Do you believe that because something came first it is better?

[eDotd]

I was arguing with my friends father last night about Bernard King and LeBron James. I don't really want to type everything out but to make a long story short "LeBron James will never be as good as Bernard King was" (Not sure how other people feel about this, I'm just using an example of what he said)

So I ask..

Why are originals always "better"? I shouldn't say always but I've seen this countless times (especially with older adults) in every subject whether it be sports, games, music, actors, movies whatever. Is it just nostalgia or do some of you older members really believe this? Because the only one I see holding truth is music (well, rap specifically, even then..meh..depends on who you listen to).

[youvalss]

Re: Do you believe that because something came first it is better?

It's not that original is always better (well, sometimes it does), but many people (including me) always think that the younger generation didn't invent anything new, "it's been already known in my generation". I promise you that you'll tell youngsters the same when you're old, just wait and see...

Forget Bernard King vs LBJ, what about Bernard King vs Burger King?

[TTUmatador8]

Re: Do you believe that because something came first it is better?

Newer is always better, and the further you go back the more exponentialy worse players are compared to today.

If you took either team from the under armour all american high school football game from last weekend and (somehow) played them against The Super Bowl I Champion Green Bay Packers the game wouldn't be close. The high school kids would dominate. With all the advances in weight training, coaching, and medicine todays pro athlete is a super human compared to athletes back in the 60s and 70s

In basketball the difference is smaller between athletes then and now, but the same holds true.

[Cebby]

Re: Do you believe that because something came first it is better?

I hate it when people say things like that.

It's one thing if you say "best in its time", but when comparing things cross generationally, the newer is by and large better. Whenever stupid "greatest song/album/musical artists of all time" come out, their inclusions of rap music follow this trend. No, Rapper's Delight is not the best rap song ever, nor is Run DMC the best rap artist/group. Frankly, you just make yourself look stupid by saying either of those things.

[Bornindamecca]

Re: Do you believe that because something came first it is better?

I was arguing with my friends father last night about Bernard King and LeBron James. I don't really want to type everything out but to make a long story short "LeBron James will never be as good as Bernard King was"

There are a couple of things at work here, but most importantly:

-pioneering; past talent had more opportunity to do something "new", as there was less established, leaving nostalgists to paint modern talent as copies

-completion; in most cases, older talent is finished, whereas younger talent still has untested waters. We know how King responds to a knee injury. Not so for James. It's not fair, but it's true

-your ex gets prettier and less annoying as time goes by. This isn't always true, but it is in the cases you're discussing

-that little nugget of truth; while it's certainly not true that older talent is better, there are many cases where older talent was stronger fundamentally. A large part(but certainly not all) of our generation suffers from short attention span habits, whereas the inconvenience of bygone years forced people to sit and work on form more often.

[callmetaternuts]

Re: Do you believe that because something came first it is better?

Alot of people say the original is the best because there was nothing to compare it to, whereas now, we are comparing the new thing (LBJ) to the old thing. I disagree with the argument that newer is always better, but it has merit at times.

Its hard to put different generations into context, too many variables.

[23]

Re: Do you believe that because something came first it is better?

Its too general to put anything in that category and it could also be preference.

Sometimes that is the case, such as how cars were made to last long ago, and even with all the features they have now, they are practically plastic.

Which is better though, a strong frame and housing or electric windows?

Truth is though, that there is nothing new under the sun so one way or another the new improved stuff is just a copy of the old.

See how you can just go in circles with that all day?

[daflyboys]

Re: Do you believe that because something came first it is better?

I think part of the problem is that since the original or the prototype of whatever category you're talking about most likely came as the result of much hard work, ingenuity, (indirectly from) good principles, etc. and people from the older generation don't see a worthy build on that skill, product, model, etc. it becomes irritating to see the younger generation applaud the "new" simply because it is new (but of little or lesser substance). So, for example, this is probably why your Run DMC fans (of which I am not, nor am I a fan of any rap) will not commend what the industry or part of the industry has become; because it does not augment, nor honor, the roots (no pun intended).

[BunnyHardaway]

Re: Do you believe that because something came first it is better?

No.

The egg came before the chicken and I like chicken a lot more.

[Pared]

Re: Do you believe that because something came first it is better?

lol this is a great thread MC.

FWIW, if I came first, I win.

[SPTO]

Re: Do you believe that because something came first it is better?

Newer isn't always better. In a lot of ways I think newer is just building upon (though in most cases just piggybacking) on the original. That being said, I try to be objective with some things. A great example would be movies. I find the craftsmanship and in most cases the acting in the Golden Age was FAR better then what we have today (there are exceptions but few and far between these days that are of equal value) but they were saddled with mostly not so great camera techniques or lack of on location shooting. If they had all that then WOW some of the stuff the old masters would churn out today would be mindblowing.

Another aspect of the whole debate between the originals and the new guard is that a lot of people get caught up in their own little "golden age". It's the whole "everything was better when I was 10-25 years old and everything now sucks". We get caught up in that because we sometimes find it hard to connect to the new stuff when we're older and more resistant to new things/change.

[daflyboys]

Re: Do you believe that because something came first it is better?

No.

The egg came before the chicken and I like chicken a lot more.

Ya, but if the chicken could only shoot 17% from beyond the 3 point line and got 3.2m per year anyway.... you'd bitch!! :wink:

[RAZRr1275]

Re: Do you believe that because something came first it is better?

No.

[eDotd]

Re: Do you believe that because something came first it is better?

Newer isn't always better. In a lot of ways I think newer is just building upon (though in most cases just piggybacking) on the original.

But is there anything wrong with that? It would practically be impossible to say something was not influenced by something in the past. It's human nature to "use what you know" (for lack of a better word(s)). If you grow up watching, listening, and doing something it's only common sense to use it's influence in something you might do later on in life. Does that automatically make the original better? I don't understand that.

-pioneering; past talent had more opportunity to do something "new", as there was less established, leaving nostalgists to paint modern talent as copies

I understand the pioneering effect completely, what I don't understand is how that makes something better than anything that came after it (not in all cases of course). I know you listed other factors (I agree with those, especially completion) but some people use pioneering as the base of their judgment when comparing the past and the present, which is what I'm not understanding.

Here's another example I had with my professor this morning.

Alfred Hitchcock's "Psycho" is one of the greatest horror films in history.

I've seen plenty of horror films better than Psycho, so is it really? Or is it just one of the greatest because it was one of the first? I don't understand that.

Of course there are times when I do believe older is better (most recently is Ennio Morricone's "Lestasi Delloro" from The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly soundtrack [released in 1966, so I don't see how the "golden age" comes into effect here, as I wasn't born, or conceived for that matter..] Nike made a commercial using a remix of this song [LT and Polamalu]).

Just so it's clear I am not speaking in terms of eras, or what was available in a certain time. I'm speaking in terms of variable A being better than variable B in a clear cut and dry manner.

Is techmo superbowl better than Madden?
Are 8-tracks better than CD players/iPods?
Is the SNES better than the PS3?


From a technical standpoint I don't see how anyone can agree with any of these (yet I know several people who do and have read several posts on these forums from people who do). Again, I'm not speaking in terms of eras, the technology available, or "it was the best for it's time". I mean clear cut and dry "X is better than Y".

[eDotd]

Re: Do you believe that because something came first it is better?

I hate it when people say things like that.

It's one thing if you say "best in its time", but when comparing things cross generationally, the newer is by and large better.

Missed this post. I agree.