OK, so this is the start of a new series — it could also be the end of a new series, I don’t know that yet.*
*One of the first things I learned in journalism — shortly after learning that Magic Johnson was not, in fact, going to be at Belk on the day I predicted — is that you never call an event a “first annual” because, in fact, most first annuals do not have “second annuals.” It’s a shame; I’ve actually always had a a soft spot in my heart for the phrase “first annual” — it sounds so hopeful.
The series is “Who’s Better” — and it will match up two people (or objects or television shows or Muppets or whatever) in lots of different categories. I’ve already, in my mind, plotted out a few WB categories:
WB: Magellan vs. Ponce De Leon.
WB: Tom Brady vs. Peyton Manning.
WB: Richard Pryor vs. George Carlin.
WB: Ulysses Grant vs. Robert E. Lee
WB: Emil Brown vs. Emil Brown
WB: Wilt Chamberlain vs Bill Russell
WB: Dave Eggers vs. Malcolm Gladwell
WB: Tiffany vs. Debbie Gibson
WB: Springsteen vs. Dylan
WB: Seinfeld vs. The Simpsons
WB: Peanut vs. Regular M&Ms
WB: Peanuts vs. Calvin & Hobbes
WB: Atilla the Hun vs. Genghis Khan
WB: Pay at the pump vs. ATM Machines
WB: iPod vs. Zune … if I could find someone who prefers the Zune.
WB: Pedro 1999 vs. Gibson 1968
WB: Godfather vs. Godfather II
WB: John Adams vs. Thomas Jefferson
WB: Muhammad Ali vs. Joe Louis
WB: Barry Bonds vs. Babe Ruth
WB: Grace Kelly in “To Catch a Thief“ vs. Donna Reed in “It’s a Wonderful Life.”
WB: Kansas vs. North Carolina
And so on and so on. I have big dreams — the way people do the night before when they set their alarms — but I know for certain that I’m not going to get to all of these or most of these or perhaps any of these. We’ll just have to see how it goes. Right now, I like the idea a lot. I’m hoping to get some cool guest stars to help too.
There are two keys to this series: One, I’m not going to define the word “better.” It can mean whatever you want “better” to mean — I think it’s better that way. And two, I’m hoping to figure out how to create a poll online so everybody can actually vote on who they think is better after reading the various posts. This whole thing might even get connected to the Pozcars — we’ll have to see if that can be technically achieved.*
*Wow, like several hundred of you decided that you absolutely had to be Pozcars voters. I’m always surprised by our innate desire to vote, even for meaningless fake awards. You can still register and vote for your hottest TV Moms until April 15 (and we’ll re-evaluate at that time) — and here’s a quick word: If you have not yet received your confirmation, that means you did something wrong. A bunch of you tried to register but did not fill out all the necessary information (you need to fill out first and last name, email, screen name and password). Unfortunately, you cannot be approved if you left off any of those things for technical reasons that I don’t understand at all. So, if you haven’t been approved, it probably was not because you didn’t quite pass the stringent Pozcars qualifications. My advice: Register again!
I am going to begin the WB series shortly (late tonight, I hope) with one of the more compelling baseball match-ups I can think of — Roberto Clemente vs. Al Kaline.
Also, one last thing … I would toss out a challenge. If you have a Who’s Better that compels you, one you’ve thought a lot about, and would like to write an essay you can email me here. Maybe I’ll combo your essay with some thoughts … hey, it might be less work for me.
Also, please buy THIS BOOK. It always depresses me when the Amazon number is more than the Royals average attendance.
Loading ...
76 Comments, Comment or Ping
Steve Buffum
I definitely think Emil Brown has the edge in Matchup Five. But Joe is closer to the subject, so he may see some hidden value that we don’t get from the mainstream media in Emil Brown instead.
Apr 1st, 2008
Matt
Just for practice:
WB: Magellan
WB: Tom Brady
WB: Richard Pryor
WB: Robert E. Lee
WB: Emil Brown vs. Emil Brown - push
WB: Bill Russell
WB: Dave Eggers
WB: Debbie Gibson
WB: Springsteen
WB: The Simpsons (damn close)
WB: Regular M&Ms
WB: Calvin & Hobbes
WB: Genghis Khan
WB: Pay at the pump
WB: iPod
WB: Gibson 1968 Just because of the innings…)
WB: Godfather II (DeNiro!)
WB: Thomas Jefferson (Va. statute of religious freedom!)
WB: Joe Louis
WB: Babe Ruth (I’d rather drink a beer w/ the Babe than rub on “the clear” w/ Barry)
WB: Grace Kelly in “To Catch a Thief“
WB: North Carolina (go Heels!)
Apr 1st, 2008
ron
I’m in the Zune camp. There are a few of us out here.
Apr 1st, 2008
wcw
I categories where I care:
Pryor, Eggers, Dylan, The Simpsons (I hate Seinfeld. Among hugely successful TV comedies, only Friends offends me more.), Calvin & Hobbes, Attila (two Ts, one L), Pedro, Jefferson and Ali.
