Who Are the Greatest Athletes of All Time

Introduction

This topic should not start with a list of athletes. The criteria matters and most of these lists spend little or no time of the criteria. The list makers have biases, and the biases and values of the list maker underlie all conclusions. 

I'm planning to make a list because this is a fun topic that always comes up. But before I continue, I want to evaluate what criteria I should consider.

My biases, I love running as an activity and sport. Basketball was my favorite sport for a lot of my life. Baseball was the first sport I loved. I like both cycling and watching cycling. I never got into European football. I find American football very entertaining, but I don't like to and rarely watch it.

With all that said, I'm going to try to be objective.

Leave a comment if you have an idea I left out, or a disagreement!

Global Participation

Soccer/football has been the most popular sport globally for most of the last 100 years (one exception for running as a physical activity), if not all. A 2023 FIFA report found "there were 128,694 professional male footballers at 3,986 clubs in 135 countries around the world." Footballers have been consistently among the highest paid athletes in modern sports, especially in recent decades.

The pool of footballers is greater than any other sport. All else equal, being successful in football deserves more acclaim than success in other sports,  

Athleticism vs Skill? 

Tom Brady has one of the most impressive careers in any sport. He dominated the NFL into his 40s. Brady's success with multiple teams in his last seasons is incredible. Brady is a greatest contender, but he was not an exceptional athlete by raw athleticism standards. He isn't that fast, strong, or explosive for a professional athlete, let alone an NFL player; but his skill development, intelligence, decision-making, and cognitive abilities are among the greatest of all time in any sport. Brady is a contender.

Individual vs Team Success?

Jordan won six titles, but it's difficult to say how many of those championships were due to Jordan vs Jordan's teammates and coaching staff. The Bulls made the playoffs and were still among the best teams in the NBA when Jordan first retired. After Jordan came back, the Bulls acquired Dennis Rodman. Adding Rodman and Jordan to a roster that was already a playoff contender was huge. It's hard to say how much of Jordan's success was due to having a really good supporting cast. 

Longevity

LeBron James is a freak of nature. Like Brady, James continues to be a dominant force in the NBA into his 40s. But even with his longevity, he has yet to match Jordan or other NBA greats championship titles or MVP records. This gets back to the team debate.

James possesses all the skills and cognitive attributes along with the strength, explosiveness, and athleticism of world class athletes. And he has been able to maintain those levels for over 20 years. James is a contender.

Dominance 

Usain Bolt is also a freak of nature, except unlike basketball, Bolt's dominance is undeniable. He was almost unbeatable in the 100m and 200m sprints from 2008-2016. He won the gold medals in both the 100m and 200m at three straight Olympics. 

A great athlete should be judged by how much better they were than the next best athletes in their sport. Bolt is a contender.

Unprecedented

Shohei Ohtani takes the cake here. No other baseball player in MLB history has been one of the best pitchers and hitters at the same time. Babe Ruth was a great pitcher and then a great hitter, but never both at the same time. In addition, Ruth played in the MLB when black players were not allowed to play, let alone there being much global participation.

Ruth played in a MLB with a weak competitive pool due to segregation and geography. Baseball players of the early 20th century suffer from not being able to perform in integrated league like MLB, Negro League, and other Latin leagues. Player in the non MLB leagues did excell in pitching and hitting, but like Ruth's MLB, the competitive pool was significantly weaker. 

For Ohtani, as a modern athlete, in one of the most competitive global sports, to be a multiple MVP winner while sustaining silver slugger quality hitting with CY Young quality pitching is unprecedented to say the least. Ohtani is a serious contender!

The fewer serious historical analogues an athlete has, the more their dominance should be rewarded.

Most dominant modern athletes have an analogue archetype. Michael Phelps was extremely dominant holding the Olympic record 23 gold medals, but Mark Spitz was similarly dominant-winning seven gold medals in a single Games. Even with Bolt's dominance, athletes like Carl Lewis and Jesse Owens had similar dominance, and both Lewis and Owens were dominant gold medal jumpers too. 

Olympics 

The Olympics are historically and globally prestigious, in addition to being an extreme source of national pride. Winning a medal is one of the greatest achievements in most sports.

But not all Olympic medals are created equal athletically. For some sports winning a gold medal is the pinnacle of their sporting achievement, like swimming, track and field, gymnastics, and wrestling. Whereas sports like football (World Cup), baseball (World Series), golf (majors), boxing (titles), tennis (majors), cycling (Tour de France), tackle football (Super Bowl), and basketball (NBA Finals) all have their greatest achievements outside the Olympics.

Some sports, like swimming, track, and gymnastics, have opportunities for athletes to win multiple medals in a single Olympic Games. Whereas events like the wrestling or team sports have only one medal opportunity.

Running, Jumping, and Throwing

Running is likely the oldest sport in human history. Humans have been running, jumping, and throwing for hundreds of thousands of years.

Track and field deserves special weight because it tests universal human athleticism. The Olympic motto  "Citius, Altius, Fortius" (Latin for Faster, Higher, Stronger) captures it best. Running, jumping, and throwing are the foundations of human athletic performance. They test power, speed, strength, coordination, and endurance. 

Running is the most popular sport and activity, besides walking. People run for fun, sport, and transportation. If one is an exceptionally fast runner, they will most likely be found in nearly all societies. They may become a footballer or other athlete, but if they are fast enough, they will be noticed. Being the best and fastest runner deserves additional weight.

World Records

Like medals, not all world records are created equal. But for those records and events that have a long history and millions of participants, being a world record holder is a huge accomplishment. Having a WR stand for decades is a great sign of dominance across generations. 

Unlike comparing players on teams-like Jordan and James- running, jumping, and throwing are very comparable over time. The main issues being technological advancements and performance enhancing drugs. Tracks and shoes make running times a lot faster. Drugs can improve several factors that increase performance-like recover, strength, mass, power, speed, endurance, training tolerance, etc.

PEDs

Performance-enhancing drugs must be considered and weighed when evaluating athletes. If it wasn't for PEDs, Barry Bonds and Lance Armstrong might be on some longer lists of contenders.

