Re:Thinking with Adam GrantWhat makes great athletes? with Chuck Klosterman | ReThinking
CHAPTERS
- 0:00 – 0:59
Rethinking the GOAT: why “latest and best” isn’t necessarily greatest
Chuck Klosterman challenges the common idea that the GOAT is simply the most statistically dominant or most recent champion. He proposes a different lens: greatness belongs to the first truly elite version of an archetype that later performers still follow.
- •GOAT debates are really about defining “greatness,” not just ranking performance
- •Recency bias: modern athletes benefit from better systems, training, and strategy
- •Greatness as “first elite rendering” whose qualities persist in later versions
- •Tom Brady as a test case for how we misuse the word “greatest”
- 0:59 – 2:42
The Beatles, templates, and why originality can outrank superiority
To explain his standard, Chuck uses The Beatles: later artists might make “better” or more polished music, but if they’re operating within a template The Beatles established, they can’t surpass them in greatness. The argument reframes greatness as foundational influence rather than maximal output.
- •A later performer can be excellent without being “greater” than the originator
- •Templates matter: working within a created modality limits claims to GOAT status
- •Greatness includes cultural and conceptual creation, not just product quality
- •Sets up the analogy for sports archetypes (e.g., Jim Thorpe)
- 2:42 – 3:13
When does the modern sport begin? Picking the start line for fair GOAT debates
Chuck argues the hardest part is identifying the start of the “modern version” of a sport. Once that era boundary is set (football rules; NBA-ABA merger and three-point line), he looks for the first elite exemplar within that context.
- •GOAT criteria depend on when you define the modern era as beginning
- •Football’s “modern” definition tied to standardized rules (downs, scoring, passing)
- •Basketball’s modern era tied to post-merger play and the three-point line
- •Jordan as “first elite rendering” within the modern NBA frame
- 3:13 – 3:56
Is there creativity in sports? Objectivity, reinvention, and hidden innovation
Adam argues creativity is central in music but not sports; Chuck pushes back, saying creativity can be present even in recombination and reinvention. They explore how the “objective” feel of sports masks subjective choices about what we reward.
- •Creativity can include recombining existing elements (Led Zeppelin analogy)
- •Sports appear objective, but judgments about greatness are still subjective
- •Distinction between measurable dominance and broader “meaning” of greatness
- •Innovation in tactics/approach can be creative even without “artistic” intent
- 3:56 – 4:28
The Fosbury Flop case: calling the inventor “greatest” despite lower measurables
Using Dick Fosbury, the inventor of the Fosbury Flop, they test the implications of Chuck’s framework. Chuck endorses Fosbury as the GOAT high jumper because the technique redefined the event and became the enduring model.
- •Fosbury as GOAT because he created the enduring technique everyone uses
- •Greatness as more than hypothetical head-to-head performance
- •Technique innovation can outweigh later record-breaking improvements
- •Highlights the semantic tension between “best” and “greatest”
- 4:28 – 7:07
Why time machines don’t work: context, incentives, and the environment that makes greatness
Chuck argues you can’t fairly compare athletes across eras by imagining them swapped in time. Motivation, status, money, training norms, and cultural expectations shape who becomes great—and what greatness even means in that period.
- •Era comparison fails if you ignore the athlete’s lived environment
- •Modern incentives (money, status, scholarships) change athletic development
- •Nutrition, training, and beliefs (e.g., weightlifting as “bad”) were different
- •Greatness must be evaluated within the constraints and norms of the time
- 7:07 – 9:49
Team-sport greatness and the “irreplaceability” test (and why football complicates it)
Adam proposes the GOAT in team sports should be the most irreplaceable—who most elevates the organization. Chuck explains why football is uniquely hard for isolating greatness due to role specialization and offense/defense separation, then expands to multiple “kinds” of greatness people use implicitly.
- •Irreplaceability lens: team impact when a star arrives/leaves
- •Football’s positions are incomparable and players only play half the game
- •Different greatness frames: natural talent, collective consensus, statistical resume
- •Chuck’s goal is to expand the thinking process, not win agreement on one name
- 9:49 – 11:00
What today’s stars would need: Caitlin Clark, era changes, and being the “first modern exemplar”
They apply the framework to present-day athletes, focusing on Caitlin Clark and the evolving WNBA. Chuck argues an athlete can become “greatest” if they are the defining elite performer at the moment the sport’s modern era shifts.
- •Caitlin Clark enters during a potentially transformational WNBA window
- •If the sport’s status/economics shift, a new “modern era” may be starting
- •GOAT case strengthens if she becomes the best player of the newly defined era
- •Greatness linked to being the first elite model of the new version of the sport
- 11:00 – 12:07
If basketball becomes all threes: new eras, Steph Curry, and why obvious ideas take decades
Adam asks whether future rule/style changes (four-point line, only threes) would reset the GOAT conversation. Chuck suggests a new era could begin—while noting Curry’s significance in mainstreaming efficiency logic that was “obvious” but slow to be accepted.