Man I hate Seinfeld. Sure, it amusingly renders urban life — if you find rendering plants amusing.
Apr 1st, 2008
Melody
Hey Joe– I registered with all the above information, but still haven’t been approved. Not sure what the problem is. I even bought your book!
I enjoyed both Seinfeld and the Simpsons, but it’s no contest there. I can watch a Simpsons episode 20 or 30 times and still think it’s hilarious, while Seinfeld gets old quickly.
Apr 1st, 2008
Old Man Duggan
On the TV moms front, I really do suspect that Joanna Kerns would fare better than Meredith Baxter-Birney. I was mentioning the Pozcars to a friend the other night and the first mom he mentioned was her, and then he, too, was shocked she was omitted. She’s even still fairly attractive. I don’t think I’m crazy on this one.
Apr 1st, 2008
Aaron M.
Seinfeld gets old? Are you kidding me? The worst Seinfeld show is still better than the crap Simpsons has been pumping out for the last 10 years, with 1 or 2 good shows a season. This is coming from someone who owns the first 10 seasons of Simpsons on DVD too (and no Seinfeld DVDs). So it’s not like I’m not a fan. Seinfeld and Friends shouldn’t even be in the same category. This boggles my mind. I officially take away your rights to vote if you hate Seinfeld. That’s un-American you commies!!
Apr 1st, 2008
Nate P.
A few of my personal favorite WBs (I originally wrote “couple”; so much for that):
Bullitt vs. Ronin
Godard vs. Truffaut
Halo vs. Half-Life
tuna melt vs. pesto turkey sub (anyone who’s had both of these at Pizza Luce in Minneapolis/St. Paul will know what I’m talking about)
Nas vs. Jay-Z
Mitsubishi Lancer Evo vs. Subaru Impreza
Sabbath vs. Zeppelin
Jackie Chan vs. Jet Li
Jonathan Lethem vs. Michael Chabon
Apr 1st, 2008
Alex
WB: Magellan
WB: Tom Brady
WB: Richard Pryor
WB: Ulysses Grant–greatest general in U.S. history
WB: Emil Brown
WB: Bill Russell–have to go with the winner
WB: Neither
WB: Debbie Gibson
WB: Dylan
WB: Seinfeld — the Simpsons gets old
WB: Regular M and Ms
WB: Calvin & Hobbes — this one is not even close
WB: Alexander the Great
WB: Pay at the pump
WB: iPod vs. Zune
WB: Pedro 1999 (because of context)
WB: Godfather
WB: Alexander Hamilton (ok, ok, Thomas Jefferson–but closer than you think)
WB: Joe Louis
WB: Babe Ruth (when Bonds outhomers the league, I’ll reconsider)
WB: Grace Kelly in “To Catch a Thief“ vs
WB: UCLA (ok, actually, North Carolina)
Apr 1st, 2008
McKingford
WB: iPod vs. Zune … if I could find someone who prefers the Zune.
Make it iPod vs. Creative Zen and then you’ll have a battle.
Apr 1st, 2008
McKingford
It can mean whatever you want “better” to mean — I think it’s better that way.
Define what you mean by “better that way”…
Apr 1st, 2008
Tim
I love my zune.
Apr 1st, 2008
Brian
Might I suggest that a better contest would be Thomas Jefferson v. Alexander Hamilton?
I’d like to suggest it because I can persuasively argue for Hamilton, if it comes to that.
Also, I’d shout out for Grace Kelly in “Rear Window”, but only if you see it on the big screen. When she leans in to kiss Jimmy Stewart and her face fills the screen, her beauty is shocking.
Aside from that, though, give me Audrey Hepburn, any day.
Apr 1st, 2008
Brian
Oh, and Lee over Grant in a walk. Give Lee the resources Grant had, and the war would’ve been over in 6 months.
Apr 1st, 2008
Jon
Agreed…the North wanted Lee as their Commanding General from the start but he was too much a Virginian to turn his back on them. Grant only became the head of the Union forces after a few other guys sucked at it.
Apr 1st, 2008
Mike
Lee may have been a better general tactically, but shouldn’t we say Grant was better than Lee? Grant at least fought on the side against slavery.
Grant’s Tomb is also better than Lee’s. He was also a president (not a very good one, maybe, but still) and a best-selling author.
I think the most lopsided one is the Dylan vs. Springsteen. Dylan in a walk…Dylan vs. Neil Young would be closer.
Apr 1st, 2008
will
Your book is ranked way higher than any of these:
http://www.drinkatwork.com/art071805.html
Apr 1st, 2008
Brett
Your book can’t be selling that badly, Amazon only has one left in stock (more on the way).
I’d buy the paperback, but I already bought the hardcover (even paid a little more to get an autographed copy from an independent bookseller, rather than buying it on Amazon), and I’m a financially strapped, small-market book buyer.