Not all athletes who used drugs were caught or banned, so eras and sports need to be weighed on their enforcement and probabilities of using drugs. 

It was a lot easier to use PEDs in the 1990s than it is now in the 2020s.

Money

Money signals excellence in sports. People like sports because people like competition. The most entertaining sports attract the most fans, and in return the most athletes. So income for playing sports should be considered. It will help compare athletes across sports and in some cases time. 

Athletes can only make los of money if the sport is extremely popular. Popularity brings in bodies and money. The richest athletes cannot be the richest without being among the most dominant. 

Contracts are somewhat speculative. So a player can get a big contract and not live up to it, but that athlete will to get another big contract. So athletes continuously getting big contracts earned it!

League structures and salary caps will have to be considered too. Money doesn't work well historically, see below.

Opportunity vs Exclusion

Athletes need to be judged based on the competitive pool. Ruth played in the MLB before integration, so his pool was relatively weak, extremely weak compared to Ohtani.

Historically, many sports excluded many athletes by race, sex, social class, nationality, amateur status, and professional access.

Achievement Opportunities

Sports have different competition cycles. Some sports have multiple events each competition, like swimming and gymnastics. The best swimmers and gymnasts typically win multiple championships in different events. Footballers and other athletes may compete in multiple leagues during a single year.

Obviously, counting medals and championships does not work across sports.

Athleticism Broadness

Sprinters maximize the universal, but narrow, trait of power. The track event decathlon is very broad- included many of the classical skills, but the event is far less popular than the single events like the 100 meters.

Sports should be judged by the varying athletic and cognitive demands. 

Professionalization

For many years, in many sports, athletes could not receive pay due to the amateur rules. This limited older athletes a lot more than modern athletes. 

This fact will affect my focus on income and money. Going back in time, money is a worse and worse signal of athletic achievement.

Conclusion

Obviously, the “greatest athlete” does not mean one thing. It really depends on the evaluator's biases and values. It could mean the most dominant, the most skilled, the most physically gifted, the most versatile, the most decorated, the most valuable to their team, the most unprecedented, or the highest paid. 

I'm going to gather a bunch of greatest of all time lists. I think I can eliminate many athletes off the lists due to criteria I mentioned above, like weak participation pools being a big one for older athletes.

Athletes like Bo Jackson will be harder to evaluate. 

My initial intuition is that the following deserves the greatest weights: dominating global sports; having few or, better yet, no historical analogues; making absurd amounts of money. Two of my early favorites are Shohei Ohtani and Lionel Messi. 

Until next post, what did I miss?

Thought Experiments about Identity, Mind, Body, and Selves

I discussed the following Ep 8 a Self or not a Self with my guest Nate Sheff.

Thought Experiment 1: Mind Swap

Setup-original persons:

• Person 1: Mind 1, Body 1
• Person 2: Mind 2, Body 2

Experiment: swap minds, so that Mind 1 is in Body 2 and that Mind 2 is in Body 1, resulting in:

• Person 3: Mind 1, Body 2,
• Person 4: Mind 2, Body 1

Question: 

Who is Person 3?

Thought Experiment 2: Mind Fission

Setup-original persons:

• Person 1: Mind 1, Body 1
• Person 2: Mind 2, Body 2
• Person 3: Mind 3, Body 3

Experiment: divide Mind 1 into two hemispheres. Remove Mind 2 from Body 2 and Mind 3 from Body 3. Put one hemisphere of Mind 1 into Body 2. Put the other hemisphere of Mind 1 into Body 3, resulting in:

• Person 4: Half Mind 1, Body 2
• Person 5: Half Mind 1, Body 3

Question:

Where is Person 1? Who is Person 4 and Person 5?

Conclusions

There are no souls!

For the mind swap, I think Person 3 would think and feel like they were Person 1. That leads me to suspect that Person 3 is Person 1.

For the mind fusion, it's a lot less clear to me. I suspect both Person 4 and Person 5 will feel like they are Person 1. One of the two would most likely have better communication skills and be able to express being Person 1 better. I'm tempted to say both are Person 1, but they both become new people going forward. Something like, Person 1a and Person 1b.

Both thought experiments capture my belief that the self and identity are in the psychological continuity and not the bodily continuity. I don't mean to suggest that the body, hormones, senses, nervous system, and enviornment do not influence the mind. They do. The mind is shaped by the body, but what makes a person a person over time is the continuity of what Hume calls a bundle of perceptions: the processing of sensations, emotions, memory, thoughts, interpretations, and self-awareness. The mind is the present emergent state of a psychological continuity that makes a person a person, more commonly known as a self!

An existing self that The Buddha, Hume, and Parfit can all agree exists, but exists as an emergent property of perceptions.

Running, Carbs, and Training Adaptation

From the book The Science and Practice of Middle and Long Distance Running, in the chapter titled "Nutritional Requirements for Distance Runners."

 

Sunflower Writing Challenge

Background

"Sunflower" by Post Malone and Swae Lee has been one of my family's most played songs the last couple of years. I really like the music. The sunflower metaphor and symbolism is great.

I recently looked up the chords, and the song is harmonically simple. It uses the same four-chord progression (D–G–Em–G) for the entire song-or I do at least!

But as I've been singing and learning the lyrics, it's blatantly obvious that the lyrics are the songs weak point. I like the chorus. The second verse is decent, but the first verse is bad, bad.  

Every time I practice the song, I tell myself I'm going to revise the lyrics. Today, I finally got around to my first revisions. Carefully reading the lyrics inspired me to text a friend. Texting a friend inspired me to write a blog post. I'll extending my creative writing challenge to all!

Prompt

Revise the lyrics to the song "Sunflower." Rewrites as much or little of the lyrics as you want. Your goal is to produce the best song lyrics to your abilities and preferences. 

I'm going to start with these constraints:

• Keep the original theme of the song
• Keep the sunflower metaphor and symbolism
• Keep the chorus so other people (my daughter) can sing along

Submit your revised lyrics in the comments!

