Posted by: Mister X () on Wed Apr 30 16:47:49 2003

>>> I'm starting to believe Teacherman when he says that you are trying to fit what you see into your model, rather than changing your model. Your model is very correct, but you seem to have somekind of hang up on extension and the "whip". No one here has said that it is best to reach extension. Teacherman described it when he said that there is a sacrifice of bat speed for quickness . You sacrifice bat speed for quickness (and ultimately better connection because you can wait longer and make a better decision on the swing). How good of contact you have really determines how hard you hit the ball. It seems to me like your ignoring the laws of physics again. <<<
>
> Hi Mister X
>
> In order to get an unbiased assessment of Professor Adair’s and my position on the whip theory for generating bat speed. I took his book, “The Physics of Baseball” and findings from my study to the heads of three college physics departments. They all agreed the whip effect as described by Professor Adair was not applicable for inducing angular bat displacement in the baseball swing. They also advised and critiqued my definitions of the forces that do.
>
> Although Professor Left at CA. Poly, Pomona, would not put in writing what he told me in person, he did send me a letter below.
>
> 14 December 1991
>
>
> 3801 West Temple Avenue
> Pomona, California 91768-4031
> Telephone (714) 869-4014
> Physics
> College of Science
>
>
> To whom it may concern:
> I have had the opportunity to view a 100-minute video tape by Jack Mankin, summarizing his findings on the mechanics of baseball batting. I have also read some of his writings on this subject and have spoken with him on several occasions. Jack Mankin has spent an enormous number of hours analyzing professional batters, using frame-by-frame observations (at 1/30 second time intervals). He has painstakingly developed a clever categorization scheme containing dozens of batting characteristics. Of these, he has identified a handful of the most important batting elements. Although he is not a scientist, Jack Mankin has designed and followed a thoughtful, careful, objective, science-like approach that is very impressive.
> Batting entails a good deal of rather complex physics. To my knowledge, the research that has been carried out in the scientific community lags behind Jack Mankin's path breaking work.
>
> Sincerely,
> Harvey S. Left, Chair Physics Department
>


So you've put in a lot of hard work, and come up with a good model. Big Deal. That doesn't mean it's perfect. That letter says nothing about whip effect. All it says is that you're ahead of the field (at least in his knowledge but I would think he would say the same thing about Paul Nyman). That doesn't mean you've over looked things and have some holes. Your model is good. Your model works, even if you're fooled. I just don't think you have the right idea of what is going on when someone is fooled. This may sound like Makin bashing, but I think you're just being a little stubborn. I'll go back to make sure, but I'm not sure Prof. Adair was talking about the same "whip". Again I think you're ignoring the laws of nature. If a ball is tied to the end of a string, and you rotate the string above your head, what part is moving the fastest? The ball is because it is covering more ground in the same amount of time as the rest of the string.