Forehand: question on technique.

Discussion in 'Tennis Tips/Instruction' started by MikeHitsHard93, Feb 9, 2013.

  1. MikeHitsHard93

    MikeHitsHard93 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2011
    Messages:
    4,454
    Location:
    Michigan
    How much of your whole body is ideal to put into the shot? I have recently switched to a more modern forehand with ww and I spring through it. However, sometimes just using mostly arm and upper body works much better and with less effort.
     
    #1
  2. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    35,056
    Body weight behind the shot is not that important in modern strokes due to advances in racket technology
     
    #2
  3. MikeHitsHard93

    MikeHitsHard93 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2011
    Messages:
    4,454
    Location:
    Michigan
    Yes I've been wondering this but I didn't want to start getting lazy :) it's just so much easier to hit with my arm rather than launch myself into the shot and get the same output.
     
    #3
  4. Topspin Shot

    Topspin Shot Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2009
    Messages:
    5,083
    Be careful about that body weight thing. Technically, body weight isn't as important becasue the rackets are more powerful. When you're pressed for time, you can get away with purely open stance, no weight transfer, etc. That ability to hit off balance has led to the grueling rally contests you see on tour today. But, that is not an excuse to be lazy. When the pros have time, they step into their shots and get their weight into it. If you get a hard ball into a corner, you can get it back without a weight transfer. But, if you get a soft sitter, and you don't transfer your weight, you'll put it into the bottom of the net. Watch how the pros step up on sitters and how they get their weight into it.

    SparkNotes version: It is possible to hit off balance. That doesn't mean it is acceptable. Step into as many shots as you can.
     
    #4
  5. WildVolley

    WildVolley Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2007
    Messages:
    5,793
    I disagree with this.

    Getting your weight behind the shot can still allow you to hit a hard penetrating shot. I'm convinced this is one of the reasons that Berdych, for example, can sometimes hit people off the court. He tends to get his body into the shot more than some other players who are hitting more spin.
     
    #5
  6. J011yroger

    J011yroger G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    12,334
    Location:
    Long Island, NY
    I hesitate to post actual advise in the presence of of the ensuing storm of idiocy which will likely follow your post, and had half a mind to just message you privately, but I strongly recommend you video yourself hitting as what you think is happening is not what is actually happening.

    If you get the same output arming the ball as you do when you launch your body into the shot then you are doing something very, very wrong.

    Usually when this happens it is because the person launching into the shot is flying open with their body too soon, leaving the arm behind; then after all of the energy from their body is already expended, they simply arm the ball as per usual.

    If lower body, and torso are out of synch with your arm and racquet, then any energy from them is completely wasted.

    It would be the same as arming the ball, or dropping down and doing a push-up before getting back up and arming the ball.

    J
     
    #6
  7. rkelley

    rkelley Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2010
    Messages:
    2,384
    I'm in agreement with this given that none of us have seen your stroke. The part about "spring through it" doesn't sound good generally.

    If you're switching to a modern forehand then you should not be arming the ball. With all respect to others who have posted, your weight is most definitely behind the stroke, but just in a different way (given that I'm not sure how you hit before).

    There are a billion threads on this, but basically you want generally set-up semi-open. You don't have to, but this should be your basic set-up position. You want your weight on your back/outside foot mostly. That back/outside leg supports your shot and is an important part of driving your hips around. The power of the kinetic chain starts there.

    You don't have to launch your body into every shot, you just want to push off that back/outside leg. Even if you are coming off the ground, the your coming off that back leg.

    With the modern fh it's all about rotation of the core, not linear movements. The back/outside leg is the preferred rotation center.
     
    #7
  8. MikeHitsHard93

    MikeHitsHard93 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2011
    Messages:
    4,454
    Location:
    Michigan
    I have yet to set up a video recording solely on the fact that I live in Michigan and the public nets get taken down in the winter. Next time I go to the MSU courts I will video myself and post here.

    I have the feeling that I'm doing exactly what you're saying. All my energy is being wasted.
     
    #8
  9. MikeHitsHard93

    MikeHitsHard93 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2011
    Messages:
    4,454
    Location:
    Michigan
    I usually hit a semi open stance when I arm the ball and a full open stance when I "explode" through the ball. At least, I try to :) I believe video recording myself will open my eyes a lot.
     
    #9
  10. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    35,056
    Rotation is important, not so much launching into the ball and transferring weight forward. This is due to the modern rackets.
     