Lyrics

Aye, aye, aye, aye (ooh)
Ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh (ooh)
Aye, aye
Ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh

Needless to say, I keep it in check
She was a bad, bad, nevertheless (yeah)
Callin' it quits now, baby, I'm a wreck (wreck)
Crash at my place, baby, you're a wreck (wreck)
Needless to say, I'm keeping in check
She was all bad, bad, nevertheless
Callin' it quits now, baby, I'm a wreck
Crash at my place, baby, you're a wreck
Thinkin' in a bad way, losin' your grip
Screamin' at my face, baby, don't trip
Someone took a big L, don't know how that felt
Lookin' at you sideways, party on tilt
Ooh-ooh-ooh
Some things you just can't refuse
She wanna ride me like a cruise
And I'm not tryna lose

Then you're left in the dust
Unless I stuck by ya
You're the sunflower
I think your love would be too much
Or you'll be left in the dust
Unless I stuck by ya
You're the sunflower
You're the sunflower

Every time I'm leavin' on you (ooh)
You don't make it easy, no (no, no)
Wish I could be there for you
Give me a reason to, oh (oh)
Every time I'm walkin' out
I can hear you tellin' me to turn around
Fightin' for my trust and you won't back down
Even if we gotta risk it all right now, oh (now)
I know you're scared of the unknown ('known)
You don't wanna be alone (alone)
I know I always come and go (and go)
But it's out of my control

And you'll be left in the dust
Unless I stuck by ya
You're the sunflower
I think your love would be too much
Or you'll be left in the dust
Unless I stuck by ya
You're the sunflower
You're the sunflower (yeah)

Source: Musixmatch

Songwriters: Louis Russell Bell / Carl Austin Rosen / Khalif Malik Ibn Shaman Brown / Billy Walsh / Austin Richard Post / Carter Lang

Sunflower lyrics © Warner-tamerlane Publishing Corp., Emi April Music Inc., Eardrummers Entertainment Llc, Twenty Fifteen Avenue Music Inc., Twenty Fifteen Boulevard Music Inc., Nyankingmusic, Posty Publishing, Wmmw Publishing, Universal Music Works, Hi Fi Asset Acquisition Co Lp Bmi

Fact Checking Myself and My Podcast

Background

I started adding fact checks to my podcast show notes when it became very cheap and easy to get transcripts.

Until today, I typed up a prompt each time with my transcript into Chat GPT.

I usually feel good about the results. Almost all the inaccurate and false information is more hyperbole or GPT missing the context, like humor.

Today, for whatever reason, I wondered if GPT has been pandering to me. That might explain how and why my fact checks come back so positive. Here is a fact check of episode 60. This is an example of a simple quick fact check response.

Introduction

After some trial and error, I've created a thorough prompting for future fact checks. This is mostly a post for me. The following is a prompt that I can/will use in the future to do my fact checks.

This will be a work in progress project for me.

Fact Checking Prompts

I'm going to use multiple phases. The first phase is an extraction of factual claims. The second phase will be the fact checking of the claims and links to further information. I read that the LLMs will do better if tasks are separated. After following that advice, it's obvious.

I've modified what GPT recommended to fit my preferences. Then I fed my revised copy back to GPT and then revised that again. I'll take any and all feedback!

First Prompt: (This is what I will copy and paste with the transcript in the future)

Extract factual claims from the attached transcript. Do not evaluate whether the claims are true yet.

Do not summarize the transcript. Do not assume the speakers are correct. Treat the transcript as a conversation that may contain errors, exaggerations, missing context, misleading phrasing, inaccurate information, and false information.

1. Create a claim inventory with these columns:Claim ID
2. Timestamp / transcript location
3. Speaker, if identifiable
4. Exact claim or close paraphrase
5. Claim type:
• External factual claim: about real-world history, biography, science, law, publication history, adaptation history, statistics, quotations, terminology, etc.
• In-universe plot claim: about what happens inside the book, film, game, or fictional world
• Interpretation / analysis: thematic, symbolic, moral, literary, psychological, or speculative reading
• Personal anecdote: speaker’s own experience or opinion
1. Source claim: claim that a source, interview, article, book, or scholar says something
6. Category — history, science, law, economics, biography, statistics, quotation, chronology, terminology, literature, adaptation history, psychology, medicine, etc.
7. Verification priority:
• High: names, dates, “first/only/oldest/most/never/always,” direct quotations, scientific claims, legal claims, medical claims, statistics, publication history, biography, claims about author intent, or claims likely to damage credibility if wrong
• Medium: claims that are factual but low-stakes or easily corrected
• Low: plot details, loose interpretations, personal impressions, or minor details
8. Why it needs verification, if applicable
9. Suggested source type:
• Primary text
• Scholarly source
• Official record
• Peer-reviewed science
• Government or university source
• Major reference work
• Reputable journalism
• Needs specialist source

Important rules:

• Do not fact-check yet.
• Do not collapse distinct factual claims into one row if they require different sources.
• Do not over-extract every minor plot beat unless it affects interpretation or could be misstated publicly.
• Separate “the speaker says X” from “X is true.”
• Mark speculative language clearly: “speaker speculates,” “speaker infers,” “speaker interprets.”
• Preserve claims using words like “first,” “only,” “oldest,” “most,” “never,” “always,” “everyone,” and “none” exactly, because these are high-risk.

Second Prompt: (Copy & Paste)

Using the extracted claim inventory, fact-check the High-priority claims first, then Medium-priority claims if space allows. Do not spend equal time on low-risk plot details unless they affect a larger factual or interpretive claim.

1. Create a table with these columns:Claim ID
2. Timestamp / transcript location
3. Claim — exact claim or close paraphrase
4. Claim type — external factual claim, in-universe plot claim, interpretation, personal anecdote, or source claim
5. Category — history, science, law, economics, biography, statistics, quotation, chronology, terminology, literature, adaptation history, psychology, medicine, etc.
6. Fact-check status — accurate, mostly accurate, misleading, unsupported, disputed, false, needs more evidence, or speculative
7. Most accurate version — give the most objective corrected version of the claim
8. Source(s) — provide links or citations
9. Source relevance note — explain exactly what the source proves and what it does not prove
10. Expert consensus — high, moderate, low, no consensus, or not applicable
11. Type of evidence — primary text, peer-reviewed scholarship, systematic review, government source, court record, historical record, university press, major reference work, reputable journalism, anecdotal, etc.
12. Risk level — high, medium, or low, based on how damaging the error would be if published
13. Notes / caveats / opposing evidence
14. Recommended edit — keep, revise, qualify, remove, or move to speculation

Status rules:

• Accurate: directly supported by strong evidence.
• Mostly accurate: basically right but missing nuance or minor correction.
• Misleading: partly true but phrased in a way likely to mislead listeners.
• Unsupported: no reliable source found after checking, or the claim is asserted without sufficient evidence.
• Disputed: credible sources disagree.
• False: contradicted by reliable evidence.
• Needs more evidence: plausible, but not enough reliable evidence was found to classify confidently.
• Speculative: an inference, interpretation, or hypothesis rather than a verifiable fact.