Apr 1st, 2008
Greg
Simpsons and Seinfeld is a great debate only if you ignore what’s been happening with the former for the past 7 years or so. Seinfeld went out at the right time (though the last episode wasn’t amazing, the next-to-last episode, Puerto Rican Day, was fantastic) and the Simpsons have stuck around long after their clever writing has all but disappeared.
Because I simply don’t respect the direction the Simpsons chose to take in staying around, I can’t hold them on the same level as Seinfeld. At their peaks, however, I’m really not sure that I can make a decision. It’s too close.
Apr 1st, 2008
Brett
It would be fun to see Schmidt vs. Brett, but what I’d really, really love to see is Nettles vs. Bell (or Cey or Evans or Bando or…). Who was the third best third baseman of the era immediately preceding the Ballantine Abstracts? There are a lot of interesting folks post-Santo and pre-Boggs, clearly led by Schmidt and Brett, but putting them all in order after those two isn’t so easy.
Apr 1st, 2008
Andy
Haha, I am way excited about this. Any chance we can get a Tony Muser vs. Tony Pena Sr. vs. Buddy Bell vs. John Wathan column?
(I’m not sure who would come out the winner, but the loser would most certainly be the citizens of Kansas City)
Apr 1st, 2008
Steven
ATM Machine = Automatic Transaction Machine Machine
Apr 1st, 2008
Paul White
“Give Lee the resources Grant had, and the war would’ve been over in 6 months.”
Really? Six months into the war, Grant had command of roughly 10,000 men in southeastern Missouri. I’d love to know how Lee would have won the entire war in that time frame with those “resources”.
Apr 1st, 2008
Ryan
This is remarkable similar to my favorite way to waste time at work and a great way to get an entire bar engaged in one topic.
Who’s Cooler? Same thing, no defining cool.
The one that stumps everyone: Tom Waits vs Paul Newman
Apr 1st, 2008
Jim
Puerto Rican Day sucked. Seinfeld hung around two weeks too long.
Apr 1st, 2008
Steve Buffum
Well, you have to use your Personal PIN Number at the ATM Machine.
Apr 1st, 2008
MikeS
Seinfeld was the sitcom equivalent of Koufax. Both started a little shaky but eventually dominated a decade and retired at peak form. The Simpsons is more like Warren Spahn. Unbelievable in its early seasons. Lasted forever to rack up impressive career totals. Not as good as it was earlier, but still reliable, very good and capable to the occasional dominating performance.
Apr 1st, 2008
JO'C
Dylan vs N. Young would be better…in a WW (Who’s Worse) contest. Springsteen rules!
Apr 1st, 2008
Brian
“Really? Six months into the war, Grant had command of roughly 10,000 men in southeastern Missouri. I’d love to know how Lee would have won the entire war in that time frame with those “resources”.”
Well, yeah - I oversimplified quite a bit, never mind that I stated it inelegantly.
I guess what I was trying to say that, given his tactical brilliance, if Lee had had the overwhelming material support Grant had by the time of, say, Vicksburg, the war would’ve been a lot shorter.
Apr 1st, 2008
Jeff
Did someone actually suggest Zeppelin vs. Sabbath? WHAT are you smoking??? Stones vs. Who, would be good. Comparing Sabbath to Zeppelin is like comparing Margarine to Butter, an imitation vs. the original. Every heavy metal band from 1970 to about Metallica was trying to be Zeppelin, and none of them ever came close….
Apr 1st, 2008
ASTA DOG
Here’s a great one for the right now!!
WB: Gathright vs DeJesus
Apr 1st, 2008
ASTA DOG
Hands down Gathright!
Apr 1st, 2008
ASTA DOG
WB: Gordon vs Butler for the next stud superstar for the Royals? I’m leaning toward Butler.
Apr 1st, 2008
Paul White
…”I guess what I was trying to say that, given his tactical brilliance, if Lee had had the overwhelming material support Grant had by the time of, say, Vicksburg, the war would’ve been a lot shorter.
In which case I’d have to say you’re giving Lee too much credit. Lee, an engineer by training and known derisively as “The King of Spades” in some circles for his penchant for entrenching, was clearly at his best when he fought defensively. He had a real gift for maneuvering his forces to block his enemy and making preemptive spoiling attacks, to the point of repeatedly dividing his force in the face of his opponents’ numerical superiority, usually a tactical no-no that he somehow made work.
When it came to offensive warfare though, Lee was pretty unimaginative. He was far too grounded in the old Napoleonic frontal assault tactics that prevailed before the Civil War, and had a nasty habit of hurling troops into entrenched defenders on terrain that wasn’t suited to it. Twice he chose to abandon successful defensive campaigns in favor of invasions of the North, including once at the exact time frame you’re talking about, and on both occasions he lost a quarter of his force and had to withdraw.
