This stems from a discussion which stems from a widely held belief that Muhammed Ali is one of the greatest sportsperson (in the world) ever. Even
Google thinks so.
Honestly I have nothing against Mr. Ali as I have not watched him (and boxing) enough to comment on his skill, ability or achievements. But I have objection to this claim based on two basic principles I think should guide the choice of a greatest sportsman -
1. The greatest sportsperson should play a sport that is followed worldwide and as an indication of it involves worldwide (or something close to) participation.
2. A player that shines out in a team sport should be given greater weightage than an individual sport, purely on the assumption that its harder to outshine peers as well as competitors rather than only competitors.
The first is a compelling reason to reject boxing due to the fact that it does not seem to have worldwide participation, or if you believe
Wikipedia, it does not even have any organised governing it. Notice I don't mean a sport more popular than another should be one to have our winner, only a sport popular enough to have worldwide participation (perhaps easiest measure would be whether it has a World Cup, or has adequate tournaments all over the world.
Secondly, it is much harder to impact a team game than it is an individual one so my vote would go for a sportsperson that played a team game. Football immediately comes to mind, but other examples would be cricket, rugby, hockey, baseball, etc.
I have to admit though, a survey or award for greatest sportsperson would probably still go to Mr. Ali for his political views, for being an inspiration to african americans at the time and since then, and lastly for being the (undeniable) best in his sport. He would get the popular vote but for me he shouldn't be greatest sportsperson ever.
Ho hum, can't go changing the world.
Labels: Stuff