
Main
Date: 08 Feb 2009 11:27:32
From: Professor X
Subject: Age Of Slam Winners upon winning their 6th Grand Slam.

6th Slam: 1) Borg 22y1m (11) 2) Nadal 22y8m (6) 3) Wilander 23y9m (7) 4) Sampras 23y11m (14) 5) Federer 24y1m (13) 6) Mcenroe 25y5m (7) 7) Edberg 26y8m (6) 8) Lendl 27y6m (8) 9) Becker 28y2m (6) 10) Agassi 29y9m (8) 11) Connors 29y10m (8) Assuming Nadal WILL win the FO 2009 which is a 85% probability (barring injury) Then the list for players having won 7 slams would look like this:  1) Nadal 22y11m (7) 2) Borg 23y (11) 3) Sampras 24y2m (14) 4) Wilander 24y3m (7) 5) Federer 24y4m (13) 6) Mcenroe 25y8m (7) 7) Lendl 28y10m (8) 8) Agassi 30y9m (8) 9) Connors 30y10m (8)



Date: 08 Feb 2009 13:40:05
From: wkhedr
Subject: Re: Age Of Slam Winners upon winning their 6th Grand Slam.

On Feb 8, 4:09=A0pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com > wrote: > On Sun, 8 Feb 2009 13:00:28 0800 (PST), gregor...@hotmail.com wrote: > >On Feb 8, 7:27=A0pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> 6th Slam: > > >> 1) Borg 22y1m (11) > >> 2) Nadal 22y8m (6) > >> 3) Wilander 23y9m (7) > >> 4) Sampras 23y11m (14) > >> 5) Federer 24y1m (13) > >> 6) Mcenroe 25y5m (7) > >> 7) Edberg 26y8m (6) > >> 8) Lendl 27y6m (8) > >> 9) Becker 28y2m (6) > >> 10) Agassi 29y9m (8) > >> 11) Connors 29y10m (8) > > >> Assuming Nadal WILL win the FO 2009 which is a 85% probability > >> (barring injury) > >> Then the list for players having won 7 slams would look like this:  > > >> 1) Nadal 22y11m (7) > >> 2) Borg 23y (11) > >> 3) Sampras 24y2m (14) > >> 4) Wilander 24y3m (7) > >> 5) Federer 24y4m (13) > >> 6) Mcenroe 25y8m (7) > >> 7) Lendl 28y10m (8) > >> 8) Agassi 30y9m (8) > >> 9) Connors 30y10m (8) > > >Nadal will be 23 years and 3 days old on 7th June this year (date of > >FO final). > >Borg was 23 years and 5 days old on 11th June 1979 (date of FO final) > > >Nadal will shade it by two days if he wins ... though the final is a > >few days earlier compared to 1979 due to the calendar > > Nadal's birthday is June 3, so if the final is June 7, he will be 23 > years and 4 days... Of course, using the Croatian calendar he is 24... H= ide quoted text  > >  Show quoted text  What about using Whisper's new calendar?


Date: 08 Feb 2009 13:37:10
From:
Subject: Re: Age Of Slam Winners upon winning their 6th Grand Slam.

On Feb 8, 9:09=A0pm, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com > wrote: > On Sun, 8 Feb 2009 13:00:28 0800 (PST), gregor...@hotmail.com wrote: > >On Feb 8, 7:27=A0pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> 6th Slam: > > >> 1) Borg 22y1m (11) > >> 2) Nadal 22y8m (6) > >> 3) Wilander 23y9m (7) > >> 4) Sampras 23y11m (14) > >> 5) Federer 24y1m (13) > >> 6) Mcenroe 25y5m (7) > >> 7) Edberg 26y8m (6) > >> 8) Lendl 27y6m (8) > >> 9) Becker 28y2m (6) > >> 10) Agassi 29y9m (8) > >> 11) Connors 29y10m (8) > > >> Assuming Nadal WILL win the FO 2009 which is a 85% probability > >> (barring injury) > >> Then the list for players having won 7 slams would look like this:  > > >> 1) Nadal 22y11m (7) > >> 2) Borg 23y (11) > >> 3) Sampras 24y2m (14) > >> 4) Wilander 24y3m (7) > >> 5) Federer 24y4m (13) > >> 6) Mcenroe 25y8m (7) > >> 7) Lendl 28y10m (8) > >> 8) Agassi 30y9m (8) > >> 9) Connors 30y10m (8) > > >Nadal will be 23 years and 3 days old on 7th June this year (date of > >FO final). > >Borg was 23 years and 5 days old on 11th June 1979 (date of FO final) > > >Nadal will shade it by two days if he wins ... though the final is a > >few days earlier compared to 1979 due to the calendar > > Nadal's birthday is June 3, so if the final is June 7, he will be 23 > years and 4 days... Of course, using the Croatian calendar he is 24... sorry thought it was the 4th for some reason


Date: 08 Feb 2009 13:00:28
From:
Subject: Re: Age Of Slam Winners upon winning their 6th Grand Slam.

