I can't believe that you are hijacking an mst3k thread to have a meaningless discussion about the relative worth of two fictional starship captains. But since I'm on the subject, it seems to me that Kirk is "the lover and the fighter" type captain (the jock), while Picard is "the thinker/strategist" type captain (the nerd). Kirk, I suspect, represents the type of guy "The Great Bird" probably wanted to be, while Picard represents the type of guy that could actually become a starfleet captain in the first place. Probably TNG is more enjoyable because it's more recent and therefore the culture represented is more accessible.
Which reminds me of a complaint I had about Star Trek: First Contact, which I watched recently on hulu.com. One of the characters "in the past" queries Capt. Picard about money, and he responds that they don't use money in the future, that "the economics has changed" and people only seek to better themselves and mankind generally (or something like that). Beginning with the axiomatic principles that resources are limited but human wants are unlimited, I would like to hear which principle was "solved"; did they find a way to acquire unlimited resources, or did they find some way to change human nature whereby people limited their own wants. It's no good saying "they did a little of both", because if resources are even just a little bit limited, then there must be an allocation process, and even if people were reconditioned to be of the "no, you take the last piece of pie" mentality, the slightly limited resources must still be allocated in some way that makes sense.
Star Trek is a farce, anyway; the idea that "noble scientists" zip through the galaxy on a quest of pure scientific data gathering is not reflective of human nature. What will most likely happen is that "trilithium" will be discovered, and Capt. Kirk will be a merchant captain, rushing around on space trading missions. Firefly is more realistic when it comes to human motivations for space travel.