Grant could get away with brutish tactics of that sort because of his massive numerical superiority. Lee had no such luxury, and yet he chose to launch these offensives anyway, despite knowing that he simply could not afford to lose the number of men they would cost, because there were no more manpower reserves for the South to draw from.
Sorry to offend any “Dukes of Hazard” fans out there, but Robert E. Lee is overrated, IMO.
Apr 1st, 2008
Jon Morse
re: Lee/Grant:
Paul’s right; it would be more accurate to say that if Stonewall Jackson had Grant’s resources, the way would have been over a lot sooner.
Apr 1st, 2008
JimBeau
Just a note… I tried to use “Contact Us” from my profile (I appear to have successfully accom-lished registration), but my local server (at work) regurgitates something about my trying to execute something that is not permitted. I have no idea what my server is talking about, but I guess I cannot get in touch with you through that link. Anyway, my attempted conrtact was in response to your comment about Pozcar voter interest, to wit:
“Au contraire! Unlike as stated in your post today, my registration seems to be fine - I just logged in under, and viewed my profile which has all * completed. But I have not received a response confirming my acceptance as a Pozcar voter (sob). At least, not that I can find (yes, me idiot sometimes). So, am I in or not (in - please, please). And thank you very much.”
And that was what I was trying to send.
JimBeau
Apr 1st, 2008
Josh in DC
Bill Russell, in 1955 and 1956 won 55 consecutive NCAA games, including two championships.
He then went to the Olympics, where he won a gold medal, leading the US team in scoring along the way.
He joined the Celtics partway through the year. They won a championship that year, the Celtics’ first.
In 1958, he won the MVP award. He twisted his ankle during Game Three, and missed the remaining games. Needless to say, the Celtics did not win the championship without him.
They did win in 1959, in Wilt’s rookie year.
and 1960, Wilt’s second year.
and 1961, Wilt’s third year.
and 1962, Wilt’s … etc.
and 1963, Bob Cousy’s last year.
and 1964
and 1965
and 1966.
In 1967, the Celtics lost to the Wilt and the 76ers. Russell was the head coach, the first black head coach in NBA history.
They won in 1968.
And 1969.
And then Russell retired. And other teams, comprised of other players than Bill Russell, started winning championships.
There will never ever ever be another Bill Russell. He was the greatest ever at anything.
Apr 1st, 2008
Jeff
Josh’s Bill Russell argument is logically similkar to Yankee fans’ crazy idea that Jeter is better than A-Rod. Or, less obscure but more similar, if the record of Russell’s teams makes him the greates NBA player ever, then the logical equivalent is that Yogi Berra is the greatest baseball player ever. Consider:
In Yogi’s first year with significant playing time, 1947, the Yankees won the WS for the first time in 4 years.
After one year off, they won 5 straight, the longest streak ever. So 6 WS titles in his first 7 years.
For the remainder of his career, 10 seasons, the Yankees won 4 more WS and 8 more AL pennants.
Berra retired (other than a few at bats in an aborted 1965 comeback), the Yankees won one last penant, and the Yankee dynasty, which stretched back to the early 20’s, collpased. They wouldn’t see the postseason again until 1976.
Now I don’t think Yogi Berra was the greatest player even of those Yankee teams. DiMaggio was greater when he came up, Mantle later. But the argument is logically similar to the one presented for Russell, if not quite as compelling.
You can’t just count the rings without looking at context. Not to take anything away from Russell, who was clearly a great, great player, but there were so many hall of famers on his Celtics teams that there were frequently hall of famers coming off the bench. Oh, and they did have Auerbach running the show. Yes he was a critical, perhaps THE critical piece of one of the three great sports dynasties (Yankees and Les Habs being the others), but how they did when he was injured tells us little. On the other hand, how many titels would those Celtics have won with Wilt instead of Russell? Or Willis Reed? Or Nate Thurmond? The answer might be, and probably is “less” but also still probably “a whole lot”. On the other hand, no way do the ‘67 Warriors win anything with Russell in Wilt’s place. If Wilt and Russell traded places, the shape of their careers would be different (Wilt likely scores less) but there’s no way Russell wins 11 titles to Wilt’s 2. Yes he was great, but “the greatest ever at anything”.? I don’t really think that’s an answerable question, but in team sports, the line forms behind Gretzky and Babe Ruth. And much as I hate to admit it, in the NBA, considering his supporting cast, Jordan’s 6 titles are every bit as impressive as Russell’s 11, if not more so.
Apr 1st, 2008
Alan
You’re evil. Now I have to spend most of my evening thinking about this.
Manning over Brady.
Pryor over Carlin. Not a knock on Carlin, but Pryor’s my favorite standup comic ever.
Grant over Lee.
Chamberlain over Russell.
Eggers over Gladwell.
Dylan over Springsteen. Love Bruce, love him, and if he comes back and makes an album as good as “Love & Theft” I might rethink this.
Seinfeld over The Simpsons.
