workerONE
New User
I would prefer the 343g option, it's a good weight without being heavy, and it would have a balance point that is close to my preference.
Who Cares about Recoil Weight?
- Thread starter Brando
- Start date
Brando
Professional
My short answer to your question, @devoker, is that’s too close a call for anyone but you to make. I’ll only add that, while the spec difference between these two setups is small, they’ll FEEL noticeably different. If you’re after a smidge more power, I’d go with the 161rw option and its heavier weight and higher MgR/I. For a bit more maneuverability, I’d go with the 162rw option.
Either way, I think 335sw is a good max swingweight to set for yourself since TWU Prof. Lindsey’s research suggests that anything above 340sw slows racquet speed enough to slow ball speed for most players.
Either way, I think 335sw is a good max swingweight to set for yourself since TWU Prof. Lindsey’s research suggests that anything above 340sw slows racquet speed enough to slow ball speed for most players.
Yesterday, I noticed something which I haven't thought before. I noticed the weight of the racquet increased almost 5 g and I was sure there was no extra weight added. Then I noticed the overgrip was soaking wet after playing for couple hours. It seems that the sweat added almost 5g (I am using a dry absorbent grip). I calculated the swingweight, static, and recoil weight again and the sweat adds +2.5 recoil weight 
2 days later, the grip has dried a bit and now it is +1 g.
Probably very hard to notice the difference as it gradually builds up during play but I found it very interesting.
2 days later, the grip has dried a bit and now it is +1 g.
Probably very hard to notice the difference as it gradually builds up during play but I found it very interesting.
Is that because low mgr/I setups are harder to swing and a lot more demanding.
I am noticing the same between my two racquets, same swingweight and recoil weight, 1st one is heavier but 20.72 mgr/I and the other one is 5g lighter but 20.54 mgr/I. The lighter one feels much harder to swing although it is lighter.
Brando
Professional
Theoretically, @devoker, if you have two racquets of equal SW and RW, the one that's (5g) lighter with a lower (20.54) MgR/I should be easier to swing, not harder. So what's with the fact that you experience the opposite? The answer may be in what you mean by, "much harder to swing."
What does harder-to-swing mean to you? In general it means clunkier: slower and less maneuverable. Is that what you're experiencing? If so, how exactly does the easier racquet feel easier? Is the difference across-the-board or on specific strokes? And are the weights you're trying here close to what you're used to playing, or are they significantly heavier or lighter? I'm fascinated to hear.
Whatever your answers, I suggest that you follow the direction you experience versus the one you "should." It's been said that my RW Table is too specific. I get that objection. My answer is in the OP; the table's a starting point, not an end point. Yes, it's designed to give one a very specific starting point. But don't we want that when we're exploring, if only as a point of reference to return to, a place on a map? I do. And, as you're discovering, even the same recoil weight can feel noticeably different when you're changing up 2 of the Big-3 specs. (And I applaud that, in this way, you're using the table as it was intended to be used.)
Given that so many combinations can reach any one RW or RW range, it's actually useful to have a road on which to explore new territory. If the RW road is telling you to go with more mass that's weighted more toward the handle, then I say go that direction. But do be aware that sometimes the "harder" swinging racquet may turn out to produce better results. So give yourself time to get used to a setup before abandoning or adopting it. When I first switched to a 333g, 32cm, 331sw setup from 325g, 32.4cm, 333sw, the extra 8g felt harder to swing. It still does. But I discovered that I play more dynamically with it because it forces me to.
Re. added handle weight from sweat soaking into an OG, yes! I've measured much the same change for myself, and yet, have not heard it discussed before. It means that over a 2 hour match on a hot humid day, one's RW can increase by 2 RW-points. That's a noticeable difference that could indeed affect your play.
What does harder-to-swing mean to you? In general it means clunkier: slower and less maneuverable. Is that what you're experiencing? If so, how exactly does the easier racquet feel easier? Is the difference across-the-board or on specific strokes? And are the weights you're trying here close to what you're used to playing, or are they significantly heavier or lighter? I'm fascinated to hear.
