The Greatest Athlete in the World

Re-Thinking Common Discourse about Athleticism

Luka Doncic’s comments about his athleticism went viral this week. I found the following old post discussing the world’s greatest athlete based on a series of posts by Todd Hargrove.

I wrote previously in this newsletter about our common misunderstandings of athleticism, using Steve Nash, Roger Federer, and Stephen Curry as primary examples. I have argued most use athletic as a synonym with power or speed, and measure athleticism through combine tests (#FakeFundamental). Nash was not considered athletic in terms of an NBA player because he rarely dunked. Power is only one athletic quality, though an important one, and Nash excels in most other athletic qualities, providing the foundation for his impressive skills.

Todd Hargrove, on his blog Better Movement, wrote a series of articles to determine the sport which features the best athletes. Before he published his third and final part of the series, I examined the topic and his ideas.

Hargrove explained his definition of athlete in Part 1:

"Athlete is generally defined as someone who excels at sports because they are possessed of four major “S” qualities: Strength, Speed, Stamina, and Skill."

Much of his essays focus on the last of the four: Skill. Skill creates the most problems when discussing athletes and athleticism because most view skill and athleticism as separate. I generally differentiate athletic, technical, and tactical skills and believe technical skills develop on top of more general athletic skills and qualities. Nash’s shooting is a technical skill, which developed on top of his athletic skills such as hand-eye coordination, deceleration, coordination, dynamic balance, and more.

Nash’s shooting would have been diminished without these athletic qualities, which may support skill’s inclusion in the discussion. From that vantage point, however, discussing the other qualities is superfluous, as skill exhibits all the other athletic qualities. In that sense, determining the most difficult or most complex skill would answer the question of the sport with the best athletes.

Another approach is to focus on the five bio-motor abilities: Strength, speed, power, flexibility, and endurance. A great athlete should excel in these.

One quickly sees how skill’s inclusion or exclusion changes the argument. Arguing the decathlete does not feature the best athletes is difficult when focused on the bio-motor abilities. This is a traditional argument, as the decathlete has earned the title of “World’s Greatest Athlete” for generations. Other candidates would be gymnasts, ballet dancers, boxers, rowers, and others.

Hargrove has eliminated many of these from his argument based on his hints. As an explanation of his emphasis on skill, he wrote:

"Here’s a rough way to look at our four “S” qualities in relation to each other: Strength is how much force you can produce, speed is how fast you can produce it, stamina is how long you can produce it, and skill is how intelligently you can direct the forces into the environment to do useful work, solve motor problems and achieve goals.

“It seems to me that the fourth quality, skill, is the most interesting, and I will therefore give it special consideration over the other three."

I am biased toward skill, but including skill moves the argument beyond the physical and incorporates the cognitive and perceptual. Discussions of sports performance tend to focus on the physical and the external. We use terms like muscle memory although muscles have no capacity to remember skills; muscle memory is actually a motor pattern stored in the brain and initiated by the central nervous system. We cannot see the brain or fully understand how it works, but we see muscles.

We attribute physical qualities to things we cannot see or explain, such as suggesting a point guard or quarterback has “eyes in the back of his head” rather than expert cognitive-perceptual skills. Our bias is toward things we can see when discussing athleticism. We ignore things we cannot see, such as the information processing system within the brain that enables a player to make a split-second decision from a multitude of choices while moving at full speed. Is this skill, athleticism, or both?

Compare LeBron’s dunk above to Xavi’s passes below (especially around 1:30).

The traditional bias is LeBron James’ dunk demonstrated tremendous athleticism, while Xavi’s pass illustrated uncanny skill. However, this bias short-changes both of them. I thought James’ dunk was the most skillful play I saw this season: The body control, hand-eye coordination, awareness, catching skills in the air; that is athleticism and skill. Meanwhile, to suggest Xavi is unathletic overlooks the dexterity, body control, foot-eye coordination, and more that the pass required.

The athleticism in James’ dunk is readily apparent, whereas the athleticism in Xavi’s pass is more subtle, so most would argue James’ dunk is the more athletic play.

Similarly, we notice physical attributes such as Dwight Howard’s shoulders, but ignore those which we cannot, such as a well-organized CNS. "Steph's central nervous system is the best I've worked with," said Keke Lyles, the former Director of Performance for the Golden State Warriors and Atlanta Hawks. "It's why he's a great golfer, a great bowler, a great shooter." 

Which is more athletic: Possessing boulders for shoulders, but shooting under 50% from the free-throw line or weighing 170lbs and spotting a 100 MPH fastball within a quarter-inch of one’s target? We picture the 100 MPH pitch as a learned skill, and question baseball players’ athleticism, but what is athletic about Howard’s shoulders? His size is primarily a combination of genetic factors and hypertrophy-based, fairly non-functional strength training.