- •Major style/rule shifts can create a new “modern era” boundary
- •Curry’s role in normalizing three-point math at scale
- •Mystery: why efficiency logic took so long to dominate strategy
- •Future basketball could make current greatness categories feel obsolete
- 12:07 – 13:55
Football’s future: receding from the monoculture and the limits of perpetual growth
Chuck predicts football may remain popular yet lose its central place in American monoculture. He argues large, entrenched “hyperobjects” struggle to adapt, and the sport’s built-in demand for constant expansion is historically unsustainable.
- •Football as the last major shared monoculture phenomenon in the U.S.
- •Two generations away from a different cultural relationship to football
- •Economic/social pressures will reshape fandom and participation
- •Systems built only to expand eventually hit limits
- 13:55 – 17:30
Can football be safe without losing its soul? Violence, stakes, and the Everest analogy
Adam advocates for a flag-football-like NFL to keep the strategy and skill without brutal collisions. Chuck argues that even if fans don’t consciously want injuries, the perceived risk is part of what makes the game feel meaningful—like climbing dangerous mountains.
- •Adam’s view: keep skill/strategy, remove collisions and catastrophic injuries
- •Chuck’s view: risk of violence supplies stakes even if no one wants harm
- •Everest/K2 example: danger increases perceived meaning and rarity
- •Modern life removes everyday risk; sports reintroduce controlled physical stakes
- 17:30 – 19:01
Why football dominates TV: scarcity of games, but also a “perfect” broadcast format
They examine why football outperforms other sports in popularity. Beyond short seasons where games matter more, Chuck argues football is accidentally ideal for television—despite seeming ill-suited—because it matches what audiences actually want from entertainment.
- •Fewer games make each one feel consequential (scarcity effect)
- •Football’s stoppages and structure are counterintuitively TV-friendly
- •The sport aligns with audience attention and anticipation cycles
- •Gap between what people say they want (nonstop action) and what they prefer
- 19:01 – 23:16
Soccer vs. football: practicality, class dynamics, and the “true fans” problem
Adam challenges the violence thesis by pointing to soccer’s global dominance. Chuck contrasts soccer’s accessibility with American football’s demographic reach via television and argues that broadening appeal can alienate core fans—using college football’s professionalization and a music “selling out” analogy.
- •Soccer’s popularity is tied to low barriers to play (minimal equipment)
- •U.S. football: expensive live experience but mass TV consumption across classes
- •Broadening a product can repel the most devoted fans who define its meaning
- •College football’s shift toward pro-style incentives may help short term, hurt long term
- •Music example (Soul Asylum) to illustrate how expansion changes legacy
- 23:16 – 26:09
Lightning round: nemesis vs. arch enemy, and what readers really wanted from ethics advice
A rapid shift into punchier topics begins with defining rivals: nemeses are productive and even likable; arch enemies are existential threats. Chuck then reflects on writing The New York Times Magazine’s “Ethicist,” surprised that many readers craved moral takedowns more than nuance.
- •Nemesis: competitive foil you still respect; arch enemy: someone you believe wants to destroy you
- •Nemeses can be motivating; multiple arch enemies is destabilizing
- •Ethicist column aimed for balanced dilemmas with arguments on both sides
- •Audience appetite often favored obvious villains and blame over complexity
- 26:09 – 28:39
What the Ethicist taught: emotional investment can ruin moral judgment
Chuck explains the biggest lesson from ethics writing: once people are emotionally invested, their moral reasoning becomes unreliable. They connect this to moral psychology—intuition first, rationalization second—and debate whether emotions should be treated as unquestionable truth.
- •Emotional proximity can distort ethical reasoning rather than clarify it
- •Cultural assumption challenged: the most affected person isn’t always the best judge
- •Haidt-like model: moral intuitions drive, reasons follow as justification
- •Emotions as signals to examine, not automatic instructions for behavior
- 28:39 – 35:12
Self-awareness: short-term advantage or long-term obstacle to happiness?
Chuck asks Adam whether self-awareness is a psychological detriment, proposing it may help with tactical navigation but harm long-term contentment. Adam argues positive illusions can help in the short run, but accurate self-awareness supports durable relationships and meaningful goals; Chuck worries awareness can breed nihilism about legacy and significance.
- •Debate: adaptive “positive illusions” vs. accurate self-knowledge
- •Adam’s view: illusions motivate now; realism helps long-term relationships/goals
- •Chuck’s view: self-awareness can erode meaning and happiness over time
- •Legacy anxiety: even great work is often forgotten; awareness of that can be paralyzing
- •Reframe: “normal science” and foundational work enable paradigm shifts
