Posted by: Jack Mankin (MrBatspeed@aol.com) on Tue Jul 22 14:28:53 2003

>>> Hi

Why not just say what you mean?

"He rotates around a stationary axis."

"His axis drifts forward."

"He pushes his hands."

"He hooks the bat path."

This avoids all ambiguity.

Also, I never said that the words staionary axis and circular hand path are loose and silly.

If you read the post carefully, you will see that I am saying that those are the precise words we need to use.

Please read more carefully before resorting to sarcasm. <<<

Hi Melvin

I would agree with you that there is ambiguity in the way many describe rotational mechanics. To them, getting separation and body rotation constitutes a rotational hitter. But this site has always maintained that rotation around a stationary axis is of little value if that rotational energy is not efficiently converted into bat speed. For the body’s rotational energy to be transferred into bat-head acceleration requires an angular displacement of the hand-path (a Circular Hand-Path).

Therefore, this site has always held the position for a batter to be classified “rotational”, his transfer mechanics MUST generate a Circular Hand-Path. When a batter’s mechanics generates a less efficient straighter hand-path, we classify him as having more “linear” mechanics. Even when a batter has separation and rotates around a stationary axis, he would be classified more “linear” if his mechanics generate a straighter hand-path.

Melvin, as I stated earlier, this has always been the site’s position and I find little ambiguity in our definition of “linear” and “rotational” mechanics. Far from being a “play on words”, I think our definition is more concise than trying to explain all the various conditions you suggest to define a rotational hitter.

Jack Mankin