A few years ago, Jim Rome got a rant about the baseball hall of fame's justification for admitting a candidate who was good, but not obviously great. The criteria seemed to be that he was the best player who was not already in the Hall of Fame.
More recently, controversy broke out at the Tim Horton's Brier as to whether the Martin Rink from Alberta was the greatest curling team in Brier history. The curling establishment and fans lashed out -- yes, the Martin rink is fantastic but you can't call them the greatest, because... get this... they curl full time. Yes, that's right. Excellence in curling is not defined by the absolute level of your ability and record, but by a relative notion that it is the record and ability in the context of the time you can commit to the sport. As old timers favoring the great rinks of 1960s and 1970s pointed out, the Martin Team doesn't have to work at another career full-time to be part-time curlers. Nor, do they have to look after kids (like those dads in the 1960s and 1970s right?).
For example, Randy Ferbey suggested that he thinks it's a little premature to be talking all-time great with respect to the Martin rink:
"Whatever. I think when anybody puts a new team together, they don't know how good it's going to be. And everybody thinks potentially they're going to be the best ever.
But I mean, get in line, Johnny, there's been a lot of great teams out there," he said. "Ed Werenich said it best:
let's see if these kids can play when they have to make mortgage payments and deal with the kids at home. They have a long ways to go yet to be determined if they're the best."
I suppose that the other reason we should discount current curling teams as great is that they are "in shape, work out and aren't drunk while they play".
Finally, Martin Brodeur appears to be the most winning goalie of all time but some pundits claim he is not because he has wins in overtime and shootouts after the rule changes. Yeah, that makes him weak that he gets wins from 4 on 4 and guaranteed penalty shots.