Discussion in 'Pros' Racquets and Gear' started by johncauthen, Jan 22, 2006.
Can you serve with that? How is the top spin?
500 replies?! When is it going to stop?
^ "If" you can't stand it, then why don't YOU just "simply" take a hike?
Yeah, 16.2 ouces is serious mass.
I talked a little bit with john but I I guess he is really busy, I asked him about the weights and did not hear back from him.
I am about to try some different stringings and a full mod on the 200gxl, I am going to send 4 rackets in to get strung.
One thing that he told me was that if your racket squashe out you can tell by if you pull down hard on the bottom three crosses as it will pull the crosses tight agian, and if it hits better then your corsses had stretched too much
I tryed this on the POG and it fixed it but really you need to re-tie the knot to keep that.
As for my LMPmp that has been hitting like crap especially due to the string and bad stringing.
When I pulled on those strings I saw my racket move, I just caught it out of the corner of my eye as I was looking just at the bottom string as I was pushing them down really hard.
I scared me a bit and the racket looked a little bit different, but it hit a lot better.
One thing I am wondering is why do the crosses stretch so much? and the racket sqaushes while the mains don't?
yes I can serve, the first is a bomb, and the second serve take the spin very very easy, the kick on the ad court have a high bounce.
Three weeks of practice and I have found the right swing for the service.
Do you get tired fast?
I can use it for a mach of 1,5 hours, but i'm trained. Last four months I was usually play every day for an hour. Problably for who play twice a week this weight is too much.
Yesterday for two turn of service I have done two ace and six winner and my opponent say to me: "your serve is fantastic"
did you mod that 6.3 yet, I am waiting for another racket and then I will send 4 rackets in to be strung.
^ Hey, Jack, why did you quote that particular post of mine?
Anyways, not yet. It's arriving today, as a matter of fact. I'm modding it this evening and then play testing tomorrow morning. Should be fun. I'm getting a 200G as well.
Oh sorry I just picked one really quick
John is not replying
A 200g what?
What string and tension are you going to use, I am going all the way so then I have a good starting point and perhaps it will be just right.
No biggy. It would have been funny if I had been swearing at that guy and then you quoted that post to ask me a question.
Yeah. I have no idea what John's been up to. I used to see him logged online, even at times when he wasn't posting, but now, I haven't seen or heard from him at all. I haven't received the weights from him either. In the mean time, I'm just gonna shape my own tapered weight. If and when I receive his weight, I'll compare it to the ones that I made. I'm just curious as to how he "fine-tunes" the shape/mass etc., that's all.
I'll probably be getting the 200G XL, and then cut off the ½" as well. Before adding any weights to that frame, I'd like to first cut off the ½", and then have the swing measured on a machine, that way I'll be able to calculate the increases in SW as I add on more and more weight, fine-tuning the frame. The 200G is a nice flexy thin beam. Seems nice at least.
Ping Putter and John Cauthen
So for goodness sake, find a backer and open your own shop. If it fails you can always get another job doing what you are doing now. If you are successful, you will make a small fortune. It's called Capitalism and the free market.
I enjoyed reading this thread. I did not get thru all 36 pages but enough to go thru first thinking John is nuts to then thinking he is on to something. Equipment suppliers are about making money, so maybe John has something the MBAs are ignoring.
And they are. In golf about 30 years ago, Karsten Solheim came out with the Ping putter. It put weight at the ends of the blade and it became one of the biggest successes in sport equipment history. It evolved into the perimeter weighting idea for irons. It seems to me that John's recommendations for weight at the top of the handle and at the top of the racquet is the SAME idea applied to a tennis racquet. Now if only John had some good business advice, he would be wealthy by now.
Maybe it is not too late.
Question for TennisAsAlways
I have followed this thread with a lot of interest and wondered how the placement of weight on the handle - say five inches from the butt affects the sweet spot?
I didn't want you to get too pleased with yourself. I actually have both a Bachelors, and Masters degree. The pro shop gig is something I do for fun. As far as Prince's data and specs are concerned, they may be correct and you may agree with them. I still feel you need to bring some of your own power when playing with the 03 Tour mid and midplus. By the way Mace, what particular racket are you playing with? I'd also be interested in knowing what racket does Wilson CURRENTLY make, that uses the power holes technology? Please answer that question.
