I blame Muhammad Ali. He called himself “The Greatest” and it was sensible and life preserving for us not to argue. Before long we were seeking the greatest everywhere, and not just in sport. Everywhere. We even invented a new term – the “GOAT” the alleged “Greatest Of All Time” to make it clear what we meant. The problem with all this is that every such claim is subjective and unprovable. It’s an opinion, not a fact.
In cricket Don Bradman would generally be seen as the greatest batsmen of all time. His Test average of 99.94 is concrete, even irrefutable evidence to support the claim – a rarity in any endeavour. But what about the top batsmen of the modern era like Sachin Tendulkar who performed exceptionally in both Test cricket and Limited Overs formats? Which, of course, the Don couldn’t do.
My point is not to suggest Sachin was greater than Bradman but to show the pointlessness of the exercise. How about the “Greatest Prime Minister” ? We’d parrot out “Churchill” when asked the question and it would be seen by some as almost irreligious to challenge the claim. But doesn’t Churchill’s imperialism and his deeply held racist views at least make us think? In 1937 he said:
“I do not admit … for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.”
Churchill’s wartime achievements were extraordinary but most modern historians would regard his 1951-1955 administration as a complacent and lazy failure. At a time when the opportunity existed to build a modern European nation a tired and often sick Churchill drifted into imperial and great power memories.
My point here is not to denigrate Churchill but to point out that all of our lives are a mix of the Good, the Bad and the Indifferent . When we call anyone in any field of human activity the “GOAT” we focus on the Good, and ignore the contrary evidence.
A key issue is the historical context. “All Time” says not just greatest in his/her time but historically. So to call Novak Djokovic the “GOAT” places him above not just his contemporaries but above Perry, Sampras, Laver, Hoad, Borg, Rosewall, Ashe… None of whom, of course, he ever played. The stats don’t help. Are Djokovic’s 24 Grand Slams better than Laver’s 11 or Perry’s 8 ? It’s actually a meaningless question.
Comparing people who lived in different eras is so fraught with confusion and is so subjective that it actually destroys any logic in the “GOAT” descriptor. My favourite Formula One driver was Jim Clark. Was he greater than Schumacher or Hamilton (or Fangio for that matter). You can make a case for any of them. By why would you? There is no monopoly on greatness, nor is ranking it worthwhile.
Paddy’s Blogs in a crazy world 