Salvitore Stitchmo wrote:
Best = highest possible ability/ceiling at the given sport, event.
Greatest = measure of the entire body of work in the event. Includes ability (see above), longevity, dominance, accolades, achievements.
Sometimes the best ever at an sport/event is the also the greatest. Best examples of that are Wayne Gretzky, Serena Williams.
Examples in sport where best and greatest maybe different:
- Tennis: Federer (greatest) vs Djokovic (best)
- Golf: Nicklaus (greatest) vs Woods (best)
- QB: Brady (greatest) vs Montana (best)
- 5000m: Bekele (greatest) vs Komen (best)
- 800m: you've read the opinion by now....
I appreciate what you are saying but I wouldn't agree with how you have qualified those terms. As an example - since I follow tennis also - I don't think it applies to Federer and Djokovic in the way you suggest, as I think the highest standard ever played that I have seen was Federer at his peak, as Djokovic meanwhile steadily takes all the records. I also think longevity isn't that important: Willis, Walker and Scott competed for years, while Elliott (who I consider greater than all 3) competed at the top for only 2 or so years, and likewise Snell only 4 years. If "dominance, accolades and achievements" are a measure of "greatness" in the way you say I would be tempted to put Snell and Coe level with or even ahead of Rudisha for what they achieved in their respective eras.
If you think Kipketer has shown the highest possible ceiling at his event you have to get around the inconvenient fact he has never run as fast as Rudisha. That doesn't fit with the "highest possible ceiling". But I would put him with Coe and Rudisha as being one of the very best who have ever competed at their event. If they were taken in a time machine to run together at their very best I would not predict the outcome.