Find in the attached

The continuous argument of the all-time best seems to be a craze affecting all sports in these times. There is an obsession with sporting greatness and todays sports media landscape is quick to label players as the GOAT much more quickly than ever before. Current players across all sports live in a much more pressurised, scrutinised world than the athletes of yesteryear and it has begs an interesting question.

What defines greatness?

As a keen sports fan myself, I have heard many different arguments thrown around from the so-called experts to armchair analysts to casual fans. When it comes to the pinnacle of sporting achievement, most people tend to have an opinion, regardless of how well thought out their opinion is. To delve a little deeper into this phenomenon, I aim to lay out a few of the more favoured points in this realm and ask any reader of this to really think about how you quantify greatness.

Winning

The most obvious factor in any sport is how much any given sporting individual has won. While total wins are sometimes a good indicator, there is more weight attributed to winning ‘major’ tournaments. In the US sports set-up, the top professional leagues tend to have single trophies as goals but individual sports label certain tournaments with more weight.

Indicative of success at the highest level, ‘major’ tournaments usually provide the best measure of greatness in individual sports. An individual is, after all, the only one who controls their chances at success and that lack of reliance on teammates means that there are fewer perceived obstacles in the way of success. A great example of one of the GOATs in this area is Roger Federer. His 17 Grand Slam titles eclipses any other player in history. While Federer hasn’t been at his sparkling best for the past few years, his greatness is still in tact thanks to his staggering win total in the Grand Slam events.

As for team sports, winning is a little trickier to use as measure for greatness. Certain positions are often more associated with winning than others when it comes to GOAT argument. Any football fan that is making a case for Terry Bradshaw, Joe Montana and now Tom Brady as the greatest quarterback of all time will usually centre their argument around the Superbowl championships. While the championships certainly help validate the careers of these three greats, there are usually differentiating factors that separate the signal callers. In Bradshaw’s case, he had one of the best defences in history helping him win; Montana was the most efficient QB in Superbowl history winning four of four big games; and Tom Brady has been to record six big games but only won four.

A lack of winning can also be used to diminish an athlete’s other successes. Lionel Messi is a current contender for GOAT but his lack of a World Cup is used as fuel by his detractors. His peers in the discussion have won the biggest international tournament on the planet but why hasn’t he? Maradonna, Pele and Franz Beckenbaur all carried their respective countries to the promised land but the little Argentine couldn’t quite get his team over the hump at last year’s tournament. Something that may always be held against him when his career ultimately finishes.

These other variables suggest that maybe winning isn’t everything when it comes to the GOAT debate. At least in the case of team sports.

Statistics & Records

Another quantifiable measure of success is statistical greatness. Yards, points and goals are just some of the major category by which great teams and their players are often measured by. Being the best in a given statistical category carries an immense amount of weight some analysts’ eyes and for good reason. Going where someone has never gone before and breaking statistical records is an impressive feat. Stats can provide a tangible element to the argument that cannot be understated.

For example, Jerry Rice, the NFL wide receiver, leads the career yardage total by almost 7,000 yards and the career touchdown list by 33 scores. This numeric dominance was one of the major reasons he was voted the number one player of all time by NFL.com when they launched their top 100 list in 2010. While Rice also has his greatness rooted in his Superbowl wins (3), his argument is still predicted on his sheer dominance in both statistical categories listed above. The numbers are given a significant boost as well by the simple fact that they are so much greater than any other player to have played a similar position to him. A true great.

While statistical greatness is heavily sought in some sports, others don’t necessarily carry the same importance. In basketball, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar scored more points in professional basketball history with 38,387. That total is just under 1,500 more than the next player on the list (Karl Malone) and almost 6,000 ahead of third (Kobe Bryant, who is still playing). While Jabbar is still considered one of the best, Jordan still eclipses him in most people I have read or spoken to because of a variety of factors. In terms of individual greatness in a team sport that is centred around high values of points, it seems to me that Jabbar should maybe be talked about more prominently in the GOAT discussion yet, from an admittedly outsiders perspective, he is not.

