Search results

6:22 When Federer decides to combine the Jack Knife with the Snake.

One last question. When you say the team is re-filming, are they playtesting the POG OS or the newer Prince Classic Graphite 107?

Do you remember what Chris' comments were about the string and tension used for the review? That's pretty much what I was looking for.

Can we ever get this video released again?

Yup, like vinegar instead of wine.

This thread aged well.

If Nadal can make it past the first week, he's got a great shot at winning it again.

Was the penitentiary a popular hangout spot?

How about actually coming to New York and trying New York style pizza?

Natural Gut if she doesn't shank much.

Poetic ending. Backhand winner down the line for the cup.

Snake Bite was no bueno for my first two hitting sessions, good for sessions 3 and 4 and dead afterwards.

How is a sliced ball heavy? Faster maybe.......

Also factor in the accelerated racket warping of restringing just crosses, if you believe it damages the racket.

Steam 99S will change your playstyle in one respect, you won't finish points from the baseline as much. However, you will get a lot more short balls / chance balls that you can move up in order to finish the point or volley away for a winner.

I play with a poly Steam 99S but switch to a PT630 strung with gut on my off days.....I guess it's the opposite of what you're asking.

Textbooks of course. But then again, expressions were never written unambiguously. Neither does quoting examples that only have context instead of examples that say evaluate expression with no other supporting context. You're also looking for the wrong thing. What you want to look for are...

With context sure. Without context, still no.

These are the last two points I have no addressed yet. I'm not sure what 4(3) = (4x3) = 4x3 is supposed to argue. I don't know if you're trying to tell me that my previous inequality was not valid. Please clarify. With regards to your 1 / 2y point in a book, there's is most likely a whole...

Also, you are given clear context in each example as what is clearly in the numerator, and what is in the denominator. These forms are not ambiguous and are easily evaluated. There is no need for any implications, because any implications are already given to you. The expressions highlighted in...

48/2(9+3) = 48/2*(9+3) = 48*(1/2)*(9+3) = 288 48/2(9+3) != 48*(1/(2(9+3)) because that involves, once again, parentheses around 2(9+3) which does not exist. And, no you cannot insert or imply parentheses in that case, because it trumps multiplication in the order of pemdas. Same arguments...

It has to do with context again. If your starting point is to do with n/n, then you obviously intend 1n / 1n = n/n. That's accepted. Let me rephrase to be clear. No one has ever made the argument, n / n = (1n) / (1n) = (((1xn)/1)xn) = n^2. We clearly see the intention, when you start off with...

Of course it isn't the same thing, you're inserting an operator with greater precedence than the expression you're replacing. You're pretty much willfully violating pemdas. 12 / 4 * 3 != 12 / (4 * 3) That much should be obvious.

It was a tongue in cheek reply to a badly written expression. If you want to try to illustrate a point, please use latex notation to express the expressions you want me to evaluate using pemdas. That way I can see exactly what you want me to evaluate. Implied parentheses from factoring is the...

I didn't like my experience with 30 lbs TB19. Much too powerful. I played with 30 lbs BHBR 17, which was slightly better but only for the first hitting session.

I think the racket will work well for your type of player.

I bench 405 and serve at 60 mph.

What type of player are you?

Except my friend doesn't hit with a lot of spin.......

Will the poly mains still slide on the syn gut crosses in the 99LS?