father jack Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 As a new decade approaches, the winner of heat one of The new year classic will be the first race winner of the ' Tens' . Can anyone remember which rider won the first race of the 70's ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lucifer sam Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 (edited) As a new decade approaches, the winner of heat one of The new year classic will be the first race winner of the ' Tens' . Can anyone remember which rider won the first race of the 70's ? Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!! How many times? The new decade starts in 2011 not 2010. Was there a Year AD 0? No. Millenniums, centuries and decades all start in years ending with a "1". All the best Rob Edited December 30, 2009 by lucifer sam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JC! Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 (edited) Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!! How many times? The new decade starts in 2011 not 2010. Was there a Year AD 0? No. Millenniums, centuries and decades all start years ending with a "1". All the best Rob What would the January leading up to AD1 be called then January 0 AD, I assume? Can see your point technically, but it is most popularly agreed that a decade starts with a year ending with a 0 - ie 12 months leading up to AD 1 would be the first of a 120 month decade ending at the end of AD9. Edited December 30, 2009 by JC! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsloes 1928 nearly Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 What would the January leading up to AD1 be called then January 0 AD, I assume? Can see your point technically, but it is most popularly agreed that a decade starts with a year ending with a 0 - ie 12 months leading up to AD 1 would be the first of a 120 month decade ending at the end of AD9. The thing was, John, that there wasn't a 0AD... The first year of the AD era from which our centuries (of which we're now in the 21st. of course...!!) started was 1AD. So unlike say a child who's zero for the first year of their life and becomes one after 12 months, and therefore HAS lived a decade when they reach the end of age nine; a decade of years on the calendar isn't up until the end of the TENTH year. So Rob's right: the first year of this century was 2001 and the decade's not up 'til the end of 2010!!! Good innit!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norbold Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!! How many times? The new decade starts in 2011 not 2010. Was there a Year AD 0? No. Millenniums, centuries and decades all start years ending with a "1". All the best Rob Speaking as a fellow pedant you are quite correct, Rob. But I gave up the fight on this one a long time ago...well, about ten years ago to be precise as I didn't want to celebrate the real millennium on my own! If only I'd known I could have come to Oxford... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JC! Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 (edited) The thing was, John, that there wasn't a 0AD... The first year of the AD era from which our centuries (of which we're now in the 21st. of course...!!) started was 1AD. So unlike say a child who's zero for the first year of their life and becomes one after 12 months, and therefore HAS lived a decade when they reach the end of age nine; a decade of years on the calendar isn't up until the end of the TENTH year. So Rob's right: the first year of this century was 2001 and the decade's not up 'til the end of 2010!!! Good innit!!! Yes, I understand it, and thats why I said that I can see the point technically, and dont dispute it (lover not fighter!!). I can see my example was presented as fact as opposed to the mainstream view which is what I had intended. The point I was making (badly) was that the most popular (not mine - I frankly couldn't care less!) modern understanding of the start of a decade is the year beginning with '0' - which, I think, is why everyone in the media is classifying lists of this, that, and the other for the last 'decade'. I just think that the actual point raised by the thread should not get caught up by someones pedantic view of something that the vast majority have accepted to be a milestone decade point. If someone wants to challenge the accepted norm, perhaps a seperate thread is the place to do it. Also I have now used my full 2010 post allowance, what with this and Braintree, so can't now come back until 2011, just in time to see in the new decade, what joy!!! Edited December 30, 2009 by JC! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lucifer sam Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 The thing was, John, that there wasn't a 0AD... The first year of the AD era from which our centuries (of which we're now in the 21st. of course...!!) started was 1AD. So unlike say a child who's zero for the first year of their life and becomes one after 12 months, and therefore HAS lived a decade when they reach the end of age nine; a decade of years on the calendar isn't up until the end of the TENTH year. So Rob's right: the first year of this century was 2001 and the decade's not up 'til the end of 2010!!! Good innit!!! Parsloes, blimey we must stop agreeing - I can't get used to it. In the meantime, I must stop hi-jacking threads every time there's a mention that 2009 is the final year of the decade (which it is not). All the best Rob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speedibee Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 Ok so someone tell us who won the first race of 1970 and 71 1980 1nd 81 and we can make up our own minds which was the first race of each century Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsloes 1928 nearly Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 Speaking as a fellow pedant you are quite correct, Rob. But I gave up the fight on this one a long time ago...well, about ten years ago to be precise as I didn't want to celebrate the real millennium on my own! If only I'd known I could have come to Oxford... And I could have given you a lift there...!! THAT would've been the car journey of the decade!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbie B Posted December 30, 2009 Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 (edited) From the Speedway Star 1970. 1st race winner in the UK meeting March 19 (only meeting that day) Wimbledon 52, Hackney 26 (Metropolitan Gold Cup) Heat 1 Reg Luckhurst, Jim Tebby, Les McGillivray, Bengt Jansson 5-1 64.6 January 3rd Sydney, Australia 1970 Australia 49, England 58 Heat 1 Eric Boocock, Jim Airey, Bert Kingston, Jimmy McMillan 57.7 I try and dig out the other results for you tommorow. Edited December 30, 2009 by Robbie B Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
father jack Posted December 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 30, 2009 QUOTE (Robbie B @ Dec 30 2009, 09:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> From the Speedway Star 1970. 1st race winner in the UK meeting March 19 (only meeting that day) Wimbledon 52, Hackney 26 (Metropolitan Gold Cup) Heat 1 Reg Luckhurst, Jim Tebby, Les McGillivray, Bengt Jansson 5-1 64.6 January 3rd Sydney, Australia 1970 Australia 49, England 58 Heat 1 Eric Boocock, Jim Airey, Bert Kingston, Jimmy McMillan 57.7 I try and dig out the other results for you tommorow. I'm wrong here then, I always thought it was Bob Hughes heat 1 Hackney V Newport. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbie B Posted December 31, 2009 Report Share Posted December 31, 2009 (edited) I'm wrong here then, I always thought it was Bob Hughes heat 1 Hackney V Newport. According to Speedway Star March 27 1970, the Wimbledon meeting was raced one day before the Hackney Vs Newport (British League Division 1) match. It also worth mentioning in previous issues of Speedway Star that year, in the fixtures Wimbledon were scheduled to race on the 19th March, in the fixture list. Edited December 31, 2009 by Robbie B Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCB Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!! How many times? The new decade starts in 2011 not 2010. Was there a Year AD 0? No. Millenniums, centuries and decades all start in years ending with a "1". The thing was, John, that there wasn't a 0AD... Speaking as a fellow pedant you are quite correct, Rob Yes, I understand it, and thats why I said that I can see the point technically, and dont dispute it (lover not fighter!!). This could only ever be discussed on a speedway forum For the record, I agree Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Butler Posted January 3, 2010 Report Share Posted January 3, 2010 Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!! How many times? The new decade starts in 2011 not 2010. Was there a Year AD 0? No. Millenniums, centuries and decades all start in years ending with a "1". All the best Rob I agree, Rob, but I fear we are flogging the proverbial dead horse. When and idea becomes entrenched even a squadron of JCBs cannot demolish it! Regards, Ron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salty Posted January 3, 2010 Report Share Posted January 3, 2010 Regarding this discussion about when a decade begins, does this mean 1970 was in the sixties? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norbold Posted January 3, 2010 Report Share Posted January 3, 2010 Yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.