Top 5 pound-for-pound per decade

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. :good

 

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....

 

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.

 

Excellent list, but what about Mark "Too Sharp" Johnson in your honorable mentions ?

 

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. :good

 

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.

 

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.