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 07-26-2007, 09:24 AM   #61
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
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 am often confused about a lot of things. What I was corrected on is that the year 1800 is part of the 18th and not the 19th century. The 19th century began with the year 1801.

Don't bet your life on this one. It is a pretty esoteric point which does not matter to anyone's life much one way or the other and is probably not worth the posts it has been given, but in this case I know I'm right. If you actually agree with me, okay.

Have a good day and happy posting!
OLD FOGEY is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 07-26-2007, 09:25 AM   #62
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD FOGEY
I am often confused about a lot of things. What I was corrected on is that the year 1800 is part of the 18th and not the 19th century. The 19th century began with the year 1801.

Don't bet your life on this one. It is a pretty esoteric point which does not matter to anyone's life much one way or the other and is probably not worth the posts it has been given, but in this case I know I'm right. If you actually agree with me, okay.

Have a good day and happy posting!
You are 100% correct Old Fogey on this one so feel free to bet your life on it.
Doppleganger is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2007, 09:29 AM   #63
TBooze
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: South of London
Posts: 10,569
vCash: 0
Default Re: Top 5 pound-for-pound per decade

Well it only took 40 posts to come to the same conclusion that I posted yesterday! I still cannot figure out what this has to do with the title of the thread....

Quote:
Originally Posted by TBooze
The reason I say this is there was never a year '0' in our Gergorian calender so actually crosstrainer is right a decade is year 1 to year 10 and so on for our calender...
TBooze is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2007, 09:38 AM   #64
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

All I can do is repeat myself...

Let me try to explain this very simply. I am going to use a marathon race as a metaphor; imagine 400 metre oval track.

Zero is the starting block for time. Time starts at zero.

Time starts jogging, and time's objective is to keep running, and running, and running and running. One full completion of the track, 400m, represents one year.

Now... The completion of the first lap is marked by a 'one'. That means one lap has been completed (one year has passed). Time does not start at this point. Rather, time starts his second lap at the passing of the 'one' mark.

Time has almost completed his second lap, and is approaching the mark 'two'. He passes 'two', and so his third lap begins. As you see, the numbered points are to show the completion of a year or lap, rather than the start of a new one relating to that number (indirectly they represent the start of a new lap, but not in accordance to that specific digit, i.e., the '6' mark is not the start of lap six, although it does subordinately represent the start of lap seven).

And it carries on from there. This is why, as a child, I couldn't understand why the 1900s were not called the 19th century. They were not called that because time didn't start at the point 'one', but at the point 'zero' - there is a gap between zero and one in which a timeframe resides; one year, or one decade, or one century, depending on which scale you wish to measure. The first century was called the first century, but it consisted of 0AD to the last day of the year 99. '100' was a point in which, once passed, the next century could begin; the first century, since it came under and was preceded by the digit '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.

'One' is indeed the name of the first year... But it doesn't start at one, it starts at zero. Sometimes this can differ however, as in months where the first day is marked 'day 1'. But you cannot apply this to the measurement of years - years start from zero.
Manassa is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2007, 09:50 AM   #65
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
All I can do is repeat myself...

Let me try to explain this very simply. I am going to use a marathon race as a metaphor; imagine 400 metre oval track.

Zero is the starting block for time. Time starts at zero.

Time starts jogging, and time's objective is to keep running, and running, and running and running. One full completion of the track, 400m, represents one year.

Now... The completion of the first lap is marked by a 'one'. That means one lap has been completed (one year has passed). Time does not start at this point. Rather, time starts his second lap at the passing of the 'one' mark.

Time has almost completed his second lap, and is approaching the mark 'two'. He passes 'two', and so his third lap begins. As you see, the numbered points are to show the completion of a year or lap, rather than the start of a new one relating to that number (indirectly they represent the start of a new lap, but not in accordance to that specific digit, i.e., the '6' mark is not the start of lap six, although it does subordinately represent the start of lap seven).

And it carries on from there. This is why, as a child, I couldn't understand why the 1900s were not called the 19th century. They were not called that because time didn't start at the point 'one', but at the point 'zero' - there is a gap between zero and one in which a timeframe resides; one year, or one decade, or one century, depending on which scale you wish to measure. The first century was called the first century, but it consisted of 0AD to the last day of the year 99. '100' was a point in which, once passed, the next century could begin; the first century, since it came under and was preceded by the digit '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.

'One' is indeed the name of the first year... But it doesn't start at one, it starts at zero. Sometimes this can differ however, as in months where the first day is marked 'day 1'. But you cannot apply this to the measurement of years - years start from zero.
We know. This makes sense. It should work that way.

But the older Gregorian calendar DID NOT work that way. It did not make sense, but was the official way of doing it. That is the method we're using.