On Feb 8, 7:27=A0pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com > wrote: > 6th Slam: > > 1) Borg 22y1m (11) > 2) Nadal 22y8m (6) > 3) Wilander 23y9m (7) > 4) Sampras 23y11m (14) > 5) Federer 24y1m (13) > 6) Mcenroe 25y5m (7) > 7) Edberg 26y8m (6) > 8) Lendl 27y6m (8) > 9) Becker 28y2m (6) > 10) Agassi 29y9m (8) > 11) Connors 29y10m (8) > > Assuming Nadal WILL win the FO 2009 which is a 85% probability > (barring injury) > Then the list for players having won 7 slams would look like this:  > > 1) Nadal 22y11m (7) > 2) Borg 23y (11) > 3) Sampras 24y2m (14) > 4) Wilander 24y3m (7) > 5) Federer 24y4m (13) > 6) Mcenroe 25y8m (7) > 7) Lendl 28y10m (8) > 8) Agassi 30y9m (8) > 9) Connors 30y10m (8) Nadal will be 23 years and 3 days old on 7th June this year (date of FO final). Borg was 23 years and 5 days old on 11th June 1979 (date of FO final) Nadal will shade it by two days if he wins ... though the final is a few days earlier compared to 1979 due to the calendar

 
Date: 08 Feb 2009 23:09:23
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: Age Of Slam Winners upon winning their 6th Grand Slam.

On Sun, 8 Feb 2009 13:00:28 0800 (PST), gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote: >On Feb 8, 7:27 pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> 6th Slam: >> >> 1) Borg 22y1m (11) >> 2) Nadal 22y8m (6) >> 3) Wilander 23y9m (7) >> 4) Sampras 23y11m (14) >> 5) Federer 24y1m (13) >> 6) Mcenroe 25y5m (7) >> 7) Edberg 26y8m (6) >> 8) Lendl 27y6m (8) >> 9) Becker 28y2m (6) >> 10) Agassi 29y9m (8) >> 11) Connors 29y10m (8) >> >> Assuming Nadal WILL win the FO 2009 which is a 85% probability >> (barring injury) >> Then the list for players having won 7 slams would look like this:  >> >> 1) Nadal 22y11m (7) >> 2) Borg 23y (11) >> 3) Sampras 24y2m (14) >> 4) Wilander 24y3m (7) >> 5) Federer 24y4m (13) >> 6) Mcenroe 25y8m (7) >> 7) Lendl 28y10m (8) >> 8) Agassi 30y9m (8) >> 9) Connors 30y10m (8) > >Nadal will be 23 years and 3 days old on 7th June this year (date of >FO final). >Borg was 23 years and 5 days old on 11th June 1979 (date of FO final) > >Nadal will shade it by two days if he wins ... though the final is a >few days earlier compared to 1979 due to the calendar Nadal's birthday is June 3, so if the final is June 7, he will be 23 years and 4 days... Of course, using the Croatian calendar he is 24...

  
Date: 08 Feb 2009 22:45:33
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Age Of Slam Winners upon winning their 6th Grand Slam.

