Defining Greatness: What Makes an Athlete Great?

To fill airspace on a relatively slow sport’s week, producers for ESPN make, in some way shape or form, the “Greatest of All-Time” arguments.  This particular argument is always interesting, perhaps because there is such ambiguity in the definition of athletic greatness. Therefore, the sports media creates programs such as “ESPN’s Mount Rushmore of Sports” or the timeless “SportsCentury.” 

So what makes a good athlete great?  What is the difference between Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant? Or is there a difference? Everyone has different criteria for greatness.  For example, one could use a format similar to the ESPN “Prestige Rankings,” which rate College Football Programs by assigning points to different achievements, and crowning the champion based on most points.   Some consider greatness based on defining moments, while others consider whom they would rather support.   Some base their opinion on pure athletic ability or statistics, while even more place value on the “intangibles.”

  In order to discern which criterion is consistently used in conjunction with “Greatest of All-Time,” I have examined several lists from different sports authorities including the Sporting News, Fox Sports, and ESPN.   These lists all seem to be the most credible at addressing this age-old question.  They also seem to be very consistent in who they define as the “Greatest of All-Time,” including at the top of their lists luminaries such as Michael Jordan, Muhammad Ali, Wayne Gretzky, Jim Thorpe, Jim Brown, Tiger Woods, and Michael Phelps at the top of their lists.  Athletes such as these all have several traits in common – traits that define greatness.  An athlete can only be truly considered “great” if they have that rare combination of athletic and statistical dominance, the ability to transcend the game, and a set of mental intangibles that not only create success on the field, but off the field.

            A popular sports movie tells the story of Daniel “Rudy” Ruettiger, a walk-on football player at the University of Notre Dame, who is lauded for his heart, desire, and determination.   Many, such as ESPN Page 2’s Ralph Wiley, place high value on these traits in their definition of a “great athlete.”  Wiley claims that the more heart an athlete shows, the greater an athlete.   While there is no denying Rudy’s heart, his face is obviously not etched in the “Mount Rushmore of Sports,” an ESPN initiative to name the four greatest athletes in each state and the U.S.  This is because he did not dominate the game athletically or statistically.   It is through dominance on the playing field that an athlete first enters the “Greatest of All-Time” conversation.  Dominance means breaking records, winning more than others, scoring more then others, and being awarded individual honors such as being named MVP.  For example, Wayne Gretzky would not be the “Great One” without his 61 NHL records.  Tiger Woods would not enter the conversation without a victory in “Major Tournament”.   It is important to note that statistical dominance cannot stand-alone.  As Cleveland Indians GM Mark Shapiro said, “They need to have that winning psyche, the ability to win the game.”   It is for this reason that many great athletes are overlooked.  For example, the Heisman Trophy has only been award to a player on a losing team once.  Dan Marino holds or has held nearly every major NFL passing record, but he was ranked only 27^th on The Sporting News list of 100 greatest football players of the 20^th century.  Every quarterback on the list in front of him has won a championship, with the highest ranked quarterback, Joe Montana, winning four.  To be considered one of the “Greatest of All-Time” an athlete must dominate his particular sport statistically, and more importantly, be a winner. 

            However, statistical dominance and winning is not the only criteria for being “great.”   Wilt Chamberlin and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar both have more career points than Michael Jordan.  However, the NBA’s own website says “By acclamation, Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player of all time” and the Associated Press named him the best basketball player of the 20^th century.   Jordan dominated statistically and won a lot of games, but what made Jordan the best was his ability to transcend the game.   What does it mean to transcend the game?  The ability to become bigger than the sport itself and move into the realm of popular culture.  For example, Jordan was more than a basketball player; he was an icon.  Kid’s lined up to buy the latest pair of Jordan sneakers.  Jordan was not just a great player, but also a great endorsor for different products. In fact, his name became synonymous with Nike, which advertised his image extensively on global level.  One might argue that publicity, especially the abundance of it that can be found today should not be considered in this argument.  However, amount of publicity, which correlates with amount of skill, allows a player to become known to the masses.   For example, after playing a preseason game in Paris in 1997, a reporter stated “Michael Jordan is in Paris. That’s better than the Pope.  It’s God in person.” People would go to great lengths to see Jordan play, just to say they werein the audience of his greatness.  During his NBA career, television ratings were significantly higher than they were before and after.  Perhaps the biggest testament of Jordan’s larger-than-life status was his retirement ceremony.  A typical retirement draws 20-30 reporters.   On the day Jordan retired, the United Center floor was packed with over 800 reporters from every corner of the globe.  Another example of transcendence is Michael Phelps.  While his physical achievement of winning eight gold medals is outstanding in its own right, Michael Phelps is truly great because he became bigger than the sport of swimming and the Games itself.  When awarding Phelps the Sports Illustrated “Sportsman of the Year” title, Alan Shipnuck wrote,

What happened is that for eight days in August, Debbie Phelps's son turned the Beijing Olympics into a serialized thriller with nightly installments that played out in prime time. Eight gold medals and seven world records would have been more than enough to secure his stardom, but Phelps's performance…brought Americans together by the tens of millions, the TV serving as a portal to a faraway land and the outer limits of athletic achievement (Shipnuck).

