From Gogolak to Gogolak, the Times' list of The North Country's 100 Greatest Athletes of All-Time is complete. But it is not finished.
More on that later.
The appearance of Charlie Gogolak's biography on Page B2 today signals the 100th and final athlete documented in the weekly series (Pete Gogolak was the first athlete profiled). It marks the end of a nearly three-year project by the Times' sports staff. The task consumed considerable time, both in the creation of the list and in the research involved to write the biographies.
But it proved to be a popular series. I can't count how many emails or letters I received that either mentioned an athlete worthy of making the list or simply thanked us for writing about a particular player of the past. And speaking as someone who wrote nearly half of the entries — 45 of them as near as I can tell — the people behind the project couldn't help but learn about these great players.
I enjoyed catching up with athletes I remembered covering and learning about the standouts from years ago, some who starred long before many people on the staff were born. Some of these athletes were just names to me. They are much more now. Perhaps the most interesting part of the bios, for me, was the last paragraph at the end when we let readers know what the athletes were doing now. Often it was the most difficult paragraph to write, because it involved tracking down the whereabouts each athlete.
Many readers have asked how we came up with the final list. The short answer? Very carefully. But since the series has ended, I'll provide the long answer, too.
On my desk sits a folder bursting with papers all related to the Greatest Athletes series. Half of the papers are submissions from readers who nominated an athlete. The other half consists of sheets of lists as we attempted to narrow down the hundreds and hundreds of names to a nice, round 100. The problem, of course, was the same as whenever anyone attempts to come up with a list of the greatest, especially when it spans a large number of years: How do you compare players from different eras?
For the most part, we tried to go with our experience. We are fortunate enough to have people on the staff who have worked in the north country for almost 40 years. They have watched thousands of athletes during that time and were of great help in pointing out players from the 1960s and 1970s. We are also fortunate enough to have access to our own detailed archives, which helped define the best of the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s.
For players from 50 years ago or more, we relied on word of mouth and submissions by readers. Some were no-brainers. We had heard of these athletes for years, whether we had watched them play or not.
That said, there are athletes from long ago that we likely missed. We live in a tremendous information age, and that is never more apparent than when you try to find out about someone who played high school sports in the 1930s. The public accounts are sporadic and incomplete. And unfortunately, former longtime Times sports editor Jack Case isn't around to help us separate the very good from the greatest.
We did emphasize the modern athlete, because it is a fact that athletes have become bigger and stronger as the years have progressed. They also have access to more modern conveniences — weight rooms, athletic facilities and turf fields, year-round training and emphasis on nutrition — that can't help but improve their game.
We made sure to include the best of the female athletes, since their success in the north country is undeniable over the last 25 years. But how do you compare the female athlete with the male athlete? You can't. So we didn't.
We took all of the above factors into account. But above all, we based our selections on their athletic achievements. Were they outstanding performers in high school? If so, did they play sports in college? If so, were they outstanding in college? If so, did they play professionally or in the Olympics? If so, did they excel in the pros or the Olympics?
The more times we answered "yes" to one of those questions, the better their chances of making the top 100. If you look at the list of the 100 athletes, most of them succeeded athletically beyond their high school careers.
The only other rule we had were the athletes had to have been born in the north country or at least played the majority of their high school career there.
For six months before the first athlete in the series appeared, we whittled down the list to about 90 athletes. We conducted repeated in-house votes. We solicited entries from readers. Then we started the list in December 2007.
Throughout the time that the series ran, the list was always open to changes. Weeks and months into the series, we would realize that we had missed a worthy participant and made sure to add that athlete to the list. Often a reader would submit a name that was unfamiliar to us. We'd do a little research and realize that name belonged on the list.
Even though we're sticking with our 100 Greatest Athletes list, and they will remain on the Times Web site, we realize that there are athletes that weren't mentioned that may belong on the list. Any list like this is subjective. Although some entries are definites — who would argue that Craig Conroy or Brian Leonard doesn't belong on the list? — there are other athletes that sports fans could argue about for hours. Many athletes names that were submitted by readers did not appear on the list. It's a fact: there are more than 100 great athletes from the north country.
So, we will continue to focus on great area athletes from the past. You will see stories appear occasionally in the sports section accompanied by the familiar Greatest Athletes logo. (We will omit the "100" from the "Best of All Time" blurb, so that it reads "The Best of All Time"). Thanks to your submissions, we have a head start on some athletes, who have some great stories. Personally, I am looking forward to writing about some of them.
That means the overstuffed folder will remain on my desk. And we will continue to document the north country's greatest.
