The first step here, I suppose, is to get some sort of criteria together. Of course the 'greatest' anything tends to be an absurdity, particularly when crossing genres and eras.

It generally boils down to the old 'would Tyson have beaten Ali?' type pub argument. (short answer: no.)

The thing about sport is that things change; rules, conditions... I'm reminded of the story where two guys were arguing at the football over the merits of Paul Harragon against an older era protagonist.

One of them suddenly noticed, in their immediate vicinity, one Bandy Adams, a Maitland international. 'Let's ask him,' he suggested to his mate. 'He'd know.'

Adams answered their inquiry somewhat cheekily with, 'I'm not sure I can say. I've never seen today's front rowers play a full game.'

Nothing against Harragon et al. These guys are brought on for short explosive bursts in an era when that is allowed and is part of the game.

In Bandy's time once you went off that was it. Games change. How do you compare?

So, criteria...

I'm ruling out animals. If Winx was from Maitland I'd perhaps revise this but for now it’s human versus human.

I'm also ruling out the more 'sedentary' sports - snooker, darts and motor racing.

This whittles out prospective champion achievers such as Ken Tubman, Alan Grice, Paul Cannon, Bruce Dimmock and Gordon Hellyer.

Champions each of them, but champions sitting down with an engine underneath them.

Hot? Yes.  Dangerous?  Certainly.

Hotter and more dangerous than driving the wife and kids to Nelson Bay for Christmas Holidays?  I'm not so sure.

I think it is very difficult to argue against more than serious consideration being given to somebody who is a world champion in their field.

Fairly convincing; but then I am drawn to the speed skating gold medallist Steven Bradbury who won, basically, because everybody else fell over.

He can avoid trouble - but not necessarily the fastest skater in the world which is what the medal would tend to represent.

So, let's look at local, undisputed, unarguable, world champions.

For my mind it boils down to only two: Gary Barton and Les Darcy.

Our Gillieston Heights gold medallist Maddi Elliot should probably get an inclusion here but for the moment I'm going with the criteria that you have to be retired to be eligible.

Elliot is still competing, and is in the quite early stages of it at that. A controversial omission, I know, but I do think there's something to be said for allowing a period of waiting for the trophy dust to settle before a proper estimation can occur.

So, Barton and Darcy it is for now.

Everybody knows who Les Darcy is but there may be a few readers unfamiliar with Gary Barton's work.

Barton, a barefoot water skiing legend, has won everything that can be won in barefoot skiing and has set four world records.

You can't argue with world records, and you definitely can't fluke four of them.

Somewhat interestingly I don't think Les Darcy ever won an official world title, so, on paper at least, Barton pretty much has him.

Still, the best in the world, at the time, all said that Darcy was the best in the world, and the only ones he hadn't knocked out were the ones he hadn't got to yet.

So, there was, and remains, a high level of general consensus.

However, is it enough to be a proper champion in one discipline, or should more weight be given to those who achieve high levels across a variety of sports?

A tricky question, and one that I admit to not quite having resolved for myself yet.

To apply it in a fairly limited fashion to Barton and Darcy: I've never seen Barto actually throw one, but I'm pretty sure that in a square go with Les Darcy he'd very likely come off second best.

But then, how do you think Les Darcy would've gone on the skis?

Or, more to the point, how would he have gone behind a speeding boat without them?  He may well have surprised us and been the best since Jesus, who held most of the barefoot records pre-Barton, but I suspect not.

A very difficult one to decide.

For a spanner into the works I'm going to throw in Terry Pannowitz, a biased offering, I know, but, still, I've never known anybody who hated losing so much, be it football or marbles.

One of the greatest competitors I've ever known. He would've won at anything, whatever he turned to. Sheer determination.

I feel quite fortunate in this life that I never, ever, had to play against him.

And, the thing about Panno is that he's not too shabby on the skis... and I'd definitely back him over Barto against Darcy.

Your thoughts? Email me: brian-burke7@outlook.com