    #10
  11. tennis_pr0

    tennis_pr0 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    562
    To answer your question simply, weight transfer, whether hitting in closed, neutral or open is important for generating pace, spin and depth. Even if you are hitting from an open stance, there should still be a complete weight transfer, starting with the legs and ending with the shoulder rotating through the ball. Sure, you don't always have time to set your feet and do this and with a very live arm can still generate a lot of racquet head speed and hit a great shot without transferring your weight, but to say that transferring your weight into the shot is not that important is a very inaccurate statement.
     
    #11
  12. chico9166

    chico9166 Guest

    "Weight transfer" in the conventional sense is not really overly important. Linking the rotation is, however. In fact, an emphasis on stepping in, or weight transfer can impede properly timed rotation.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 9, 2013
    #12
  13. Cheetah

    Cheetah Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2011
    Messages:
    3,877
    Location:
    San Diego
    there is no 'conventional sense'. weight transfer is weight transfer. hitting a good shot involves weight transfer. guys with big shots get their weight into the ball. just because they are rotating doesn't mean weight isn't going through the ball. it's not as obvious to the uninformed viewer because of the open stance/rotation/ww etc as it was in the old days but it's still there. You don't need to 'step in' to get all your weight into the ball. Angular momentum.

    i can assure you that djoko here is getting his weight into the ball
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36v_W1fttOQ&list=HL1360449978&t=4s
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2013
    #13
  14. 10isfreak

    10isfreak Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2012
    Messages:
    566
    The wording is a little vague here and it's easy for people to get confused when performing a forehand stroke. To be really clear, we should be talking about sequences of movement and an ideal stroke involves your legs, your hips and your spine: leg extension, hip extension, hip and spine rotation should all contribute to accelerating your arm toward the ball.

    Of course, if you're hitting a super low ball or are off balance, you shouldn't attempt to hit the ideal shot... you hit what your footwork allows to hit. You then think of what you can "waste" or let go in your stroke when you can't achieve the perfect movement -- that's how we adapt a forehand.

    Otherwise, you shouldn't feel like you're muscling the ball or like only your upper body is involved... it's everything whenever you have space and time.
     
    #14
  15. chico9166

    chico9166 Guest

    First of all, weight transfer is a bit nebulous. However, CONVENTIONAL interpretatation usually entails/involves linear transfers in a forward sense. (I know this, because I'm on the court everyday)

    And yeah, and I sort a know what angular momentum is, but thanks. I'll ask you this, because you seem to be the self appointed expert here, but do you know how linear and angular momentum work in conjunction..just in a broad sense?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 9, 2013
    #15
  16. Cheetah

    Cheetah Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2011
    Messages:
    3,877
    Location:
    San Diego
    weight transfer is not nebulous.

    don't worry about how linear and angular momentum work in conjuction. it's not applicable. it's just a weak argument people use on forums in an attempt to demonstrate how smart they are when they can't back up a previous statement they made on some technical issue.
     
    #16
  17. MikeHitsHard93

    MikeHitsHard93 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2011
    Messages:
    4,454
    Location:
    Michigan
    Looking for constructive criticism here, not arguments. Thanks to all that have positively contributed. Hopefully I can upload a video and go from there
     
    #17
  18. v-verb

    v-verb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2012
    Messages:
    2,071
    Location:
    Toronto
    Using your arm alone worries me - just from the standpoint that it can stress your wrist, forearm muscles and elbow.

    When I use proper weight transfer, I get a ton less stress on my wrist and forearm. I have an injured - but healing - wrist so I'm sensitive about that.

    Also I can hit with a lot of power but little effort with proper weight transfer, rotation and relaxed wrist.


    Just don't hurt yourself
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2013
    #18
  19. chico9166

    chico9166 Guest

    Lol, whatever. I take it from your failure to address my question, that you have no idea what your talking about.
     
    #19
  20. Kenzik

    Kenzik New User

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2012
    Messages:
    54
    I think it just depends on how much power you want in your shot. More weight transfer, more power.
     
    #20
  21. Cheetah

    Cheetah Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2011
    Messages:
    3,877
    Location:
    San Diego
    no. i just have no interest at the moment in making you look silly.
    stay on topic and quit while your behind before I change my mind.
     
    #21
  22. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    35,056
    If you consider the very popular semi-open stance forehand, then (for a rightie), the most common finish is that the right foot pivots and rises on its balls, while the left foot moves back, either slightly leaving the ground or by dragging on its toes. In some cases, both feet leave the ground. But the body as a whole does not move forwards - in fact it might move slightly backwards due to the motion of the left foot.

