Welcome to part two of my argument for who is the world’s greatest athlete. Here is a brief summary of part one.
First, I concede there is no way to arrive at a truly objective answer here, because it necessarily calls into play subjective preferences. However, after starting with some admittedly arbitrary ground rules, I think I can logically proceed to a defensible conclusion. I know this sounds more like a legal argument than a bar room sports debate, but believe me, this analysis will go far beyond what you probably guessed!
Here are the starting assumptions. First, a great athlete is someone with a combination of strength, speed, stamina and skill. I decided to weight skill most heavily because I find this attribute far more interesting than the other three. Part of this is just my preference, but there are some objective facts underlying it, which are as follows.
Motor skill is a quality that is far more complex and “evolved” in terms of design and engineering than strength, speed, or stamina. It would be quite easy to build a machine (or imagine another animal) that could bike faster than Lance Armstrong, run faster that Usain Bolt, or lift more weight than Andy Bolton. But we are nowhere near building a robot (and there are no animals) that can play a skill sport with enough competency to beat a six year old human. That is because the ability to solve difficult motor problems as they arise, which I call dexterity, is a complex, highly nuanced human quality that is the culmination of billions of years of design and evolution. And that is why I find Greg Maddux’s throwing skills to be more interesting than the guy who won the gold medal in the javelin. (Whoever that is.)
So again, dexterity is the primary trait I am looking for here, although the fitness qualities count as well. But many athletes display dexterity. In the comments section of the previous post, readers recommended several athletes as the most skillful – surfers, martial artists, jugglers, soccer players. How do we decide between them? I have a proposal for making distinctions, and it is again based on the work of Nicholai Bernstein.
Four Levels of Control
Bernstein distinguished between four “levels” of motor control, based on the tasks they facilitate, the nature of the neural processes that control them, and the time when such processes emerged on the evolutionary timescale. Some movements rely more on one level than others, and some people are more skilled in one level than another. I want my world’s best athlete to compete in a sport where elite performance in all the levels is required, particularly the higher levels where dexterity primarily resides.
So let’s look at the different types of motor control that Bernstein identified and their relationship to dexterity. I will point out that Bernstein’s work was done many years ago, and I don’t know how well his theories have been supported by the following years of scientific scrutiny. However, the guy was clearly a genius with a lot of insight, and his categories definitely have some common sense appeal. And they are based on a huge amount of physiology that I am leaving out here, so my discussion of them will be very cursory. Here’s a rough outline.
Level A – Posture
Level A is the most basic and primitive, the deep foundation for all other movements. It involves the coordination of the trunk and neck. Level A movements evolved when we were fish in the ocean, and are some of the first movements an infant begins to master. The proper tone of the neck and trunk muscles is largely involuntary and unconscious, but provides the postural support that enables all the more complex activities. Bernstein observes: “when this function starts to be compromised the result is a stoop to the body, flabby muscle… try[ing] to exhibit dexterity with such an apparatus is like trying to write with a broken pencil.” (Quick shameless plug – my movement lessons are basically a refresher course in Level A movements.)
Level B – Large Limb Movements
Level B primarily involves large movements of the extremities in rhythmic, cyclical, locomotion type activities. In terms of evolution, this level developed after we moved from the sea to the ground. In terms of infant development, this would mean creeping and crawling.
Level B controls a huge amount of muscle in large synergies of harmonious, continuous, reciprocal movement. The most obvious example is running.
Levels A and B together create the beautiful, large amplitude movements we recognize as graceful, harmonious and coordinated. But the neural processes that govern these levels have a poor connection with the eyes and ears (the teleceptors), and are therefore in a poor position to respond to external changes in the environment. As such, level A and B movements acting without assistance from higher levels cannot exhibit a great deal of dexterity. But they provide the background or foundation for more dexterous movements in the higher levels.
