Okay, I'll foolishly swim into even deeper waters...
The arguments for Wayne Gretsky and Pele are compelling, and I could
easily see them on a fictional "Mount Rushmore" of sports athletes. I'll
double down on Michael Jordan, though. Some commenters have
mentioned "commercial impact", and I don't agree with that as a prime
mover for membership in an exclusive club such as "4 best ever" in sports,
"Mount Rushmore", etc. Jordan was a wonderful player (and so were guys
like Russell, Robertson, Bird, and so on). He was also Tracy McGrady at the
beginning of his career, horrible at the end, and "mysteriously absent"
(wink wink) in the middle of it. It's wonderful for his bank account that
Nike was enamored of him, but that dog won't hunt. Many folks have
named athletes whose impact on the sport, or perhaps society, was greater
than Jordan's and who were paid only a small fraction of what Jordan
earned- and he STILL got out earned in endorsements many times
by...drum roll, please- Michael Schumacher!!
As for people "not caring" about that tiny little absence at the height of his
fame, I'm sure many fans could persuade themselves not to care. Even if
I could be persuaded to get there, however, it sure wipes him out of a
Mount Rushmore chat. These are opinions, which is what was called for-
and that's my explanation. I'll take cover now
Trent King