Well, "assuming" that the way you would hold the raquet handle, the axis of rotation would be "below" that 5" mark. What would happen if you were to add mass at the 5" mark is that the center of percussion (Corresponding to the A.O.R. where you would be holding the handle, beneath the 5" mark) would be shifted lower towards the butt end cap. The C.O.P. sweet spot would essentially be shifted lower.
Thank you for your reply.
I am not particularly pleased or not pleased with any post on here. I know you are an educated person.
I play with an nBlade 98 custom weighted by me. It is around 12 oz. I have it strung with NXT Tour mains and BB Rough crosses. The accuracy makes the 03 Tour look like a spraying cannon by comparison.
Not sure if Wilson makes it now but check the link for the Hyper Hammer 4.3 with Power Holes http://*******sports.com/product.as...4.3+Oversize+Tennis+Racquet+&bhcd2=1144821539
Volkl had "Classic Big Grommet" that disappeared. It was a funnel shaped grommet.
My main point: Look down inside any of the holes in any of the racquets with holes. What do you see in there? You see a string that is anchored to one spot and cannot move, then the string goes across the racquet and into the other hole to a point which it is anchored and cannot move. The operation of the string is exactly like a conventional grommet. With a conventional grommet, the string is totally free out side of the anchor point and all the way across the racquet. If you can't see this, I can't help you.
I agree with you that the holes may survive, not because they work, but because people will vote with their money on if it survives.
Hey john your saying that if we email you, you'll distribute your weighting system to us? Does it work on a Head Flexpoint Prestige or Liquidmetal Radical?
A few weeks ago, I decided to send out weights to anyone who asked. This is the ultimate test for my ideas.
I had a spike-shaped weight; I had worked out how to make them perform correctly, then discovered a new feature that I added to the shape, changing it to a bell-shaped curve. The shape is everything.
I spent a lot of time getting familiar with a new shape to send the best I had out to the people who asked. That put me under the gun. I was not ready to send out a new shape; I was ready to send out the old shape. But even bad versions of the new shape worked better than the old shape.
I sent out some bell-shaped weights that were light. I didn't get any response, except from TAA who was expecting something heavier, and didn't particularly like it.
So rather than talking, I got back to work on it, to get more famliar with it. I am beginning to get the new weight to a place I am comfortable and familiar with. I can send you one.
My email address is firstname.lastname@example.org. Anyone who sends their address will get a weight, unless I get swamped with requests.
I have a racquet for TAA with a weight. It seems like something he will be impressed by. It suits his style and his theories.
The base of the weight is placed four inches from the butt. The top is 8 3/8 inches. The axis of rotation seems perfect. I predict TAA will be blown away by this. The same weight seems to work on any racquet, radically transforming it for the better.
This new weight is much better than anything I've ever had. I found the new shape AFTER I said I would send people weights, which put me far behind the 8-Ball. But this is cutting edge racquet development that is happening right now, and the whole thing, in real time, could prove to be interesting. I haven't written or responed to much because I've been concentrating on the weight. I feel the racquets I am hitting with right now are better than pro racquets, and I am eagerly looking forward to a response from TAA after I send a racquet off to him early next week.
The weight works for sure on Head Radicals, no matter how they are strung.
What about Flexpoint Prestiges, with all the specs it has?
Happy Easter John and all!
random... but you too
I've never tried it on a FXP Prestige. It probably would work.
What I have done is, I had a weight both I and another player liked. I gave it to him, then didn't see him for two weeks. In that time, I tried to make a weight like the one he had on his racquet. The direction I pursued for that two weeks wasn't right.
When I saw him again, I could see why he liked his weight and why the weights I was making, that I had sent out, weren't right.
Almost a year ago, I discovered the advantage of a long tapered weight. I said, "I need experience with a lot of racquets." I went to the tennis shop to demo a racquet, to get experience and try my tapered weight on a lot of racquets. Don was swamped and no one was there but him, so I offered to help him string that day. I started stringing for Don, which lasted nine months. I got exactly the experience I needed, and became familiar with every racquet.
I kept making my stringing technique better. Last November, an underdog girl won the 4A high school tournament with one of my string jobs. People continually commented they had never played better than with my stringing. As I perfected my techniques, and people liked them, Don and I had a falling out over my methods, which were different from his.