Stats, while therefore important, are still not the whole picture when it comes to greatness. What they do is provide a solid foundation with which to build an argument for greatness but sometimes do not accurately represent what an individual achieved.

The Eye Test & Word of Mouth

Which leads us nicely to the other side of the debate of the greatness. Win totals and stats are great for snapshots of an athlete’s dominance but plenty of purists will still argue that the eye test is the best form of data. Arguments predicated on the eye test are completely subjective and rely on trusting the person has seen enough of the player (and his or her peers). Anyone can label a player the GOAT but without having seen enough of said player, the conclusion cannot be trusted.

Players from bygone eras are harder to assess in this way because a number of newer sports analysts were not alive to see some of the greats play. I will never have the opportunity to see George Best, Pele or Maradonna live and there is limited footage of some of soccer’s greatest players. Most of the revived footage is of some of the players’ finest moments but is hard to get a rounded picture of the not so forgotten greats without listening to others wax lyrical about their dominance. I, like many too young to have seen some of the historic greats of their sports, have to take the popular opinion as gospel in many cases which gives the GOAT a very complex layer.

As for modern stars, we can only compare to those around them. One particular player that jumps out when watching him is none other than football’s JJ Watt. His current period of dominance on the interior of the Texans’ defensive line is quite often beyond belief. Pro Football Focus, the NFL’s premier ‘eye test’ website, rates players by watching their positive or negative effect on every play and assigns an equally positive or negative numeric grade to each player on a per play basis. Using this system, PFF granted Watt the highest grade of any 3-4 defensive lineman by a whopping margin of 67.6. To put that into perspective, the gap between second and third on the same list (the Jets’ Sheldon Richardson and Muhammad Wilkerson respectively) was a meagre 6.2. Watching Watt for yourself will reveal that he is, in fact, that much better than just about everyone on the same field as him.

Because there is an inability to accurately quantify and thus compare eye test arguments, all debates that centre around this criteria often have to be taken with a pinch of salt. Coming from an expert’s mouth, these claims usually carry more weight than those of armchair analysts but it all comes down to trusting the source. That can also be true of the final argument.

Historical Relevance/Contextualisation of Stats

When comparing stars of today with those of years gone by, this is often a determining factor. Sports constantly evolve and differing rule sets coupled with changes in technology and actual Darwinist evolution change the way in which our favourite sports are played. As a result, individuals who competed in different eras will never be able to be accurately and definitively compared to modern athletes. More profoundly than that then, players who shook certain sports to their very core are often held in higher regard. Athletes who came along and destroyed or set previous records (though that ties more directly with statistics & records) or forced the game to change the way it was played have great significance and thus enter the GOAT argument.

Babe Ruth, for example, is one of baseball’s most decorated stars. Even many non-baseball fans will still know who Ruth is and it’s a testament to his reverence within the game. While Ruth set the record for career home runs, that has since been eclipsed twice but Ruth’s at bats per home run is better than that of the two players (Barry Bonds & Hank Aaron) who hit more homers than he did. Not only was Ruth way ahead of his time but a shorter season length (and a lack of steroids) put his numbers in a context that make it hard to argue against him when it comes to greatness.

The reverse case of this contextualisation of statistics in a historical sense is soccer legend Pele. The Brazilian star is best known for his goalscoring ability, having notched an unbelievable 1,281 goals in 1363 games. The vast amount of goals scored is still one of the most touted reasons for his almost undisputed greatness. However, when you take into account that a large amount of those goals were scored either against suspect opposition in the domestic Brazilian league or in exhibition matches, the stats are sullied slightly. When compared to more modern goal scoring tallies in an absolute sense, no-one is even close but a closer look reveals the flaw in Pele’s stats.

