Posted by: () on Sun Mar 2 09:56:15 2003

To all of the “Richard Calta's”, if you feel that supplying your real name lends value to these discussions you are certainly entitled to YOUR opinion. Why don’t you go one step further and really give us some "credentials" by providing your email address also??
>
> Myself personally, I could care less what your real name is, what your email address is or what your credentials are or are not. What I do care about is the content of what you or anyone posts here and your ability to present viable info and also be able to defend that info as in providing something other than your opinion or your “credentials” . As content is the only real way for ME to evaluate your understanding of what is presented and discussed here.
>
> In the alleged "confrontations" between Zig and others it seems to me that Zig more times and not "cast" the first stone as in and I quote Zig:
>
> " Please print this so you can read it two or three times..... "
>
> "Thank you for showing that you can't see with your eyes what is really happening even in the slow motion or quicktime viewing of the swing you suggest. "
>
> "If you have any common sense you'll begin to listen to him and change your way of thinking"
>
> "So don't take my comments to Dan and Teacher?, as being impolite. They were the only way you can get to some people. They were the bad kids (class clowns) in school always looking for attention."
>
> And I could have quoted several more if I had saved them from the posts that were deleted last night.
>
> And "Richard Calta", in my post above, nowhere did I call Zig or anyone else foolish. If you will please READ (as in comprehend) what I posted again you'll see that I called the "information" presented as foolish. Vastly different, at least to me, between attacking a person whom I really don't know anything about versus what he/she presents on this web site as information. Again credentials mean little or nothing to me as it is the content that counts. And the ability to read and comprehend.
>
> Another example of content versus credentials.
>
> Zig as stated a number of times in his attempt to convince us of his credentials, as to the amount of effort and time is spent analyzing swings and working with players and I quote:
>
> “My assessment of the swing clip was a combination of a few things. #1 being I am seeing good and bad swings in my sleep, after spending the last year analyzing over 10,000 swings.”
>
> Zig presented this as justification for my questioning his ability to make judgments on McGuire’s swing from a two-dimensional low resolution clip.
>
> All I can say is based on Zig’s stated “credentials”, that Zig is one hell of an amazing person. I mean analyzing over 10,000 swings last year. Think about this for a minute. Assuming that Zig worked 50 weeks last year (I'll give Zig two weeks of no productive time), that's 200 swings a week. Assuming he worked 5 days a week (I know you probably work more than that, but I'm sure Zig had other business to attend to on the weekends that he was unable to do while analyzing all these clips during a week), that's 20 swings a day. Assuming Zig works an 11 hour day (1 hour off for lunch and a break or two) that's analyzing 2 swings an hour. Or a swing every 30 minutes, non stop all day long. Which makes it hard for me to understand why after seeing all those thousands of swings why you seemed to have no clue as to what was happening with McGuire's swing, in other balance thing? Or with 10,000+ swings added to his library of swings last year, why he has such lousy swings included in his video viewer?? And cannot present anything close to what he considers is a very good swing???
>
> “Richard Calta” said
>
> “O'Really sounds like he gets his from Journals and books. Zig is in the field working with athletes of all levels”
>
> Wrong on at least one count and more like two counts. You have no way of knowing anything about who I am or what I do with players or anything else. And the reason I presented the Journal info my belief that content has precedence over credentials. And if you go back and read what Zig posted, he “was” (still is?) sounding much more like a science type than a coach with his analysis of McGuire’s swing with quotes like:
>
> “(True hip rotation (not leg rotation) occurs when the glutes contract). Biomechanical Kinesiology 301.”
>
> “Please review your swing closer before you start to take shots and me and our research. Definitely before you begin to celebrate.
>
> The data and our findings does not lie.”
>
> And in other posts with comments such as:
>
> “You see Robin the problem I have found lies in the interpretation of physics and human motion. Combined the two become the science of human movement and can be related to sport.”
>
> Sounds more like a science type than a coach to me. So therefore I took the science approach in refuting "kind with like kind" to what Zig said.
>
> To which Zig then claims defense of ignorance:
>
> “Sorry to disappoint many of you, but I am not a scientist. I am an athlete and coach, just like many of you. The difference is that my job (thanks to Kiniesiology) gives me the opportunity to pay special attention to the detailed movements and required movements of an athlete whether that is throwing a ball or swinging a bat. If I did not do so, I could fake it and athletes would get a little bit better, but that is not our goal. We must minimize the athlete's weaknesses.”
>
> And it is the Kiniesiology (the books, i.e. the science) that I quoted, the very thing you condemn is what Zig gives thanks to for giving him “insight” and ability above and beyond what the “normal” coach is capable of seeing and doing.
>
> As I said content means much more than credentials at least to me anyways.
>
> Even more important is to be able to read and comprehend. A skill that few who post here seem to have acquired.


O'Really, do you know how stupid you sound? Why don't you high-tail it back to the girl's softball team or whereever the hell you came from and just leave us the hell alone? Do you need a ton of bricks to fall on your head for you to understand that you, minor dan and pretend-to-be teacherman have outworn your welcome at this site?

>