I had a lot of success stringing, but all that time, I had never modified a racquet with one of my weights that anyone liked, except for a very good junior from Connecticut. But I could see the advantages of it. I could see the tapered shape was going to work.
Through the Internet, I hoped to get a job with someone and work out the problems I was having with fellow racquet technitions. I had success two years ago with average players, by modifying a light-headed Babolat VS Drive. But with typical racquets, I never had much success, then I said I would send out my weights. Good players liked the handle weights. Most players didn't. The weight made the racquets feel heavier. Average players always said it hit better, but they couldn't handle the extra weight. I knew pros were using this kind of weighting, but amateurs couldn't buy it. It didn't seem like racquets were being made that were light enough in the head. I hoped to work with Prince, to modify the rest of the racquet to fit the weight.
With the track record of having no real success with my weight for nine months with regular customers, I said I would send people my weights: a amazingly bold, but dumb idea. Then I discovered an addition to the shape! With the new shape, and for the first time (this was after I had committed to sending out weights) an average player using the new shape said his Aero Drive felt lighter.
And raved about how he played with it. That was my first real success.
I didn't see him for two weeks, but sent out the new shape based on that success. When I saw him again, I realized my theory for why the new weight worked was wrong, and the weights I had sent out were not quite right; but I realized why his weight worked. With his weight that I made, and his racquet in my apartment to copy, I have made new weights in the last few days. They are good. I may have finally done it. I made a weight that can turn just about any racquet into a pro racquet without making the racquet feel heavier.
You can try it. Send your mailing address to email@example.com and request a weight.
After reading the majority of this thread, I wrapped a bunch of lead tape around the top 1/3 of my handle. I played 3 sets with my usual partner, and honestly, I noticed absolutely nothing special. It wasn't some miracle setup as has been advertised here, at least for me. I removed it after my match, and now I can sleep better knowing that my current setup (with tape at 2 and 10 and in the butt) is just fine and needs not be screwed with.
Results may vary for you, I'm just stating my experience.
I described how important the precise shape is. Putting weight in the head, and at the butt is much less critical. Putting it in the head makes for a head heavy racquet, or in the butt makes a racquet that is heavy and solid, but not efficient.
The Hammer System, which has a lot of weight above your hand, and below nine inches from the butt is notably efficient. Tennis improved dramatically since the Wilson Hammer System. But there is a move to get rid of the Hammer System. Wilson was bought out; Jim Baugh, who created the Hammer System resigned; and the Hammer name was discontinued. Those were radical moves, discontinuing a #1 seller!
But Wilson and Babolat were then embarassed, coming out with racquets, giving them to pros, Roddick and the Williams sisters, that were weighted differently from the Hammer System, and those players had bad losses, embarrassing the players, and tennis itself. Babolat, and all racquet companies had adopted Hammer System weighting over the past 17 years. But some people passionately believe it destroys the game, and want to go back to ineffcient racquets.
The Hammer System has not been fully explained to people. They don't know what it is. The Profile was a racquet with weight removed from the handle and added to the middle. The Profile was not a success. I want to bring a light to the Hammer System by getting the shape of the Hammer System weighting precisely right, creating racquets that will blow your mind with performance and comfort. These racquets will feel like the best wooden racquets, and like the most efficient graphite racquets at the same time.
The place where these modern racquets make the game shine is in doubles. Singles has become noticeably different. It is arguably better, arguably worse; but the game of men's doubles has become downright entertaining in the last few years, with modern racquets.
The reason is doubles is played on a court that is easier to cover. We need to talk about a narrower singles court and shorter matches.
The racquets have made singles more athletic, but nade it grueling to the point of being an extended from of pain. People turn on the TV to see tired, injured athletes battling for hours. It looks painful. The athletes in other sports don't look like they are in pain, except running, which only lasts a few minutes. Boxing lasts 30 minutes, for ten rounds. Tennis lasts hours. People who complain bitterly about these modern racquets, which are based on the more efficient Hammer System have a point: the racquets have made singles less elegant, more painful, with more injuries. But we need to change singles court dimensions and scoring, not go back to the old, inefficient racquets.
Doubles is more exciting and elegant because of these racquets. The difference is less court to cover and another person helping. Rather than losing sleep worrying about the racquets, we need to make singles matches shorter, and make the court easier to cover; then, top players will not be injured and can play tennis for more people.