Whatever your answers, I suggest that you follow the direction you experience versus the one you "should." It's been said that my RW Table is too specific. I get that objection. My answer is in the OP; the table's a starting point, not an end point. Yes, it's designed to give one a very specific starting point. But don't we want that when we're exploring, if only as a point of reference to return to, a place on a map? I do. And, as you're discovering, even the same recoil weight can feel noticeably different when you're changing up 2 of the Big-3 specs. (And I applaud that, in this way, you're using the table as it was intended to be used.)
Given that so many combinations can reach any one RW or RW range, it's actually useful to have a road on which to explore new territory. If the RW road is telling you to go with more mass that's weighted more toward the handle, then I say go that direction. But do be aware that sometimes the "harder" swinging racquet may turn out to produce better results. So give yourself time to get used to a setup before abandoning or adopting it. When I first switched to a 333g, 32cm, 331sw setup from 325g, 32.4cm, 333sw, the extra 8g felt harder to swing. It still does. But I discovered that I play more dynamically with it because it forces me to.
Re. added handle weight from sweat soaking into an OG, yes! I've measured much the same change for myself, and yet, have not heard it discussed before. It means that over a 2 hour match on a hot humid day, one's RW can increase by 2 RW-points. That's a noticeable difference that could indeed affect your play.
Has anyone figured out a formula to estimate twistweight based on head size, static weight, SW & balance? I'm pretty sure that it's possible to estimate within a respectable range based on the other specs. Any thoughts? Trying to see what kind of twistweight is average for a pro/high level spec.
Last edited:
That's not something you can estimate by just looking at those specs (although they are correlated somehow, any estimation can be so far off from the actual). It all depends on the weight disribution and needs to be measured.
I'll make a separate thread on this to not derail the discussion on recoil weight
Last edited:
Just an update on this. I have two racket's matched to the same static weight, SW and balance. The first one has a twistweight of 13.4 and the other one has a twisteight of 13.9
I realized that I don't mind the difference because sometimes I do prefer the lower TW one and vice versa depending on the opponent. I always thought I needed all my rackets to be exactly the same, but I am moving away from this concept and realizing that there's always going to be slight variance between rackets.
Mind expanding on this? Under what scenarios and/or against which types of opponents / balls to you prefer higher or lower TW, and why? Thanks in advance!
dr. godmode
Hall of Fame
Jumping back into this thread after a considerable absence as I've been a very crazy setup to huge success, and I just wanted you to know, Brando.
320g
34.2cm
337SW
150RW
20.46mgri
Pretty massive departure from my usual 343g | 31.6cm | 331 SW | 171 RW | 20.7 MGR/i.
I think the interesting semantic discussion is about "easy." The 320g racquet is quite easy to swing fast. Low static, tiny RW, pretty whippy mgr/i. However, it is NOT easy to swing accurately. I need way more time on returns and it's tremendously challenging to time shots if I'm rushed. As soon as I have a second to breathe, it's game over from my opponent though.
My feelings about high vs low mgri are that higher mgr/i are a lot easier to time which makes them feel easy to use. You could say, it's easy to swing and find success. Low mgri would be easier to accelerate, but harder to find success with.
You will find middle gound like I did...330gram, 32.2 -32.5 cm,,160rw, 333 sw
Yes, that was exactly what I was talking about. High mgr/I one feels heavy at first but it feels easier to position for contact.
Youngheart
Semi-Pro
Okay, now you've really done it!! This stuff is so interesting, that I've stayed up way too late tonight!!
And to think,... all these years, my wife insisted that "recoil weight" was the upper boundary of weight
where she was sure to recoil in horror, usually after an all-you-can-eat pizza party. Never too late to learn!
------ So Be It ⚜ ------ Uhhh, if you're not going to eat that last slice,..........
And to think,... all these years, my wife insisted that "recoil weight" was the upper boundary of weight
where she was sure to recoil in horror, usually after an all-you-can-eat pizza party. Never too late to learn!
------ So Be It ⚜ ------ Uhhh, if you're not going to eat that last slice,..........
I'm still in the testing phase, however the main advantage of a lower twistweight racket is it's easier to not overhit. This is good if you are playing an opponent who runs down a lot of balls and relies on consistency. The downside is the torsional stability isn't as great and this is noticeable if you play someone who can rush you where as you might leave a few balls shorter than normal. It's also easier to find the extremities of the court.
