oLD ScHooL, New sChOoL

You don't have to be a fan of the NBA to appreciate this . Several months back, there was a dispute between legendary Hall Of Famer and current TV commentator Charles Barkley and current player and arguably the greatest player in the game today and maybe of all time, Lebron James.

This is one of those disputes that I will leave up to you to dig through the online articles on but essentially and at its core, it is an epic battle of old versus new. The grizzled veteran who played in a different era but was unable to achieve the ultimate goal of garnering an NBA championship going head to head against the new guard and a player still firmly entrenched in fiery debates as to who is the greatest player in this era and of all time. What are they debating about? It sounds personal but it essentially boils down to two people who believe their way is best and right. One thinks their approach is best for the league -- the other believes their approach is best for him personally.

This could very well be the oldest battle in the history of the world. It never dies. It never fades from the discussion. It is always present because there is always a changing of the guard. Presidents end their tenure and new ones step into the spotlight. Kings die and their sons succeed them on the throne. Emperors, through anarchy and espionage, and unseated through murder and their enemy take hold of the empire. The story is as ancient as any other ever written or known to man.

The older set believes that their way worked for generations and it still can work today had it not been for the intervention or the "interloping" of free thinking, new ideas, or innovation. It just messed up the way we live and what worked!

The newer generation believe the antiquated view are outdated and ineffective. There needs to be positive steps towards change to stave off certain death, whether it's the death of rational thinking, invention, or even quite simply the death of a generation or species.

Which one is correct? Whose idea is better? 

What makes the old way better than the new? Or vice versa? Honestly, there is always going to be hatin'. Where there is no meaningful communication is where there is true turmoil. That extends beyond just two superstars (former and current) that happen to be multi-millionaires. It extends to those who fight for racial supremacy, technology trends, music in general, but particularly the hip hop genre, politicians with agendas, the automobile industry, television, cinema, and the entertainment industry and even as basic as the generation gap where the son is unwilling to accept the father's way of approaching life, career, family, and personal goals. The "old" will always believe that the way they did it was the best method. The "new" will feel that there is always a better way to do old stuff.

What side do you sit on in this internal debate? Do you think a combination of both views are necessary for future success? Do you like that there is already a blueprint in place that works so why change it? Do you believe the future relies on innovation and more "free" thinking? 

You might think this doesn't affect you but would you, at least, consider the thought that if you attempt to carry your new stuff in an old bag, you can run the risk of losing both. Just a thought.