Source rules:

• Do not merely provide a link; explain exactly what each source proves, and mark any part of the claim that the source does not prove.
• Do not cite a source unless it directly supports the statement.
• Prefer primary sources and scholarly sources over blogs, Wikipedia, Reddit, YouTube, or unsourced articles.
• For books, films, and literary claims, prefer the primary text, scholarly criticism, author interviews, university presses, and major reference works.
• For science claims, prefer peer-reviewed papers, systematic reviews, government science agencies, medical institutions, or university sources.
• For history claims, prefer academic historians, primary documents, university presses, archives, or major reference works.
• For law claims, prefer statutes, court opinions, court filings, official government pages, and reputable legal analysis.
• For current events, use the most recent reliable sources and include publication dates.
• For people, verify names, dates, job titles, affiliations, direct quotations, and whether the person actually said the quoted material.
• For claims using numbers, rankings, “first,” “only,” “oldest,” “never,” “always,” “everyone,” or “most,” check especially care
• fully.
• If a claim is about author intent, do not infer intent from the text alone. Use interviews, letters, essays, biographies, or scholarship. If none exist, mark it as interpretation or needs more evidence.
• If a claim is about what happens in a fictional work, verify against the primary text or film where possible.

Third Prompt: (Copy & Paste)

From the fact-check table, create a short “Top Corrections and Accuracy Assessment” section for the beginning of my report.

Include:

1. A two-sentence overall accuracy assessment of the transcript.
2. A ranked list of the most important corrections, sorted in this order:
• False
• Misleading
• Disputed
• Unsupported
• Needs more evidence
3. For each correction, include:
• Timestamp / transcript location
• Original claim
• Fact-check status
• Corrected claim
• Risk level
• One sentence explaining why the correction matters
4. Exclude minor details unless they affect credibility, interpretation, or factual accuracy.
5. Keep this section concise enough to paste at the top of a written report. 

Conclusion

Separating the fact check into extract and then evaluate creates a more detailed fact check. See an example here, Ep 64.

As of now, I'm not 100% satisfied, but until next time...

Life According to Morla the Aged One

I'm rereading The Neverending Story with my daughter. It's a very fun story. It's one of the books I've been looking forward to reading when my daughter was old enough.

The quote below almost reminds me of my friend Brendan. We recently discussed purpose here, among other topics.​ It's been part of a continuous discussion since we first discussed my favorite book Siddhartha.

The Neverending Story is a story within a story. In the novel, the book The Neverending Story has two snakes eating each other by the tail. Reading the description reminds me of a yin yang like symbol.

In chapter three, the story wanders to the Swamps of Sadness-where the oldest being in Fantastica lives. Morla the Aged One is a tortoise. She speaks to herself calling herself "old woman" and uses the first person plural "we." Possibly a form depressive disorder from her environment. She resist helping and insist:

“Sakes alive!” Morla gurgled. “We’re old, son, much too old. Lived long enough. Seen too much. When you know as much as we do, nothing matters. Things just repeat. Day and night, summer and winter. The world is empty and aimless. Everything circles around. Whatever starts up must pass away, whatever is born must die. It all cancels out, good and bad, beautiful and ugly. Everything’s empty. Nothing is real. Nothing matters.”

Morla reminds me of Benjamin from Animal Farm. But, unlike Benjamin, Morla lives in a fantasy land. It's hard to say how much of Morla's apathy is due to her age versus living in the Swamps of Sadness. 

Jimbo's Podcasting Progression

I recently discussed why I podcast with my friend Brendan, listen here.

I mentioned how I progressed due to listening to myself and also being the editor. My errors costs me more time and work editing. They also cost me psychologically stress hearing myself make the errors. The story I tell myself is that I got better.

It's difficult to say because I edited those podcasts. My memory says the editing got better. But I could have just gotten better at editing.

Either way, here is little experiment. Below is the first podcast I published and one of the better podcasts we produced.

Ep 2 My Name Is Earl “Pilot”
Ep #67 Extended Discussion: Russian Doll “Nothing in this World Is Easy”

Both episodes are on the big podcast apps. 

For anyone who gives them both a listen, I'd love to hear what you think.

Jimbo out!

Newish Exercise Obsession

Day one check! I did a 52+ minute stroller jog and a 13 minute spin on the stationary bike. 

Main Goal

I want to train to run a sub 65 minute 10 mile at next year's Pear Blossom Road Race. 

In preparation for that goal, I want to average 65 minutes of cardio a day for the next 50 weeks.

Injuries

I wanted to run this year's Pear Blossom, 2026. But I wasn't capable of training for it.

My plantar fascia has been bothering me for a couple years. After a hamstring strain in October, my plantar pain magically (not really) leaped from my left foot to my right foot. 

Now, my right foot is bothering me more than my left foot ever did. I know what to do, but I've been having a lot more set backs, discomfort, and pain. So the cardio goal is a productive and obsessive way to get into shape while allowing my foot to progress at a slower running volume pace.

I went 30-50-80 miles a month during Nov-Dec-Jan. This was way too fast and I paid the price. I probably didn't fully recover from my August volume either. 

Next 50 Week Goal

I plan to slowly increase my running volume while supplementing with cycling and an eliptigo. I want to lift twice a week also.

This is an ambitious goal for me. Rule 1 is do not get injured, so if I need to, I'll do a lot of easy cycling days. I don't care how many rides, runs, or workouts it takes a day or week as long as the daily average is maintained.