The higher twistweight racket hits a flatter ball and you can play closer to the baseline. I find this set-up to work really well against serve & volley type of players where the points are short. The downside is that there can be a tendency to overhit if you don't properly set-up (balls going long) so if I was playing someone who wasn't pressuring me in the first 2-3 shots it may not be worth it.
My go-to right now is to start with the lower twistweight, and if I lose the first set rather easily (like 1-6 or 2-6) I'll switch to the higher TW one for the second set.
For practice I like the lower twistweight because it's easier to manuver and I'm not under a lot of pressure during a practice session.
Good stuff. Made me think about the opponents I've played lately, and it mostly lines up. Though I did think about an opponent who is a dual threat -- he both gets to a lot of balls and tends to take my time away. Versus such a player, what would you typically choose? Me, I would probably take the higher twist-weight frame at perhaps a bit lighter spec than what I might otherwise, and couple it with the highest-tension, grippiest string bed necessary to get enough shot curvature, without compromising too much on effortless depth.
That's a good question. If I was mainly losing points from coughing up short balls I would use the higher TW racket. If I was losing points from hitting too many errors then probably the lower TW one.
As far as choosing a higher twistweight frame at a lighter spec, I'm finding this difficult with a 95. (Which explains why most players opt for 98-100 sq inch rackets) When you keep adding twistweight to a 95 it's easy for the static weight to get too high (like into the 350g+ territory) because 1g at 3 & 9 doesn't change the TW on a 95 as much as it would on a 100.
I'm still doing experiments on which one I serve better with. So far I'm preferring the lower twistweight frame as it works better for my motion & mechanics. It's easier to pronate. I wish there was an objective way to keep track of serve stats with each frame.
Part of me is almost like, just get the recoil weight you want (~160) and if the twistweight is too low then just change to a larger headsize, which is probably a easier way to figure out what you like but that would require money.
What exactly are the specs you are playing with in these examples, weight, balance, sw and tw?
Yonex Vcore SV 95
Racket #1 - 343g, 32.3 bal, 329 SW, 13.4 TW, 158 RW, 21 MGR/I
Racket #2 - 343g, 32.3 bal, 329 SW, 13.9 TW, 158 RW, 21 MGR/I
Racket #3 - 343g, 32.1 bal, 329 SW, 13.6 TW, 161 RW, 20.9 MGR/I
I've been testing racket #1 and 2 for the difference in TW.
How is the feel? Comparable to another racket? Power?
Brando
Professional
Yes, @wianek, adding weight to a racquet, especially weight above the handle, effectively decreases its RA. Stringing too adds flex, dropping RA by ~2 points. (Note that a racquet's posted RA is usually measured strung.) So, in terms of the current discussion, adding twist weight with tape indeed drops RA and makes for a flexier feeling frame.
Brando
Professional
How long have I been trying to turn you to the Light Side, @dr. godmode? I feel a shift in The Force. There’s yet hope for a rebel alliance!
I tried to seduce you into the 330s and here you go slutting around with 320g. Don’t you feel dirty? But seriously, I’m glad to hear you’re enjoying a territory wide open with possibilities because there’s so much more room to play than in the 340s.
My prediction is in line with @maksp‘ s. I think you’ll end up striking gold somewhere between 325-335 grams. We’re the same height and I found a sweetspot at 326g, 32.4cm, 334sw, 170rw, 20.20, 0.523 Pi. Before that, I played the same racquets (360 Radical MPs) at 337sw, too (and 175rw), where I found not only your accuracy issues but also a terminally sluggish net game and an increased error ratio on serve.
What was the reason behind the switch?
I have 2 setups in mind:
357g, 32.6cm, 355sw, 16tw, 20.7mgri, 173rw
351g, 32.3cm, 344sw, 15tw, 20.7mgri, 170rw
Currently i play with the first setup, my style is to hit on the rise and attack forward when the opportunity arises. Would the second setup help with consistency on both the first and second serve, while maintaining enough control from the baseline while playing low margin shots?
