Thanks for the really interesting essay. I do tend to believe in greatness and I am not sure that it's a bad thing. Albeit, as said by Matt Damon in the Movie Air, about Nike signing Michael Jordan, we do like tearing down people who are considered 'great'. Not unlike the British public who decided to elect Attlee instead of Churchill in the election following the war. Greatness definitely has a shelf-life unlike infamy weirdly which tends to live on.
What constitutes it? I am not sure. In some ways I do think Churchill was genuinely a 'great' man. A man filled with vision and vitality who despite current popular opinion did keep Britain hanging in the war in 1940 when our backs were really against the wall. But these qualities of greatness were paradoxically his deep and abiding weaknesses which hampered him for his entire political career.
Being 'great' always appears to me as something which is akin to smoke- impossible to latch onto and hard to define its source unless you're very close by. Some may use the example of Lincoln to argue I am incorrect but even that great old man had his fair share of detractors in the day.
Thanks, Sam. Yes, I think greatness is always at least ambiguous insofar as it tends to magnify both virtues and vices (and that's not getting into the cases of those great figures whose personal qualities are predominantly negative).
Provocative thought. I’ve rolled my eyes at hero worship on the Left because it seems so ideologically driven and they’re so *eager* to give it before it’s earned. Greta Thunberg and David Hogg as youth saviors, Elizabeth Holmes as a woman Steve Jobs, Kamala Harris valorized as the future of the party in 2013. These were thrust upon us and fizzled.
Meanwhile, Leftist heroes turned villain include JD Vance with Hillbilly Elligy and Elon Musk—proving again that greatness is defined by your ideology.
Sports is a great arena for greatness to be measured because the stakes are so low, and there’s a vested interest in maintaining an egalitarian environment (rules, refereeing). Everyone has the same floor and starting point. If you can dominate in that arena against your peers, the scoreboard doesn’t lie. It’s one reason LeBron vs Jordan debate is so heated, because the league has evolved over the years it isn’t a 1:1 comparison.
In politics, how do you measure greatness? Transformational? Hurricane Harvey was transformational. So is Martha Stewart. One is destructive and the other constructive. In the political arena, it’s a cheap way to gain fame and notoriety. It should be self-sacrificial. Many seek public office out of vanity, even Mitt Romney the strict Mormon would admit that. Lincoln had such a thirst for ambition that it scared him sometimes. But every man got into that role, felt the weight of the service, and made decisions — no matter how unpopular at the time—because they truly believed it to be the best course of action for their countrymen.
Trump has no capacity for that. Anything that elevates his status is the bottom line.
Dominance is good in sports. In politics, it’s people’s lives and livelihoods at stake. We shouldn’t be afraid to recognize greatness in politics, but it’s something that can only be assigned with the moral clarity of hindsight.
First - You’ll get a lot of debate about Michael Jordan from all sides; not on his skills but on the intangibles. If you want the winning attitude combined with skills that changed the game without bending officiating to enhance the play I’d go for Bill Russell. Activist and groundbreaking coach as well. He never issued a quote like “Republicans also buy shoes (sneakers)” nor did he embarrass himself with a childish display of pique inviting a high school rival to his (Jordsn’s) hall of fame induction- a truly classless performance from someone who should be beyond that. Greatness is defined in so many ways and changes in perspective often defined by its current period. In the 21st century we fall prey to presentism in defining it, skewing our appreciation of the past. This means we focus on how unlike us events or figures are. We are not excusing wrongs by putting things in perspective.
As far as the tech “bros” they’re admired because they’ve made incredible amounts of money which we believe signifies great intelligence and superior morality. The Puritan ideal exploded and mutated into the 21st century.
No argument as far as Russell's personal virtues--he was a true mensch, as well as an all-time top 10 NBA player. But I do think that greatness has a certain extramoral quality and can't simply be derived from excellence of character.
Greatness does have an extramoral quality! It's called "marketing". Russell didn't peacock, he just won championships, and more than anyone else. Lesser winners who branded themselves as great are seen as greater.
Extra moral? Russell winning EVERY 7th game he played is winning . Period. Additionally, he won in the Olympics and two college championships and the Celtics dominating run in the 60s. And coached the Celtics to championships. Wilt would’ve loved to go toe to toe with Jordan and evidently told Jordan he’d never concede GOAT to Jordan. “Michael, until you are so great they are changing the game to stop your game, I don’t think you have the right to make that accolade in that particular way”. Wilt the stilt Chamberlain . Too bad Wilt didn’t have a 100 point game shoe. They bent rules so Jordan could do Jordan (palming, traveling etc) but they CHANGED rules for Wilt.