You can't just wrap lead tape around the top of the handle. The shape of the weight has to be precise. But the real reason you can sleep better is because you can believe these racquets don't work and aren't really changing tennis. But they work, and are changing tennis.
Most players haven't gotten them, yet.
What significance does your reply have concerning to Mr Normrose? Nothing. He asked me a question and I already answered it.
Plus, what you have experimented has no value whatsoever. I'm under the impression that you simply "slapped on" lead here and there at "random" locations, acting as if you had "strategically" placed mass in "ideal" points, when in fact everything was done so in a non-calculative manner.
What do you know about pendulum dynamics, long string length vs short string length acceleration speed, beam dynamics, impact reactive forces, vibrational nodal points, etc.? No one here (i.e., John Cauthen) is talking about "Mickey Mouse" experients, such as what you "seem" to have done/been doing. Plus, how much time and effort did you put into your experiments? (rhetorical). Even "IF" you spent a lot of time, that alone doesn't have any value, unless you actually understand the physical dynamical properties of beams.
What you may have done is the equivalent to someone just stringing a guitar and expecting it to sound good. It's not going to "sound" good unless you have it "tuned" perfectly, and also, you have to be able to "play" it very well!
I wouldn't expect a beginner and/or pusher to be able to tell the difference between "fine-tuned" frames vs "other" frames.
Man, who pissed in your wheaties? It was no "mickey mouse" experiment, as you call it. I set-up my racquet exactly to Mr. Cauthen's specs from the following statement.
C'mon, honestly, how can you not chuckle when reading a statement like that? Does Mr. Cauthen really believe this hogwash he is spewing? Can a racquet "ruin" the game? What if everyone had this racquet? Wouldn't the game be improved, since everyone with this racquet would be able to hit cleaner, crisper, more powerful shots? Sounds like an improvement to the game, not a decline. But I digress....
I humbly apologize for replying to a question directed toward to you. You're right, my post had little significance to his question, other than it sounded like a good question to hit the "quote" button and throw in my 2 cents regarding this topic.
Fact is, I don't know why you're so defensive. I was only listing my experience with setting up my racquet to his specs. If my results don't satisfy you, I'm sorry. I'm just telling it how it is... for me!
And thank you for insulting my intelligence and my tennis game. Your arrogance gives you even less credibility now.
ps-John, maybe you're right that the shape of the weight on the handle makes all the difference. Unfortunately, I don't have a spiked shape weight, so lead tape had to suffice. If it's more about the shape of the weight and not so much about the racquet specs, then my experiment and my post can be ignored by all TW.com users. We'll let them decide if they want to believe a minor difference in the shape of the weight on the handle is going to make a profound difference in the overall feel of the racket. Good day, now.
Wow, it's you who's over-reacting. You're the one who is thinking that I'm defensive.
For one thing, I never said that your experiment was "Mickey Mouse". Go back and reread things, word-for-word. Geez.
As far as being defensive, there's nothing that directly implies that. I clearly stated that "IF" (I even had the word "if" in quotation marks in the previous post, plus used the words "may" and "seem" several times) your experiements were to be half-arsed than you can not compare it accurately to John's concept; that if that were so, then your findings would have no relevance.
It is YOU who is taking things negatively. You seem more like the defensive one. That is all.
That's right... you said it "seemed" mickey mouse. Any way you word it, your comment was aimed to discredit me, as if I didn't have a clue what I was doing. That "seems" to be your niche in this thread. As soon as someone comes along who doesn't see amazing results, you "seem" to belittle them by "apparently" questioning their knowledge of basic principles of physics, which by the way, my education and occupation forces me to know a little something about.
All I wanted to add to this thread was my experience. From your point of view, since I didn't see dramatically improved results, it must be my fault. From my point of view, slightly altering the moment of inertia on my racket did nothing to improve the feel of my racket. But hey, if it works for you, go for it! We'll just agree to disagree.
john... can you make me a weight that would be sufficient for a ntour 90 without making it too heavy?
If that's what you want to believe, go right on ahead. No one's stopping you.
Seems to be my niche? All I've done was questioned people who've "flamed" John. Those of which had either nothing to contribute or bashed him, rather than "asking" him to elaborate his claims/theories/speculations.
I play like you with a Pro Kennex 5G.
Would you mind writting me few lines about how you did it and your experience with this racquet?
Unfortunatelly I don't have the time to read 36 pages here to have a real understanding of this system.