357g, 32.6cm, 355sw, 16tw, 20.7mgri, 173rw
351g, 32.3cm, 344sw, 15tw, 20.7mgri, 170rw
Currently i play with the first setup, my style is to hit on the rise and attack forward when the opportunity arises. Would the second setup help with consistency on both the first and second serve, while maintaining enough control from the baseline while playing low margin shots?
dr. godmode
Hall of Fame
Most of it is because I'm just having so much fun with the PA Rafa. My fh is pretty insane, I have noticeable buffs on spin potential, general heaviness and even precision without losing much on that side. The losses come on my BH and returns, but I'm figuring those shots out.
I've been talking a lot to the MP Tennis Youtuber about choosing frames for match wins more and moving away from the macho-ness of racquetaholism where many players like to flex how they use unforgiving frames. I think I've been guilty of this for a while and if I can find repeatable results with a powerful 100 then I'm going to take it.
This has been the best power frame for my game by some margin. I often lose racquet head speed when I spec up the 100s (CX400T, Extreme MP) but this is the first time I've gotten away with high SW + a thick beam without losing RHS, but in this case, I've actually GAINED RHS even though the SW is higher.
I'm pretty confident that I will figure out my BH cross court and returns because those shots have always been the most natural to me and I can feel improvements every hit. It's now been about 2 weeks and the honeymooning is intensifying not fading.
Do you notice a big drop in recoilweight?
dr. godmode
Hall of Fame
Mostly on returns. The old stick can redirect pace with a much more compact swing. When it comes to the purpose of this thread and RW's relationship to one's swing, then not really. I've noticed this before, where higher RW's pull the racquet away from the body, extending the arm during the swing, but the new setup pulls the arm harder than anything I've tried. I think this might be due to the head heavy nature of the frame.
tele
Hall of Fame
I think the effect that strings have on RA is due to the fact that they pull on the hoop rather than the weight they add. AFAIK, although adding weight can dampen vibrations, which could make a frame feel "softer", there would not be a measurable difference in RA just by adding lead tape.
Brando
Professional
Thanks for challenging my thinking on this, @tele. It prompted me to find this 2007 post from @travlerajm, who's done more research on it than I:
tele
Hall of Fame
Interesting find, especially the rod cross paper. However, RA is not measured on a vibrating racquet, so afaik weight would not affect RA even if all the conclusions in the post are correct, which I do not know.
Moreover, if what is being said in this post is correct, adding weight at 3 and 9 (ie mid−hoop) to increase twist weight would not seem to have a pronounced effect on the mid-hoop vibration node location, though it would increase hitting weight, which, according to that post, would seem to increase "dynamic stiffness"
Youngheart
Semi-Pro
I SAY,... ol' chaps Brando and travlerajm,.. "Good show!! Jolly good show!!," (as they said in the famous movie
"Bridge on the River Kwai.") If I may, I speak for the multitudes who read Talk Tennis,
"More! We Want More!!" As one pea in the tennis community of the "pea pod of thousands," I urge you both to keep your ink quills moving!!
Your intelligent writing is expanding our minds. As we speak, my brain now is enlarging from 3 ounces to 4 ounces
Yes, I fondly recall the message handed down from my prehistoric ancestor "Nate-the-Neanderthal." He proclaimed,
"Folks of the South Hamlet, come forth on two prime feet, out of your caves, and discover what is known as tennis!!"
How times change! You could have seen a painting of Nate in the Wimbledon museum, as one of the first tennis men,
but unfortunately his painting was ripped off the wall, buy a gang of soccer thugs who thought a ball had to be kicked!!
------ So Be It ⚜ ------
Way too much analyzing. Yet, of course, the better a player plays, the pickier the player is about the racket used and all elements of the string used. So you can count me as awfully picky. I use the latest Head Radical, a light-weight racket, that Taylor Fritz uses.
Before purchasing five of the rackets, I held the club-demo Radical racket. It felt good. I took a few shadow swings. It felt good. Then I told the stringer to cut out the strings, and I gave him my preferred 18-gauge Technifibre Bi-Phase strings and told the stringer to string the racket at 55 lbs. After the stringing, I tried out the racket playing one of the club instructors. The racket hitting felt perfect for me. The feel of the ball hitting the racket responded the way I intended, both speed and accuracy, on serves, baseline shots, and volleys.