Calvin & Hobbes over Peanuts. Watterson’s Sunday strips were on a par with Winsor McCay.
Pay at the pump over ATM Machines.
Pedro 1999 over Gibson 1968 … I think.
Godfather II! One of a handful of the best movies ever made. The scene where young Vito stalks and shoots Falucci is mind-bogglingly great.
Bonds over Ruth, but I can be persuaded otherwise.
Kelly over Reed. I’ll admit this might be more about Hitchcock over Capra — Hitch brought out his actors’ sex appeal, Capra at this point was neutering them. Now, if you wanna talk about Claudette Colbert in “It Happened One Night” …
UNC over Kansas.
Apr 1st, 2008
Josh in DC
Okay, my last sentence was over the top. Shakespeare was The Greatest. Way better than Ward Cleaver or the Jetsons.
But Russ > Wilt.
Apr 1st, 2008
Ed
WB: Marx Brothers vs. 3 Stooges
WB: Mike Douglas vs. Merv Griffin
WB: Shields vs. Yarnell
WB: Magic vs. Bird
WB: Brains vs. Brawn
WB: Lincoln vs. Douglas
WB: Why not vs. Because I said so
WB: LP vs. CD
WB: Beta vs. VHS
WB: Ketchup vs. Mustard
WB: Pickin’ vs. Grinnin’
WB: Gilligan vs. Maynard G. Krebs
WB: Buddy Biancalana vs. U.L. Washington
Apr 1st, 2008
john Liotta
I never received anything either but when I tried to log in everything worked and my profile was saved . . . tony larussa vs bobby cox.
Apr 1st, 2008
Brian
there is absolutely 0 chance calvin & hobbes is better than peanuts. calvin & hobbes is great, fantastic, probably the second greatest comic strip of all time. but peanuts is far, far, far ahead
of any strip ever. calvin & hobbes would not even exist without peanuts.
other notables:
russ over wilt
seinfeld over simpsons - simpsons is approaching the point where over half the series is crap. its about 50/50 now.
dylan over springsteen - this one is interesting because they both had good early albums followed by decades of drivel. but dylan’s best is lightyears ahead of springsteen’s best. incidentally, the clash’s “death or glory” is better at being springsteen than springsteen’s ever was.
Apr 1st, 2008
ASTA DOG
WB: Anna Nicole Smith vs Morgana
Apr 1st, 2008
Alejandro
Oh man, Lethem vs Chabon, good one. Throw in Auster as the “veteran comes out of retirement for one last fight” contender and you’ve got a truly phenomenal cage match.
Apr 2nd, 2008
Jim T.
My good buddy Alan (#39) is on board so I am too. Here goes:
Magellan easily over Ponce De Leon, even with the early death. De Leon only ever got to Florida and some scholars dispute even that.
Peyton Manning over Tom Brady, barely.
George Carlin over Richard Pryor (sorry Alan). Number 1 and 2 all-time. Only one reason Carlin wins: He had a longer peak.
Ulysses Grant over Robert E. Lee.
Bill Russell over Wilt Chamberlain, close on the court, a wide margin off it (true social radical vs. guy who just screwed a lot)
Tiffany over Debbie Gibson (their music sucked equally so I’m purely going by “Playboy” spreads)
Dylan over Springsteen. Damn, you’re KILLING me with this, this is even harder to decide than Carlin-Pryor. I might answer this differently if in the right mood.
Seinfeld over the Simpsons; MikeS (#27) nailed it.
Peanut over Regular M&Ms, but both are chosen out of desperation and/or poor cash flow only
Calvin & Hobbes over Peanuts (but Bloom County beats both)
Attila the Hun over Genghis Khan, easily; much of Genghis’ empire expansion actually came after his death; also, Attila was called “Scourge of God.” You just can’t mess with that.
Pedro 1999 over Gibson 1968 (but I’m a Red Sox fan so I’m very biased)
Thomas Jefferson over John Adams.
Muhammad Ali over Joe Louis, barely.
Babe Ruth over Barry Bonds, barely.
Kansas vs. North Carolina? Meh. I pick UNC on Saturday, but if we’re debating traditions? Both programs, though long in years, are short on results (i.e. titles). Gimme UCLA.
Oh, and Alan? I’ll see your Claudette Colbert in “It Happened One Night” and raise you a Rosalind Russell in “His Girl Friday.”
Apr 2nd, 2008
Snuckles
Runaway Wins:
Debbie Gibson, Bob Dylan, The Simpsons, Regular M&Ms, Peanuts (those picking Calvin & Hobbes should be ashamed of themselves… or more likely, they’re 30 years old and their knowledge of Peanuts involves ads for Zingers and Dolly Madison snacks), Pedro 1999.
Apr 2nd, 2008
Mauichuck
As to Lee vs. Grant it’s simple. Lee fought for the most fascist organization in the history of America. Grant didn’t.