I know I will miss days due to traveling and other unexpected events. For example, the last month I went a few days with no exercise because we had friends and family visit. I plan to make up for these days and rest days with longer bike rides. 

The plan is to be ready to put in three solid months of running training in 2027. With the majority of my cardio coming from running. 

Until then, I'll be cycling and eliptigo-ing my way at an average of 65 minutes per day, 455 minutes per week, and 1950-1980 minutes a month.

Reading Response for The Fountainhead by Any Rand

Overall, I liked The Fountainhead. It is a great book for thinking and ideas. I personally liked Anthem by Ayn Rand better, but that's for another rant. This was not my introduction to Rand.  I had read one of her nonfiction collections a couple years prior, and I enjoyed it as well. On most topics, I would probably agree more with Ayn Rand than the average American.

The Fountainhead works best for me as a provacative philosophical soap opera than a psychologically authentic literary fiction. 

My Responses (mostly critical)

1. Architecture- the topic and subject matter of architecture is a brilliant metaphor. I really liked that. It worked throughout the entire story.

2. Howard Roark- I get Howard Roark is the symbol of Rand's ideal person. Are readers supposed to think everyone, most, or some people can be like Roark? Is it more that the reader should want to be more like Roark?

Roark has no attachments at the beginning of the story. He is asocial and withdrawn. Rand creates a creative genius, as a philosophical ideal, but he comes off as a robotic person. Roark lacks many of the aspects that make humans human.

Even his refusal to conform can be seen as signaling prestige: showing and proving he is better than Keating, Wynand, Toohey, etc.

This goes against Rand's ideal, but wouldn't Roark be better off if he worked for money, bought land, and then built what he wanted? Trade and division of labor! Do what you're best at, so you can do what you want. Instead Roark struggles to get by and barely builds anything for most of the story. His refusal to compromise is a limitation to build. It's about tradeoffs.

With all that said, many people/readers would benefit from being more like Roark than they currently are, especially the Wynands of the world.

3. Peter Keating- Rand makes Keating especially weak and pathetic. I really like how Keating doesn't know who he is. He blindly lives for status and pleasing others. That's all great. I like that he can become a leading architect without being a good architect. That works. Early in the story, Keating is a very competent person: smart, charming, charismatic, probably good looking, probably tall, etc. His success is not random. But, somehow, he becomes a fat, ugly, unhealthy alcoholic loser? I'm not against that happening, but I don't buy how it happened or how pathetic Keating is. 

4. Mrs. Keating- I like her. She selfishly wants what's best for her son. She manipulates her son, and her judgement is bad. She prevents her son from doing what he wants and marrying the person he loves, but she does so selfishly. She wants what she thinks is best for him. Maybe she saw something readers don't get to see about Keating as a child or young man? Either way, Mrs Keating is a good example of why an individual knows what is best for themselves.

5. Melodramatic- the opening scene was almost laughable to me. The dean was such a terrible performance of a real person. It got a lot better after that, but still. It serves Rand's purpose, but it doesn't;t satisfy my literary snobbery. Says more about me than the novel...

6. Caricatures and exaggerations- continuation of the melodrama and my biggest complaint. I don't see real people. I see too much hyperbole to make philosophical points. Rand hates altruism, so the so called Altruist in the story is really an evil super villain. Toohey evolves into a Nietzschean caricature of a will to power maniac as the story unfolds. He has a few good lines, but otherwise is way too pretentious and influential for me to take serious and see as authentic. Other supporting characters present similar issues.

7. Helping others and altruism- I'm skeptical that altruism exists. Helping and doing things for others makes people feel good, gains status, signals wealth. Rand is correct to question people's motives, especially those of the so called selfless ones, but she exaggerates and simplifies those motives in her characters.

8. Culture and Institutions- Rand under appreciates or underplays how culture and institutions contribute to the production of individuals. Roark is dependent on culture and institutions. He and other creative geniuses have been the recipients of culture and collective knowledge. Newton independently developed (so did Leibniz) calculus, but he didn't create calculus in a vacuum. Creatives are taking, borrowing, and building on what was handed down to them. I'd argue culture and institutions are more responsible for the greatest creations than individuals. The US is the Mecca of innovation because of culture, institutions, incentives, and several other factors, not just having lots of self interested individuals.

9. Christianity and religion- Rand under appreciates or underplays how religions/ideas have gone through a selection process. I don't think any religion is true. Some are more useful than others. But religions provide human needs: like solving/improving barriers to cooperation and cohesion. This process is somewhat like a natural selection where the most useful ideas and ritual spread and the less useful die out. 

The selflessness in religions provides some need. Reciprocity is a good example. One shares with others when they have extra, so others will share when they have extra. It's reciprocal, not just free loading. One reasons religion spread is because they created norms like sharing and reciprocity which helped groups cooperate and flourishing.

It goes both ways. People in power trying to take and keep power, but also the masses selecting what works for them. Over time something like an equilibrium is met. Add in institutions, progress, education, science, and personal rights.

So there is probably something to the helping others and acting selfless besides being a means for people in power to control groups of people.

10. Rape. it's interesting that Rand's ideal man comments rape. I read how Rand said it wasn't really rape. I always came across studies identifying rape as a common fantasy for women and I assume Rand was probably writing some of her fantasies. Still there are two instances where Dominique first thinks Roark raped her and then second tells Wynand.

11. Dominique and Wynand- these are the two most interest characters in the story. 

Dominique is another extreme. She seems way too depressed to me. Her motivation and desire to punish herself is almost laughable.

Wynand gets off on breaking people. The story was setting up a duel between Wynand and Roark. The breaker vs the unbreakable. It never happened! This was very disappointing. Wynand breaks or rather converts, but it wasn't the battle the story set up. Wynand is the only real person in the story. He is the example of what people with wealth and power should do. 

PSA Responses to Population Controls of 1980 Topps

Since I started collecting and following Rickey Henderson's rookie card, 1980 Topps #482, I have been reading and hearing a lot of talk about PSA controlling populations. I'm very skeptical. There are some surprising data and convincing reasons to believe PSA is engaging in a conspiracy to control populations of graded cards.

