I am in a ridiculous debate with a guy, and I hope you guys can help me settle it - It all started over an Ali vs Liston poster, the famous "First minute First round" one. Our debate is - When Ali knocked down Liston at 1 minute 42 seconds, would that actually be "First minute" or would it be correct if it was "Second minute"? Yes, I said it was ridiculous. Edit: To clear things up....The question is - The knockdown happens at 1 minute 42 seconds, the poster states "First round First minute", would the correct term be "First round Second minute"?
And that is where I disagree.... 1 minute is 60 seconds, like 1 meter is 100 centimetres. 30 seconds is not "1 minute", it is 30 seconds. If someone says "press the button in 2 minutes" he doesn't mean press the button in 1 minute 1 second(which from what you say would be second minute), but he means 120 seconds. Would you say the knockdown was at 1 minute 42 seconds, or would you say 2 minutes minus 18 seconds? If it is 1 minute 42 seconds, the correct usage imo. would be First minute as the second minute has not "started".
Well, you asked for an opinion and he gave you one, in which he thinks you're wrong. And for that matter, so do I.
Yeah and I am happy that he did. I am just saying how I understand it. I have nothing riding on this except pride, and if I am wrong I have no problem admitting it. Did you see my response as an attack of some kind?
On your first day of school in second grade, you're still in second grade. You're not in first grade plus one day.
ya reminds me of why they call the 1800's the nineteenth century, always confused me but I never thought much about it. If it's withing the second minute I'd call it the second minute. I don't think it's that important though, some friends argue over some trivial stuff I know.
Yes that is exactly what I am saying. Which is why First round first minute imo. is accurate. Thank you.
really? Anything that takes place within the first 60 seconds in the first minute, the next 60 is the 2nd, the next 60 is the 3rd, and so on. Not really hard to figure out lol. it's something that took place within the 2nd minute. EDIt: actually, I now kind of understand where you're coming from. But the first minute of the bout happens within the first 60 seconds. Anything after that is no longer the first minute.
I completely agree. And even though I might seem dumb as a rock, I do understand how seconds work. The argument is about the wording on the poster, and again I agree, the technically correct term would be within 2 minutes, or more then a minute or less then 2. If you had to choose the correct term without using seconds, would you say First minute or Second minute?
it happened within the second minute if someone knocks someone out in 55 seconds would that be in the first minute? most people with the basic understanding of the english language would say yes. what do you say?
Thats different, that indication especifically means that 120 seconds need to pass wich means the button need to be pressed at the start of a third minute. The first minute ended at 1:00. You can say the KO ocurred 42 seconds in to the second minute of action. Otherwise you will need to explain what happens when someone gets koed before the 1:00 mark.
second minute if the poster says "first round, first minute" and it happened at 1:42 the poster is wrong
No. Think of a 2 lap car race. If a car abandons after completing 1 and a half laps. He abandoned in the second lap.
Yes but what were discussing is specifically the poster saying "First round First minute". If we take seconds away and words like "within", and just have to say if it should be "first " or "second" minute on the poster for it to be correct, what would you say? I take it you would say Second minute?
i was going to respond to his post like that aswell but i noticed he said "it happened in the first minutes". so he right, but i don;t think it's what TS is asking
