Who is the World's Best Athlete?

A smart answer to a dumb question

Note: The article below is an edited version of a series of articles I first posted in 2014. I’m sharing it again now because of the outcome of the World Cup this weekend, which involved an athlete (guess who!) discussed in the post.

---

Who is the world’s best athlete?

I admit it, this is a kind of a dumb question, because there’s obviously no correct answer. Most arguments on this topic involve very low levels of intellectual rigor, combined with very high levels of just making stuff up. I promise this post will exceed that low standard! In fact, I think you'll be hard pressed to find a more reasonable treatment of this question on the internet.

I’ll start with some admittedly arbitrary ground rules, then build a solid analytical framework, and then come to a defensible conclusion. The point is not so much to prove anything, but to talk about the nature of athletic greatness and why we find it inspiring.

Criteria

Here’s a good definition of the word “athlete” from Merriam-Webster:

a person who is trained or skilled in exercises, sports, or games requiring physical strength, agility, or stamina.

This is a good starting point, but leaves out a key aspect of athleticism, which is speed. The sport scientist Mel Siff notes that athletic prowess is defined by four major “S” qualities: Strength, Speed, Stamina, and Skill. 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 ultimately win sporting competitions.

All athletes have some combination of these qualities, but in different mixes and proportions. How do we weigh them to determine who is the most athletic? I think the fourth quality, skill, is the most interesting, and I will therefore give it special consideration over the other three.

That is not to say that I am unimpressed by people who are strong, fast and fit. My idea of a top athlete certainly involves all these qualities in abundance. However, they are only the crude building blocks of athleticism. It is the intelligent expression of these qualities that is truly interesting. This is why most people find the throwing skills of Justin Verlander or Tom Brady to be more impressive than the person who won the gold medal in the javelin (whoever that is).

Motor skill is a quality that is far more complex and "evolved" in terms of design and engineering than strength, speed, or stamina. Many animals can swim faster than Michael Phelps, run faster that Usain Bolt, or lift more weight than Eddie Hall. It would be fairly easy to build a robot to do any of these things. But there are no robots or animals that can outperform a moderately trained 10 year-old human at soccer, baseball, ping-pong, or any other sport requiring skillful and variable movement.

That is because each of these sports requires the creativity to quickly solve a wide variety of movement problems that arrive spontaneously, second by second. The skill that allows us to do this is often called dexterity. The nature of dexterity was best described by the Russian physiologist Nikolai Bernstein, and my analysis from here forward relies heavily on his work.

Movement Intelligence

Bernstein defined dexterity as the ability to correctly solve motor problems as they arise, including unexpected problems. This skill defines the movements that matter in the survival of the fittest.

For example, insects have excellent power but poor dexterity. They can jump many times their height, or carry objects many times their weight. But if they roll onto their back, they might not have the movement resourcefulness to recover. They are lacking in "motor wits."

Humans are the most dextrous animals. Although many animals can run faster and jump higher, none can solve as many motor problems in so many ways. The famous biologist J.B.S. Haldane noted that: "No other animal can swim a mile, walk twenty miles, and then climb forty feet up a tree. Many civilized men can do this without much difficulty." And Haldane left out a million other amazing human physical accomplishments in sport, dance, music and art. If you browse Youtube you can find many examples of physical skills that you never would have believed until you saw them in action. By contrast, the movements of animals have far less variety. Sure many of their movements are beautiful and perfect in their own way, but they would never be described as involving genius, which is a defining quality for my world’s best athlete.

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.

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. Here’s Bernstein on the importance of good posture for dexterity:

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.

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 like a jump shot than a 360 dunk.

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 

Here’s a quick review of the four levels:

• Level A: Control of the trunk and neck. Basically, good posture.

• Level B: Large, graceful limb movements. Often fluid, continuous, reciprocal, synchronized, and repetitive, as in running or swimming. Imagine a beautiful running stride.

• Level C: Targeted movements. Single, crisp, direct movements requiring accuracy in relation to some external target. A perfect jump shot or free kick in soccer.

• Level D: Complex Actions. Whole sequences of movements that when linked together solve a motor problem. Constant corrections are required. Think sports with balls or opponents.

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 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.

Locomotion Athletes

Under Bernstein's analysis, sports like running, swimming, cycling or rowing do not require high levels of dexterity. They place high demands on levels A and B, but very little at levels C and D. The only requirement for targeted accuracy is basically not running off the course, and there is almost no need for any complex actions. To use my car/driver analogy, they need great cars, but their driving skills are not tested at all.