........did 'you' all see this post at another thread :
'.......Okay, not to rub it in, but I have one of Tommy's personal frames.
Here are some interesting tidbits about it. The butt cap is all black (4 5/ and appears to be Head (without the logo of course) - definitely Head shaped, but there are no pallets underneath. Underneath the Tournagrip was a Gamma Hi-Tech synthetic grip. Underneath the Hi-Tech grip was a good bit of lead wrapped around the very top of the handle. There also was a couple wraps of bike tape at the very bottom of the butt cap, nothing like what Kafelnikov or Srichaphan build it up, in fact it was so slight, not sure if it really made any difference. Lots of lead running from 2 to 4 and 10 to 8 on the insides of the frame. Racket was strung with Babolat VS Team 130 gut, the sticker on the inside of the throat read 34/32. If that is kilos then it equates to about 75 and 70.5 lbs of tension. Without strings, lead tape, and overgrip, the racket weighs about 11.7 ounces, so approx. 12.5 ounces before the lead goes on. The paintjob is not an exact replica of the factory paintjob (there are no grey patches at 3 & 9 o'clock). Also, the middle section of the racket (from 2/3 up the throat to the throat bridge itself) has a matte type paint finish to it (the rest of the frame is regular gloss) - this section is similar to the "mid-section" texture of the old Muscle Weave paint scheme. In fact, there are "rings" that section off this part of the frame. TOMMY HAAS is painted on the throat bridge of the frame.
I will be getting this strung later this week and then can report on how she hits. Obviousy this is a thinner beam frame that is no where near as thick as the factory 300.......'
----------very interesting !!!!!!!
John, Have you tried anything to improve the performance of Pro Kennex 5G racquets?
thanks in advance if you can pass your comments here !!!
Please, make it stop... aaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrgggggggggg...
That was a good question, and it goes to the heart of the matter.
I said doubles has been noticeably improved by the new racquets. Yet, if you watched the US Clay Courts Doubles, you saw the Bryan brothers lose early, and the finals were boring, because the racquets weren't up to the normal standard. The Bryan brothers usually have extra-good racquets. This time, their racquets weren't as good. Maybe someone decided the racquets are bad for the game and they downgraded the Bryan's racquets to more typical setups: thinking, "They're good, they can win with anything."
No. The truth is, the Bryans are marketable, and they were given the extra good racquets so they would win. Without those extra good racquets, they lose in the second round, and then, the Final was boring.
Most pros have racquets with extra weight at the top of the handle, but their racquets are not as good.
But adding a lot of lead tape to an old 12.5 ounce Dunlop Muscle Weave 200G creates a heavy racquet. That racquet in particular has a good quick response, but it's heavy. I remember the best tennis shot I ever hit was with a modified Muscle Weave 200G. It was one of those shots that stick in your head: the opponent hit a hard shot at point blank range, and I hit it back, because the racquet reacted perfectly. I never had another racquet that reacted that naturally. It was five or six years ago. All those racquets I modified that way were too heavy, and regular players didn't like them. I couldn't sell them, but pros experiment with and use that weighting system.
Later I modified a superlight, light-headed VS Drive the same way, and regular players liked it. That frame had already been discontinued, I still couldn't sell them.
Yesterday, I had my friend's Aero Pro with the latest super-efficient shaped weight that I made. I was hitting shots as hard as I could at the wall, from 4 feet away; and with seemingly all kinds of time, hitting them back. The racquet weighs 365 grams and has a balance point of 30.5. The exact shape of the weight is what makes it work. It feels as good as the VS Drive modifed with a less efficient shape from three years ago.
The owner of that Aero Pro is a regular player who likes that modified racquet. I think I've taken an available racquet and made it the best that a tennis racquet can be, similar to the racquets the Bryan brothers usually play with.
I have the weights I am using, and can send them to anyone. I'm not guaranteeing they will work on your racquets, but I am getting them to work.
Hey John, Wondering if you could send me some of your weighting info. What kind of racquet should I check out as a starting frame? I'm about to get a new batch of frames and liked the heft of the nTour 90 from Wilson, though adding excess weight to this stick would make it too heavy.
How about the Dunlop mFil 300 as a base?