Level C – Targeted Movements
Level C is concerned with movements whose purpose is to apply force to an external object to achieve a particular effect. Unlike the cyclical repetitive movements in level B, level C movements are usually a singular event, with a clear beginning and end, such as a lift, throw or catch. They are characterized by businesslike accuracy and precision as opposed to the smooth, flowing gracefulness of level B. More John Stockton, less Dominique Wilkins.
Level C can be further distinguished from the previous two levels in that the latter are concerned only with movement of one body part relative to the others, while level C ensures that the body movements can affect some meaningful purpose in the external environment. Thus, level C implies a need for constant resourcefulness in making corrections in relation to externally perceived space. Here’s an analogy – If levels A and B govern the proper inner mechanical workings of a car, then C is the driver at the wheel.
There are a wide variety of C level movements, and Bernstein divides them into various subgroups that I won’t get into. Some examples would be skiing, running in a particular direction, gymnastics, archery, targeted throwing or striking, or weightlifting.
Level D – Complex Actions
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.
Level D “actions” are defined as whole sequences of movements that when linked together solve a motor problem. If any link in the chain is omitted, the goal is not accomplished. To perform an action, one must be able to constantly monitor the performance of each movement in the chain to ensure it has been done properly, and to make corrections or variations in the chain on the fly as needed.
Bernstein uses the example of taking a cigarette and lighter from your pocket, shielding it from the wind and lighting it. This is composed of thirty to forty separate movements, each of which need to be performed properly to achieve nicotine delivery. If we saw an alien do this, we would immediately recognize its high intelligence. In fact, most kids under eight would struggle with the dexterity required by this seemly simple action. Bernstein notes that a child of five to seven moves mostly on levels A-C, and will become very quickly fatigued or bored when forced to do something on the D level, such as practicing a musical instrument or handwriting.
Level D actions are frequently performed with an object and enjoy a close relationship with the hand, because of its extreme adaptability. Another distinguishing feature of level D is that, unlike levels A-C, which are bilateral and symmetrical, D level actions are usually performed far better on one side than the other.
In the context of sport, level D actions are best exemplified by manipulation of a ball or racquet. These are examples of techniques that take thousands and thousands of hours of conscious practice with coaching to learn at the highest level. Compare this to a level B activity such as running, an activity where many top coaches debate whether it is useful to devote any conscious attention at all to technique.
Coordination of the four levels
Physical activities have varying contributions from each level, some of which play a dominant or “leading” role, while others play a subservient or “background” function. For example, running is dominated by levels A and B, with just a little bit of level C to keep running on course, and a little level D to decide how fast to run and when. In activities such as putting a golf ball, or shooting a gun, the higher levels are very active, while the lower levels do basically just allow you to hold a stable posture. Shooting two guns while flying through the air and doing the splits to avoid bullets involves lots of work from all four levels, and that is why we like to watch this type of thing in slow motion.
It is interesting to note that a person might be quite skilled at one level and relatively incompetent at another. Bernstein observes:
Some people easily master accurate, targeted movements from the upper sub level of space (C2) but have problems with anything based on the level of muscular-articular links (B), that is, any movement requiring large, high amplitude synergies. Others are very strong in locomotions that are controlled from the lower sub level of space (C1) but are not very apt with hand movements. In still others, everything that is above level B may be retarded as compared to this level: They are graceful, elegant, and carry the body beautifully, based on level A. One may expect from them quite impressive achievements in coordination, but they fail at virtually any motor enterprise.
This is why we might see a skilled sculptor with poor posture, a wonderful dancer who cannot throw a ball, or a sprinter with poor hand eye coordination. It’s why Shaq can’t hit a free throw. Many top athletes are gifted in one area, but incompetent in others. So here is a key criteria for the best athlete in the world – he or she must participate in a sport which, when played at the highest level, requires elite level performance in all the levels.
Here is how Bernstein describes cooperation of all four levels:
the leading level of a dexterous movement or action displays outstanding features of switchability, resourcefulness, and maneuverability, whereas the supporting background levels display similarly outstanding features of harmony, obedience and precision of work.