Apr 2nd, 2008
Bowzer
It should be illegal to have ATMs in casinos and strip clubs.
Apr 2nd, 2008
Dwight K. Schrute
The most important question that I think needs to be answered…
Who’s Now?
Apr 2nd, 2008
Man in Black
This blog is a little bit of heaven. All praise Joe.
I agree with the statment from Brian that ‘calvin & hobbes would not even exist without peanuts.’, and that is true but C&H was vastly superior in humor and drawing. The idea that Hobbes is real only to Calvin and a stuffed tiger to everyone else is genuis. Snuckles- I have at least a dozen of the Peanuts collection books, so I am more than informed on Peanuts.
Ruth vs Bonds- Are you kidding? Ruth was the best player in baseball history by a mile, while Barry Bonds was a very good player who cheated until be became a humanoid. I expect Barry Bonds to die very early because of what he did to his body.
Apr 2nd, 2008
Jeff
Dylan v. Springsteen is an inappropriate comp. Sort of like comparing an actor who also directs with a Director who also acts. As a writer, as much as I love Bruce, who I think gets bonus points for creating the only culturally relevant musical statement about 9/11, Dylan is the best, it’s a knockout. On the other hand, as a live performer, Dylan can’t hold a candle to Springsteen, who is the greatest live performer of his era. I respectfully submit that the answer to Dylan v. Springsteen is “both”.
Apr 2nd, 2008
Jim Haas
To: Ed (#41):
That is the second U.L. Washington reference on this site in two days. It’s Joe’s writing, of course, that brings me here, but the comments are damn good, too.
U.L. Washington!
And… Seinfeld over The Simpsons because Lenny is such a close talker.
Apr 2nd, 2008
Sven
To the important arguments:
Debbie Gibson over Tiffany - Hands down. The music was better and she wrote her own stuff
Genghis Khan over Attila the Hun - He founded the largest empire in history.
Peanut M&M’s over regular M&M’s - mmm…
ps AGPP - Another Great Poznanski Post
Apr 2nd, 2008
Dwight K. Schrute
I’d also like to request a change from Pedro in 1999 to Pedro in 2000. This link below explains:
http://yanksfansoxfan.typepad.com/ysfs/2008/04/top-50-sox-seas.html
Apr 2nd, 2008
Mauichuck
Ruth vs. Bonds - exactly what is Barry’s ERA anyway?
Apr 2nd, 2008
Tim S.
What’s great about this debate, which we’re seeing in a lot of the comments, is that it really boils down to your definition of “better,” and what that means is different to different people. In a lot of cases, the question you’re asking is whether someone/something that was the best for a short time is better than someone/something that was second-best or third-best for a longer time. What about someone who was best at one aspect of his/her field vs. someone who was just really good at a lot of things? I think that’s always going to come down to personal preference, but it’s fun to argue about.
In that vein (so to speak): how about pre-1998 Barry Bonds vs. post-1998 Barry Bonds?
And by the way, does it count if I bought your book, but not from Amazon? The Tattered Cover in Denver had it out as part of a “spring is here” display, so I picked it up there.
Apr 2nd, 2008
Sam
I’m amazed that so many people think Dylan v. Bruce is a legitimate debate. I’m only 19, so I haven’t exactly had any reason to delve into Bob’s later stuff yet except for what’s on the various compilations of his stuff I have for varipous reasons. That being said, Dylan’s stuff, say, Blood on the Tracks (an incredibly underrated album in my opinion) and before is one of very greatest runs in musical history. Just Highway 61 and Blonde on Blonde are probably 2 of the 5 or 10 best albums ever, and I don’t think Bruce has made anything that can touch them. And it’s not a peak vs. career argument either because, by my count, Dylan has five extremely good to truly great albums (Freewheelin’, Bringing It All Back Home, Highway 61, Blonde on Blonde and Blood on the Tracks) which is probably more than Springsteen has accomplished in his entire career just there (though I mus confess that I know his stuff much less well).
The real debate is Beatles vs. Dylan. I suspect the Beatles win peak (when Sgt. Pepper’s is my 7th favorite album by you, you’re in pretty good shape), but do Dylan’s 30+ extra years make up for that?
Now, if you’re talking as a performer, maybe then I can see Bob vs. Bruce. I’ve never seen Bruce live, but, at least at this point of his career, it’s really no fun to go see Dylan.
Apr 2nd, 2008
Nate P.
Did someone actually suggest Zeppelin vs. Sabbath? WHAT are you smoking? [...] Comparing Sabbath to Zeppelin is like comparing Margarine to Butter, an imitation vs. the original. Every heavy metal band from 1970 to about Metallica was trying to be Zeppelin, and none of them ever came close….
