Nadal the first man to hold the number one ranking in three different decades....

Enga

Hall of Fame
Ah, no
2000's = 2000 - 2009 (as the name suggests... you know... 2000's doesn't start in 2001)
2010's = 2010 - 2019
2020's = 2020 - 2029
The thing is we have no year 0 in our calendar. So to be consistent, that means every new decade starts on the 1s. 2001, 2011, 2021 etc.

I mean everyone considers it a new decade anyway so I dont mind either way. But technically it is incorrect if we consider the full history of the calendar.
 

titoelcolombiano

Hall of Fame
The thing is we have no year 0 in our calendar. So to be consistent, that means every new decade starts on the 1s. 2001, 2011, 2021 etc.

I mean everyone considers it a new decade anyway so I dont mind either way. But technically it is incorrect if we consider the full history of the calendar.
Year 2020 is not year zero, it is the first year of the 2020's as the name suggests.
 

clout

Hall of Fame
If Federer can reclaim number one again, he’ll join this list as well, although that’ll likely take a miracle to happen
 

Drob

Professional
And Gonzalez was amateur No. 1 in 1949, consensus No 1 throughout 1950s and year-end No. 1 1960, and it is argued 1961 as well.

Y BRAVO y felicidades a Rafa por haber terminado la temporado 2019 numero uno en puntos.
 
Last edited:

Sport

Legend
The thing is we have no year 0 in our calendar. So to be consistent, that means every new decade starts on the 1s. 2001, 2011, 2021 etc.

I mean everyone considers it a new decade anyway so I dont mind either way. But technically it is incorrect if we consider the full history of the calendar.
No, he is right. Not the same the calendar year than the start of the decade. The start of the 2000s decade is the 2000, the start of the 2010s decade is 2010, etc.

2010s decade started the 1st of January of 2010.

 

Enga

Hall of Fame
if you were born in 1980, you still clustered under 80s kid, not 70s kid. so OP is not wrong.
It's a misconception, but a common one. As I always like to say, enough people say something false thousands of times, it might as well be true.
 

Enga

Hall of Fame
I don't get what you're trying to link me here. It seems to be agreeing with me.

a. Officially a ten-year period beginning with the year 1, as 1921-1930, 1931-1940, etc.
b. in common usage, a ten-year period beginning with a year 0, as 1920-1929, 1930-1939, etc.

So as I said, "enough people say something false thousands of times, it might as well be true. "


Are you maybe just trying to argue this because you want Nadal to have a new achievement under his belt? Because I don't care about that. Nadal has made a special achievement nonetheless, so I congratulate him. But don't try to tell me 2020 is a new decade.
 

Thriller

Semi-Pro
I don't get what you're trying to link me here. It seems to be agreeing with me.

a. Officially a ten-year period beginning with the year 1, as 1921-1930, 1931-1940, etc.
b. in common usage, a ten-year period beginning with a year 0, as 1920-1929, 1930-1939, etc.

So as I said, "enough people say something false thousands of times, it might as well be true. "


Are you maybe just trying to argue this because you want Nadal to have a new achievement under his belt? Because I don't care about that. Nadal has made a special achievement nonetheless, so I congratulate him. But don't try to tell me 2020 is a new decade.
Common usage isn't 'false', it is the usage of language that makes the most sense to most people.

To most people, talking about the 1960s but including 1970 and not 1960 is weird and misleading. That is why in common usage, the 60s means 1960 - 1969.
 

Enga

Hall of Fame
Common usage isn't 'false', it is the usage of language that makes the most sense to most people.

To most people, talking about the 1960s but including 1970 and not 1960 is weird and misleading. That is why in common usage, the 60s means 1960 - 1969.
I feel like that's what I'm trying to say and that you're just confirming. If enough people say something that is false is true, it becomes the same as true.
 

Sport

Legend
It's a misconception, but a common one. As I always like to say, enough people say something false thousands of times, it might as well be true.
No. A common misconception is assuming that a decade starts in 01 rather than 00.

2010s decade started the 1st of January of 2010. If you are right try to change that in Wikipedia. If they don't allow you to change that is because decades culturally start in 00s one 01s.


Wikipedia clearly separates the beginning of the century (2001) with the beginning of the 2000s decade (2000).


The beginning of a decade is a cultural construction and so it starts when humans say it. It is culturally used the 00s as the beginning of the decades.
 

ChrisRF

Hall of Fame
I feel like that's what I'm trying to say and that you're just confirming. If enough people say something that is false is true, it becomes the same as true.
You are completely right of course. Only what you said has an incontestable basis (the start with Year 1). Anything else is arbitrarily. With the same right as with the 0 one could start with any other number as well and call it a "decade".

Also it is irrelevant if someone wants to praise the longevity of a player anyway, because it’s simply luck when someone starts his timespan. 12 years could be divided into 3 "decades" and 20 years into only 2.
 

Enga

Hall of Fame
No. A common misconception is assuming that a decade starts in 01 rather than 00.

2010s decade started the 1st of January of 2010. If you are right try to change that in Wikipedia. If they don't allow you to change that is because decades culturally start in 00s one 01s.


Wikipedia clearly separates the beginning of the century (2001) with the beginning of the 2000s decade (2000).


The beginning of a decade is a cultural construction and so it starts when humans say it. It is culturally used the 00s as the beginning of the decades.
It's more so that they need to travel back in time and tell those gregorian monks to add a year 0 to the calendar. You can say that the year 2000 is a new millenium, but the reality is that only 1999 years had passed since 1ad*. To me, that's inconsistent.
 
Last edited:

RaulRamirez

Hall of Fame
The thing is we have no year 0 in our calendar. So to be consistent, that means every new decade starts on the 1s. 2001, 2011, 2021 etc.

I mean everyone considers it a new decade anyway so I dont mind either way. But technically it is incorrect if we consider the full history of the calendar.
Logically? Yes. But in common usage, no.
 

RaulRamirez

Hall of Fame
To the main point of this thread, and split hairs aside, it is simply remarkable that Rafa - presumed by many pundits to have a short career - has been durable and consistent enough to set new milestones based on both longevity and consistent excellence!
 
It's a misconception, but a common one. As I always like to say, enough people say something false thousands of times, it might as well be true.
The real misconception is that any use of language can be false. Words mean what people think they mean. You can literally use words however you like, Humpty Dumpty style, and that technically won't make you wrong, just difficult or impossible to understand. Obviously, that would be generally undesirable since you want to be understood and understand what others say, but it's not wrong in the sense 2+2=5 is.

I say it makes perfect sense to apply the word decade to any period of ten units of time, at least if it's bigger than a day; so, ten days, ten months, ten years. Any ten years. 1934-43 can be called the 34-43 decade for example if one feels like it.
 
Top