I rarely miss-hit off the sweet spot or stiffen my swing. I miss the days of my opponent with a wooden racket miss-hitting a ball instantly dying without ever climbing over the net, a deserved outcome.
On my end, I need preciseness. My flat forehand and my flat, covering-the-ball one-handed backhand, both with a smooth accelerating finish by a loose grip, provide practically little, or insignificant, topspin. My standard net clearance ranges between six inches and two feet, yet I maintain quality depth while holding to a consistent reminder of making sure the ball clears the net. The reminder applies to practically every rally shot of mine including volleys. (In speedier rallies, I rely on instant instinct to clear the ball over the net).
To be certain, I most always attack without holding back on the swings and volleys, including swinging and half volleys. The delicate drop shot is also an attacking shot but that's another matter of explanation. The same goes for a lob on most occasions, though in my case I rarely resort to lobs or drop shots. Still I intensely practice them to use if a rare moment arises in a match.
Sometimes, however, if an opponent is forced beyond the baseline, I'll respond with a slower driving, low-bouncing shot causing the opponent to chase forward and lunge for the low-bouncing shallow ball, usually, but not always,
off an inside-out forehand near or inside the center baseline, an easy high-percentage shot.
Nevertheless, the Radical racket's biggest test with my preferred strings was on how it would handle my wicked-swinging slice backhand clearing the net by a foot or two and skidding low and deep, requiring even more precision. The Radical passed the test, and I had three of the five rackets strung and have rotated the five rackets in the stringing. All have an exact 4 1/2-inch grip perfectly fitting my somewhat long fingers.
I remain pleased with the Radical in the speed, delicacy, and the accuracy supplied. The racket fits my abilities and tendencies or my nature.
But no racket or strings would provide me any significant improvement without my applying the tennis fundamentals of positioning, composure, intense concentration, and swing motion (to name a few).
Last edited:
Imagine if he had us help him and he actually knew what he was doing...he would really be dangerous
Ha!
This is a forum section about racquets and a topic about recoil weight, so I think he was on topic.
FuzzyYellowBalls
Legend
Legendary post.
"the better a player plays, the pickier the player is about the racket used and all elements of the string used" I am not completely sure about this, but will start a new thread sometime soon.
I'm guessing my level of play exceeds your level, probably by a considerable amount. And that means that I have close associations with high-level players and tour players, several of them highly ranked players of the past.
Still, today, I'm really old, 74, and USTA Training Camp coaches in Florida currently rate me a 5.5. But in my view of my present play, that rating is a half level too high. I certainly don't possess the court coverage, the springy strong legs, or the power (especially on serve) that I had in the past. Painless shoulder arthritis has reduced my service swing speed. Yet my consistency remains as long as I get to and position myself in the chasing after a wide-angle shot.
But now I don't always get to the shot as fast as I did in the past. Recently in a match, my opponent hit a weak shot dropping down at the right corner of the service square, From the left baseline corner, I raced to the ball and with me racket back, I yelled out, "I got it!" signaling that I was about to hit a narrow crosscourt winner. The ball hit the strings of my extended racket, the very top of the strings, and the ball fell dead on my side of the court. I thought I made the distance on time as I had before.
I think the coaches rating me were swayed by, I wasn't dainty 55 years ago and remain daintyless and highly intense on the tennis court, especially against much younger talented male players. I've always worn and still wear custom-fit Rune-tight tennis shorts with pockets. I'm not that far from Rune's 6-2 height, three inches shorter. (If you, the males here, had muscled legs like Rune, you would want to show them off. I have nicely proportioned, slender-tone legs, and the Rune shorts show them off, and the pockets are convenient.)
In the past, I've overheard several tennis fans and players wondering if I'm a Lez. I've been married to one man for 51 years and raised three boys. In the marriage, I never transgressed. And, furthermore, a sexual Lez attraction doesn't exist in me. No matter. The 1960s wondering didn't at all bother me. I get along just fine with Lezes, several of them my best friends.
Nonetheless, I'll return to the topic at hand here. I have no idea what racket polarization is or how it applies. I have no idea what racket recoil is, either. I'll repeat. I put a racket in my hand. If it feels good, I'll take a few shadow swings. If it feels good, I'll give it a court workout with strings and tension of my choice. If then the racket delivers the way I intend, it's a keeper.