Presentation is a legitimate part of greatness, because greatness is in the minds of others. Bill Russell won games and championships, but a) as you said, he never boasted about it, and because of that, b) he was viewed as a system player, the engine in Red Auerbach & Walter Brown's machine. There's also c) racism in bussing-era Boston. His life was less glamorous because he lived in a city that hated him, that resented the fact that he won and won often, that resented the fact he wouldn't keep his mouth shut, that couldn't stand him hating Boston back.
Wilt Chamberlain - same era, won fewer championships and games, but he was Superman! He could do things no one else could! He drove expensive cars and had a beautiful woman on either arm. Russell collected model trains. Children don't want to be the nerdy shut-in cog in the machine who lives in a place where everyone hates him, they want to be glamorous, to be Superman and sign autographs on every corner. Chamberlain was a man who had maybe half of Russell's personal discipline and moral fiber, and yet he is the "greater" player in the hearts and minds of those that came after. Put it this way: You have to argue Russell is the greater player, whereas Chamberlain requires no explanation.
Greatness in sports and life isn't just about winning, or even mostly about winning, it's about whether people love you and whether they want to be you. It's at least as much about branding and marketing as it is about material accomplishments. Jordan won 5 fewer championships than Russell, yet he is greater. LeBron is still chasing Tim Duncan's success, yet I call LeBron by his first name and Tim Duncan by his full name. Napoleon was defeated twice and, when he died in exile, there was a Bourbon king in France, yet he is greater than every French king. The average person knows the name of Hannibal, but not the Roman generals who defeated him.
THAT is the problem with worshipping greatness. It is ultimately worshipping a brand.
By whom? Depends how you define the term system. Jordan was a great player until Pippen joined the tram. Then he became a true winner. Without Pippen Jordan’s championships would be fewer. And then many define greatness in terms of brand recognition in addition to talent. Too bad players like Wilt Chamberlain, Russell, Bird and Magic not to mention Walt Frazier or Pete Maravich didn’t have the shoe franchise of Jordan. Maybe we’d be collecting Wilt 100 point game shoes instead of Air Jordans. Jordan’s abysmal Hall of Fame charade lessens his greatness in the minds of many longtime sports fans. Bobby Orr played fewer games and had less points than Gretzky. But talk to hockey players pro and other wise and they’ll cite Orr, Howe, even Sidney Crosby as better than the “great one”. In ways other than sheer brand or name recognition. I, for one, would’ve loved to have seen Jordan attempt a dunk on Wilt.
Thanks for the really interesting essay. I do tend to believe in greatness and I am not sure that it's a bad thing. Albeit, as said by Matt Damon in the Movie Air, about Nike signing Michael Jordan, we do like tearing down people who are considered 'great'. Not unlike the British public who decided to elect Attlee instead of Churchill in the election following the war. Greatness definitely has a shelf-life unlike infamy weirdly which tends to live on.
What constitutes it? I am not sure. In some ways I do think Churchill was genuinely a 'great' man. A man filled with vision and vitality who despite current popular opinion did keep Britain hanging in the war in 1940 when our backs were really against the wall. But these qualities of greatness were paradoxically his deep and abiding weaknesses which hampered him for his entire political career.
Being 'great' always appears to me as something which is akin to smoke- impossible to latch onto and hard to define its source unless you're very close by. Some may use the example of Lincoln to argue I am incorrect but even that great old man had his fair share of detractors in the day.
Thanks, Sam. Yes, I think greatness is always at least ambiguous insofar as it tends to magnify both virtues and vices (and that's not getting into the cases of those great figures whose personal qualities are predominantly negative).
Yeah, I definitely agree here I think :)
Provocative thought. I’ve rolled my eyes at hero worship on the Left because it seems so ideologically driven and they’re so *eager* to give it before it’s earned. Greta Thunberg and David Hogg as youth saviors, Elizabeth Holmes as a woman Steve Jobs, Kamala Harris valorized as the future of the party in 2013. These were thrust upon us and fizzled.
Meanwhile, Leftist heroes turned villain include JD Vance with Hillbilly Elligy and Elon Musk—proving again that greatness is defined by your ideology.
Sports is a great arena for greatness to be measured because the stakes are so low, and there’s a vested interest in maintaining an egalitarian environment (rules, refereeing). Everyone has the same floor and starting point. If you can dominate in that arena against your peers, the scoreboard doesn’t lie. It’s one reason LeBron vs Jordan debate is so heated, because the league has evolved over the years it isn’t a 1:1 comparison.
In politics, how do you measure greatness? Transformational? Hurricane Harvey was transformational. So is Martha Stewart. One is destructive and the other constructive. In the political arena, it’s a cheap way to gain fame and notoriety. It should be self-sacrificial. Many seek public office out of vanity, even Mitt Romney the strict Mormon would admit that. Lincoln had such a thirst for ambition that it scared him sometimes. But every man got into that role, felt the weight of the service, and made decisions — no matter how unpopular at the time—because they truly believed it to be the best course of action for their countrymen.