Historical context is therefore an absolute must when discussing former greats. Without looking at the circumstances in which greatness was achieved, it is more difficult to make a convincing argument for or against the perceived greatness of past athletes. It admittedly adds further layers of complexity to the never ending debate of which player(s) are the GOATs in their respective sports but without the variables, where would the fun be in debating such an unanswerable question?

 

John Stockton, Karl Malone and Charles Barkley are three names that anyone with sports knowledge would know. Die-hard basketball fans would also recall they've all made their way into the Naismith Hall of Fame.

Despite their achievements, these three have something in common that is hard for them to constantly remember.

They don't have an NBA championship ring.

Because of this, their legacies may be seen as tainted by basketball experts and spectators alike. Even though there is no denying that they were amongst the elite players of all time, the lack of a championship ring haunts them.

For some active players, the pressure to win an NBA championship ring is on. A few players do not have a lot of time left.

Future Hall-of-Fame NBA stars like Grant Hill, Steve Nash and Vince Carter are yet add a Finals victory to their illustrious career accomplishments. A few of these dwindling players are yet to even have a direct shot at the NBA championship.

Because of this, their legacies may become "tainted." Fans believe that without an NBA championship, the legacies of these players will never live up to those of champions like Michael Jordan, Bill Russell or Magic Johnson.

The belief is a misconception.

I've become vexed by the idea that a championship defines the greatness of an athlete. Although the championship is the ultimate goal for a majority, if not all, of NBA players, it will not measure the greatness they possess.

When one takes a look at the names that are listed at the beginning of the article, do they see failure? I'd be surprised if they did.

Karl Malone was the cornerstone of the Utah Jazz franchise along with his teammate John Stockton. He led the Jazz to consecutive NBA Finals appearances and was a two-time league MVP.

The accomplishments don't stop there. In his near two decade tenure in the league, he managed to become the second-highest scoring player of all time in the NBA.

Is Karl Malone a failure because never won an NBA championship? Will history erase his achievements and overlook this Hall of Fame player simply because he failed to win an NBA title?

I hope not; the lack of a championship should not cause others to deny his greatness.

John Stockton wasn't just the best passer in Jazz history and perfect complimentary player to Malone; he's arguably the best passer period. With the all-time assists mark attached to his name, few would dispute his excellence as a perennial point guard.

Should he be denied a great legacy just because he has one less ring than say, Jason Kidd? Even though both men could be toe-to-toe, I'd still call John Stockton one of the best point guards of all-time.

Jason Kidd is the type of player who followed the footsteps of Stockton. If I recall correctly, Stockton was adding to his all-time assists record during Kidd's first year in the NBA.

There wasn't a ring, but there was a mark of greatness in the making.

It is by preference that the only point guard in my opinion to best Stockton is Magic Johnson. While his five championships can add to the conversation, I also put into account the overall impact he had on the league as opposed to Stockton. On top of that, Johnson was a better all-around player.

If Magic Johnson had a career similar to that of say, Derek Fisher, things would be different. No amount of rings won by Fisher could surpass the skills that Stockton had over him.

Championships aren't necessary in a debate about which player is better for me; I think of the individual before I count the jewelry on their fingers.

When the Dallas Mavericks won the NBA championship this past Sunday, I didn't think of LeBron James as a bad player or a player with a tainted legacy. As a matter of fact, his career makes me want to see him win an NBA championship that much more.

I remember reading a quote from Charles Barkley when I was a child out of the "Ultimate Encyclopedia of Basketball."

He said that he would "win an NBA championship or die trying." It was saddening to see this quote because I read in 2001, years after injuries caught up with the former Suns star. Barkley didn't win that elusive ring and it did upset me.

His legacy was great to the point where a championship was well-deserved. Even though he never truly earned the NBA title, he still did enough to become one of the greatest. I wish he was given a championship ring for being a great player.

