Was Michael Jordan the Greatest of All Time? Is Roger Federer's record unbreakable?

| Peter Boettke |

The title of this post is misleading, but it is intended to get you to think about why I might disagree with Dan Klein and also think that the cultural battle in economic science and over liberalism is not only worth fighting but capable of winning. And must be won by each generation of economic thinkers anew.

First, let me state that I largely agree with Dan's point about "low hanging fruit", but I also would argue a point I learned from James Buchanan as a student --- "It takes varied reiterations to force alien concepts upon reluctant minds."  If that is right, then the restating of the arguments that pick off the low hanging fruit in new settings can be quite fresh and exciting.  Second, not only is picking low hanging fruit fresh and exciting an intellectual exercise, it is also -- if translated into public policy -- capable of improving the lives of billions of people throughout the world, which in itself is not only fresh and exciting, but inspiring.  So much of public policy consists of BAD ECONOMIC IDEAS, that the defeat of bad ideas is a worthy endeavor to devote one's life.  Research and teaching in economics is a calling; a scholarly calling as opposed to a religious calling, but still a calling.

The argument that a new Milton Friedman cannot rise from within our ranks, or even that a Milton Friedman today could not compete to earn the royal status he had earned in the past is similar to the arguments about athletes over time periods. Could Babe Ruth dominate baseball today as he did then?  Would Jack Krammer be able to win as he did, how about Rod Laver?

These questions are difficult to answer definitively.  Instead, we are left basically settling on the fact that greatest is defined by a specific time and place, an era in which an individual competes.  But the idea that greatest will never come again seems to be a strange position to hold.  As soon as we announced that Michael Jordan was the greatest basketball player of all time, an emerging star Kobe Bryant and an even younger LeBron James came along.  James is 6'9" and 260lbs, sort of a cross between Magic Johnson and Michael Jordan --- in short, pretty damn special.  Progress is made.In tennis, when Bjorn Borg retired with 11 Grand Slams titles in the 1980s it was often argued that nobody in the modern era could accomplish that (especially the back-to-back French and Wimbledon titles).  Then in the 1990s, Pete Sampras came along and won 14 titles. When he retired, the claim was made that his record was unbreakable.  But even before the end of the first decade of the 2000s, Roger Federer has 15 and counting.  Federer is sort of a cross between Sampras and Borg --- with better footwork than either. The game has moved to a new level.Greatness in all human endeavors always rises to the challenges specific era demand.  Milton Friedman met the challenge of his day, just as Adam Smith did in his day.  In sports there are specific goals --- score the basket, hit the ball, slice that backhand down the line, win the game.  Bill Tilden sliced his backhand approach down the line, so does Roger Federer. 

In the scientific life of the policy sciences there are similar specific goals -- most notably the effective communication of one's ideas to peers, students, policy-makers, and the general public.  Milton Friedman was a master at all 4 levels of communication, but he is not the only person in the history of discipline to have done so, and he will not be the last.  Someone will rise up to meet the challenges of the age, and do so effectively.  Science will progress, and the argument for liberalism will be restated.The culture of our day presents us with challenges, but they will be met by those with the talent, skill and enthusiasm for the challenge.  I am an optimist because I am a humanist --- I am a believer in the fundametal insight of Julian Simon that the human imagination and creativity is the ultimate resource.  Is it going to be hard for that break-through to come?  Yes it will, but someone will rise to the challenge.  That person will not be a clone of Milton Friedman anymore than LeBron James is a clone of Michael Jordan, or Roger Federer is a clone of Pete Sampras.  No, the ball will be moved forward with some new manifestation of greatness in the discipline of economics and the effective communication of the argument for economic liberalism.  But like the curmudgeon in the bar who talks endlessly about the good old days before night baseball, or before the 3 point line, many of us will miss the spectacular show before our eyes because we continue to marvel at black and white tape on You Tube of the great Milton Friedman or continue to remember our college excitement at reading Capitalism and Freedom, or Free to Choose.

It is very important for us to have heroes and have reverence for greatness.  What isn't good is when our reverence for the past undermines our appreciation for the present, and our hope for the future.

Comments

[flawedskull]

Excellent points Pete. Dan's essay had exacerbated my bleak outlook on the future. Your straightforward post has brought back the optimism.

