Let's suppose there's an ancient activity. Let's say, a sport.
Person A invented this sport. The sport is very popular and well received. A lot of people play it. Soon, we have a world tournament for this sport. Years passed and then Person B came along developing a new technique to beat all the records on it, improving previous records around 5 or 6 times. He was that year world champion. This new technique became quickly adopted by other athletes. With it, around a decade past, Person C came and got a new world record. Another two decades past and Person D became five times in a row the world champion, winning also a lot of other prizes and competences (but still failing to beat the world record). Time has past, and current world champion is Person E.
When asked who is the best in that sport, what is the best answer?
Person A, because of inventing the sport?
Person B, because of his/her revolutionary technique?
Person C, because of holding the unbeaten world record?
Person D, because of being the most winning person?
Person E, because of being the current champion?
Additionally, you can apply this to almost every activity: music, economy, war, movies, etc.
EDIT: Do you think this could go the Debate forum?
Just because you invented the game, doesn't mean you're the best (or even good) at it. Richard Garfield said as much, when faced against Finkel in 2001.
B,C,D. and E are dependent on whether or not the sport is head to head.
For example, yes, I'd say a man who ran holds the current record for the 200 meter sprint is best at the 200 meter sprint.
On the other hand, head to head competition (like boxing), is harder to evaluate. How can you tell if World Boxing Champion 2050 is better than Ali? Or Frazier? Or Foreman? Or Tyson?
Finally, there's a matter of the game evolving and the metagame. This is more relevant to young events/games. For example, take a look at the 1994 World Champion of Magic's deck. It looks like pile, and a stinking one at that. That's because game theories like card advantage and mana curve haven't evolved yet. Given the same cardpool, your average PTQ player today can probably come up with a better deck.
You don't have to invent something to be the best. You just have to do something better than everyone else (see: the Beatles). So yeah, my vote is for person B, because he discovered the best technique.
A is out because inventing something doesn't mean you're any good at it.
E is out because just the most recent title doesn't mean any more than any single title from another year, though there may be an upward trend in value such that the latest champion was more skilled than the first champion etc.
B I throw out because a person who innovates is not the same as a person who is a master. Not only are they different skill sets, but there is something to be said about how impressive the person was versus how dumb everyone else was. Sometimes one innovative man represents the failure of innovation of the rest of the world.
I would chose C if there is not much luck involved in the activity and D if there is a lot of luck (Magic for example) because a five year repeat is damn impressive in a game that involves so much luck.
My vote for Debate forum is 'no' because this topic is amorphous as hell. We don't have nearly enough information to make defensible arguments.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Person A invented this sport. The sport is very popular and well received. A lot of people play it. Soon, we have a world tournament for this sport. Years passed and then Person B came along developing a new technique to beat all the records on it, improving previous records around 5 or 6 times. He was that year world champion. This new technique became quickly adopted by other athletes. With it, around a decade past, Person C came and got a new world record. Another two decades past and Person D became five times in a row the world champion, winning also a lot of other prizes and competences (but still failing to beat the world record). Time has past, and current world champion is Person E.
When asked who is the best in that sport, what is the best answer?
Person A, because of inventing the sport?
Person B, because of his/her revolutionary technique?
Person C, because of holding the unbeaten world record?
Person D, because of being the most winning person?
Person E, because of being the current champion?
Additionally, you can apply this to almost every activity: music, economy, war, movies, etc.
EDIT: Do you think this could go the Debate forum?
[Clan Flamingo]
The clan for custom card creators!
B,C,D. and E are dependent on whether or not the sport is head to head.
For example, yes, I'd say a man who ran holds the current record for the 200 meter sprint is best at the 200 meter sprint.
On the other hand, head to head competition (like boxing), is harder to evaluate. How can you tell if World Boxing Champion 2050 is better than Ali? Or Frazier? Or Foreman? Or Tyson?
Finally, there's a matter of the game evolving and the metagame. This is more relevant to young events/games. For example, take a look at the 1994 World Champion of Magic's deck. It looks like pile, and a stinking one at that. That's because game theories like card advantage and mana curve haven't evolved yet. Given the same cardpool, your average PTQ player today can probably come up with a better deck.
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
(Pretty much why Lebron can be considered in the same sentence as Jordan.)
A is out because inventing something doesn't mean you're any good at it.
E is out because just the most recent title doesn't mean any more than any single title from another year, though there may be an upward trend in value such that the latest champion was more skilled than the first champion etc.
B I throw out because a person who innovates is not the same as a person who is a master. Not only are they different skill sets, but there is something to be said about how impressive the person was versus how dumb everyone else was. Sometimes one innovative man represents the failure of innovation of the rest of the world.
I would chose C if there is not much luck involved in the activity and D if there is a lot of luck (Magic for example) because a five year repeat is damn impressive in a game that involves so much luck.
My vote for Debate forum is 'no' because this topic is amorphous as hell. We don't have nearly enough information to make defensible arguments.