Posted by: Graylon (g_dunc@hotmail.com) on Sat Jan 26 13:54:34 2008

> >>> Thanks for the hand slap. I don't think that you discovered Torque, you may have been the first person who defined it as being applied to the handle of the bat, but it was around before you said "THT" and "BHT". I am not dismissing the fact that you defined it 15 years ago and I am sorry that I didn't give you credit for the discovery in my statement. I am also, a little put off that you feel the need to make sure that everyone needs to know and be reminded that you defined it. We are on your site so we know that you defined it, I didn't know that in every one of my statements I needed to give you credit for it.
>
> The point I was trying to make to Daw was to have his players think about tourqing the bat and not rotating the shoulders. It is a different feeling then just rotating the shoulders. It is a more explosive feeling, a quicker feeling, a more controled feeling, the shoulders will rotate but they will not power the swing, that's all I was trying to relay to Daw.<<<
>
> Hi Graylon
>
> I did not intend for my reply to be taken as a hand slap to you. However, I do find it troubling that just a couple of years back, Teacherman wrote countless posts on this and other boards accusing me of using ‘Pseudo Science” when I outline the principles of applying torque at the handle. He claimed handle-torque did not exist. He further stated that the rearward acceleration of the bat that I attributed to THT occurred naturally from the rotation of the shoulders.
>
> It is understandable why, at that time, Teacherman and most other coaches would deny that torque applied at the handle was a factor in the generation of bat speed. When I introduced the concept, Professor Adair, like all other batting authorities, also discounted torque as a factor.
>
> Teacherman now believes that the secret to a high level swing is handle torque and that shoulder rotation does not exist. That is a complete reversal of his views on both issues. But what really bothers me is that once it become evident that handle torque is a major factor, instead of giving the proper credit to my work in this field (THT), he instead proclaims he found a new batting mechanic, “The Second Engine.”
>
> Jack Mankin


Jack,

Sorry for the aggressive post earlier, I was having a bad morning. Jack, I want you to know that I have learned a lot from your findings as well as Teachermans. I have also, learned a great deal from Mike Epstein.

I personally, no offense intended, could care less who has determined what happens in the swing. I try to take what works for me and my students and teach it, I never take credit for what I teach, even if it is something that I have never seen before, because just because I havn't seen it done doesn't mean it has not been done.

I don't always agree with you or Teacherman. I try to make up my own mind as to what feels right.

One thing that I have seen happen is a lot of MLB hitters use "linear" cues. So, I ask myself why. Maybe in there minds they want to create a straight line to the ball but the turning of the bat and hips will not allow this. But maybe there is a reason they use these cues, thinking about a straight line to the ball gets there hands started early, which gets there hips opening early, while allowing them some resistance in there shoulders. I know that they can't take there hands straight to the ball because of the hips and shoulders turning but maybe the attempt to keep them straight adds resistance to the shoulders, creating more seperation and that same straight line along with the turning of the shoulders shortens the distance between the lead shoulder and bottom hand and the aggressive turning of the bat in the hands causes the barrel to be thrown through the zone. I'm kind of rambling but it is very difficult to desribe what I feel when I hit, it is much easier to explain in person.

What is your opinion about MLB players linear cues? Even if they hit different then they desribe, there has to be something to it.

Graylon