"Sakari Lund" <sakari.lund@welho.com > wrote in message news:ediuo45167rtk3ehg47p9ekfrm9l38m5t6@4ax.com... > On Sun, 8 Feb 2009 13:00:28 0800 (PST), gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote: > >>On Feb 8, 7:27 pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> 6th Slam: >>> >>> 1) Borg 22y1m (11) >>> 2) Nadal 22y8m (6) >>> 3) Wilander 23y9m (7) >>> 4) Sampras 23y11m (14) >>> 5) Federer 24y1m (13) >>> 6) Mcenroe 25y5m (7) >>> 7) Edberg 26y8m (6) >>> 8) Lendl 27y6m (8) >>> 9) Becker 28y2m (6) >>> 10) Agassi 29y9m (8) >>> 11) Connors 29y10m (8) >>> >>> Assuming Nadal WILL win the FO 2009 which is a 85% probability >>> (barring injury) >>> Then the list for players having won 7 slams would look like this:  >>> >>> 1) Nadal 22y11m (7) >>> 2) Borg 23y (11) >>> 3) Sampras 24y2m (14) >>> 4) Wilander 24y3m (7) >>> 5) Federer 24y4m (13) >>> 6) Mcenroe 25y8m (7) >>> 7) Lendl 28y10m (8) >>> 8) Agassi 30y9m (8) >>> 9) Connors 30y10m (8) >> >>Nadal will be 23 years and 3 days old on 7th June this year (date of >>FO final). >>Borg was 23 years and 5 days old on 11th June 1979 (date of FO final) >> >>Nadal will shade it by two days if he wins ... though the final is a >>few days earlier compared to 1979 due to the calendar > > Nadal's birthday is June 3, so if the final is June 7, he will be 23 > years and 4 days... Of course, using the Croatian calendar he is 24... Dumb or just trolling? Hard to guess. Age is of course always the same, as the time is constant. It's just matter of expression, "completed years" or "running year". Simple question: Age?  in some languages would be understood as a request to state completed years. "Age?"  in some other cases/languages means you're required to state your current year of life. Hope it makes it a bit more clear, even though I am sceptic about your capabilities on this one. Stating Nadal's age as "22" when he won his 6th slam is just as wrong/right stating his age "23". Because he was 22 years, 10 months 29 days old or something like that. Of course, in english newsgroup we should use the known method, but I don't see how can you claim one system having more sense than the other one and makin mockery of the one you don't understand.

   
Date: 09 Feb 2009 00:00:32
From: Sakari Lund
Subject: Re: Age Of Slam Winners upon winning their 6th Grand Slam.

On Sun, 8 Feb 2009 22:45:33 +0100, "*skriptis" <skriptis@post.tcom.hr > wrote: > >"Sakari Lund" <sakari.lund@welho.com> wrote in message >news:ediuo45167rtk3ehg47p9ekfrm9l38m5t6@4ax.com... >> On Sun, 8 Feb 2009 13:00:28 0800 (PST), gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote: >> >>>On Feb 8, 7:27 pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> 6th Slam: >>>> >>>> 1) Borg 22y1m (11) >>>> 2) Nadal 22y8m (6) >>>> 3) Wilander 23y9m (7) >>>> 4) Sampras 23y11m (14) >>>> 5) Federer 24y1m (13) >>>> 6) Mcenroe 25y5m (7) >>>> 7) Edberg 26y8m (6) >>>> 8) Lendl 27y6m (8) >>>> 9) Becker 28y2m (6) >>>> 10) Agassi 29y9m (8) >>>> 11) Connors 29y10m (8) >>>> >>>> Assuming Nadal WILL win the FO 2009 which is a 85% probability >>>> (barring injury) >>>> Then the list for players having won 7 slams would look like this:  >>>> >>>> 1) Nadal 22y11m (7) >>>> 2) Borg 23y (11) >>>> 3) Sampras 24y2m (14) >>>> 4) Wilander 24y3m (7) >>>> 5) Federer 24y4m (13) >>>> 6) Mcenroe 25y8m (7) >>>> 7) Lendl 28y10m (8) >>>> 8) Agassi 30y9m (8) >>>> 9) Connors 30y10m (8) >>> >>>Nadal will be 23 years and 3 days old on 7th June this year (date of >>>FO final). >>>Borg was 23 years and 5 days old on 11th June 1979 (date of FO final) >>> >>>Nadal will shade it by two days if he wins ... though the final is a >>>few days earlier compared to 1979 due to the calendar >> >> Nadal's birthday is June 3, so if the final is June 7, he will be 23 >> years and 4 days... Of course, using the Croatian calendar he is 24... > >Dumb or just trolling? >Hard to guess. > >Age is of course always the same, as the time is constant. It's just matter >of expression, "completed years" or "running year". >Simple question: Age?  in some languages would be understood as a request >to state completed years. >"Age?"  in some other cases/languages means you're required to state your >current year of life. > >Hope it makes it a bit more clear, even though I am sceptic about your >capabilities on this one. > > >Stating Nadal's age as "22" when he won his 6th slam is just as wrong/right >stating his age "23". >Because he was 22 years, 10 months 29 days old or something like that. > >Of course, in english newsgroup we should use the known method, but I don't >see how can you claim one system having more sense than the other one and >makin mockery of the one you don't understand. Of course you know very well that when this age thing came up, I was the only one here who understood this was a cultural thing, and didn't make fun of it. Some sense of humour would be nice sometimes, look at your hero, he has that (rather selectively, but sometimes).