Maybe you’re confusing Black Sabbath with Iron Butterfly? As much as I love Led Zeppelin (and would actually take them over Sabbath by a fair margin), they’d still get called “blues rock” if it wasn’t for Paranoid. From where I stand:
Sabbath debut = Zeppelin debut
Paranoid > Led Zeppelin II
Master of Reality > Led Zeppelin III
Vol. 4 < Led Zeppelin IV
Sabbath Bloody Sabbath = Houses of the Holy
Sabotage < Physical Graffiti
From there things go kinda southwards for both bands (Sabbath faring a lot worse than Zeppelin until the end of the ’70s). But to dismiss Black Sabbath as a complete non-factor in the development of heavy metal is kinda like saying Sandy Koufax didn’t have much to do with the Dodgers’ 1960s dominance.
And the Stones vs. the Who would be a complete and total slaughter. No slight to the Who, but pretty much everything wilts in the face of the Beggars Banquet-Let it Bleed-Sticky Fingers-Exile on Main St. run.
Apr 2nd, 2008
wcw
Dylan is going to win most of these if you care about songwriting. He’s going to lose most of these if you care about performance. Now, I’m the kind of guy who looks at writing credits for songs. I’m going to pick Dylan over almost anyone, and he isn’t even precisely to my taste. His best work is just so freaking good, you have to respect it, even you’re not really into it yourself.
As for Seinfeld, I am aware mine is the minority position. I am pretty confident I’m right on the merits, however. After all, Britney is as hugely successful as Seinfeld, and no less objectionable. I think I have a nice rant on the subject of the former somewhere.. c’mon, Google.. here: http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2005/12/easy_cowboy.html#c12413862 Two-plus years later, I stand by every word.
I’ll copy, for the lazy.
“While I despise Friends as well, and agree that its main problem was Seinfelditis (that, and I wanted to slap all the main characters repeatedly every time I saw an episode), I must dispute that Seinfeld had a point in the first place.”
“Exactly like Friends, Seinfeld was the rapacious exploitation by talented writers of the ineffable genius of urban life and the characters in it. Seinfeld’s canonical moment was the Soup Nazi episode, inspired, of course, by a minor Manhattan character of a little repute. The musical analogy is not to one bland artist covering another’s less-bland and better-written song, it is Pat Boone.”
“Like Pat Boone, Seinfeld took a living, breathing reality and rendered it for the single-family-detached masses.”
“That’s ‘to render’ the way a glue factory renders a horse.”
“Seinfeld, Friends, Sex In The City — all walking, talking offenses against life and art. To enjoy them is to despise life itself.”
“But they made a lot of money for someone.”
“Ugh. Choose life.”
Apr 2nd, 2008
Sam
Okay, there’s some truth to Seinfeld took real life and sitcomicized it, but I don’t think that means that “to enjoy it is to despise life itself.” I mean, geez, that’s pretty harsh.
Seinfeld has been unfairly lauded as being so true to life because, of course, it’s not. But it’s also not trying to be. I can understand why the simple Murphy’s Law principle that the writers seem to follow could get old (it certainly has for me on Curb), but what’s really fantastic is that, like a good stand-up comic, they’ve taken pretty standard neuroses and torn away everything that hides it from the world. All the things people think, the Seinfeld characters say/do.
Seinfeld is nothing like Sex and the City or Friends, and I like the former and don’t hate the latter. Comparing them that way is an insult to one of the funniest shows ever.
I can’t decide between Seinfeld v. Simpsons though I might take Futurama or the first 2 seasons of Arrested Development over both purely for peak. And if we’re talking all comedy shows and just peak, I think Chapelle’s Show would be my choice.
Apr 2nd, 2008
Alan
Gotta agree with Mr. Patrin on this one. I do have a soft spot for “Zep III,” esp. the acoustic stuff on the flip, but I can’t find a good reason to argue that it’s better than “Master of Reality.”
God, that was a sick run by the Stones. If only “Satanic Majesties” were better, you could go back to “Aftermath.”
Apr 2nd, 2008
Snuckles
>>>Ruth vs. Bonds - exactly what is Barry’s ERA anyway?<<<
True dat. And yet…
Babe Ruth: 123 SB, 117 caught stealing, not counting the last play of Game Seven of the 1926 World Series.
Reportedly an OF wizard with the glove, too.
Barry “Knee Shrapnel” Bonds is 30-for-33 in steals since 2002.
Apr 3rd, 2008
Mauichuck
OK Snuckles, I’ll give you this: Bonds is/was a better base runner and probably - probably a better outfielder. But only a smidgon. But Mr. Ruth won more than 20 games twice and has a lifetime ERA of 2.28 and was 94 and 46 overall.
And speaking of World Series, Ruth was 2 and 0 in WS games with a 0.87 ERA. You’ll search long and hard to find any pitcher with those kinda post season stats.
Bottom line: Bonds is competitive with Ruth as an everyday player, but there is literally no comparison between the two when it comes to pitching skills.