To be clear, I don't believe this is hiding a conspiracy. I think the most likely explanation is that PSA had poor quality control when they started. The specialized in grading lots of cards. When grading was cheaper, the quality control was poor. Now, PSA is the dominant company. They care about being consistent and reliable.

The rates of PSA 10s fluctuate. Some cards have lots of 10s and other cards in the same set have less. Even when accounting for the prices of cards and popularity of the players, there are some surprising differences in grades. This article highlights some of the examples. This is a primary source of evidence for the PSA population control conspiracy.

When looking closer at cards, ratios of grades can vary. Here is an interesting analysis of PSA 10 to 9 rations for RH RC. This is an even better source of evidence.

Then rumors from facebook groups and reddit, cite PSA intentionally grading cards lower to keep prices high. Then as a result of high prices, people grade more. PSA can charge more to grade. And there are more less coherent ideas.

I've looked for responses from PSA. Google's AI had cited PSA's responses but then I was never able to track down the actual source. Today, the newer version of GPT finally lead me to a response from PSA! I find the explanation a lot more likely than the population control conspiracy.

From a tweet by PSA:

The most common flaw that keeps this card from earning a PSA 10 grade? Print defects on the front surface. 

To offer some insight direct from the PSA Grading Room: One aspect that sets the 1980 Topps Rickey Henderson card apart from almost all other cards in the set is the large area of black surface on the front of the card, thanks to the shadow cast inside the dugout in the background of the image. 

As was the case with many vintage sets with darker areas on the surface, this created a higher likelihood for white, snowy-looking print dots or yellow "fish eye" defects to show up as heavily visible on this portion of the surface, affecting the overall eye appeal of the card. 

Finding copies with good centering, clean edges and sharp corners is not as difficult with this card as it is to find an example without noticeable print defects on the front.

We've also seen a noticeably larger volume of this card come to PSA since 2020 - especially as more collectors dug into their older collections - which further shrinks the overall Gem Rate.

PSA's response to Darren Rovell's article, by Ryan Greene, PSA's director of communications:

Just to be clear: "Pop Control," while widely talked about and rumored in the hobby, does not exist at PSA.

In talking with our senior graders today, oddly enough, the most common reason there are so few PSA 10 copies of the 1980 Topps Rickey Henderson is very similar to why so many cards made that list Ben Burrows of cllct recently compiled for the "No PSA-10 Club": Print Defects, or "PDs" as our team refers to them.

Finding centered copies of the Rickey 1980 Topps with clean edges and corners doesn't present as the most common challenge for submitters. It's the front surface.

One thing you'll notice about this card is it has a large swath of dark, black surface on the front of the card thanks to the shadowed dugout in the background. Very few other cards in 1980 Topps, if any, have this much black surface on the front of the card.

With that, due to low print-quality issues from many vintage sets, white print dots — or "snowing" — and yellowed "fish eye" print defects are incredibly common on nearly all copies of this card. With vintage cards, print quality and eye appeal factors heavily when a card is approaching the top end of our grading scale.

Also, in reference to the appearance that achieving a PSA 10 on this card grew exponentially harder after January 2020, there was no change whatsoever in the way this card was evaluated or the standards it was held to that changed in 2020.

We simply saw a heavier volume of these coming into PSA than ever before beginning in early 2020, when the entire card market boomed. Our grading standards on this set did not shift or tighten.

We just saw many, many more of them as we did with several popular cards from the '80s and '90s, especially as people dove back into their older collections while at home during the pandemic.

Making Fun of Beliefs

​Good Omens is good! It’s not laugh out loud funny, but, for a piece of writing, it is very funny. At first glance it is making fun of religious people. But then readers notice it's making fun of people. The following is a great job at atheist!

Pulsifer tried he be an atheist, but he didn’t have the self-satisfied strength of belief! 

Newton Pulsifer had never had a cause in his life. Nor had he, as far as he knew, ever believed in anything. It had been embarrassing, because he quite wanted to believe in something, since he recognized that belief was the lifebelt that got most people through the choppy waters of Life. He’d have liked to believe in a supreme God, although he’d have preferred a half-hour’s chat with Him before committing himself, to clear up one or two points. He’d sat in all sorts of churches, waiting for that single flash of blue light, and it hadn’t come. And then he’d tried to become an official Atheist and hadn’t got the rock-hard, self-satisfied strength of belief even for that. And every single political party had seemed to him equally dishonest. And he’d given up on ecology when the ecology magazine he’d been subscribing to had shown its readers a plan of a self-sufficient garden, and had drawn the ecological goat tethered within three feet of the ecological beehive. Newt had spent a lot of time at his grandmother’s house in the country and thought he knew something about the habits of both goats and bees, and concluded therefore that the magazine was run by a bunch of bib-overalled maniacs. Besides, it used the word “community” too often; Newt had always suspected that people who regularly used the word “community” were using it in a very specific sense that excluded him and everyone he knew. 

Then he’d tried believing in the Universe, which seemed sound enough until he’d innocently started reading new books with words like Chaos and Time and Quantum in the titles. He’d found that even the people whose job of work was, so to speak, the Universe, didn’t really believe in it and were actually quite proud of not knowing what it really was or even if it could theoretically exist.

To Newt’s straightforward mind this was intolerable.

Newt had not believed in the Cub Scouts and then, when he was old enough, not in the Scouts either.

He was prepared to believe, though, that the job of wages clerk at United Holdings [Holdings] PLC, was possibly the most boring in the world. 

This is how Newton Pulsifer looked as a man: if he went into a phone booth and changed, he might manage to come out looking like Clark Kent.

More 1980 Topps #482 Investment Info

Background

I have been researching and following 1980 Topps #482, Rickey Henderson's rookie card (RC), for over a year. I bought my first card as nostalgia, but my continued interest grew as I learned more and more about the economics and potential investment of this single card. My initial instinct was 1980 Topps #482 was a bad investment, read here. To my surprise, when I looked into it, I found 1980 Topps card #482 would have been an excellent investment over the last 20 years, read here.

Rickey Henderson is considered by many to be the greatest leadoff hitter in baseball history. He holds the all time records for stolen bases and runs, and his single season and career achievements go on and on. 

