The Fallacy of “The Greatest”

The nature of sports debate usually centers on hypothetical questions like: “Who is the greatest?” While that is a beloved argument and people will likely never tire of engaging it, it misses the whole point of athletic engagement. In competition we don’t want a hypothetical best to always prevail. We want the contest. We want a side that is perhaps not as gifted or able to find a way.

College Football has long gone against this sentiment. Rather than actually have teams face each other they have used computer models and “expert” opinions to determine who is the best, and often left that actual games to the imagination. It looks like they are attempting to change that.

Football (the soccer variety) is a good example of a sport that generally creates good competition. People (generally the ones who call it soccer) complain about the low scoring and the frequent ties, but it is a great test of skill and strategy. Even highly favored and talented teams have to take great care and fight for every win they get.

In that sense, sport is a good object lesson on life. It is not ultimately the skills, resources or opportunities that define us in life, but rather how we live with or in spite of those things that does. In sport the goal is victory, but in life winning is based on purpose. Those who have the most impact, who make a difference in the lives around them, those who serve, may not be the “greatest” (one life is not worthier than another) but they can be considered “winners.”

Comments

Popular Posts