Who is the Most influential Figure in Post-War World Sport.
 

The BBC asked this question this morning and I've been thinking about it a lot all day.

Apparantly, the criteria is not just a person's impact within their own sport, but within sport generally.

Personally, I'm going (albeit tentativelly) with Pele. Who was arguably the first sportsman to be thought of as a genius, in the same sense that, say, a painter was. Ali would be another obvious candidate - although for slightly different reasons.

The BBC were clearly adressing an Anglo-European audience (they mentioned David Beckham) and I'm anticipating that a country such as the US would have a radically different take on things.

So anyway, I'm going - admittedly without much confidence - for Pele.

Hmm

Off the top of my head, the names of Ali, Gehrig and Beckenbauer come to mind.

Edit: God damn it, Gehrigs career ended before the war. But his story sticks out for me above everyone else to be honest.

It's tricky, because you'd have to go for a sport with a broad appeal. If you were saying snooker players, I'd go with Davis or (in a few years time) Hendry or O'Sullivan. In itself this shows my age, as I can't remember Willie Thorn as a player. But snooker is hardly the most popular of sports.

I wonder if it's asking about their personality, their life, general influence as well? Y'know, in a Martina Navratilova kind of way.

Obviously, some smart-arse is going to say Kasparov, who's probably a million times closer to 'real' genius than Pele, but chess isn't a sport. It is something, but that something isn't a sport.

I don't think cricketers would get the mass appeal either. For all Warne's absurd ability, or Lara's legend, or the sheer 'how the fuck?!' of Muralitharan, do these players mean anything to non-cricket fans? I'm a non-football fan, and Péle certainly means something to me.

I'd expect some might say Tiger Woods. Is he as good as Sebe? I dunno, but he's certainly high-profile.

Anyway. The obvious answer is Fred Perry. Table Tennis champion, last Brit to win Wimbledon and inventor of a shirt so ubiquitous no-one ever thinks to associate it with Fred.

A fair point regarding Gehrig (even if he doesn't quite fit the timeframe) but would you say he had any real influence outside of the US.

BTW, just as the BBC were, I'm being rather vague regarding the word 'influential'.

Bubka.

Rubbish. Perry doesn't quite fit the post-war bit.

Yes I agree with a number of the problems you pose.

I assume that the BBC referred to a figure's broad influence within sport in general. Realistically, as you mention, it has to be a fairly universal sport: football, athletics, boxing and tennis.

I'm willing to stand corrected, but I'm beginning to drift towards nominating George Best, whose general reception by both professionals, critics and fans seems to have completely validated the notion of the way-ward genius, so crucial to the career of Ayrton Senna, Ronnie O'Sullivan, Paul Gascoigne, Zidane, John McEnroe, Mike Tyson, and so on. Prior to Best, It could be argued that sportsmen were thought of either as professional athletes, or craftsmen. Best may not have been responsible for the idea of the sporting genius (I still stand by Pele for this) but being read as the 'tortured genius' he defines the critical reception of so many sportspersons today.

Why is basketball not a universal sport?

May we include biggest negative influence?

Because most of the world outside of the US and parts of Asia and Central/South America has nothing but a passing interest in it.

Look, let's not not get hung up on this point. We all know that some sports have a broader global appeal than others.

America, maybe Mexico, Japan and, I think, Holland... I can't think of any other countries that are internationally known for playing basketball.

I'm sure if you were asking this question in South Asia you'd see a lot of Kabbadi, Hockey and Cricket players.

Take a look at NBA rosters (not that you will anyway) and its obvious how global a game it has become. Top players in the NBA hail from Serbia, Spain, France, China, various African nations, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Lithuania, Russia etc.

I would argue the global spread of basketball is due in some part to the mega star Micheal Jordan was in the 80s and 90s.

The USA has lost the last three big tournaments they've played in to the likes of new powers like Argentina and Spain.

I stand corrected. But I'll say that if you're including Basketball players, the roster of internationally brilliant cricket sides would probably dwarf that of Basketballing nations.

Edit: I should note, and even that doesn't mean there's that many cricket players that non-cricket fans would recognise.

Exactly, which is the very reason why I never brought Steve Redgrave into the equation. I can already hear half the posters muttering to themselves, "steve who?" To which I'd reply, "exactly."

If I wasn't British, I wouldn't give a fuck who he was or that he does the sport he does. What was the name of our cyclist? Same thing. Well done and all that, but for fuck's sake can't we just once be best at a sport that everyone enjoys?

Permit me to say that while basketball may take players from around the world, it's committed fanbase exists within a very specific group of territories. Even countries as sports mad as the UK, India or Australia provide it with little more than a cult following.

it did happen: