I just watched a podcast comparing Paul Pierce and Tracy McGrady and who was better. The argument was Pierce was the better player with the better career BUT T-Mac at his PEAK was better then any version of Paul Pierce. 

I found that so interesting in how you can actually judge and define greatness in a sport. The argument sort of defines the MJ-Bron debate too but I don’t want it to be another thread about that. 

It’s a debate that rings true to music. Legends like Biggy died in his peak but Snoop had the longer and more successful career. So who truly was better all around?

Same with wrestling. You have the peak guys like Steve Austin but in a debate against someone like Undertaker, it’s hard to really define who the greater was. 

I want it to be a thread about how YOU judge greatness in sports. Do you judge a legend more in favor of their peak or their all around career? 

Personally, I don't think longevity matters unless we're debating about records or who's the GOAT. No matter the sport, injuries are unavoidable and reality is cruel, so even if the beauty you brought to the game was limited it doesn't make that skill set any less beautiful.

I guess it also depends on what hampered that longevity - was it a freak accident or your own damn fault because your ego trumped any progress?