Why do people automatically assume that old = the best?

Entertainment wise I'm speaking, but generally this can be applied to anything.

I'm loooking at this site's rankings for top movies of all-time, and there's only 1 in the first 10 which is post 1980 (#1 - Raiders of the lost Ark - 1981. (great movie nonethless))

But I see shit like to kill a mockingbird as the 5th best movie of all time, it's powerful and the novel is a classic, but that's blasphemy. No way in hell is it a top 20 movie ever..

Music the same shit.

There's a grip of artists who I think are wack, but just because they did it first, then by default their the best ever.

Sports is the same shit.

I ain't buying into that old-school gimmick or whatever you wanna call it.

Just for the fuck of it :

LT > any RB ever.

 

Memories and melancholy.

 

Old is often better.

 

60-75 music is the last time the world has been blessed with good music.

 

as far as im concerned everything is cheap plastic with some rare gems in the mix nowadays...if you get my meaning...

 

Old is best because LSD was legal then...

 

I had someone explain it to me this way...

These old movies have withstood the test of time...they are CLASSIC. These newer films have not yet gotten to the CLASSIC status. Maybe in the future the lists will change...

*shrugs*

 

Older doesn't always mean better. Hell, remember the eighties? That's old and terrible. Haha. But really, most music produced today is terrible, so I stand by the idea that the older stuff is terrible. I mean, tell me this, how is it that I can listen to a classic rock station, and not hear the same song more than once in an entire work day, but if I were to change it to a station that plays more top 40 type stuff, I hear the same song at least twice every hour??? There's only so many songs they can classify as "classic", but shit, aren't people pumping out new songs constantly? Aaahhh. I don't hate all modern music, but I'm definitely not a fan of a large percentage of it.

 

old or new doesn't really play in to the quality of art like music and movies. the reason it seems like most new stuff is shit is because there's so much more stuff released, and the creators aren't as dependant on making quality art anymore. with more advancted technology, more accessibility, and more stupid people with lots of money it's just much easier to record a cd or shoot a movie than it used to be.

you can still find lots of great recent music and movies, you're just probably not gonna find much of it in movie theatres or on top 40 radio channels.

 

Theres some pretty good music now if you look for it

 

that is correeeeccttt!!!

 

tasty!

 

Nostalgics are pessimists or cynics.

Progressivists are idealists or stoics.

It's good to be neither.

 

You cannot determine a player's legacy until his career is over. Period. Tomlinson has only been in the league for seven seasons. He could have a major drop-off as he ages. You just don't know.

However, Tomlinson is certainly exceptional. But much of his success should be attributed to three-time All-Pro fullback Lorenzo Neal leading the way for him.

LaDainian Tomlinson's career yards per carry average without fullback Lorenzo Neal: 4.05 ypc.
With Neal: 4.68 ypc.

This is not to suggest Neal is responsible for Tomlinson's success, but with a fullback as good as he is, there's no over-looking the impact he has had on Tomlinson's career. He was realeased a couple weeks ago, and I think this will be the season we really see what Tomlinson is made of.

To move on past Tomlinson, there are two ways to analyze a player: Career value and peak value (naturally this can only be done once a player's career is over). Those with high career value are consistently good throughout their careers. An excellent example of this is Curtis Martin. The only season in which he did not rush for over 1000 yards was his final season, in 2005. He turned in 735 yards in 12 games at the age of 32, that dreaded number for running backs. It should also be noted that this was the season after he led the league in rushing with 1697 yards. He finished with 14,101 yards, or an average of 1281.9 yards per season.

Peak value refers to a player's performance in the few seasons that they played at a level substantially higher than they did for the majority of their career. For example, a player with high peak value would be John Elway. Most don't realize, or at least don't remember, how mediocre he was for the first 10 years of his career, from 1983-1992. In that time, his statistics were as follows:

Completions: 2375
Attempts: 4339
Completion %: 54.7
Yards: 30,216
TDs: 158
INTs: 157
Passer rating: 73.8

Now, his stastics from 1993-1998, the final six seasons of his career:

Completions: 1758
Attempts: 2911
Completion %: 60.4
Yards: 21, 259
TDs: 142
INTs: 69
Passer rating: 89.2

Clearly, he was a marginally better player for the final six years of his career. This is his peak value as opposed to his career value.

I went into this great, terrifying detail to make the point that a player in the midst of his career cannot be ranked amongst those who have played out their careers until his career itself is played out. In sports, a player can look like the best of all-time one season, and look like just another Joe in a jersey the next.

I am not trying to suggest Tomlinson's talent will decline, but I am saying that you just don't know. No one does. What appears to be high career value now could turn out to be high peak value in two years. John Elway only had six good years, and yet he's in the Hall of Fame.

Also, Tomlinson cannot be the greatest running back of all-time (currently) because there are at least three who were better: Jim Brown, Barry Sanders, and Walter Payton. And in this case, I don't need statistics to make a case. Find some film of them, and see for yourself.

 

Barry Sanders is hands down the greatest of all time. He couldve broken Paytons record in only his 14th season with half the flash and twice the toughness of LT.

And Eliot, you've clearly been reading some ESPN. I'm doing a keeper league this year for fantasy. $50 and it gets you three seasons in a keeper league.

 

And to answer the original question, it is because more people have seen those movies, including people our age. People who were our age when those movies came out still watch them, but don't go see many of the newer movies that come out. Same goes with music. As time goes a few of our movies will slip in there. They just have to keep going strong.

 

Because we've now developed a society so commercial it can neither produce or appreciate art.

Instead, we have two decades worth of movies that avoid any complexities at all. And it shows.

 

Bullshit.

Societies have never produced or appreciated art, because societies don't do these things; people do.

 

Older booze is better booze.

 

Societies exist in culture to you know. Beethoven, picasso and other famous artists were part of the art society.