    
Date: 08 Feb 2009 23:25:54
From: *skriptis
Subject: Re: Age Of Slam Winners upon winning their 6th Grand Slam.

"Sakari Lund" <sakari.lund@welho.com > wrote in message news:r7luo4hq03j0a4knkku5br576cq0ai3h6e@4ax.com... > On Sun, 8 Feb 2009 22:45:33 +0100, "*skriptis" > <skriptis@post.tcom.hr> wrote: > >> >>"Sakari Lund" <sakari.lund@welho.com> wrote in message >>news:ediuo45167rtk3ehg47p9ekfrm9l38m5t6@4ax.com... >>> On Sun, 8 Feb 2009 13:00:28 0800 (PST), gregorawe@hotmail.com wrote: >>> >>>>On Feb 8, 7:27 pm, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> 6th Slam: >>>>> >>>>> 1) Borg 22y1m (11) >>>>> 2) Nadal 22y8m (6) >>>>> 3) Wilander 23y9m (7) >>>>> 4) Sampras 23y11m (14) >>>>> 5) Federer 24y1m (13) >>>>> 6) Mcenroe 25y5m (7) >>>>> 7) Edberg 26y8m (6) >>>>> 8) Lendl 27y6m (8) >>>>> 9) Becker 28y2m (6) >>>>> 10) Agassi 29y9m (8) >>>>> 11) Connors 29y10m (8) >>>>> >>>>> Assuming Nadal WILL win the FO 2009 which is a 85% probability >>>>> (barring injury) >>>>> Then the list for players having won 7 slams would look like this:  >>>>> >>>>> 1) Nadal 22y11m (7) >>>>> 2) Borg 23y (11) >>>>> 3) Sampras 24y2m (14) >>>>> 4) Wilander 24y3m (7) >>>>> 5) Federer 24y4m (13) >>>>> 6) Mcenroe 25y8m (7) >>>>> 7) Lendl 28y10m (8) >>>>> 8) Agassi 30y9m (8) >>>>> 9) Connors 30y10m (8) >>>> >>>>Nadal will be 23 years and 3 days old on 7th June this year (date of >>>>FO final). >>>>Borg was 23 years and 5 days old on 11th June 1979 (date of FO final) >>>> >>>>Nadal will shade it by two days if he wins ... though the final is a >>>>few days earlier compared to 1979 due to the calendar >>> >>> Nadal's birthday is June 3, so if the final is June 7, he will be 23 >>> years and 4 days... Of course, using the Croatian calendar he is 24... >> >>Dumb or just trolling? >>Hard to guess. >> >>Age is of course always the same, as the time is constant. It's just >>matter >>of expression, "completed years" or "running year". >>Simple question: Age?  in some languages would be understood as a >>request >>to state completed years. >>"Age?"  in some other cases/languages means you're required to state your >>current year of life. >> >>Hope it makes it a bit more clear, even though I am sceptic about your >>capabilities on this one. >> >> >>Stating Nadal's age as "22" when he won his 6th slam is just as >>wrong/right >>stating his age "23". >>Because he was 22 years, 10 months 29 days old or something like that. >> >>Of course, in english newsgroup we should use the known method, but I >>don't >>see how can you claim one system having more sense than the other one and >>makin mockery of the one you don't understand. > > Of course you know very well that when this age thing came up, I was > the only one here who understood this was a cultural thing, and didn't > make fun of it. Some sense of humour would be nice sometimes, look at > your hero, he has that (rather selectively, but sometimes). tier 1 analyst have no time for "humorous remarks"

    
Date: 08 Feb 2009 22:10:34
From: jdeluise
Subject: Re: Age Of Slam Winners upon winning their 6th Grand Slam.

On 8Feb2009, Sakari Lund <sakari.lund@welho.com > wrote: > Of course you know very well that when this age thing came up, I was > the only one here who understood this was a cultural thing, and didn't > make fun of it. Some sense of humour would be nice sometimes, look at > your hero, he has that (rather selectively, but sometimes). Hey I didn't make fun of him either!