    The other way to hit the semi-open forehand is to move the right foot forward along with the ball, and is used less frequently, usually when the player wants to move to the net immediately after the stroke.

    So if the body has a whole has not moved forward, how can we say that there is a weight transfer into the ball? It seems to me that the term is a legacy of the closed stance wood racket days, when this forward weight transfer was important to power.

    As far as the pace vs spin issue, it seems to be more to do with the swing arc - how much extension into the court vs how much across the body.
     
    #22
  23. Netspirit

    Netspirit Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,243
    Location:
    Snoqualmie, WA
    I am not sure how you can rotate violently in an open-stance forehand and add forward weight transfer to it.

    You are either rotating around your right foot, or stepping forward on your left foot (and therefore not rotating much).
     
    #23
  24. Cheetah

    Cheetah Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2011
    Messages:
    3,877
    Location:
    San Diego
    you don't have to make your whole body go a whole meter forward through the ball to get your weight into it. The ball is small and is long gone while you are still 'transferring your weight forward in a closed stance step in shot.

    and you can still make your body go forward while you are rotating. you can push off with a forward slope, not just 'rotating around your foot'.
    and you can also go through the ball while rotating, it's just angular but there is still weight transfer if you do it right. your hips and trunk and shoulders can rotate into and through the ball. It feels the same as a closed stance step in weight transfer does. The transfer just happens quicker.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YerH0-8n_0w&t=46s
     
    #24
  25. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    35,056
    So part of the body can be used for the weight transfer
     
    #25
  26. TheCheese

    TheCheese Professional

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    954
    I think it's more about being balanced so you can get maximum racket head speed. You definitely don't need to be putting you weight into every shot and falling forward afterwards. Often times, that can be counterproductive unless you're trying to move in. In reality, the best way to achieve maximum racket head speed on a topspin groundstroke is to pull back and to the left on the forehand and the opposite on the backhand.

    Imo, that seems like he's shifting his weight backwards and to the left (on the forehand), as Oscar talks about. Look at his foot position before and after the shot, he's shifted slightly backwards and to the left. I think the key there is that he's balanced.
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2013
    #26
  27. chico9166

    chico9166 Guest

    Oh please, we are having a discussion. "Weight shift" has to do with center of mass movement. And in this case, a forward movement. The COM movement is negligible in the case of more open stance permutations.
     
    #27
  28. Cheetah

    Cheetah Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2011
    Messages:
    3,877
    Location:
    San Diego
    look at his feet and hip position before contact. then pause at contact. then after contact. there is forward movement there. yes he is going to the left. it's angular. he's not shifting weight backwards.
     
    #28
  29. chico9166

    chico9166 Guest

    Uh no. With a square stance, the weight transfer occurs BEFORE the rotation. We're just talking about an axis of rotation and where it occurs. In a more open stance the axis revolves around a point (COM) closer to the rear foot, and on the square stance more around the left side, or foot, AFTER the weight transfer. (forward linear movement, COM change)

    Anyway, if you want to lunge and try and move forward, be my guest. It's effect is minimal. The key is stabilzing the rear leg, and rotating on balance at the correct time.
     
    #29
  30. Cheetah

    Cheetah Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2011
    Messages:
    3,877
    Location:
    San Diego
    no it's not. where did you get that from?
     
    #30
  31. TheCheese

    TheCheese Professional

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    954
    Looks like he's shifting weight forwards, then just prior to contact pulling back and to the left to increase his racket acceleration up and across the ball, so I guess we're both right.
     
    #31
  32. Cheetah

    Cheetah Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2011
    Messages:
    3,877
    Location:
    San Diego
    what matters is what is going on at contact.
    he is shifting to the left during the shot but...

    look at his legs. they are bent and behind the ball. during the sequence up to contact he's pushed off and fowward going up and through at contact. his body has risen in a forward direction. contact is made in a square position with his chest facing the net. he is pushing off his toes and his feet are pointed forward at contact. his body has moved forward. not back.
    look at his hip postions. it rotates forward and thru during contact. it's not moving back.
    look at the shoulder positions. it's behind contact at the start. it moves forward and thru the point of contact.
    he has long extension with arm and racquet pointed out forward.
    both of his knees have moved forward from the starting position.
    This is all weight transfer forward into the ball... while rotating.

    Then after contact he continues rotating and spins around. This does not affect the ball.

    [​IMG]
     
    #32
  33. TheCheese

    TheCheese Professional

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    954
    [​IMG]

    Yes, starting just before contact he starts going back and to the left.

