Boxing  

Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-25-2007, 09:42 PM   #46
Manassa
-
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: ESB since '05
Posts: 3,883
vCash: 75
Default Re: Top 5 pound-for-pound per decade

Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD FOGEY
Anyone who lived around the year 1 of our calendar would have considered himself living in the year 722, dated from the founding of Rome. The founding of Rome was dropped and the birth of Jesus chosen several centuries later and the year 1 designated the year Jesus was born. It just didn't occur to them to start a count with zero which I can understand. This is actually history and not up to dispute.
The First century therefore goes from the year 1 to the year 100, which is 100 years--after the 100 years are completed, a new century is begun, hence the year 101.

I must repeat here, no one starts counting from zero. You start counting from 1.
You should refer to your 'year 1' as 'the first year' - it's more adequate. By saying 'year 1' you make it sound as though time started at the point 'one' - it did not, and I think you are realizing this now.

In the most basic definition I can give; year numbers signify the end of something, rather than the start. 'One' represents the end of the first year, 'two' represents the end of the second and so on - 'two' is not the start of the second year, but the third. The third year will tick away and eventually hit the 'three' mark, where the fourth year will begin.

Time didn't start at 0AD, our world as we know it is much older than that, but I have been using it as a simpler checkpoint in which to measure from. Time starts at the zero point, and when it reaches 'one', one year has passed. at 1AD, one year had passed already, since there was a time gap between 0AD and the former.

Again, look at a stopwatch. It doesn't immediately display '1:00:00', it starts at 0:00:00 and there is a gap of one second, the first second, before it reaches 1:00:00.
Manassa is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 07-25-2007, 09:54 PM   #47
rekcutnevets
Black Sash
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: InYourMouth, NC
Posts: 6,552
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Top 5 pound-for-pound per decade

Man, damn.

A stop watch starts at zero. Say your stop watch starts at zero at the beginning of the first year. At the end of that year you will be at the end of year one. At the end of year one you will have the beginning of year 2. One year has gone by, but we are now starting the 2nd year. At the end of year 2, you begin year 3. At the end of year 3, you begin year 4. At the end of year 4, you begin year 5. At the end of year 5, 5 years have passed.

At the end of year 10, 10 years will have passed. One decade. Another decade will not have passed until year 20. Meaning it will take years 11-20 to make a decade. 21-30 will make another. So on, and so forth.

Nice list Old Fogey. I don't agree with every spot, but I don't have time to argue. You are mostly right.
rekcutnevets is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2007, 09:56 PM   #48
Manassa
-
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: ESB since '05
Posts: 3,883
vCash: 75
Default Re: Top 5 pound-for-pound per decade

Rekcutnevets knows what he's talking about, listen to him.
Manassa is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2007, 09:59 PM   #49
OLD FOGEY
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,835
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Top 5 pound-for-pound per decade

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manassa
You should refer to your 'year 1' as 'the first year' - it's more adequate. By saying 'year 1' you make it sound as though time started at the point 'one' - it did not, and I think you are realizing this now.

In the most basic definition I can give; year numbers signify the end of something, rather than the start. 'One' represents the end of the first year, 'two' represents the end of the second and so on - 'two' is not the start of the second year, but the third. The third year will tick away and eventually hit the 'three' mark, where the fourth year will begin.

Time didn't start at 0AD, our world as we know it is much older than that, but I have been using it as a simpler checkpoint in which to measure from. Time starts at the zero point, and when it reaches 'one', one year has passed. at 1AD, one year had passed already, since there was a time gap between 0AD and the former.

Again, look at a stopwatch. It doesn't immediately display '1:00:00', it starts at 0:00:00 and there is a gap of one second, the first second, before it reaches 1:00:00.
I got to cut this, but time is actually simply a designation for the intervals marked by the turning of the Earth, the rotation of the Earth around the Sun, etc
The situation is like if I'm in a position to do it, as the Pope was in the 6th century, I decide to date from the founding of the Declaration of Independence and call 1776 year 1. Okay. All the talk about stopwatches or trackmeets means nothing. 1776 is year 1, 1777 year 2, etc.
And that is what happened. I think the Pope known as Gregory the Great changed the calendar to Jesus' birth year, but got the year wrong.
Now I'm going to stop before I am banned by Cross Trainer.
OLD FOGEY is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2007, 10:00 PM   #50
Manassa
-
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: ESB since '05
Posts: 3,883
vCash: 75
Default Re: Top 5 pound-for-pound per decade

OLD FOGEY, I think you've gotten your wires crossed somewhere along the way because you're almost telling yourself what's right and not actually disagreeing with me.
Manassa is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2007, 10:04 PM   #51
Manassa
-
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: ESB since '05
Posts: 3,883
vCash: 75
Default Re: Top 5 pound-for-pound per decade

Quote:
Originally Posted by cross_trainer
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
I look exactly like him, minus the ring. My beard is fake, however, since I am not old enough to grow even a blonde caterpillar, let alone a bushy grey paradise.
Manassa is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2007, 10:08 PM   #52
OLD FOGEY
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,835
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Top 5 pound-for-pound per decade

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manassa
Rekcutnevets knows what he's talking about, listen to him.
I agree with him. The year 10 marks 10 years, as the year 100 marks 100 years. So, the year 101 is the start of the second century.