Bernstein compares this relationship between the lower and higher levels as akin to a rider on a horse. I like it. My best athlete must have a great horse and be a great rider. Car and driver, periphery and core, hardware and software, fitness and skill, body and mind, fine motor and large motor, the whole package. In the end, he or she must have supreme skill at solving a wide variety of difficult motor problems as they arise unexpectedly. Based on this criteria, we can to start to identify which sports are most demanding in terms of dexterity. And we can eliminate several sports from consideration, because they are basically all horse no rider, or all rider no horse.
I’ll do that in the next post. And then I’ll add some new criteria, because Bernstein can only take us so far.
Any guesses on which sports will be favored and which will be tossed aside in the next post? Let me know in the comments.
Hint: (Lance Armstrong doesn’t make the first cut. GSP does.)
Todd:
I took a stab at this subject a couple years ago and argued for Roger Federer’s athleticism:
http://developyourbballiq.com/roger-federer-and-athleticism/
Now, I might make the same argument for Novak Djokavic.
Also, to your foreshadowing of GSP, I remember being on a message forum in 2004 where S&C coaches argued for the best athletes. MMA kept entering the discussion. That was originally what spurred my interest in MMA, as I had equated it with WWE previously.
I’m interested to read how you handle sports like gymnastics and rowing that often make arguments for being the best athletes, as well as how you equate relative athleticism in ice hockey vs. soccer vs. basketball vs. beach volleyball.
Hi Brain,
Thanks for stopping by. I’ve been to your site and you have some great stuff there.
I will definitely discuss tennis and Roger in particular because he definitely stands out in my mind as an amazing athlete. I’m in awe of that guy.
I will cut rowing and all other purely locomotive type sports in the first paragraph of the next post as they do not involve significant dexterity as I have defined the term. All horse no rider. I will address gymnastics specifically, and also propose a way to decide between the different team ball sports (hockey/soccer/basketball, etc.)
Hey who is your top bball player?
My personal favorite is Rajon Rondo. I’ve defended the athleticism of Steve Nash multiple times. However, it’s pretty tough to argue against LeBron James right now. He’s as big as Karl Malone and moves as fluidly as Isaiah Thomas.
I like Nash. He is a perfect example of the hard to define quality which I think really separates the men from the boys – excellent decision making in a complex situation, because he is always on balance and ready to go anywhere. Ever seen Nash play soccer?
I play squash with a guy who played on the Canadian national bball team with Nash. Five foot nine. He is quite the legend in the local squash community because he started in his 30s and just killed everybody. I think he could have been top twenty in the world if he had picked it up when he was younger.
It’s going to be Nick Matthew, isn’t it? Not tons of strength, but otherwise hitting most of the bases. I think some of the parkour guys are pretty incredible in a lot of changing situations, but it is admittedly less fine motor control.
Squash hits a lot of the bases but fails in two aspects I will talk about in the next post. Plus, how can I pick a guy from my own sport? That would look kind of lame.
So gymnastics is only level C but lighting a cigarette is level D? I thought the levels were supposed to be increasing in complexity? If so, why can anyone learn to be proficient at lighting a cigarette in a very short amount of time but it’s takes many years to learn F score gymnastics elements? Also, why is archery level C, but shooting a gun is level D?
I think you’re going to eliminate gymnastics because it’s a routine, there is no “on the fly.” The winner has to be a sport where a major variable is uncertainty, which requires you to adapt to changing circumstances in the moment.
I said MMA fighters last time, and they’re still in the running.
Neal,
I’m not an expert on the different levels but my understanding is that gymnastics would have quite bit of level D. There are actions composed of chains of movements and you need to practice those techniques for years. But as you said, the routines are all set, there is no improv required, and this counts against it in my view. The environment never changes in gymnastics, which means you are never challenged in a particular way.
I’m anxious to see where this goes! I’m voting for rockclimbers. Complex movements, both explosive and controlled, and arguably the widest movement skill set of any sport, set in a constantly varying environment. Though it might lack an aerobic stamina component. I know I’m reaching…and MMA fighters fit the bill pretty well so far. Tough question…hurts my brain thinking about it!