According to Bernstein: "during a monotonous, unperturbed course of movement, free of any unexpected events, there is no demand for dexterity." Therefore:

a sprinter who runs with beautiful and perfect movements cannot be considered dextrous, because dexterity is not in the motor act itself but is revealed by its interaction with the changing external conditions, with uncontrolled and unpredicted influences from the environment.

So there you have it. Eliud Kipchoge, Michael Phelps and Usain Bolt are out. We can eliminate decathletes for similar reasons. Let’s move on.

Gymnasts

People often point to gymnasts as exemplifying the highest level of movement skill. I agree that gymnasts like Simone Biles are quite amazing and exhibit some of the best control of posture and large limb coordination (Levels A and B) that one might imagine. There is also significant demand at level C and D because they must move with precision and perform complex actions. They are amazing drivers of incredible cars.

However, gymnastics lacks a crucial element which greatly increases the demand for dexterity. And that is a changing environment. Finding solutions to motor problems is much more difficult in an environment where the circumstances constantly change, as opposed to one where the environment always remains the same. Here’s a good quote from Bernstein:

The capacity of dexterity appears to be, not in the movements themselves, but rather in their interaction with the environment. The more complex and unpredictable the interactions are, the more successfully a person overcomes them, the higher is the dexterity of those movements.

Therefore, if you are performing your skills in an environment that is static, no matter how difficult those skills are to execute, they will never require as much dexterity as the performance of skills in an environment that is changing. Here’s Bernstein again:

when a boxer or a fencer practices with the passive training device, their moves and hits may be beautiful, quick, and strong, but the movements will never be dextrous. This capacity will be fully revealed only during boxing or fencing with a real opponent, when each instant is full of the unexpected and when being late by 100th of a second may well mean losing a match.

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 who is right there actively trying to mess with you. Have you ever practiced, all by yourself, some dribbling move, or martial arts tactic, to a degree where you thought you had it down pretty well, only to realize that it is complete garbage in the presence of an actual opponent?

If you watched me shoot hoops and dribble a basketball around the court, I might convince you that I am an adequate (not good) basketball player. But put me on the court in a game situation and I would look like crap. Fancy ball handling skills are completely different when there is an actual defender there with his hand in your face. True dexterity emerges in the face of an opponent.

With this in mind, I will exclude all sports that do not involve an opponent. This includes gymnastics, parkour, rock climbing, skateboarding, surfing, skiing and others. Sorry guys, you have amazing skills, but unless you perform them with an opponent in your face, one of the most interesting and vital aspects of dexterity will always be missing. Human movement skills did not evolve to show off, they evolved to match motor wits with a worthy foe. So let’s look at sports that involve that element.

A battle of motor wits

So now we are down to sports involving an actual opponent. These are the sports where people typically look to find the world’s best athletes: tennis, rugby, mixed martial arts, soccer, hockey, basketball, football, and baseball. I think it is no coincidence that these are also the most popular sports in the world. So how do we choose between them?

I can think of some ways to narrow it down. I might prefer team sports over individual ones because they involve more complexity. And I might also start eliminating sports which are more oriented towards fitness qualities than skill qualities, such as American football and rugby. But I have a better way to make the next cut, and it gives me an answer I find very satisfying on number of levels. It’s a criterium that no one ever seems to mention, and for me it is decisive. And that is the size of the competition pool for the sport.

Big fish, small ponds

Why do we care about the size of the talent pool that a sport draws from? Here is a quick example to illustrate.

Let’s compare squash and tennis. They are similar games in many ways, requiring similar skills sets. One might argue that squash is a more demanding game than tennis, because it involves a wider selection of shots, more complex positions, and quicker reaction times.

Even if these arguments are valid, it would be a huge mistake to conclude that Mohamed El Shorbagy (one of the all-time great squash players) is a better racquet athlete than Roger Federer. This is simply because way more people play tennis than squash, and therefore Roger had to jump over far more hurdles than Mohamed to get to the top. As such, he is far more likely to be the superior athlete.

Or to put it another way, the talent pool that tennis draws from is much larger than that for squash. Therefore the selection process for finding and honing the best athletes has been far more rigorous, so it is far more likely to generate truly exceptional ability.

Imagine you somehow invented the coolest most demanding sport in the world. If only five people compete at it, it would not make sense to crown the top-ranked player as the best athlete in the world. This is why we have to exclude sports like squash, Aussie rules football, Irish hurling, and numerous other sports that have relatively low participation levels.