In my young days, I played with a Wilson Kramer Autograph wooden racket for many years. It was customized to my liking by the manufacturer, substantially head heavier than the Kramers in retail outlets in order to compliment my strength then and my usual popping serve and volley. However, in the time, I gave a Spalding racket a tryout with gut strings at 61-lb. tension. It performed pretty well, until an overhead practice shot I solidly hit off a back-peddling positioning.
On contact I could feel the throat of the Spalding bend back. Then the racket snapped in two.
The overhead might have been the hardest I ever hit. But I couldn't afford a racket to snap in two during match play. I couldn't afford to worry about whether the Spalding racket would remain whole during a match rally.
What if I cracked a shot or a serve to a blue darter, then the racket snapped in two and the opponent somehow returned the shot. What am I supposed to do with only a headless racket handle in my hand?
Last edited:
I can never criticize or question someone else veering off topic. I'm the queen of rambling sidewise, and I know tennis and me very deeply.
I start a comment on a tennis topic at hand. Then I instantly ramble to me and tennis. Then I twirl back to the topic at hand. Then I often switch back to me and tennis at the end of the comment.
Some find my rambling confusing. Some find my rambling boring and say, "Just say what you mean to say on the topic and then shut up."
I reply, "Random thoughts come into my head faster than my 110-word-per-minute keyboard writing, which should be good news to most readers. If my typing fingers could keep up with my thoughts, there would be more rambling off."
FuzzyYellowBalls
Legend
Thank you for being so candid and interesting! Yes, if your associations are playing on the tour or being a hitting partner with tour players and that is your way of being humble while communicating that, certainly you are playing a considerably higher level than myself.
I'll geHt around to it someday , maybe, but the gist of it is I think higher level players are less concerned with the minutia of rackets, like you said kind of , just grab a racket, feels good, play with it. They are particular about what they like (usually the racket that got them through juniors to the tour), but can play well with anything if they just played a fun match.
Mortal rec players/adult learners (not 5.5 level like you) are more likely to think a racket will win them matches over another one, or maybe it can because their opponents and their own game is so tedious.
if I make a topic I'll blab more about the particulars.
Isn't this the constant theme that you write about? Nearly every post you have in the racquet forum is some kind of semi-sideways shading of rec players who are into customizing/optimizing racquets. There's no doubt that it's a fools pursuit if you think it will make you a better player, but I struggle to see the harm in it, since most of us who tinker like to tinker. Also, for many of us, it makes the game more fun AND makes us want to go hit more. That is definitely the case for me, anyways.
I actually think interest in racquets has nothing to do with level. I think there are some people that like to tinker, and some that don't, no matter how good they are. I tinker with everything. Most of the rec players I know and play don't have any thought to obsess over racquets - they pick one and play. And, that's totally fine. But why should we laugh at/shade anyone for getting into the science of racquets and trying to figure it out? That seems pretty strange, especially on a racquet forum! I mean, I have no problem with you using your preferred sticks, customized or uncustomized, light or heavy. It'd be cool if you didn't have a problem with me using mine and doing whatever I please with them...
FuzzyYellowBalls
Legend
Well, I am not a boogey man or selling anything , relax, move along .
I wouldn't go so far as to call someone a fool, but yes, a majority for sure do think that it will win a match, even during a match a different racket will somehow turn the tide, you can see this written much more often , maybe 100 times to 1 compared to your more realistic approach of tinker for fun.
Why is there harm in my posts, but no harm in other posts ? Well, I can see you feel personally attacked in some way based on "it'd be cool if you didn't have a problem with me using mine....". Dude, I don't even know what you use and you are going off on me.
You have an interest in tinkering, but read the posts, most racket posts on here are very focused on winning matches. So, I'm joining in on the conversations.
Sure man - you got it. But don't pretend one of your main motivations here isn't to make fun of people. That's your prerogative, for sure, but it does cast a kind of sleezy tinge on most of your posts. That's cool though - it's just you being you. Carry on.
If you've ever seen him play you won't take his thoughts too seriously.
Oh, I don't, but sometimes the trolling triggers me, I guess. Best not to engage...