Hargrove wrote:

“Bernstein defines dexterity as the ability to correctly solve motor problems as they arise, including unexpected problems….Part of what makes animals more dexterous is their ability to control more degrees of freedom in movement.” Experts have greater degrees of freedom than non-experts:

"A novice pistol shooter freezes the degrees of freedom at his wrist and elbow; all the movement occurs in his shoulder. An expert pistol shooter has greater degrees of freedom at the wrist and elbow. This seems counterintuitive – greater freedom at the joints would seem to lead to greater error. Instead, the greater degrees of freedom compensate for each other."

Hargrove equated dexterity with athleticism, and the argument makes sense. Isn’t sport, at its essence, about solving motor problems, whether the problem is making a basket over a seven-foot tall defender, using a pole to propel oneself as high in the air as possible and over a bar, getting from point A to point B as fast as possible, or hitting the ball over a net into a position an opponent cannot return? These are motor problems that have been standardized into sports.

In Part 2, Hargrove wrote:

“Motor skill is a quality that is far more complex and ‘evolved’ in terms of design and engineering than strength, speed, or stamina.”

In Wired, Mark McClusky wrote about the technology fueling today’s Olympic athletes:

“The curve is flattening out. In fact, studies suggest that the current world records in some track events are approaching their absolute limits and that we might have only a percent or two of improvement left in us.”

Can we say the same about other motor skills? Have we reached the point where decision-making is at its limit? Are we at the limits of hitting a baseball or returning a tennis serve? How can we know if we are nearing our limits in terms of the performance of motor skills without an absolute measurement?

Hargrove used the work of Bernstein to describe the four levels of control: (A) Posture, (B) large limb movements, (C) targeted movements, and (D) complex actions. He wrote:

“Level D differs from the earlier three levels in that it is significantly more advanced. While Levels A-C are present in almost any vertebrate animal, the rudiments of level D can only be found in the higher mammals, and are significantly undeveloped even in human children. Bernstein calls this the human level.”

Therefore, in Hargrove’s argument, complex actions differentiate the best athletes. Gentile’s Taxonomy differentiates skills by their task complexity. The taxonomy depends on three categories: Object manipulation, body stability or motion, and variability between repetitions. The least complex task by this model occurs in a stationary position with no inter-trial variation, and no object manipulation (stationary balance task), whereas the most complex task involves motion, variability, and manipulation (shooting a layup against a defender).

Further, when examining task complexity, performing with the foot is considered more complex than with the hands, suggesting passing a soccer ball is more complex than passing a basketball. Passing a basketball is more complex than passing a volleyball because there is no defense to change the task: The initial pass from a serve is sent to a setter, and the goal is to pass to the same spot every time. Manipulating an object, such as a hockey or lacrosse stick, is more complex than one’s own body, so passing in ice hockey or lacrosse is more complex than basketball or soccer. Moving on an unstable surface is more complex than moving on a stable surface, so ice hockey, water polo, and beach volleyball are more complex than court or field sports.

Outside of invasion games, other net games such as squash, tennis, and badminton have inter-trial variability, but nobody actively interfering with the skill performance; there is no defender preventing Federer from hitting his backhand down the line. Combat sports involve an opponent actively trying to prevent the skill execution of a skill, but combat sports lack object manipulation, unless the opponent is the object in MMA, wrestling, judo and similar sports, which is a fair argument.

My guess based on Bernstein’s dexterity, task complexity, and the four S’s is Hargrove will argue ice hockey versus MMA. MMA wins out over other combat sports because it requires striking, grappling, and preventing/applying submissions. However, by the truest definitions of Bernstein, Gentile, and Hargrove, I think the choice is ice hockey.

Is ice hockey my choice? I am torn. I differentiate athleticism and skill. With no differentiation, the best player in a sport is necessarily the best athlete. Is that always true? LeBron James surely passes the test, but is Aaron Rodgers the best NFL athlete? Is Xavi the best athlete in soccer? This creates an interesting discussion. How do you differentiate best athlete and best player if Xavi or Rodgers is not the best athlete in his sport?

I started this post with the mindset I would differentiate skill from athleticism, and argue a decathlete is the best athlete. After all, the skill (cognitive-perceptual skills such as pattern recognition, anticipation, etc.) differentiating Rodgers or Xavi from his peers has more in common with a chess grandmaster than a 100m sprinter (speed), marathon runner (stamina), or Olympic weightlifter (strength). Does that make a chess grandmaster a great athlete since he excels in the skill differentiating the best from the rest or do we need to separate skill as a quality other than athleticism and recognize a decathlete, rower, or other athlete who best combines the five bio-motor abilities as the best athlete?

As one who is biased toward skill, I would like to incorporate skill as a dimension of athleticism. However, I have a hard time discounting the athleticism of a decathlete or rower or gymnast simply because he or she has no defender or does not make quick decisions.

I am not sure decision-making is an athletic quality though it is fundamental to sports performance in invasion games. I tend to think some sports rely more heavily on specific athletic qualities and some rely more heavily on sport-specific skills. Invasion games such as ice hockey, basketball, and soccer are somewhere near the middle of this continuum. I think the sport with the best athletes is the one relying most heavily on athletic abilities, and I would argue for decathletes, gymnasts, and rowers as those who maximize speed, strength, power, endurance, and flexibility.