1980 Topps #482 has become one of the most iconic baseball cards over the last few years. Topps recently posted that it is the 9th most iconic baseball card of all time.  Last month, a PSA 10 Gem Mint 1980 Topps #482 sold for a record high, $183,000. A Google search will reveal the cards popularity and presence on list after list of baseball cards of the 1980s. When Topps selected 20 historic baseball cards for its Project 2020 series, 1980 Topps #482 was one of the 20 cards. Based on highest sales prices in the 2020s, it is the most valuable baseball card of the 1980s.

The card is popular and expensive, especially compared to its 1980 Topps peers. No other card from the 1980 Topps set comes close to #482. To find a comparable card, collectors would have to go back to George Brett's RC in 1975. Similarly, there isn't another card that sells for equal value until the 1990s.

Introduction

Why does Rickey Henderson's RC sell for so much higher than other cards of his generation? There are multiple factors from career baseball achievements to off the field personality. For this post, I will be evaluating the higher graded cards and specifically looking into the relationship with the scarcity of those grades. Any alternative explanations will be for a different author or different post. 

This post is a case study into the sales of PSA grades ranging from 7-10. (I want to look into other cards later.) All the results are descriptive and not intended to be causal. This post cannot prove causality.

I am the main audience, but for anyone else who stumbles across this, I hope to make it clear for general readers.

When I refer to PSA 10, PSA 9, PSA 8, and PSA 7, I will be referring to 1980 Topps #482 of those grades.

Methodology

I pulled all the sales data from Vintage Card Prices (VCP). VCP says, "[they] offer a deep dive into sales data organized by grading agencies." Further, the data I present are sales of only graded cards from one grading company, PSA. The sales prices include best offers sales from eBay and sales from multiple auction houses. See Spreadsheet here. 

I pulled the S&P 500 from Google Finance and US Dollar inflation data from https://fred.stlouisfed.org, both using formulas in Google Sheets. These are two measures to compare magnitude of the increases over time.

My starting point is based on the first sales available in VCP's records. The charts below start with October 31st, 2006. If anyone is interested, they can easily create a new chart from any starting date they choose. All the data I used is in the spreadsheet I shared above.

I used end of the month (EoM) prices for S&P 500 and CPI/inflation. 

For PSA 10 sales, I used the most recent sales prices because PSA 10s only have 1-3 sales most years.

For PSA 9, PSA 8, and PSA 7, I used the median sales for each month. PSA 9s have averaged over 15 sales per month since 2012, PSA 8 over 45 and PSA 7 close to 30. 

The PSA 10 sales are not statistically equivalent to the PSA 7-9 sales prices. I chose recent sales price to keep it simple for me.

I normalized all the values to starting values of $1, see the table on the Master Sheet in the spreadsheet. Without normalizing the data, the charts would be very difficult to see because the PSA 10 sales are 50-100 times higher than the other cards, stock, and USD.

All prices are gross sales prices, including auction company fees. Shipping costs are not included in the card prices. The prices are also nominal, not adjusted for inflation. 

Limitations

Measurement

• All data is based on 1980 Topps #482.
• There is a selection bias to the availibilty of VCP's data. 
• All prices are nominal. CPI/inflation is shown has a reference point, but no prices are adjusted for inflation.

Data

• There is an asymmetry in my sample sizes, sales of PSA 10s vs PSA 7-9s.
• PSA 10s only have 1-3 sales most years. This creates an asymmetric sample size. 
• I did a cross sectional analysis of the PSA population sizes vs the sales prices. I had population reports saved for two other dates. So I used those dates to make a comparison with the most recent data. If I had full access PSA population reports over time, I would have choosen a couple more points to analyze.
• It would be difficult to know the liquidity of PSA 10s due to the infrequency of sales. Timing and other factors may play critical roles in the sale prices. Although CAGR is reported, liquidity may not be reliable. It's unclear how much timing and other market forces affect prices.
• PSA 7 and PSA 8 data missing for Jan 2020.

Grading

• Grading responds to sale prices.
• Regrading contaminates grading population sizes. Scarcity is overstated because many PSA 7-9s are collectors trying to regrade.
• There is population endogeneity. Population reports approximates scarcity, but grading, prices, and scarcity all affect grading behavior, which affect prices. The system is interconnected.
• Older graded PSA cards have far less quality control. PSA has gotten a lot better at quality control with time. New grades are more consistently graded. Older grades have a lot more noise.
• Within PSA grades, sale prices can fluctuate based on the visual appearance to the human eye. Not all cards of the same grade are of equal value. Some cards look brighter, more centered, etc. There is an artistic aspect to the cards in addition to the objective condition. Grading companies try to remove the subjective grader from the grades, but, in the end, buyers and sellers are subjectively valuing cards based on several factors that vary between buyers/sellers. 
• Collectors/sellers regrade cards. They take cards out of the secure graded plastic slabs, and then resubmit the cards to grading companies. This is a common practice according to card forums online and YouTube videos. Grading companies do not report data on regrades, so it is impossible to know how many graded cards were regrades. Grading population reports include, at least some, regrades. 

Results

All the following sales data and prices are discovered prices, not expected returns. Readers should also remember that sale prices included fees to auction houses, like eBay.

Rickey Henderson's rookie card, 1980 Topps #482 has done well the last 20 years. 

CAGR (Compound Annual Growth Rate)
Grade/Index	PSA Pop	Start Price (Oct 2006)	End Price (Jan 2026)	CAGR
PSA 7	11,811	$1.00	$7.06	10.83%
PSA 8	13,794	$1.00	$8.20	11.71%
PSA 9	2,320	$1.00	$12.51	14.22%
PSA 10	26	$1.00	*$34.91	*20.56%
S&P 500	—	$1.00	$5.02	8.86%
CPI (Inflation)	—	$1.00	$1.61	2.54%

*PSA 10 is most recent price. This is technically not statistically comparable.

In the CAGR table, the start price is the normalized price from the Master Sheet Table. See the spreadsheet for the actual start prices. Prices vary for each grade.