First of all, this is brilliant! Finally a thoughtful approach to the question. I’ve been exploring this question in my own life and training for a few years and I keep coming back to parkour and more recently, MovNat (and less realistically ninja and shaolin). I actually composed a post on it for later this week.
After years of following the Crossfit philosophy and being frustrated, I felt I was missing out on the engagement of my brain and mind in my movement. Bernateins model addresses that nicely. Can you recommend any further reading?
Thanks Khaled,
Hmm further reading. Moshe Feldenkrais has some good books. So does Mabel Todd, Lulu Sweigard and Eric Franklin. Bernstein will keep you busy for quite a while though if you can stand heavy science. Alain Berthoz has a very science heavy book on movement. Gray Cook has a good book called Movement too.
Are we going to find out your pick in the next post, or do you intend on teasing us for a while?
I agree with the comments about including an adaptive component and requiring spontaneous skilled movement in a definition of “athleticism.”
Regarding MMA fighters, they may be in great physical shape but I don’t think they display the most athletic dexterity or “Level D” movement. For me, this distinction requires finer motor control and modulation of power output. In MMA, gymnastics, weightlifting, etc., the goal is to perform a maximal effort. When is a soft blow to the opponent’s head ever effective? (maybe it is, I don’t know. I have to admit that I don’t watch MMA.)
On the other hand, tennis would qualify, as would soccer. Sometimes, a maximal effort is appropriate, but more often it is not.
I could see the dexterity argument going both ways for soccer. On one hand, developing that level of dexterity without using your hands is a high accomplishment. On the other, how dextrous can you be if you’re not allowed to use the part of your body with the greatest potential for developing dexterity? Regardless, I’d put in a vote for Zidane.
Federer also gets my vote for tennis. As impressive as Djokovic and Nadal are, they don’t compare to Federer’s fluid control. He makes it look easy.
Dan Osman comes to mind as well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCByLWtM7y4
What I don’t know is how many times Osman may have practiced that route, which in my mind would take away from that performance just a little. Still, one wrong move and you die, and at that speed, requires ultimate movement control.
Ben,
MMA includes much “modulation of power output,” as you put it. Softer striking, for example, can be used to confuse your opponents rhythm.
Not to mention that concentrating on striking only is not MMA. Submissions would require fine motor control and adaptability.
Ben,
Great thoughts, thanks for commenting.
I may get to the winner run the next post, not sure. In MMA, I think there is quite a lot of level D in the ground work, submissions, guard, etc. And, those guys definitely modulate their power output. BJJ guys especially will try to stay as relaxed as possible in the guard and wait for their opponent to wear out.
Todd & Neal,
Point taken, and I don’t pretend to have a very well-informed opinion on MMA. I still wouldn’t expect it to require the most dexterity or the greatest modulation of effort when compared to some other sports, but I’m willing to be wrong. Of course, I’m already biased toward soccer and tennis.
Ben,
I will admit a bias towards tennis and soccer as well. That’s what I played in high school. But I will try to be objective!
Agree with the soccer comment. It’s definitely one of the hardest sports to become proficient in. You’re running, cutting, jumping etc at the same time you’re controlling the ball with your feet. Watch Cristiano Ronaldo or Lionel Messi, two unbelievable athletes.
Sounds like your last two posts are describing an Australian Rules Footballer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIReSJhQor0
Can kick left of right foot, acurately punch a ball off their hands with left or right, explosive speed and strength but may cover over 25 km in a game.
It is no doubt that their finely tuned skills in using both hands and feet to dispose of the ball puts them far above the basketballer or American footballer.
Interested to see which one of them you chose.
Brian,
I have not watched much Aussie football, but what I have seen doesn’t cause me to think its a huge technical skill sport. My guess is that the bulk of practice is directed towards developing physical fitness, not technical skill.