[EDIT: I found Part 3; the remainder is contemporary]

Hargrove started Part 3, his conclusion, by dismissing some of the common suggestions from readers. He quickly dismissed endurance athletes (cyclists, marathon) and sprinters because their movements lack dexterity. As Hargrove wrote:

According to Bernstein:

“During a monotonous, unperturbed course of movement, free of any unexpected events, there is no demand for dexterity.”

Similarly, I would have discounted these athletes because of their specialization. A sprinter or a marathon runner exist on the extremes of a specific quality, whereas the best athlete in my eyes must excel in many qualities.

Hargrove dismissed gymnasts because of the predictable environment, writing:

“With this in mind, here is my new criterium: my athlete must compete in a sport where the environment is subject to unpredictable change second by second.”

“As a practical matter, this requirement means one thing — there must be an opponent.”

Gymnasts are harder for me to discount despite the preplanned nature of their routines. Flying through the air, using the rings, trampolines, and more add unpredictability, regardless of the routine, the non-moving ground, and the lack of defenders.

Gymnasts also are harder to eliminate because of the skill involved in the various elements of their routines. They may not make split-second decisions in the same way a basketball player decides to shoot or a soccer player decides to pass, and they may not manipulate opponents, but flips, twists, turns, and more off various apparatuses but their performances are extremely skillful. My biggest problem with gymnastics is the difficulty in determining a winner through judges’ scores rather than a true uncontested outcome.

Hargrove was left with invasion sports, racquet sports, and martial arts, and took a somewhat easy out by arguing for soccer because of popularity and participation. Soccer is played worldwide and is the most popular sport in nearly every country in the world and there are relatively few size requirements, unlike a sport such as basketball where it is difficult to reach the highest level if you are under six-feet tall, eliminating a large portion of the world’s population immediately. Also, sports such as ice hockey are cost prohibitive to play because of equipment, and other sports such as water polo or team handball lack significant participation.

One reason I argue players such as Nash and Curry are great athletes despite perception is their relative success in other sports. A player who quickly transitions from one sport to another and excels is athletic, regardless of dunks. I cannot remember reading about Howard’s excellence in any other sport, as is common with Nash’s soccer and skateboarding and Curry’s golf.

For the longest time, I have argued football defensive backs are the best athletes because they must stop wide receivers who run 4.2 40s while moving backwards! I also believe on the athletic-based to skill-based spectrum, football is heavily toward the athletic-based side, which is the argument Austin Rivers made recently when he said 30 NBA players could play in the NFL. Essentially, he argued basketball produces similar traditional athleticism (size, speed, power) with a greater skill component: Basketball is more complex than football, and as Rafe Kelley said, "Complexity translates better to simplicity, but not vice versa." Playing defensive back requires as much athleticism as nearly any position or sport, but football as a whole is not the sport with the best athletes because of the specialization.

Hargrove chose Messi as the world’s greatest athlete, and in 2012, that was hard to argue against. The arguments for soccer is substantial. However, I think if we stick strictly to Hargrove initial criteria, ice hockey is the most athletic sport because of the ice and the stick; the skills are more complex. MMA is the most athletic non-invasion sport due to the required variety of disciplines and skills. I am unsure who the best ice hockey player was in 2012 or now, whereas the best athlete in MMA in 2012 would have been a battle between Jon Jones, Anderson Silva, GSP, and Demetrious Johnson, and now would be Islam Makhachev or Leon Edwards.

If looking more generally, especially in an Olympic year, the same day Doncic’s quote gained notoriety, former NBA player Chase Budinger qualified for the Olympics in beach volleyball. Budinger was far from the best NBA player, but to play NBA basketball and qualify for the Olympics in another competitive, popular, athletically-demanding and skillful sport is quite remarkable.

The world’s greatest athlete is unknowable; it is fun to discuss, but the lessons are to re-shape our views on athleticism, especially with regard to developing players and evaluating potential. Messi may or may not be the best athlete in the world, but he is the greatest soccer player in history, and may have been overlooked by many coaches because of his size, relative lack of foot speed, and more. Similarly, Doncic was ignored as an athlete because he looks like he should lose a few pounds and does not dunk often, similar to criticisms of Nikola Jokic, James Harden, and others who have been among the NBA’s best players in the last decade.

These players do not excel in combine athleticism (Fake Fundamentals), but they are athletic, despite our biased perceptions favoring glistening muscles and high-flying dunks. Power and vertical jumps are not the only elements of athleticism, and many NBA players criticized as non-athletes excel in nonobvious, but essential athletic qualities, such as their nervous system, as Lyles said about Curry, coordination, rhythm, balance, dexterity, deceleration, acceleration, body control, and more.

These qualities are more difficult to measure or observe than a 30m sprint or a VJ test or cone agility, and the expert expression of these qualities often is written off as extraordinary skill. However, no expertly skilled performer is un-athletic; the skills build on basic athleticism. When we watch a Curry jump shot, we are watching athleticism that parallels a high-flying LeBron James dunk or a Giannis Antetokounmpo one-dribble dunk from beyond half-court.