You have said "time starts here" or something like that. Time is infinite and what we measure is our perception of the motions of the universe and their repetitions. Years and such is our imposition on time.

Last edited by OLD FOGEY; 07-26-2007 at 12:33 AM.
OLD FOGEY is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2007, 10:24 PM   #53
OLD FOGEY
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,835
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Top 5 pound-for-pound per decade

Quote:
Originally Posted by TBooze
Top 10 fighters from 1891-1900

10 Pedlar Palmer
9 Jack Dempsey
8 James J Corbett
7 Peter Jackson
6 Young Griffo
5 Terry McGovern
4 James J Jeffries
3 Jack McAuliffe
2 Bob Fitzsimmons
1 George Dixon

Mentions:

Billy Plimmer, , Billy Murphy, Ben Jordan, George Lavigne, Joe Walcott, Tommy Ryan, Mysterious Billy Smith, Kid McCoy and John L Sullivan

Top 10 fighters from 1901 to 1910

10 Tommy Ryan
9 Jim Driscoll
8 James J Jeffries
7 Joe Walcott
6 Stanley Ketchel
5 Terry McGovern
4 Jack Johnson
3 Sammy Langford
2 Abe Attell
1 Joe Gans

Mentions:

Owen Moran, Jimmy Walsh, Ben Jordan, Young CorbettII, Battling Nelson, Jack Sullivan, Billy Papke, Bob Fitzsimmons, Jack O’Brien and Tommy Burns

Top 10 fighters 1911 to 1920

10 Jim Driscoll
9 Harry Wills
8 Jack Johnson
7 Benny Leonard
6 Freddie Welsh
5 Jack Britton
4 Ted Lewis
3 Georges Carpentier
2 Johnny Kilbane
1 Jimmy Wilde

Mentions:

Kid Williams, Pete Herman, Abe Attell, Ad Wolgast, Dixie Kid, Mike Gibbons, Les Darcy, Mike O’Dowd, Sammy Langford, Jack Dillon, Battling Levinsky, Sam McVey, Joe Jeanette and Jack Dempsey


Top 10 fighters 1921 to 1930

10 Sammy Mandell
9 Harry Wills
8 Jack Dempsey
7 Al Brown
6 Tommy Loughran
5 Gene Tunney
4 Pancho Villa
3 Harry Greb
2 Mickey Walker
1 Benny Leonard

Mentions:

Jimmy Wilde, Fidel la Barba, Johnny Kilbane, Johnny Dundee, Kid Kaplan, Benny Bass, Tony Canzoneri, Bat Battalino, Pinkey Mitchell, Jackie Berg, Jack Britton, Joe Dundee, Jackie Fields, Tiger Flowers, Georges Carpentier, Jack Delaney and Maxie Rosenbloom


Top 10 fighters 1931 to 1940

10 Jimmy McLarnin
9 Jackie Berg
8 Benny Lynch
7 Billy Conn
6 Tony Canzoneri
5 Mickey Walker
4 Barney Ross
3 Maxie Rosenbloom
2 Joe Louis
1 Henry Armstrong

Mentions:

Midget Wolgast, Jackie Brown, Little Dado, Al Brown, Kid Chocolate, Baby Arizmendi, Freddie Miller, Joey Archibald, Jackie Fields, Lou Ambers, Fritzie Zivic, Charley Burley, Gorilla Jones, Marcel Thil, Freddie Steele, John Henry Lewis, Max Schmeling, Max Baer and James J Braddock

Top 10 fighters 1941 to 1950

10 Jake LaMotta
9 Rinty Monaghan
8 Sandy Saddler
7 Manuel Ortiz
6 Joe Louis
5 Ezzard Charles
4 Ike Williams
3 Charley Burley
2 Willie Pep
1 Ray Robinson

Mentions:

Jackie Paterson, Vic Toweel, Sammy Angott, Beau Jack, Bob Montgomery, Tippy Larkin, Fritzie Zivic, Red Cochrane, Tommy Bell, Tony Zale, Rocky Graziano, Marcel Cerdan, Gus Lesnevich, Freddie Mills, Archie Moore and Billy Conn
Not to change the subject after the fascinating discussion on dating (yawn) which I share the blame for, but aren't you badly underrating Tommy Ryan. Ryan fought from 1887 to 1907. He lost only three fights, one on a foul to George Green, and twice to the great Kid McCoy. He avenged the loss to Green by knockout in his next fight. He was welterweight champion from 1894 to 1898 and middleweight champion from 1898 to 1907. He was never beaten for either title.
Only McCoy stopped him in 109 fights, in a 15 round knockout, Ryan's only bad defeat.
With a record like that, I think he should rate much higher than #10 for his decade.
OLD FOGEY is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2007, 03:31 AM   #54
TBooze
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: South of London
Posts: 10,886
vCash: 765
Default Re: Top 5 pound-for-pound per decade

Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD FOGEY
Not to change the subject after the fascinating discussion on dating (yawn) which I share the blame for, but aren't you badly underrating Tommy Ryan. Ryan fought from 1887 to 1907. He lost only three fights, one on a foul to George Green, and twice to the great Kid McCoy. He avenged the loss to Green by knockout in his next fight. He was welterweight champion from 1894 to 1898 and middleweight champion from 1898 to 1907. He was never beaten for either title.
Only McCoy stopped him in 109 fights, in a 15 round knockout, Ryan's only bad defeat.
With a record like that, I think he should rate much higher than #10 for his decade.
I see your point, but the nine above him were damn fine fighters themselves, maybe there is scope to give him a place on the 1891-1900 list.
TBooze is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2007, 03:37 AM   #55
TBooze
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: South of London
Posts: 10,886
vCash: 765
Default Re: Top 5 pound-for-pound per decade

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sweet Pea
That's not true. At all. And you know it.
You do not seem to understand the Gregorian calender, read up on it and you can put this debate to rest.
TBooze is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2007, 09:03 AM   #56
OLD FOGEY
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,835
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Top 5 pound-for-pound per decade

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sweet Pea
That's not true. At all. And you know it.
You are bringing this up again--so, no, I don't know that at all. The year 1800 is by definition the last year of the 18th century--18 x 100. That is what 1800 means mathematically. 1801 means you have completed 18 x 100 and are now adding the 1st year of the 19th century,
This is perhaps an esoteric point, but I think you gentlemen are much younger than I am, so I will give you a word of advice. Know what you know in this world and what you don't know. There is nothing particularly wrong with being ignorant on certain matters. We all are. I would say I'm ignorant on about 99% of topics that might come up. There is something wrong with being stubborn when your error is pointed out.

The fact is the count on the Gregorian calendar starts at the year 1, not at some year zero, and the year 100 completes the first century.

One fact that probably confuses young people is that the turn of the millenium was celebrated in 2000, but that was really an ignorant error and was so pointed out by quite a number of people, mainly teachers, but who listens to teachers these days. It is a good lesson, though.
There is an old saying that fifty million Frenchmen can't be wrong, but this in fact proves that the whole world can be wrong.

I remember talking to Arthur C Clark in 1968, the year the movie "2001, A Space Odyssey" came out. He wrote the original story on which the movie was based and was traveling around promoting the movie. If I remember, the original story was called "Starchild" but my memory might be failing me. I asked why the title "2001" was chosen and Clark told me it was because it would be the 1st year of the new millenium.
OLD FOGEY is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2007, 09:14 AM   #57
Manassa
-
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: ESB since '05
Posts: 3,883
vCash: 75
Default Re: Top 5 pound-for-pound per decade

OLD FOGEY, you are either wrong or confusing yourself and I'd bet my life that Sweet Pea and I are right. I can't even work out whether you agree with us because your wording suggests different things.
Manassa is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2007, 09:22 AM   #58
Doppleganger
Il Genio
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Scotland, UK
Posts: 764
vCash: 800
Default Re: Top 5 pound-for-pound per decade

I believe Old Fogey is correct. Year zero does not exist in the Gregorian Calender. Therefore 1800 is technically the last year of the 18th century, as is 2000 was the last year of the 20th Century. We should have celebrated the start of the new millenium at Midnight on Jan 1st 2001.

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Doppleganger is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2007, 09:22 AM   #59
cross_trainer
Bergeron Avatar Club
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,685
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Top 5 pound-for-pound per decade

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manassa
OLD FOGEY, you are either wrong or confusing yourself and I'd bet my life that Sweet Pea and I are right. I can't even work out whether you agree with us because your wording suggests different things.
Sounds reasonable enough. He's saying that the Gregorian calendar worked in the way he described, even though it doesn't make sense to us. So despite the logic of your arguments, that was the "official" way to tell time. Not a logical way, but the official way.

At the moment, I'd just prefer that you apply your wizardly mind to creating a P4P list, though.
cross_trainer is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2007, 09:23 AM   #60
Sonny's jab
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Default Re: Top 5 pound-for-pound per decade

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manassa
OLD FOGEY, you are either wrong or confusing yourself and I'd bet my life that Sweet Pea and I are right. I can't even work out whether you agree with us because your wording suggests different things.
I think OLD FOGEY is correct.

1800 is a whole year, and it is the last year of the 18th Century.
Jan 1st 1801 is the beginning of the 19th Century.
 Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2013