Not trying to prove you wrong John, but it really takes away from your arguments, if you describe the rackets as "Extra-Good"
Nevertheless,I still wanna try it out. I E-mailed you
JOHNCAUTHEN: please e-mail me at Tigerarp11@yahoo.com
I would like to talk to you about some of the stuff you have been posting.
Finally, seems like someone's going to put this guy in his place!
The nTour 90
I had an eye-opening experience when I tried modifying an nTour 90 by stretching the head, which works for most racquets. I realized the high location of the stringbridge caused it to feel equally good if stretched or not stretched.
I realized this was the secret to the Pro Staff 85. The secret is a higher stringbridge. If you make the stringbridge a little higher than on a Six-One 95, you get the Pro Staff 85 feel.
The eye-opening experience was when I tried the nTour 90 next to the Hammer 6.3. I discovered they had exactly the same personality. The Hammer 6.3 was a light version of the nTour 90. They both felt the same, but the Hammer was lighter.
Because of the location of the stringbridge, the stretched nTour 90 didn't perforn any better or any worse than the unstretched version of the nTour 90. And I've found the same to be true for the Head Prestige.
Because of the higher stringbridge location, the heads of the nTour 90 and Hammer 6.3 can be stretched or not stretched, and players like them, whereas stretching the head of a mFil 300 (27.0 inch) about 1/8 inch or more dramatically improves it. The same is true for all Babolats.
I prefer stretching the head of the Hammer 6.3, but the nTour 90 is so heavy, it works best as it is. The amazing thing is they are essentially the same racquet, they have the same feel.
I started to notice Federer uses a racquet with rounded edges, as well as a racquet with square edges. The Hammer 6.3 and nTour 90 have the same feel, but the Hammer, being equally powerful, especially when modified like I do, is much lighter.
They have the exact same feel and Federer seems to be using two different racquets: one with rounded edges, and one with square edges. The two racquets are also different colors.
How does that relate to setting up an nTour 90? First, the nTour 90 isn't improved dramatically by stretching it because the stringbridge is high enough so it acts like part of the top of the head. The stringbridge location is most of the secret to the "Pete Sampras PS 85", and the "Safin Prestige": the two racquets that produce the highest level of tennis we've seen. The Federer nTour 90 and possibly some kind of secret Hammer 6.3 mutation that Federer is using produce the same performance. The Hammer 6.3 that we have available to us is the racquet with the most potential, when modified.
This would be a wonderful product for TW to offer; if I can show my ideas work.
The nTour 90 has a lot of weight everywhere in the frame. You shouldn't add weight to it, or stretch it. So that's the answer to how to modify an nTour 90. Don't modify that racquet. Modify a Hammer 6.3 by stringing the cross strings tighter and putting weight at the top of the grip. You get a better version of the nTour 90. Maybe that is what Wilson is working on right now with Federer and a new racquet that hasn't been revealed yet.
And the dark truth that we know is, they may never offer it, keeping it a secret. Why are all these pro racquets different from the racquets we have? Wouldn't it be good to offer a product that is close to what a pro actually uses? I have a Hammer 6.3, and now a Aero Pro Drive that fit the bill.
I have some great hitting racquets, but don't want to claim I have the answers. I discover things that work, and wish I could work with someone big, so we can try them together.
I am working hard on the weights to get them perfect. It's a big challenge to create a universal weight, but I might actually succeed.
Hey, johncauthen fans, don't hate me for trying to have a little fun
A disclaimer attempt I see.
Failed attempt I see...
You guys are too uptight and all defensive about this whole deal... Bah, carry on with your mysterious raquet tuning discussions...
johncauthen how would you modify the Wilson Blaze Hammer? I think Im going to add a little lead to the 12 oclock position adn just above the grip, any specfic suggestions?
Head Size:95 sq. in. / 613 sq. cm.
Length: 27.25 inches / 69 cm
Strung Weight: 9.7oz / 275g
Balance: 7 pts Head Heavy
Power Level: Low
Swing Speed: Fast
String Tension: 50-60 pounds
Wow! Dude, you are the one being uptight here. You think I was taking any offense to your so-called "humor"? (Rhetorical) (Yes, I have to write "rhetorical" in parenthesis because sometimes people actually "answer" my rhetorics.) Carry on.
BTW John, I have excellent feedback that I will post later on in the "other" thread. Back to the courts (while the sun's still up).
LOL! (rhetorically) :mrgreen:
Separate names with a comma.