|
How is greatness measured in sports? It seems that the words "great" and "greatness" are thrown around a lot in sports these days. I heard an announcer call Dwight Howard "great" recently. What has Dwight done to earn that accolade? Don't get me wrong, Dwight's a helluva player, but great?
On Sunday we watched two of the greatest - if not the greatest - athletes in their respective sports pull off monumental wins. Tiger Woods charged from way back to win the Memorial, hitting incredible shot after incredible shot. Roger Federer won the French Open to win his 14th career grand slam and to become the second player to complete a career grand slam on three surfaces. Those are some impressive feats, but I was left a little sour by Federer's winning the French over a guy I've never heard of (granted I only recognize about three names in tennis). It would have been much more impressive had Roger defeated Nadal to win the French. In order to be considered great, must one beat other greats? Do team accomplishments determine greatness more than individual feats?
Take Michael Jordan. Jordan's individual greatness is bey ond question, but look at who he beat to win his NBA titles. Jordan had to go through some of the best players of his generation, including Magic Johnson, Clyde Drexeler, Karl Malone, John Stockton, and Charles Barkley. Beating players of that caliber on the biggest stage of all left no questions about Jordan's greatness.
Now we have Kobe Bryant. Kobe's individual accomplishments would lead me to say he is great. Outside of MJ, I've never seen a basketball player with a better offensive repertiore than Kobe Bryant. But is Kobe great? Granted, he has three rings, but he was the second fiddle on each of those teams. The Lakers beat good players to win those titles, including Jason Kidd, Iverson, and Reggie Miller, but I wouldn't consider any of those players among the all-time greats. Does that take away from Kobe's legacy because he hasn't had to beat the greats? Does he need a win in this series to cement his place in history as one of the all-time greats? It's hard for me to be as impressed with a Lakers win over Orlando as I would have been if the Lakers were to beat a healthy Boston Celtics team. If Kobe won a title sans the Diesel over KG, Ray Allen, and Paul Pierce - on the same team - it would carry a little more weight than a win over Dwight Howard and the goofy-faced Hedo Turkoglu. Maybe down the road when Dwight is all done it will look better, but now it doesn't exactly give me a rager. So, is Kobe Bryant great? Would a win in this series alter how he is viewed in history?
I've obviously asked a ton of questions in this post, but I just want to know how greatness is determined? What is your criteria?
|
Greatness should be measured by individual accomplishments more than team accomplishments, otherwise Robert Horry would be one of the greatest of all-time. Team accomplishments only cap individual successes.