FuzzyYellowBalls
Legend
lol
FuzzyYellowBalls
Legend
Youngheart
Semi-Pro
(Honestly, this may be about Recoil Weight!!)
Yes indeed, the once fridged deep snow has melted. I crawl slowly and carefully out of my High Alpine secluded hut,
which has been my permanent home since 1970. That was the year when I tragically lost a huge grudge match of
international importance against the ferocious Glenda (post # 840 above). You might have missed it, because I lost 6-0, 6-0.
I have decided to crawl out of my hut, and briefly ramble down the trail to civilization, for two truly burning reasons
(1) My supply of nourishing Fruit Loops has been decimated by the frequent bear attacks, and most importantly,
(2) After searching through my soul, I've decided to tell the world that ... I AM GLENDA'S "GHOST WRITER"
Folks, what is written in post # 840 is true, but as a ghost writer, I did make major changes, which I need to explain
before the next bear attack. After all, my Fruit Loops are making them tremendously powerful!! My future is uncertain.
I have decided to share with you some of the original notes. If you number EACH paragraph of post # 840, the original was
slightly different, and here are some short excerpts.
(2) = The friendly folks at Flodida's maximum prison said that I must be 5.5. ... Painless left shoulder amputation has
reduced my right handed service swing speed. (Yet my consistently is great!!)
(3) = From the left baseline corner, I raced five feet in front of me, but whiffed the darn ball, and I yelled "Give me a break!"
(4) = I'm not that far from Rune's 6-2 height, probably only fifteen inches shorter, which is to my advantage.
Hey, if you had beautiful old age spots like me, I'm sure you would want to show them off!!
(6) = Nonetheless, I have no idea what tennis is, but...I do exactly know my ... "RECOIL WEIGHT"
Recoil weight is that untidy weight after an all-you-can-eat pizza party, where I scream, and recoil in horror.
(8) = On contact with a winning overhead shot, I could feel my bra strap stretch, and then it snaped in two!! Darn!!
Well hamlet folks, since my report is finished, I'm heading back up yonder to my secret hut.
If you want to reply, the best way is to send a written note by way of my trusty mule Molisa.
------ So Be It ⚜ ------
Yes indeed, the once fridged deep snow has melted. I crawl slowly and carefully out of my High Alpine secluded hut,
which has been my permanent home since 1970. That was the year when I tragically lost a huge grudge match of
international importance against the ferocious Glenda (post # 840 above). You might have missed it, because I lost 6-0, 6-0.
I have decided to crawl out of my hut, and briefly ramble down the trail to civilization, for two truly burning reasons
(1) My supply of nourishing Fruit Loops has been decimated by the frequent bear attacks, and most importantly,
(2) After searching through my soul, I've decided to tell the world that ... I AM GLENDA'S "GHOST WRITER"
Folks, what is written in post # 840 is true, but as a ghost writer, I did make major changes, which I need to explain
before the next bear attack. After all, my Fruit Loops are making them tremendously powerful!! My future is uncertain.
I have decided to share with you some of the original notes. If you number EACH paragraph of post # 840, the original was
slightly different, and here are some short excerpts.
(2) = The friendly folks at Flodida's maximum prison said that I must be 5.5. ... Painless left shoulder amputation has
reduced my right handed service swing speed. (Yet my consistently is great!!)
(3) = From the left baseline corner, I raced five feet in front of me, but whiffed the darn ball, and I yelled "Give me a break!"
(4) = I'm not that far from Rune's 6-2 height, probably only fifteen inches shorter, which is to my advantage.
Hey, if you had beautiful old age spots like me, I'm sure you would want to show them off!!
(6) = Nonetheless, I have no idea what tennis is, but...I do exactly know my ... "RECOIL WEIGHT"
Recoil weight is that untidy weight after an all-you-can-eat pizza party, where I scream, and recoil in horror.
(8) = On contact with a winning overhead shot, I could feel my bra strap stretch, and then it snaped in two!! Darn!!
Well hamlet folks, since my report is finished, I'm heading back up yonder to my secret hut.
If you want to reply, the best way is to send a written note by way of my trusty mule Molisa.
------ So Be It ⚜ ------
