Posted by: Richard () on Mon Jul 24 04:13:29 2000

Jack: I enjoyed reading your reply to this post. It was interesting and informative to say the least. Very supportive of your video material. However, did you actually answer grc's question as to the use of the arm speed analogy?
Richard
>>>jack...as you may know, i have big reservations about the fence drill...there is one individual at hitting.com who continually asserts that the fence drill facilitates the hands "beating the bat head to the ball, and of course this is true...but i maintain that just because the hands are "quick" to the ball does not by any means equate to increased batspeed because of the deviation from the correct sequence of hips>shoulders>arms>hands>wrists>bathead....i have pointed this out to many people but this one particular individual seems to have a problem understanding the concept....MY QUESTION TO YOU IS THIS: would the following be a good analogy in articulating the flaws in the theory of "hands beating the bat" to the ball....if a pitcher were to, without winding up or turning his hips in, simply , with great "armspeed" throw the ball at it's target, we would all agree that he may have great "armspeed" but he would have much less "ball speed"...in other words, for the "arm speed" to do any good, you have to do the other things (wind up, "rearing back", etc), and in the proper sequence....and the same thing apllies to the swing...what good does it do, from a physics point of view to get the hands out quickly if you haven't first got the hips, shoulders, etc in action......i would greatly appreciate your evaluation of this analogy...respectfully, grc.... <<<
>
> Hi grc
>
> The first thing you must understand is that there are coaches who have certain batting theories so engrained into their thinking that no matter how much evidence and data is presented to the contrary, they still find it more comfortable to cling to the old clichés. In the early 1990's I presented documented evidence to noted batting authorities that there was little or no forward movement of the body during the swing. That the body actually rotated around a stationary axis. But the authorities at that time were so convinced that a forward weight shift was necessary to develop power that they couldn't open their minds to even consider my data.
>
> Professor Robert K. Adair, author of "The Physics of Baseball", replied to a 25 page summary of my finding with the following quote -- "And any batter who would use your "stationary axis" model, taken literally, could not hit a ball past second base." --- The Dodgers set a meeting for me with Reggie Smith (their batting coach) and his staff to discuss the swing of Mike Piazza and players with similar mechanics. The concept of "top-hand-torque" was so foreign to them that a discussion of it proved impossible. Reggie was also very adamant that a forward body movement during the swing was essential for power. --- I showed him a frame-by-frame sequence of Barry Bonds hitting a 400+ ft. home run. In that swing, Barry's axis not only didn't go forward, it actually faded 3 or 4 inches away from the pitcher. Reggie was so closed minded on the subject that he just couldn't accept what he saw. --- I think he thought I must have doctored the tape.
>
> So grc, although facts get in the way of a good baseball swing discussion, here are a few.
>
> 1. The concept that the hands must lead the bat-head through the contact zone is a "red herring." --- If the hands lead the bat-head the ball will be hit to the opposite field. If the hands and bat are even (bat perpendicular to the ball's flight) the ball is hit up the middle. If the bat-head leads, the ball is pulled. --- The bat can not possibly wrap around the ball no matter how early the bat-head is. The ball is only in contact with the bat for less than 1/2000 sec. During that time, the bat travels about 3/4 inch -- not much room for wrapping.
>
> 2. With weight shift and extension mechanics, the hands are extended about 24 to 26 inches in about 5/30 sec. (initiation to contact). With rotational mechanics the back arm forms the classic "L" position at contact. Therefor the arms are far from full extension (except on outside pitches) and the hands travel about 20 to 22 inches to contact. --- I have often asked the "quick hands" enthusiast the following question -- As the hands are extended further and further toward full extension - does the swing get shorter and more compact?? NOTE: From initiation to contact, weight shift and extension mechanics require 5 to 6 video frames. Rotational mechanics require 4 to 5 frames. I have never charted a 4 frame w/s &ext. swing.
>
> 3. "The hands are extended about 24 to 26 inches in 5/30 sec. (initiation to contact)." This computes to about a 7 MPH average. But the bat-head is accelerated to 75+ MPH. The angular path of the hands is far more important in developing bat speed than the linear speed of the hands.
>
> grc, if Mike Piazza were to swing with a plastic sleeve on his bat - it would be propelled more at the catcher than the second baseman.
>
> Jack Mankin
>