Just what do you mean “great?”
Random thought time: What makes something/someone “great”?
Merriam-Webster offers us definitions for “great” as adjective, verb, and noun. The earliest form of the English word (as an adjective) boil down to “large” – so a “great person” in the 12th century would have just been “exceptionally large.”
Of course saying something is “large” or “small” is always going to be a little subjective – i.e. “large” or “small” compared to what?
Is it then in the act of comparison that we can find “greatness?” Even if we are objectively measuring something (like height or weight) we still need more data – first a time and/or place – e.g. “that is the largest/greatest watermelon ever grown in such and such location and place” – and then someone to actually perform/verify the measurement (in 2021 “Guinness World Records” still settle a lot of bets – btw HEAVIEST watermelon measured is 159 kilograms).
Of all time …
Of course, something like weight or height is measured easily enough – and can then be compared across spans of time with little argument.
Calling something “great” implies “superiority” of some kind. e.g. “That one is GREATER/SUPERIOR than the others.”
However, problems creep in when you try to compare “human performance” and/or “different eras” – i.e. we are no longer able to make “objective” arguments because we aren’t really comparing the same things.
A little pretentious Latin …
Allowances must also be made for individual tastes/preferences (De gustibus non est disputandum). e.g. Arguing over the “greatest ice cream flavor” is pointless – MY favorite flavor is simply my preference, and is completely subjective/personal.
You might be able to find copious data about the volume of ice cream sold/consumed in specific geographic areas but that still isn’t a measure of “greatness/superiority.”
The human drama of athletic competition …
Full disclosure – I have watched a lot of televised sports in my lifetime. This becomes relevant simply because “watching sports” almost always means “listening to sports announcers.”
A “good announcer” enhances the game – while a “not so good announcer” becomes an annoyance. This is another great example of not being able to argue about personal taste. No matter what an announcer does, they can’t please EVERYBODY – so I’ll just say that I sympathize with the announcers plight, and point out one of pet peeves …
Hasty generalizations/bias/filling dead air
The reality is that I don’t listen to “sports announcers” when I understand the sport in question.
First: I don’t need someone to tell me what I am seeing. In this scenario the announcer becomes “irritating noise” rather than “useful information.”
Second: There tends to be a lot of “fill time” in most broadcasts. The challenge (for the announcers) becomes finding something interesting to talk about – when nothing interesting is happening. Again, tastes differ – but I probably have the volume turned down, simply because I have a low tolerance for “inane chatter.”
One of those forms of “inane chatter” is to talk endlessly about how great the athletes are performing, and/or how an athlete is the GREATEST OF ALL TIME (G.O.A.T.).
Examples abound. I understand the announcers need to talk about SOMETHING – but simply telling us that “so and so” is the “greatest such and such” isn’t interesting/entertaining.
Statistics
Yes, we can compare statistics as well as wins and loses – but unless it is an individual sport, arguing that an athlete is the G.O.A.T. is probably just inane chatter (of course, that doesn’t mean that the athlete in question isn’t “great” – but constantly talking about how great they are is a little pointless).
We also have to make room for significant rule changes within the sport in question. Consider “major league baseball” the lowest ERA ever recorded by a starting pitcher happened in 1968 – then in 1969 the pitching mound was lowered 5 inches.
Just to be clear – the rule change in itself isn’t important. However comparing “historic” pitcher ERA’s becomes two data sets – “before the mound was lowered” and “after the mound was lowered.”
Sports I watch every four years …
The Olympics are in full swing at the moment. Women’s gymnastics is one of those sports I hear about (or pay attention to) when the Olympics roll around.
I freely admit I am not an expert in “women’s gymnastics” so (if I had watched any of the event) I would have been compelled to listen to the announcers.
I’m not looking to criticize anyone – athlete or announcer. HOWEVER the G.O.A.T. term keep popping up. Again, I am not an expert on Olympic gymnastics – but I’ll point out that there have been some significant rule changes that (probably) create “multiple datasets” for the sport.
Nadia Comăneci was 14 years old when she became the first gymnast to score a “perfect 10” (1976). In 1981 the minimum age for gymnastics competitors was raised to 15 years old, then to 16 years old in 1993.
The point is that in “women’s gymnastics” the “younger” girls (14-15 year olds) tend to have a competitive advantage over the “older” girls (18+) – just biology at work.
Again, to be clear – the rule change in and of itself isn’t the issue. I’ve never heard anyone argue that the minimum age rule change was a bad idea (the linked article argues the limit should be raised to 18 – I don’t honestly have an opinion, but with the “other issues” facing the sport it makes perfect sense).
The “greatness” question
All together now: “Sports should not be the most important thing in an athlete’s life.”
It may be apocryphal – but the story goes that Vince Lombardi used to tell his Green Bay Packer teams that he wanted them to put football “third.” First and second should be their religion and family, but after those top two priorities, Mr Lombardi wanted players to put “pro football” ahead of everything else.
I mention this because “keeping things in perspective” tends to be a challenge for elite athletes. On one hand they have to be willing to “put in the work” just to BE an elite athlete, but then the very nature of “sports” means things will happen outside of their control.
SO with that in mind “true greatness” is not just about “performance in the arena.”
Perseverance
True, all “elite athletes” have “endured the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune” to some extent – just for fun I’ll argue that the “truly great” have also persevered.
This becomes the difference between someone “having a great year” and “being a great competitor.” Then (again, thought experiment, just for fun) “being truly great” is when great physical ability/talent combines with endurance/perseverance and just enough good fortune (not a household name in 2021 – but Dan Jansen comes to mind.)
ANYWAY
Injuries happen, bad performances happen – good days/bad days happen – which is probably what makes “sports” fun to watch in the first place.
The NFL used to claim that “any team can beat any other team on any given Sunday” – i.e. all of the teams competing consist of great athletes and coaches. Another way to say the same concept might be that the “margin for error” between the best and worst teams is extremely small.
SO arguably in ANY “professional sport” there are never any true “upsets.” The true “Cinderella story” requires amateur athletes … but THAT is another post …