Monday, June 29, 2026

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?

Friday, June 12, 2026

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.

Wednesday, June 10, 2026

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


Friday, May 29, 2026

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...

Tuesday, May 12, 2026

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. 

Friday, May 1, 2026

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!