Furthermore, NBC executive Dick Ebersol claimed, “The Beijing Olympics was the most watched event in American History.  And it was almost entirely because of this wunderkind from Baltimore.  What he did transcended sport and became a cultural phenomenon.” 

            Athletes can fulfill criteria of dominance and transcendence but still not be great.   Mike Tyson dominated boxing in the late 1980s and early 1990s, extending the interest for the dying sport for a few more years.  However, Tyson is rarely included in the “Greatest of All-Time” argument because his out-of ring transgressions turned many fans away.  Murali Para of Eastside Boxing claimed, “Mike Tyson will be remembered as a fighter with sublime gifts who never fulfilled his true potential.  He was hindered in his career by many unfortunate events in his personal life, as well, admittedly, as some definite character flaws.” He did not have the mental intangibles that not only bred success, but also create a character worthy of public support.  These intangibles, each of which can be considered equally significant, include desire, determination, perseverance, leadership, focus, heart, work ethic, vision, poise, and character.  Without some of these intangibles, greatness is rare.   An example of an athlete with such intangibles is Jerry Rice, who owns the many NFL receiving records and was ranked number 2 on The Sporting News list of the 100 greatest football players.  At 6’2” and running a 4.71 forty, Rice was physically average compared to his contemporaries.  However, Rice was great due to his mastery of route running and exploiting defenses; Coach Dennis Green claimed “he is the best route runner I’ve ever seen.” Quarterback Joe Montana was rated the #19^th Greatest Athlete of All-Time on SportsCentury because of his reputation as “Joe Cool.”  Montana is renowned for his poise under duress and ability to lead his team in comeback attempts.  Dave Perkins of the Toronto Star explained that it was “[Tiger] Woods’ competitive fire [that] sets him apart.”  In a similar nature, Franz Beard of Scout.com stated that “What stood out the most about Tebow…wasn’t what he did with his arm or his feet, but what he did leading his team.”  All of these examples show intangibles that raise an athlete’s stature. 

            Greatness cannot be achieved through just one or two criteria, but a combination.  For example, Afgani marathoner Abdul Basher-Asaki showed heart, determination, and perseverance when he ran the Olympic Marathon on broken foot.  But in a conversation of great marathoners, Abdul’s name isn’t considered.   Allen Iverson is an electrifying performer on the court, but he never became a cultural phenomenon or had any of the intangibles that help create greatness.  For example, his famous rant for the lack of importance in practice is certainly not work ethic.  Moments like this ensure that he will always be considered just a good basketball player.

            There are other criteria that are used in this debate that are not included in this definition.  For example, a defining moment, such as Tim Tebow’s press conference, in which he took blame for a loss and promised that he would make himself and his teammates work harder than anyone else, eventually leading to a National Championship, certainly helped build his legacy.  But the defining moment cannot stand-alone.  Many players, such as “Big Shot” Robert Horry, who always made game-winning shots, had many defining moments in an otherwise average career.  Furthermore, some of the greatest don’t necessarily have a defining moment.  One is hard-pressed to think of a defining moment in Wayne Gretzky’s record filled career.  Another criterion used is likability, or whom would you rather root for.  Many people have favorite athletes who are just average players.  For example, one of my friend’s favorite player is Brady Quinn and he considers Quinn to be great, but in reality, Quinn is just a backup NFL quarterback.  On the other hand, many hated Muhammad Ali for dodging the draft, yet he is still often considered the “Greatest of All-Time.” 

 Still, even when there is an athlete that shows dominance, transcendence, and the magical “it”, such as Michael Jordan or Muhammad Ali, the debate never ends.  There are many worthy candidates and far too wide of criterion and opinion for selecting a “Greatest of All-Time.”  And this doesn’t even take into account the differences in the sports these athletes play.  For this reason, even though ESPN’s SportCentury originally named Jordan as the “Greatest of All-Time,” it has now chosen to leave the top spot empty.  It is doubtful that there will ever be an undisputed “Greatest of All-Time.”  However, through use of criteria such as dominance, transcendence, and intangibles, one can at least narrow the list of great athletes.