Trump has no capacity for that. Anything that elevates his status is the bottom line.
Dominance is good in sports. In politics, it’s people’s lives and livelihoods at stake. We shouldn’t be afraid to recognize greatness in politics, but it’s something that can only be assigned with the moral clarity of hindsight.
First - You’ll get a lot of debate about Michael Jordan from all sides; not on his skills but on the intangibles. If you want the winning attitude combined with skills that changed the game without bending officiating to enhance the play I’d go for Bill Russell. Activist and groundbreaking coach as well. He never issued a quote like “Republicans also buy shoes (sneakers)” nor did he embarrass himself with a childish display of pique inviting a high school rival to his (Jordsn’s) hall of fame induction- a truly classless performance from someone who should be beyond that. Greatness is defined in so many ways and changes in perspective often defined by its current period. In the 21st century we fall prey to presentism in defining it, skewing our appreciation of the past. This means we focus on how unlike us events or figures are. We are not excusing wrongs by putting things in perspective.
As far as the tech “bros” they’re admired because they’ve made incredible amounts of money which we believe signifies great intelligence and superior morality. The Puritan ideal exploded and mutated into the 21st century.
No argument as far as Russell's personal virtues--he was a true mensch, as well as an all-time top 10 NBA player. But I do think that greatness has a certain extramoral quality and can't simply be derived from excellence of character.
Greatness does have an extramoral quality! It's called "marketing". Russell didn't peacock, he just won championships, and more than anyone else. Lesser winners who branded themselves as great are seen as greater.
Extra moral? Russell winning EVERY 7th game he played is winning . Period. Additionally, he won in the Olympics and two college championships and the Celtics dominating run in the 60s. And coached the Celtics to championships. Wilt would’ve loved to go toe to toe with Jordan and evidently told Jordan he’d never concede GOAT to Jordan. “Michael, until you are so great they are changing the game to stop your game, I don’t think you have the right to make that accolade in that particular way”. Wilt the stilt Chamberlain . Too bad Wilt didn’t have a 100 point game shoe. They bent rules so Jordan could do Jordan (palming, traveling etc) but they CHANGED rules for Wilt.
Presentation is a legitimate part of greatness, because greatness is in the minds of others. Bill Russell won games and championships, but a) as you said, he never boasted about it, and because of that, b) he was viewed as a system player, the engine in Red Auerbach & Walter Brown's machine. There's also c) racism in bussing-era Boston. His life was less glamorous because he lived in a city that hated him, that resented the fact that he won and won often, that resented the fact he wouldn't keep his mouth shut, that couldn't stand him hating Boston back.
Wilt Chamberlain - same era, won fewer championships and games, but he was Superman! He could do things no one else could! He drove expensive cars and had a beautiful woman on either arm. Russell collected model trains. Children don't want to be the nerdy shut-in cog in the machine who lives in a place where everyone hates him, they want to be glamorous, to be Superman and sign autographs on every corner. Chamberlain was a man who had maybe half of Russell's personal discipline and moral fiber, and yet he is the "greater" player in the hearts and minds of those that came after. Put it this way: You have to argue Russell is the greater player, whereas Chamberlain requires no explanation.
Greatness in sports and life isn't just about winning, or even mostly about winning, it's about whether people love you and whether they want to be you. It's at least as much about branding and marketing as it is about material accomplishments. Jordan won 5 fewer championships than Russell, yet he is greater. LeBron is still chasing Tim Duncan's success, yet I call LeBron by his first name and Tim Duncan by his full name. Napoleon was defeated twice and, when he died in exile, there was a Bourbon king in France, yet he is greater than every French king. The average person knows the name of Hannibal, but not the Roman generals who defeated him.
THAT is the problem with worshipping greatness. It is ultimately worshipping a brand.
By whom? Depends how you define the term system. Jordan was a great player until Pippen joined the tram. Then he became a true winner. Without Pippen Jordan’s championships would be fewer. And then many define greatness in terms of brand recognition in addition to talent. Too bad players like Wilt Chamberlain, Russell, Bird and Magic not to mention Walt Frazier or Pete Maravich didn’t have the shoe franchise of Jordan. Maybe we’d be collecting Wilt 100 point game shoes instead of Air Jordans. Jordan’s abysmal Hall of Fame charade lessens his greatness in the minds of many longtime sports fans. Bobby Orr played fewer games and had less points than Gretzky. But talk to hockey players pro and other wise and they’ll cite Orr, Howe, even Sidney Crosby as better than the “great one”. In ways other than sheer brand or name recognition. I, for one, would’ve loved to have seen Jordan attempt a dunk on Wilt.