Look, forget it. Duran's career is the same regardless of whether he lived under a Gregorian or a modern calendar. Let's get to the pound for pound lists and forget the niceties of date, shall we?
cross_trainer is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2007, 09:51 AM   #66
Nick Balsamo
Journeyman
ESB Jr Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Alma Beach
Posts: 167
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Top 5 pound-for-pound per decade

Quote:
Originally Posted by TBooze
Top 10 fighters 1951 to 1960

10 Floyd Patterson
9 Carmen Bassilio
8 Jimmy Curruthers
7 Kid Gavilan
6 Rocky Marciano
5 Pascual Perez
4 Joe Brown
3 Sandy Saddler
2 Archie Moore
1 Ray Robinson

Mentions:

Dado Marino, Alphonse Halimi, Willie Pep, Hogan Kid Bassey, Davey Moore, Carlos Ortiz, Don Jordan, Bobo Olson, Gene Fullmer, Joey Maxim, Harold Johnson, Jersey Joe Walcott and Ingemar Johansson

Top 10 fighters 1961 to 1970

10 Dick Tiger
9 Nicolino Loche
8 Bob Foster
7 Jose Napoles
6 Vincente Saldivar
5 Muhammad Ali
4 Nino Benvenuti
3 Carlos Ortiz
2 Eder Jofre
1 Emile Griffith

Mentions:

Pone Kingpetch, Fighting Harada, Lionel Rose, Ruben Olivares, Davey Moore, Sugar Ramos, Flash Elorde, Ismael Laguna, Duilio Loi, Benny Paret, Luis Rodriguez, Curtis Cokes, Ki-Soo Kim, Joey Giardello, Carlos Monzon, Willie Pastrano, Floyd Patterson, Sonny Liston and Joe Frazier

Top 10 fighters 1971 to 1979

10 Eder Jofre
9 Ruben Olivares
8 Alexis Arguello
7 Antonio Cervantes
6 Bob Foster
5 Jose Napoles
4 Carlos Zarate
3 Muhammad Ali
2 Carlos Monzon
1 Roberto Duran


Mentions:

Yuko Gushiken, Alfonso Zamora, Lupe Pintor, Wilfredo Gomez, Ernesto Marcel, Danny Lopez, Ken Buchanan, Esteban DeJesus, Guts Ishimatsu (Suzuki), Nicolino Loche, Wilfred Benitez, Pipino Cuevas, Carlos Palomino, Ray Leonard, Rodrigo Valdez, John Conteh, Victor Galindez, Joe Frazier, George Foreman, Larry Holmes and Ken Norton


Top 10 fighters 1980 to 1989

10 Roberto Duran
9 Aaron Pryor
8 Eusebio Pedroza
7 Julio Cesar Chavez
6 Larry Holmes
5 Michael Spinks
4 Tommy Hearns
3 Mike Tyson
2 Marvin Hagler
1 Ray Leonard


Mentions:

Alexis Arguello, Hector Camacho, Lupe Pintor, Sot Chitalada, Michael Nunn, Jeff Fenech, Myung Woo Yuh, Jung Koo Chang, Mike McCallum, Evander Holyfield, Pernell Whitaker, Jeff Chandler, Khoasio Galaxy, Salvador Sanchez and Azumah Nelson




Top 10 fighters 1990 to 1999



10 Julio Cesar Chavez
9 James Toney
8 Felix Trinidad
7 Naseem Hamed
6 Terry Norris
5 Pernell Whitaker
4 Evander Holyfield
3 Ricardo Lopez
2 Roy Jones Jr
1 Oscar de la Hoya


Mentions:

Virgil Hill, Nigel Benn, Saman Sorjaturong, Kostya Tszyu, Azumah Nelson, Floyd Mayweather Jr, Marco Antonio Barrera, Bernard Hopkins, Shane Mosley, Riddick Bowe, Brian Mitchell, Dariusz Michalczewski, Kaosai Galaxy, Orlando Canizales and Lennox Lewis

Fire away, there is scope for a lot of improvement pre 1960, I am open to suggestions.



Excellent list, but what about Mark "Too Sharp" Johnson in your honorable mentions ?
Nick Balsamo is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2007, 09:52 AM   #67
My dinner with Conteh
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 4,999
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Top 5 pound-for-pound per decade

Old Fogey is right, but I agree with Manassa in that it shouldn't be the case, but it is and that's that. Anyway, can we get back to what should be a crackin' thread.
My dinner with Conteh is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2007, 10:11 AM   #68
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

So basically, I should have designed the calendar.

Why can't everyone be as intelligent as me? We'd be experimenting with teleportation and worm hole manipulation by now.
Manassa is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2007, 10:27 AM   #69
TBooze
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: South of London
Posts: 10,569
vCash: 0
Default Re: Top 5 pound-for-pound per decade

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Balsamo
Excellent list, but what about Mark "Too Sharp" Johnson in your honorable mentions ?
I gave mentions to the fighters I had rated 11 to 25 in the 80s and 90s. I had Johnson rated at #35 for the 90s.
TBooze is offline  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 10:57 PM.


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