With this in mind, I will ask a simple question to choose amongst the remaining sports that have passed my initial hurdles: which one draws from the largest talent pool? Which sport employs the most rigorous and wide ranging selection process? In which sport is it toughest to get to the top of the heap?

And here the answer is clear. Soccer is the biggest pond, and it is therefore likely to have the biggest fish. Look at it this way.

If you want to be a pro American football player, you need to be one of the best players in the USA. You don't need to compete against the rest of the world, they are off playing rugby. If you want to be a professional baseball player, you need to be one of the best players in the Americas and some parts of Asia. If you want to be in the NBA, you need to be one of the best players in the USA and Europe. But if you want to play soccer in the English Premier League, you need to be one of the best players in the world. Europe, Africa, Asia, Australia, the Americas. People are applying for this job from all over the place.

In almost every country besides the USA, kids grow up dreaming of becoming a professional soccer players. There is far less competition from football, baseball, basketball. Soccer gets all the best athletes. And then these athletes are put through a rigorous selection and training process, where talent is identified, weeded out, and then honed to a sharp edge by the best coaches. This is where the most intense competition is, and therefore this is where we should look for the world’s best athletes. The people who get to the top of soccer are true outliers, with an extraordinary combination of genetics, single minded focus, insane work ethic, and top quality coaching.

Here’s another point about soccer which distinguishes it from basketball, the sport I might consider number two on my list, and the source for some very credible claimants to the title of top athlete, such as Lebron James, Steph Curry or Michael Jordan. Although it is certainly not easy to get into the NBA, there is one thing that makes it easier than soccer, at least from the perspective of developing dexterity - you are basically only competing against other guys that are above six foot three. So right off the bat a significant percentage of your competition is eliminated.

In soccer, almost any size body can play, and therefore you have to compete against more people to get to the top. In fact, the best soccer player ever is only five foot seven. Lionel Messi is my best athlete in the world, a true sporting genius.

The case for Messi

In 2014, when I wrote the original version of this article, Messi was 26 and at the top of his game. Now he’s 35, and clearly no longer the best player, but he has a credible claim to having the best career of any soccer player in history. That claim was bolstered by a win at the World Cup a few days ago, which is why I decided to repost this article.

How do we know he’s the best? Many great athletes and soccer legends have said so. Here are some quotes about Messi by great players and athletes, saying he is the best, on a different level, from another planet, or not even human. The list includes Lebron James, Kobe Bryant and Usain Bolt. A consistent theme is that Messi is a genius, and that his skill level is hard to even understand.

What about statistics, and the debate about whether Messi’s rival Christiano Ronaldo might be better? I have to admit, I don't know that much about soccer statistics, and my understanding is that greatness in soccer is much harder to quantify with numbers compared to sports like baseball or basketball. But I have found a few sources here and here, both of which give the clear advantage to Messi.

In any event, the point of this post is less to argue about who’s the greatest, and more to describe the nature of greatness. In that respect, watching some videos of Messi in action illustrates my main point pretty well, which is this: great movement is about solving complex movement problems, and the hardest problems to solve involve opponents actively trying to mess with you.

Here’s a video compiling just a few highlights:

And another, focusing on creative and unusual plays:

And there’s another one below, documenting all 91 goals he scored in 2012. Skip the penalty kicks and focus on the goals from play. And to appreciate the difficulty, ask yourself what is the pathway to the goal here? You have a much better view of the field than he does. You can even pause the video to stop and consider. Even with those advantages, chances are, you will have usually have no idea how to score in most cases. The situation is incredibly complex, with a million choices, and 99.9% of them do not result in a goal. And that is what most people feel when they touch a soccer ball on the field with twenty other people hovering around - confusion in the face of extreme complexity.

But not Lionel Messi. For a true movement genius with the highest levels of dexterity and movement intelligence, coupled with speed, quickness, power, stamina, strength, and vision, the answers come easily.

Conclusion

Thanks for reading to the end of this long article. So what do you think? Do you agree? Did I diss your athlete?

And what about multi-sport athletes like Bo Jackson, Allen Iverson, or Deion Sanders. Or Danny Ainge? That guy played pro hoops and baseball, unlike Jordan. And Dave Winfield got drafted into the NBA, MLB and NFL!

Obviously, there's more room for barroom debating this issue, but I will bow out of the conversation for now. Thanks for reading.