Posted by: The Black Hole Lexicographer (Knight1285@aol.com) on Wed Jun 14 22:30:17 2000

Dear all,
The most obvious characteristic I have seen when newcomers enter this site is there hestitance to relinquish instructional advice that have been given to them in times past. I, too, belonged in this distinct, but have printed all the information on the Mankin site, organized it, and read it all twice. One should note that as they begin to conceptualize the dynamics and pictorial diagrams of the swing, they tend less to brush off invaluable insight as obscure and unproven information, and progress to meaningful questions--specific inquiries that can bolster hitting.

Many baseball "authoritarians" who adhere only to water-logged lexicons that drench baseball literature might become indignant at the audicity of a little league coach to teach fundamentals. Furthermore, these same individuals will argue strictly from a statistic standpoint, and might find support in human beings opine such teachings counter the approach of having quality at-bats. However, I discovered that whenever new philosophies came into existence, they had a very weak statistical backbone, which ossified as ideas they held sacrosanct were disproven. It may be a reasonable statement to argue that whenever a person encounters an idea he or she dislikes, that idea is quickly glossed over, ignored, and sometimes, even discarded.

Reverence, therefore, must be paid to free sites that are geared for the betterment of both the physicas and intellectual facets of the game. This site has been proven as an acceptable and intriguing way to encourage progression. Hopefully, everyone actively involved in the site will do so not to replace science with tradition, but to be a contributant to a site that has the potential of rearing home run hitters.

Great job Jack!

Sincerely,
The Black Hole Lexicographer
Knight1285@aol.com