    It does make a difference, it's the best way to get maximum racket head acceleration up and across the ball. I'm not denying he is shifting his weight forward, but just before contact he's pulling back and to the left so he can get the most racket head speed possible. If he was to go straight through the ball afterwards his shot wouldn't have as much spin. I'm sure you've noticed this when you're playing.
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2013
    #33
  34. Cheetah

    Cheetah Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2011
    Messages:
    3,877
    Location:
    San Diego
    where do you see evidence of him going back? what are you looking at?
    if his feet, legs, hips and shoulders are in a more forward position at contact then in prep how is that moving back?
    he's pushing off his toes and his foot is pointed forward and has moved forward. how do you move back like that?
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2013
    #34
  35. TheCheese

    TheCheese Professional

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    954
    His ending position is back and to the left relative to his position at contact.
     
    #35
  36. Cheetah

    Cheetah Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2011
    Messages:
    3,877
    Location:
    San Diego
    it's not back. it's more forward than when he started.
    just his shoulders have rotated around so his chest is facing to the sidefence at the end. where else can they face if you continue rotation?

    also look at the forward angle of his whole body from his feet to his head. he's leaning forward.

    if you mark the positions of his feet in the original video they both have moved forward and to the left. they are in a more forward position then when he was in prep. he has moved his mass forward during the shot. (and to the left)
     
    #36
  37. TheCheese

    TheCheese Professional

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    954
    Well, his right foot is slightly more forward than before contact and his left foot is further behind. I think what's important though is that his center of mass is centered back and to the left versus before he hits.
     
    #37
  38. Cheetah

    Cheetah Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2011
    Messages:
    3,877
    Location:
    San Diego
    what about at contact where it matters?

    and he's lifting his left foot. it rotates around. just like his left shoulder. are you saying that after his left foot has left the ground and it is in mid-air that he pulls back with his left foot?

    his right foot, right leg, torso, shoulder and his body tilt are all more forward at contact then at prep. his left foot is either slightly forward or the same at contact. whatever happens after that doesn't matter.
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2013
    #38
  39. TheCheese

    TheCheese Professional

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    954

    You're saying that if he was stepping straight through the ball and falling through the court rather than back and to left after the shot, he'd produce the same ball?

    I disagree. What you're intending to do changes how you swing. If you're going to pull back to the left, you're going to increase your racket head acceleration up and across BEFORE your whole body noticeably starts shifting. I disagree about his right foot pushing him forward. I think that's where he begins to push back and to the left, thereby increasing his racket head speed. After he hits the ball, you see the effect of that by his body weight shifting diagonally backwards left.

    I'm curious what you think of what Oscar is doing here. Do you consider that having your weight going into the ball? We might just have different interpretations of the same thing.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=MxUPDHegz98#t=494s
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2013
    #39
  40. Cheetah

    Cheetah Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2011
    Messages:
    3,877
    Location:
    San Diego
    no. i'm just saying he's not pulling back.

    how do you get leverage if you pull back then?

    I don't see any pros swinging like that. pause one of those guys shots. he's absolutely falling backwards and off balance.

    Is Rafa pulling back here?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82B7A2u1pF4&feature=related&t=1m05s
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9jT7bJBuOQ&feature=plcp
     
    #40
  41. psv255

    psv255 Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2011
    Messages:
    967
    Location:
    NY
    I lean towards Cheetah's way of seeing this, as it describes how the power in the shot is being produced, rather than what looks to be producing the shot.

    The movement forward may be minimal, but since the axis one's body rotates in a regular forehand is in line with the opposite leg (for a righty, the left leg), most of the player's weight is behind the shot, since it swings around a farther axis to meet the ball (and could be swinging up and to the left, but that is irrelevant), then following through across the body. "Pulling back" could be a way to facilitate rotation especially off the back foot (and that rotation puts weight behind the shot), but it's not something one would be doing when perfectly positioned for a rally ball.
     
    #41
  42. TheCheese

    TheCheese Professional

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    954
    Yes, on many of those shots he is to some degree. I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. I'm not saying that they're falling backwards and are off balance. What I'm saying is that they're shifting their weight forwards towards the ball, then once they come to contact they accelerate their racket head as fast as possible. In order to do this, they pull their arm back and to the left. Depending on how much spin vs pace they want to put on the ball and their forward momentum at contact, they'll move back to a different degree. Sometimes it shifts their weight, sometimes it doesn't.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=BOKptwpu--0#t=172s

    This is a great example. Fed is finishing into the court, but he's still pulling back and to the left to get maximum racket head acceleration.
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2013
    #42
  43. Cheetah

    Cheetah Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2011
    Messages:
    3,877
    Location:
    San Diego
    I don't have a problem with pulling the arm to the left or pulling it across. But you are saying 'back and to the left'. And I thought we were talking about weight transfer?