Apr 3rd, 2008
Jeff
I definitely oversimplified the Zeppelin/Sabbath comp a bit, and you’re correct, clearly important in the development of heavy metal. When looking at overall greatness, however, I think at some point staying power and audience response has to count for something. As someone who used to program a radio station, Zeppelin is the one of the backbones, to this day, of classic rock stations. You could run a station and exclude Sabbath entirely and I’m not sure more than a handful of people would even notice. Also, if we run a position by position analysis, I just can’t get close to equal. Plant, Page and Bonham are all among the greatest ever at what they did — in the Mays/Ruth/Mantle/Williams class if we want to use a baseball comparison. None of the members of Sabbath, even Ozzy, rise to that level.
I understand some folks’ objections to Seinfeld, although i’m a huge fan, but the “canonical moment” was not the Soup Nazi (although I must say, the real Soup Nazi’s soup is awesome), but “The Contest”, which is still the funniest half hour sitcom I’ve ever seen. Seinfeld was erratic — there are episodes nobody recalls because they don’t use them in reruns and were entirely unmemorable, but at it’s best, it was spectacular.
One other igeneral tem is that while I understand that popularity is not necessarily an indication of quality, I sure hope this doesn’t become one of those communities that assumes anything very popular CAN’T be great…
Apr 3rd, 2008
Alex
Nate P:
I love the Stones, don’t get me wrong. But have you heard “Live at Leeds”; have you heard “Live at the Isle of Wight”; have you heard “Who’s Next”; have you heard “Quadropehnia”…
Well, I don’t mean to insult you, I’m sure you have heard these. I’d give a slight edge to the Stones’ run,0 1968-1972 but it’s pretty darn close.
Apr 3rd, 2008
Alex
meant to say the Stones’ 1968-1972 run….
Of course, the Stones had a lot of other mini-peaks…mid-60s, late 70s/early 80s. The Who can’t match that. The the Who’s peak—hard to match.
The real WB should be Who/Zeppelin, and I will fight to my dying day that the Who win that.
Apr 3rd, 2008
SF Bud
Fender v. Gibson
Barry Bonds v. Ted Williams
PG Wodehouse v. David Sedaris
Radiohead v. Pink Floyd
Russel Crowe v. Humphrey Bogart
Cats v. Dogs
Pac Bell v. Wrigley Field
Gimlet v. Martini
Apr 3rd, 2008
Jeff
I tend to agree with Alex’s take on Who v. Stones. To some extent, it’s a refendum on how one feels about some of the bombastic and perhaps pompous Who work like Quadrophenia and Tommy. The stones were never so grandiose, which becomes to a great extent a taste issue.
Apr 3rd, 2008
Snuckles
>>>>I’ll give you this: Bonds is/was a better base runner and probably - probably a better outfielder. But only a smidgon.<<<<
Saying Barry Bonds is a”smidgen” better defensively than Babe Ruth is like saying Bonds is a “smidgen” less loved than Ruth. Ruth was known for having a top throwing arm (not surprising considering his pitching past) and not too much more. Bonds is widely considered to be the elite defensive LF of his generation.
Apr 4th, 2008
Mauichuck
So Bonds was a better outfielder we can argue for days by how much. But Barry never, ever pitched. The Babe was an elite left hander.
When you put it all together the only possible conclusion you can come to is that The Babe was the most talented baseball player in the history of the sport.
Apr 5th, 2008
Snuckles
Babe Ruth #1? Sure you want to go out on a limb like that?
My issue wasn’t with “Ruth over Bonds,” it was all about “Bonds just squeaks past Ruth on defense.” I agree: let’s not argue for days about how much better Bonds’ fielding is. Let’s just pretend it’s next week already. The answer is “a lot.”
Going by the five “traditional” categories:
Hitting for average– Ruth wins big, though his era was much more favorable to high averages;
Hitting for power– Ruth. Although not by Ruthian proportions over a guy who tops both his seasonal and career highs;
Throwing– Absolute wipeout for Ruth, even without the pitching stats (Bonds’ arm has always been considered his only weakness);
Running– Just as big a wipeout for Bonds;
Fielding– Big advantage to Bonds.
Winner: Ruth.
Apr 6th, 2008
Mauichuck
Snuckles, ya left one out:
Played the game the right way: Ruth by a mile.
Apr 7th, 2008
Snuckles
Holy mackerel, Ruth physically assaulted umpires, fans, and his own manager; he used what passed for PEDs at the time (injections of sheep testicle extract), he was repeatedly suspended by his teams and by MLB, he had an illegal bat incident, he whored the 1925 Yankees out of contention, he feuded with Gehrig, of all people… zap Ruth to 2008 and he would have been the ultimate Mariotti/Lupica/Plaschke wet dream.
Apr 7th, 2008
Mauichuck
See Snuckles that’s why I loved the Gas House Gang!
Apr 7th, 2008
Snuckles
We concur! Barry Bonds shoulda coulda won the hearts of the American public, if only he’d hung Dusty Baker out the window of a moving train.
Apr 7th, 2008
Reply to “WB: A new series”