View Full Version : "What is better, round or square?"

07-24-2006, 11:30 AM
That was Ted Turner's response to a question a few years back about which of two competing technologies/platforms was better for the TV industry. I think he nailed much of the tendency to want a "best" in life right on the head. What is this, "Highlander"-- "There can only be one!" How pathetic.

It seems to me that all of these threads about who is better on this surface, who is the best, who would beat whom etc... are about as useful as talking about the "best" movie, book, actor, athlete (name your sport), meal, car, restaurant, lover etc.... All in all, futile and pretty childish. Frank Zappa said it well, "shut up and play yer guitar."

07-24-2006, 11:44 AM
"futile" . . . yes. "childish" . . . sometimes. but good luck trying to get people to stop. some posters on here would have absolutely nothing to contribute if they couldn't babble on and on about who's the "greatest of all time."

07-24-2006, 12:32 PM
in any area of life, will it?

07-24-2006, 12:54 PM
Some people are better than others at certain things. Just trying to not offend anyone and be politically correct does not make this true. Your analogies are awful.

You are talking about opinions vs. results. Maybe if you compared liking movies to figure skating (where it is a judged sport) then you may have a point.

But when someone wins 60 clay court matches in a row, it is safe to say he is the best on clay. Same for Federer on grass.

It's not useless to talk about who can beat whom because it's not a matter of opinion the way your other things are . . . it is a matter or prediction based on opinion that can be and lots of times will be proved right or wrong by results.

You will never get a "result" as to which movie is the best. Movies don't fight each other. Gimme a break already. Talking about who is the best is part of the fun.

Please think about your analogies better next time. That was truly horrible.

07-24-2006, 01:32 PM
and my analogies weren't very good-- you're right. But my questions remain: who is better when? On what surface? How often? At what stages of his/her career? There are so many variables that the question seems to be an exercise in ego, not proving anything. So Nadal beats Federer 6 out of 7 times. Does this predict the next match at Wimbledon? Roddick had a 7-1 record agains Blake before yesterday. And so on. Rivalries will continue and there will be ups and downs. If guys on this board what to argue or debate the subject, they should by all means. I'm not against anyone having fun, but wrapping ego around it and feeling superior because your favorite player is winning is pathetic. Not to mention the personal attacks and insults on this board that are disgusting. I can't help but wonder how rabid fans feel when their favorite players are slumping?

Many on this board confuse liking players and wanting them to win with their own ego gratification. Be a fan-- that's great. But arguing who is best gets old fast and doesn't solve much-- at least to me (and others too, I reckon)..