[Mark D. White]

Very inspirational, Pete, thanks.

[tripgrass]

You write that "the game moves to a new level" a phrase qualified later by your more explicit use of the word "progress" as if the game, that is - life, is better.

But the game itself changes, not merely the players. Judging one generation's sport to a previous is not always accurate (unless it is merely the shot put or the 100 yard dash). I'm thinking of Gladwell's recent article on basketball, and the use of non-traditional offensive maneuvers to gain an advantage. The game changes, the players must adapt.

As a humanist, I believe the same is true in life. So there won't be another Friedman, for the problems will be different, but there will surely be another economics superstar, one dealing with all the consequences of the multiple permutations and interpretations of economics from the last century.

[K]

George Halas, who was speaking from decades of coaching, said "the newer players are always 2/3 better, faster, stronger, same heart."

That won't change. Endurance (longevity) records such as Federer's should keep becoming harder to beat. The Sampras Federer overlap may not come again.

Roger had to reach what? 16? And he hasn't finished. The next record setter may have to reach 20. Or more.

But as time passes players get better medical care, better nutrition, and better training. So they will have more years to pass Federer. This is offset by the fact that they must play those years against those with equal advantages.

[Greg Ransom]

mathematical econ "model" construction = arena football

econometrics = World Wrestling Entertainment

[Greg Ransom]

More? How about:

finance = professional poker .. on a video poker machine

macroeconomics = professional paintball

Three more:

game theory = professional checkers

textbook micro = synchronized swimming

behavioral economics = professional foosball

[fioricet online]

Actually I'm a big fan of Micheal Jordan and no one can beat Micheal Jordan even Cobi, Mano, Lebron and Others. It just my opinion peace.

[Rafe Champion]

Usain Bolt is a nıce example of the way records are made to be broken.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usain_Bolt

Wonder ıf he can play basketball?

In tennis, how about 24 sıngle tıtles plus 19 each ın doubles and mixed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Court?

[poker rakeback]

My favorite Michael Jordan moment was the shot he hit against the Utah Jazz in the NBA Finals to close out the series and win his 6th title. He pushed Russell out of the way, swished the jumper, and then left his hand dangling in the air.

[poke rakeback]

I think it would be more difficult to surpass Michael Jordan as the greatest basketball player than Federer as the greatest tennis player. Virtually every basketball analyst agrees Jordan is the greatest of all time. There are many that are still unsure about Federer and think his level of competition is just much weaker than other past champions.

[tramadol]

I agree with poker rakeback! That one is my favorite too! After the shot was made, the follow through was still there! That was really amazing!

He truly is the best man ever played the game of basketball. He carries his team on his own and give them 6 titles. Even magic or bird don't make it 3 straight championships. Also, look at his awards. Not only he got MVP or scoring champion awards. He do have Defensive award too. No doubt, Jordan is the one.

[Toni]

The missleading title is a no-no...but to get back to Federer...if you look how great someone is you can't just count how many title he/she has..cause let's say playing in Federer time is a lot more easier than in say Sampras's..cause at Pete's time there were about ten more players almost as good as he was..real top class (Ivanisevic, Aggassi, Kafelnikov, Chang...)..and today Federer has only about 2-3 players that really give him a hard time (Nadal, Djokovic)...so you see you can't say that someone is better by just counting who has more trophies...

[Invertir Dinero]

Excellent information to many people like to read articles to learn about these issues of great interest.

[lots in Samara Costa Rica]

What isn't good is when our reverence for the past undermines our appreciation for the present, and our hope for the future.

[Buy Viagra]

He is the best basketball player of all times there is no doubt about it and also he was a great leader in the team ,
i really admired him great player .

[guanacaste costa rica real estate]

The title of this post is misleading, but it is intended to get you to think about why I might disagree with Dan Klein and also think that the cultural battle in economic science and over liberalism is not only worth fighting but capable of winning. And must be won by each generation of economic thinkers anew.

[Free Poker]

Michael Jordan is regarded as the greatest basketball player ever in my opinion.

Nice blog we have here;)

[Shox Running Shoes]

Men marry because they are tired; women because they are curious; both are disappointed

[Shox Running Shoes]

Men marry because they are tired; women because they are curious; both are disappointed