    I don't agree with pulling anything 'back'. I see fed's body flying forward through the ball and his arm rotating around his body as he does a ww fh.

    How can you tell the difference between 'pulling his arm back' and his arm just finishing around the body? Where do you see evidence of an actual pulling 'back'?

    Here's the fed sequence. Weight going forward. arm extension forward. ww finish across the body. Oscar's student at the end pulling back. no arm extension since he's pulling back. off balance. Does not look similar.

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2013
    #43
  44. TheCheese

    TheCheese Professional

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    954
    The difference is that Fed is hitting moving into the court. The guy in Oscar's video is hitting open stance and doesn't use a straight arm, so he doesn't get as much extension.

    You can see the pulling back because Fed's forward velocity decreases as he hits the ball. He's moving into the ball, then almost completely stops after hitting it and lands on his back foot, then starts moving forward again.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=BOKptwpu--0#t=194s

    Here are two shots back to back of Federer hitting with a similar stance.
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2013
    #44
  45. Cheetah

    Cheetah Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2011
    Messages:
    3,877
    Location:
    San Diego
    same thing. everything moving forward.
    nothing being pulled back.

    extension is not related to whether you have a straight arm or a bent arm. extension is shoulder abduction or space under shoulder/elbow distance from torso. oscar's student has none.

    djokovic. bent arm. open stance. great extension
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    extension. because they are going thru the ball forward = power.
    pulling back. no extension = off balance, no power.
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2013
    #45
  46. TheCheese

    TheCheese Professional

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    954
    What do you consider "pulling back"?

    By pulling back, I'm just talking about pulling the arm back and to the left to increase the racket head speed. If a player puts their whole body into accelerating their arm that way, it pulls their body back and to the left. It doesn't have to even cause movement, but rather a shifting of their weight from their front right foot to their back left foot (on the forehand). Often times, it DOES cause the player to move back and to the left though if they're getting off the ground during their shot.

    I don't think the extension has to do with Oscar's method, but rather that individual player. I agree, he doesn't get much extension and looks kind of cramped.

    I really think we're just confused over the terminology here.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TZ2zyfYtLU
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2013
    #46
  47. Cheetah

    Cheetah Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2011
    Messages:
    3,877
    Location:
    San Diego
    i don't know what pulling back is.

    they are getting their rhs from kinetic chain, rotation, loose wrist, ssc, etc and maybe a pull across to the left for some side spin or more top or some rhs.
    i don't know how or why anyone would pull 'back'. pulling back doesn't make sense. pulling across to increase angular momentum just before contact makes sense. the racquet head is slowing after contact and it still moves forward after contact. look at those djoko pics. where would a pulling back come in to play there. his arm is extended forward all the way long after the ball is gone.
    These guys are loose at contact and loose after. They are not pulling back fighting rotation.

    and yes i agree to some point regarding oscars student. but he seems like a pretty good player. good form and footwork. i don't think he plays like that while not recording a vid for oscar. i'm sure he gets full extension and drives into the ball during his regular play. but that pulling back makes him off balance and cramped. which makes sense if you 'pull back' while trying to hit a ball forward.
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2013
    #47
  48. TheCheese

    TheCheese Professional

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    954
    Yes, it's pulling up and across just before contact to increase angular momentum. The pulling back part comes from how the arm moves AFTER contact. At contact it's going up and across. You want to pull because you get more leverage if your arm comes in towards body. It's basically the concept of brushing up and across at contact (angular), versus extending through 5 balls (linear). Oscar's way of describing it as "pulling" is a term meant to help teach the motion.

    The pulling isn't meant to fight rotation, the point is to help increase rotation.
     
    #48
  49. sureshs

    sureshs Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    35,056
    The racket tip continues to move further away from the body after contact, then starts coming towards the body again. So there is not pulling back around contact or just after it. The coming across is just the completion of the swing. By the time the racket tip's distance from the body starts reducing, the ball is long gone.
     
    #49
  50. Cheetah

    Cheetah Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2011
    Messages:
    3,877
    Location:
    San Diego
    this^^^
    ......
     
    #50

Share This Page