Talk:Mercer Beasley: Difference between revisions
imported>Hayford Peirce (→All of the below is source material that I may use to expand the article: removed material used in the Main Article) |
imported>Chris Day |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
:::Get it? Got it! Good! [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 04:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC) | :::Get it? Got it! Good! [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 04:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
Hayford, you've created a gem here. Very interesting reading. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 22:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:57, 4 March 2010
All of the below is source material that I may use to expand the article
From How to play Tennis: (website http://www.tennisserver.com/circlegame/circlegame_01_09.html)
“tennis is a game of accuracy and not strength. If it were a matter of hard hitting and brute strength it stands to reason that the heaviest and strongest player would win, while actually quite the reverse is true. The speed of the ball is secondary, for the very simple reason that without accuracy speed results in netted balls and errors and hence, in wasted energy. Accuracy–the ability to return the ball to any desired position on the court–that is the secret of tennis.” Hayford Peirce 22:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Like grandfather, like grandson
It would seem that courts are a unifying principle. --Howard C. Berkowitz 04:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Dunno about the son in between, however -- mebbe he wuz a Court Jester (subject of an article?) Hayford Peirce 04:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps the son had an unfortunate confusion between the chalice from the palace with the vessel with the pestle? --Howard C. Berkowitz 04:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Get it? Got it! Good! Hayford Peirce 04:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Hayford, you've created a gem here. Very interesting reading. Chris Day 22:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)