And 25km? No way. Soccer players run 5-9 miles, my guess is Aussie rules football players run abut the same.
In fact, here’s a study that say they cover 10-12km, about what they do in soccer:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20364877
As in my first coment, soccer (fotball for us here in Argentina, number one sport for us) players are king in skills. Lionel Messi over all, chosen three years in a row (2009, 2010, 2011) best Soccer player in the world.
I´ve been thinking as well in Skateres, watch Rodney Mullen (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-ov4J024RY), Pedro Barros (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4w9a9LVfxs), and much more. It´s just amazing what they can do with a board under their feet. Lots of skill to do the hardest tricks, A-B-C and D, all in for this one I think.
What do you think???
Todd
Football (soccer) players could be good candidates for the best athlete as that sport requires all the skills mentioned in your posts… But what about futsal players? that sport is more physically demanding in terms of speed, stamina, balance and awareness of the environment than football…
When is your next post?
Alfredo! Thanks for the comment and congrats on the big win. How does this compare to the World Cup?
Futsal?! Yesterday you claimed that Spain was the greatest sports team in history, and today you say they are second rate compared to futsal players!
I don’t know much about futsal, but I will make a prediction and you tell me if it sounds right. If I took the best soccer players from the Spanish team and trained them exclusively in futsal for a year, I would have the best futsal team in the world. True?
Could you take the best futsal players and train them to get on the Spanish national soccer team? My guess is that if they could do that, they would have done that already.
Next post by Wednesday!
Fair point…
La Roja is the best team in history because it’s better than anyone else at this time. No other team in any sport has won more and more consistently than La Roja. It could be down to excelling in the concept of team work and quick passing between the best players for that kind of game. While La Roja has found a breakthrough in this sport, the rest of the teams have to go back to the drawing board to re-evaluate the whole concept of soccer (and try to find an antidote for the “tiki-taka”)But it could also be down to the level of the competition i.e. No better teams around in any other sport.
That doesn’t mean, however, that if you pick the best futsal players and train them on soccer will be the best soccer players… In the same way you can’t take the best table tennis players and train them for tennis to become the best… They are just different sports.
That is the reason why what you might consider the best athlete in the world has to be put in the right context.
Let’s take for example Leo Messi, lightning fast with his feet and with his mind. Stamina, core strength, amazing reflexes… Etc.. Could he be the best swimmer?
Or Cristano Ronaldo? The Apollo of football: Tall strong, fast, skillful…Etc. Is he a better athlete than Messi?
HI Alfredo thanks for the comments.
I bet you could take the football players and have them playing top futsal in a short amount of time. But not the reverse. In America they used to play a version of squash called hardball. The main difference was that the ball was hard – almost like a golf ball. Similar game but actually very different. Only the Americans played this and all other countries played softball. The top softball player – Jahangir Khan from Pakistan, came in and learned the hardball game very quickly and kicked everyone’s ass. I think Messi or Xavi or Ronaldo would do the same in futsal. Don’t you think?
There are clearly lots of things Messi could not do in other sports though, because of his size, and this is what my analysis leaves out – multi sport talent. I think this is a very interesting issue but we have no real data for it – we can only guess. Could LeBron James play soccer? I bet Allen Iverson could. And Steve Nash. Messi would be too small for most other sports. I bet A-Rod could be a quarterback or point guard. The guy I play squash with who used to play hoops for the canadian national team at 5 foot nine was getting pretty close to semipro squash level only a few years after picking up the game. And he started playing after 32 years old, when most squash players retire. And he plays soccer with ex pro soccer players, even though he quit that at 15. Some people can do everything.
I think one important distinction is the interaction between other players or opponents. Gymnastics and cycling, racing do not really require competition against another person in the sense that one can go out and try to achieve a PR.
Team sports (soccer, basketball) or sports like Tennis and Squash require you to adapt to your opponent and throw off their rhythm while maintaining your own.
Exactly.
No need for any more discussion. Benji Marshall surely – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kboCHWOdfHw