V2 Greatest of All Time Awards

'There was no way I was going to pull out of this fight. But I was unable to push off my foot to shoot off my right hand and that's why I feel it didn't allow me to throw big, powerful punches. That's boxing. You don't get it your own way all the time. I'm gutted.

If you want to lose friends quickly, announce you've decided who is the greatest sportsman of all time. It is the kind of pub controversy any sensible sportswriter studiously avoids, knowing that all it brings is trouble. Savvy pundits even resist comparing players who excelled at the same sport in different eras. So what hope is there of accurately judging sportsmen across different sports and different ages?

But, like a moth drawn to a flame, I can't resist. And I think there is a different way of approaching the debate. We usually ask the question from the perspective of historical significance. No sooner is Muhammad Ali nominated than the debate shifts to his protest against the Vietnam War. It is as though Ali's boxing is scarcely relevant to the question of his greatness. No, it has to be about his moral and political impact, what he meant to America, how he acted as a lightning rod for deep and profound social change. Similar arguments apply to Jack Johnson, the first black man to become heavyweight world champion.

So the "greatest of all time" (or GOAT) debate normally revolves around sportsmen who transcend - a recurrent term - "mere" sport. In other words, it isn't really about who is the greatest sportsman at all, but who is the greatest man who happened also to play sport.

It is rarely pointed out the criteria for greatness - moral courage, global significance and political impact - inevitably prejudice against sportsmen who live in tranquil eras. What about the great athletes who were born in comfortable suburbs, lived in mature democracies and who focused simply on sporting brilliance? They deserve a shot at the title, too, don't they?

Roger Federer has 17 majestic grand slam titles under his belt. But if you are born in Basel in 1981, it's hard to galvanise the world by standing up for the rights of white, affluent Swiss. In the GOAT debate, Federer is armed only with a tennis racket, a sense of sportsmanship and balletic grace. It is wonderful to watch, but impossible to compare to standing up to Hitler, as Jesse Owens did in Berlin in 1936. Instead of inflating the debate, making it about civil rights and global significance, we might narrow the argument. If we ask simply who was the best at sport - just sport, nothing more and nothing less - we finally have a question that might yield an answer.

So how can we avoid the problem of comparing knockout punches with forehand winners? One more scientific measure is to examine who was the furthest ahead of the next best player.

Not Ali. For all his irresistible charisma and heroism, Ali lost to both his long-term rivals - Joe Frazier and Ken Norton - even though he won more than he lost against both. Taken as a whole, Ali's epic career was a case of primus inter pares.

Babe Ruth, another candidate, revolutionised his sport as a spectacle. No one had ever hit a baseball with such joy and power. But his overall batting average is only tenth in the all-time list, significantly behind the less loved Ty Cobb.

Contrast the career of Sir Donald Bradman. In most sports, the greatest players are statistically bunched. Not cricket. Bradman's batting average of 99.94 is 40 per cent better than his nearest rival, Graeme Pollock. No sportsman in any major sport has ever led the chasing pack by such a huge distance.

So if we stick purely to scientific measures, Bradman is hard to beat. Do I think Bradman made a greater contribution to the world than Jack Johnson or Muhammad Ali? No. But was Bradman a greater outlier, purely as a sportsman? Very probably.

Only a fool would seek to detract from the achievements of those who inspired communities through moral and physical courage - athletes such as Jackie Robinson, the first black man to play Major League Baseball. But we should think carefully before conflating two very separate questions - first, who was the best at sport; secondly, who made the greatest contribution to the world through life as a sportsman.

The GOAT debate reveals a deep irony of modern sport - how we are reluctant to enjoy sport as just sport. We're always hoping it will reveal itself as being about something bigger, grander and more lasting. Sport has grown exponentially in scale, wealth and reach, yet when it is left to stand on its own two feet it remains slightly unsteady, still searching for the stabilisers.

@edsmithwriter

Originally published in the December 2012 issue of British GQ.

Hero wrote:F1 might struggle if its most participated in.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Personally think level of participation is hugely important, being the best at a minority sport is far different than being the best at a global sport.

Azzy Mahmood wrote:Horse racing was a good call, I'd second that. Some incredible jockeys over the years. Or would you put the horse in instead?

Hero wrote:Jockey wise would it not be Laffit Pincay Jr rather than McCoy?

McLaren wrote:Lance Armstrong?

McLaren wrote:No, the guy won 7 tdf's.

McLaren wrote:I am sure he cant shoot 147 in snooker, but 7 tdf's alone seems good enough to be considered a GOAT.

ShahenshahG wrote:Anyone who can endure France 7 times deserves the gong for the sacrifices he makes

Hero wrote:Last time I checked Ive got as many TDFs as Armstrong.

ShahenshahG wrote:Anyone who can endure France 7 times deserves the gong for the sacrifices he makes

It Must Be Love wrote:

Hero wrote:Last time I checked Ive got as many TDFs as Armstrong.

Yes, but he's ahead on the EPO count