than 10 cricketers on a good day than say your opinion, on a cricket related topic?

 

[Zinzan]

Disagree with this. Boxing is a truly international sport, and a boxer does not need to be from the USA to obtain recognition and be known as being a great boxer. A boxer from smaller or poorer nations may well have a harder road to the top, but a great world champion is a great world champion.

Had he been born in Zaire in the 1940s, he'd likely never even been introduced to boxing and even if he was, nobody from Zaire would have got anywhere in international boxing at the time. C'mon Grumps, you know your history.

 

[mr_mister]

would boxing be ali, tyson, mayweather and jake lamotta?

i dont know much abou boxing, tho i know manny p, smokin' joe, foreman, lennox and hollyfield werent as famous as the first three i mentioned. i know rocky marciano probs deserves to be in there as the token white guy but raging bull was about lamotta, thats gotta help his cred

 

[Zinzan]

would boxing be ali, tyson, mayweather and jake lamotta?

i dont know much abou boxing, tho i know manny p, smokin' joe, foreman, lennox and hollyfield werent as famous as the first three i mentioned. i know rocky marciano probs deserves to be in there as the token white guy but raging bull was about lamotta, thats gotta help his cred

Joe Louis, Sugar Ray Robinson, Muhammad Ali & Henry Armstrong would be a good shout. Or Don King if you're talking influence.

 

[mr_mister]

ah yeah don king

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Had he been born in Zaire in the 1940s, he'd likely never even been introduced to boxing and even if he was, nobody from Zaire would have got anywhere in international boxing at the time. C'mon Grumps, you know your history.

I'm no expert on Zaire, but boxing was held at the very first All African games in 1965.

African boxers started appearing with more prevalence in the Olympics in the 1950's.

Totally agree that accident of birth influences a lot, including introductions, opportunities and training.

But, I disagree with you all the same on the original point, Muhammad Ali could have been born in a large number of countries, rich and poor, big and small, and become a world champion. As long as there was a Boxing club in the country, it was possible. Boxing is a global and individual sport with low barriers to entry.

 

[G.I.Joe]

BTW, I'm not arguing against Tendulkar being a phenomenal icon in India, just pointing out it really does help in matters of fame when there's 1.25 billion in your country.

Zinzan, what would it take for an Indian cricketer to be considered iconic (according to your criteria)? Or do you intend to keep trotting out the extremely simplistic 1.25 billion argument for every single hypothetical answer?

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

Zinzan, what would it take for an Indian cricketer to be considered iconic (according to your criteria)? Or do you intend to keep trotting out the extremely simplistic 1.25 billion argument for every single hypothetical answer?

For Zinzan, sounds like a batting average and a high score between Sobers and Bradman, possibly with some wickets at good value, over a regular appearance ten to fifteen year career, with some tidy fielding and successful captaincy.

I personally have Imran ahead of Sobers as a cricketer, but I think bowlers are under valued.

 

[G.I.Joe]

For Zinzan, sounds like a batting average and a high score between Sobers and Bradman, possibly with some wickets at good value, over a regular appearance ten to fifteen year career, with some tidy fielding and successful captaincy.

I personally have Imran ahead of Sobers as a cricketer, but I think bowlers are under valued.

You're looking for a better cricketer.

There's a difference between looking for an iconic figure and awaiting a better cricketer.

 

[Prince EWS]

Grace, Bradman, Imran, Tendulkar

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

You're looking for a better cricketer.

There's a difference between looking for an iconic figure and awaiting a better cricketer.

Oh I agree with your second line. But you're wrong about the first line. Read back a few pages. I don't think Bradman makes this mountain as a 'certain selection', let alone Sobers or Tendulkar.

I have WG Grace and Kerry Packer as my first two certainties on the mountain. I don't even know if Kerry Packer ever even played the game in his backyard.

 

[Prince EWS]

I actually really like the Packer nomination but I couldn't roll that way myself.

 

[mr_mister]

nobody in their right mind would give the all to clear to chisel kerry ****ing packer's mug on this hypothetical mountain. i understand your line of thinking, i do, but it wont happen

 

[CaptainGrumpy]

I actually really like the Packer nomination but I couldn't roll that way myself.

I've managed to sway others. I reckon I could possibly sway you over time from a multitude of different angles. George Washington was a general and the first president, but was he the best soldier on the field?

Its hard to think of anyone who has changed the game more since him. He fought and won his own Packer Cricket revolution.