The same goes for all the other NBA stars who failed to win the NBA title during their playing years. I hope that Steve Nash, Grant Hill, Vince Carter and other such players become NBA champions because they did so much in their careers and made a positive impact for the league.

It would be saddening not to great players win championships because it does leave a hole in their careers.

No one should deny them greatness because they failed to win a ring. Fans should pray that the great players go on to get the championship which would complete them.

The theory that I want to convey is one of fulfillment; every player who has become a future hall-of-famer deserves a ring.

This is a theory that should be used for every Pete Maravich, Adrian Dantley, Karl Malone, John Stockton and Charles Barkley who did so much in their careers, only to miss out on winning the ultimate prize.

A great player will still be a great player. You cannot deny statistics, All-Star and All-NBA selections, MVP awards or Hall of Fame elections.

People should look and see if a player accomplished so much to the point where it would be a shame to see them walk away from the game without a ring.

I know it would be a shame to see LeBron James without a championship, no matter how much one may dislike him.

The same goes for every Nash, Hill, Iverson and others who still are looking for their title.

It's already too late for the Malones, Barkleys and Stocktons of the NBA. And it's a shame that these greats never had their titles.

In the end, the legacy will always be there. Let's hope that for those who have a chance, a ring will accompany their Hall of Fame resumes..

There are times when you begin an argument and you know where every one is going to go with it before it even starts. When you ask anyone about sports greatness, the first thing that usually comes out of peoples mouths is usually well “insert athlete here” has “insert number here” rings and your guy has none.

If championship rings are the measure of greatness, then why do we even debate who is the greatest. The answers should be simple and straight forward.

Best Basketball Player – Bill Russell (11 Rings)

Best Football Player – Charles Haley (5 Rings)

Best Baseball Player – Yogi Berra (10 Rings)

Right now I can hear everyone saying that this list is a bunch of B.S. because none of these guys are tops on their list. Truthfully you do have a point but let me be clear, when debating greatness rings should be a factor, but not the deciding factor.

If you ask anyone who the greatest basketball player of all time is the first words out of most people’s mouths will be Michael Jordan. Sure Jordan was great. Heck he was polarizing. He played at a high level and received a lot of money and notoriety in an age of television and endorsements, but when you look at the numbers Jordan was good, however there are a few guys that make you scratch your head when you see their stats. If you ask who is the best playing now, that’s when the havoc starts to take place. The debate usually comes down to LeBron, Kobe, and now you can even throw Kevin Durant in the argument. Immediately most will crown Kobe because he has the championships on his side, but does that really matter? There have been several great players who have been considered some of the greatest of all time who never won a ring. Is Bill Perdue better than Patrick Ewing? Is Steve Kerr better than Steve Nash? Is Ron Artest better than Charles Barkley? The answer to all of those questions is no.

It’s not just basketball that has these issues; the NFL carries some of the same problems. If championships are the measure of success, then why are guys like Peyton Manning and Bret Favre considered all-time greats when they only have one championship each. The reality is that championships cloud our judgment when we start putting the label of greatness on individuals. Dan Marino gets overlooked as a premier player because he never won the big game. But when you look at the numbers there is no way he can’t be listed in the top five quarterbacks of all time. I once saw a list that had Trent Dilfer in front of Marino on the basis of having a Super Bowl win. Really, has it come to that?

Rings validate players success, but they don’t necessarily make the person the greatest of all time. Oscar Robinson was no slouch — the man averaged a triple double in his career. Some people have never had one and other greats only excelled in one area be it scoring, rebounding, or passing. Let’s stop throwing the “he has X amount of titles” around when trying to validate someone’s greatness and let’s look at the numbers and the game.

I’m not throwing any of these guys under the bus because for a moment they were able to play on the greatest stage ever assembled and most performed well. My problem is when people start to discredit those who have performed unimaginable feats and they get swept under the rug due to the fact that they never won a ring or they didn’t win as many as the next person.