Shocks, Timing, and Jumps

The CAGR suggests the growth was smooth across time, but the graph above shows the reality with large increases and decreases in sales prices, and months without any sales. The PSA 7-9 are smoother, but show signs of responding to PSA 10 shocks.

 

Besides the pandemic, the PSA 7-9 mostly look similar to the S&P 500. Post pandemic, the slopes of the PSA 7-9 return to a similar looking slope as the S&P 500.

On the graph, the PSA 10s have three distinct sections. The first spike in Jan 2016 has some rebound, but mostly stabilizes for almost five years. Then during the pandemic, two spikes, Sep 2020 and Feb 2020, increase the sale prices over 400%. 

The pandemic was the largest spike for all grades. This was a market wide spike for trading cards in general. In December of 2024, Rickey Henderson passed away. Rickey Henderson's death created a card specific shock. It's unclear, of course, but unlikely that Rickey Henderson will have many more card specific demand shocks. One possibility would be if a documentary or movie was made about his life or baseball career. Market wide shocks are also very difficult to predict.

Population Size and Scarcity

Based on the data above, it's unclear whether the PSA 10s and 9s sell at higher prices because they are higher grades, or because they are more scarce. 

The PSA 10 data has a lot less sales, an average of 3 sales per year the last 19 years. The realized prices of PSA 10 sales are remarkable, but there is not enough data points. The graph above shows long flat periods and huge jumps for the PSA 10 sales prices. An economist might call this a scarcity-driven price discovery. Where the lack of supply drives the prices. The total population is low, only 26 PSA 10 Gem Mints exist as of February 2026. Further, the frequency of sales/opportunity to purchase is low, ~1-3 sales per year the last few years.

Below are three tables of three dates I had available population data for.

Scarcity vs Price (Feb 2026) (Log-Log)				Scarcity vs Price (Oct 2024) (Log-Log)				Scarcity vs Price (Jan 2020) (Log-Log)
Grade	PSA Population	Median Price (Recent)		Grade	PSA Population	Median Price (Recent)		Grade	PSA Population	Median Price (Recent)
PSA 7	11,811	9.16		PSA 7	9,895	$6.57		PSA 7	-	$2.97
PSA 8	13,794	9.66		PSA 8	12,751	$6.60		PSA 8	-	$2.71
PSA 9	2,320	13.48		PSA 9	2,227	$10.34		PSA 9	1,952	$2.72
PSA 10	26	*40.97		PSA 10	25	*$40.30		PSA 10	24	*$7.96

*PSA 10 is most recent price at those dates

Just looking at the table above, one can see a correlation between population size and recent sales price. Below is a log-log chart. This chart allows a visual to see the extreme differences in population sizes and sales prices.  

The plots show that the price and population have a strong inverse relationship. Jan 2020, I do not have the PSA 7 nor PSA 8 population data. There are only four points on the graph, and these are only three dates, but, still, the relationship is consistent. PSA 10 is above PSA 9 for all three dates. The slopes of each set of points appear to be mostly parallel over time. The log-log graph can describe how scarcity drives the price levels of PSA 10.

For 1980 Topps #482, the scarcity between grades is extreme. This card has one of the highest PSA 9 to PSA 10 ratios in vintage baseball cards. The ratio of PSA 8 to PSA 9 is also high. See response from PSA as to why this card is so hard to grade a PSA 10.

Scarcity can explain why PSA 9 and PSA 10 sell at a lot higher prices. The CAGR of PSA 10 has over a 20% annual return, but when looking at the sales graph, the PSA 10s can fluctuate significantly. Sales are infrequent; population size is extremely low- especially compared with the cards of that era; supply is low; and demand is high. This can explains why demand shocks can drive the prices of the PSA 10s. 

Speculation about Grading

Collectors know and track the population sizes of the cards they buy, especially as the value of cards increase. As the market for cards grow and card sales increase, so does fraud. Fraud is easy to detect in person, especially for a savvy collector. But online sales pose a couple issues. Online is the largest market of trading cards, Ebay being the 800 pound gorilla.  Since online buyers cannot properly inspect cards, grading becomes more necessary with the great value of cards. Grading offers a solution (although fraudulent graded cards is becoming more concerning). Grading provides security for buyers and reliability for sellers online. Buying and selling cards online increases the demand for grading companies. As a result, the grading companies identify approximations about the scarcity of cards. The grading companies track and publish their data. This in return influences buyers and sellers choices.

In 2016, after a huge record sale for 1980 Topps #482, card prices went up, and incentives to grade likely followed. I do not have the population reports, but I'm pretty sure this happened. 

As sale prices increased, grading increased, which further increased the demand for the card. And since the higher grades are scarce, that further drove up the sale prices of PSA 9 and PSA 10.

With PSA 10s selling over $100,000, and the last 20,000 plus graded cards only revealing two PSA 10s and less than 400 PSA 9s, the scarcity appears to be accurate. The sale prices also reflect collectors beliefs in the scarcity of the PSA 9s and PSA 10s.

Over the last six years, PSA has more than doubled the amount of 1980 Topps #482 that have been graded. During that time PSA 10 and PSA 9 have become less prevalent. This could be a signal to collectors that the PSA 10 and PSA 9 scarcity is accurate.

Conclusion

Although my post does not and can not prove causality, I do believe that scarcity drives prices. Scarcity is not the only factor, but it is a serious contender for the largest factor on price. (I think with more rigorous analysis and investigation, I could prove scarcity drives prices)

For me, it is important to understand the relationship between scarcity and prices. For anyone who knows economics, none of this will be surprising. For card collectors, this probably isn't very surprising either. But it is fun to see text book economics in action.

For me it's nice to see that the data confirms my intuitions.

*Idea to Add and Analyze* PSA 9/10 scarcity is partly manufactured by incentives.

What's Next

I want to run these same comparisons with a few more cards and see how and if any of the dynamics different. Here is a nearly complete presentation I made.

Reggie Jackson is probably as popular as Rickey Henderson, but his rookie card is a lot more scarce. Ken Griffey is more popular than Rickey Henderson, but his card was massed produced and has an abundance of PSA 10s. Then the GOAT of baseball cards, Mickey Mantle! Mantle is more popular and more scarce than Jackson, Henderson, and Griffey.