I realize that, but was trying to come up with at least a half-way compromise - 2 versions of the same ‘thing’ (in this case a particular vehicle model over it’s different model years) considered great but in different ways, defined by different characteristics. It was worth a shot.
Of course, to marketers and advertisers, the phenomenon the OP’s describing is quite common - “We took the best Mac & Cheese Ever, and made it even better! - Now Brand Z Mac & Cheese Classic, still the BEST, and introducing Mac & Cheesier - even Better!”… but logic is not required for puffery.
Alternate: the OP is describing “lateral progress.” Option B may appear superior to option A based on certain criteria, whereas Option A is superior based on other criteria. Neither option is entirely superior, but changes in context could lead to varying popular perceptions of what is better.
This may be the fodder for a separate thread, and come to think of it, I seem to have seen such threads here before. But the question seems to come down to What are some examples of changes that were purported to be improvements, but proved to be worse than the original? I’m guessing we can find lots of them, and I think the OP’s actual question is Is there a name for this? (I don’t think so).
I guess it is how you personally judge improvements, better, and best.
To many people, the new efficient water saver toilets are an improvement, but I prefer the old super flush water waster ones.
I read a consumer magazine a few years ago when I was searching for a new washer and the writer commented that although the new efficient clothes washers save water and have a lot of features, the washer with the fewest consumer complaints was the super cheap and simple Roper (I think). Apparently the high efficiency and high feature washers were expensive, more complicated and had a greater chance of having problems while the super simple Roper had a few knobs and a motor and had much fewer problems and complaints. The writer also mentioned how some brands of high end refrigerators (maybe Viking?) also had a great deal of complaints and less satisfaction compared to their more simple and lower priced competitors. Can’t find the cite, sorry.
Fair enough. But that presents no dilemma or “phenomenon” at all. Almost everything is like that: good qualities offset by bad qualities.
It was my understanding that the OP was imagining a sort of round robin scenario where Team A beats Team B, Team B beats Team C, but then Team C beats Team A. So how do you determine the “best” team?
That presents a problem, but if you simply say that A is better than B, but B is the best team you have presented a contradiction. Maybe B is a better defensive team, but A is better offensively, but I didn’t see any such a categorization in the statements about razors.
That’s not exactly accurate. The issue is the different definition of “good vs bad road design”. He has redefined what makes a good road design to be one that interweaves pedestrian and cycle traffic with automobiles and forces drivers to look at other road users to determine what to do, rather than rely on signs, lane markers, and signal lights to define who should do what, and then have drivers ignore those at their own whim.
Somehow I find it concerning where a case of “sidewaltz” is performed with automobiles - or between an automobile and a pedestrian.
Before the Rumble In The Jungle (but after Joe Frazier had beaten Muhammad Ali and lost to George Foreman) this example was used to illustrate the same point:
Imagine shortish Boxer A always takes repeated hits to the head when advancing to land his powerful left hook – and thus beats Boxer B, who floats like a butterfly and stings like a bee (which is to say: gets nailed by one hard left hook for every four light jabs he lands while backpedaling away). It makes perfect sense for B to beat C (who punches insanely hard, but moves too slowly to hit a retreating hit-and-run fighter like B) – even though C beats A (who advances chin-first on C and thus gets dropped by insanely hard punches before getting in close enough to land his signature hook).