Posted by: Melvin () on Thu Aug 21 13:26:22 2003

Hi Bart
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You stated: “williams is not the best hitter to have a clip...you don't want to look like williams.” What do you consider to be flaws or bad mechanics found in William’s swing that are not found in other great hitters? And, what would you say he has that would allow him to produce as he did with what you consider a poor swing?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jack Mankin
> > > > > >
> > > > > hi, jack...without being able to use a clip to demonstrate it will be hard, but i'll try to explain...the one biggest objection is the way he would, after launch position (1) have his back elbow way too low
> > > > > (2) let the barrel of the bat prematurely flatten out & then dip.....
> > > > >
> > > > > how could he produce so well with such a "poor swing"?....well, i think others have previously pointed that many great hitters who deviated from our ideal model swing have managed to produce....it worked for him and that's what counts....i'm just saying that if you compare his swing, frame by frame with bonds & many other greats, williams swing deviates from the norm...i simply think it's better to emulate the swing of many greats rrather than the swing of someone who was the exception....
> > > > >
> > > > > and jack, you have previously agreed that macgwire & griffey swung with full x-t and with sucess, but i'm sure you would not reccomend their swing as the ideal one to emulate....i'm sure, that as sucessful as bagwell is, you would not reccomend his swing as the ideal one....
> > > >
> > > > Who would in their right mind want to swing like the greatest hitter who ever lived??
> > >
> > > hitman, you miss the point...you seem to be fully convinced that "rotational" hitting, not "linear" is the way to go...i know from your posts in the past that you do not believe in full x-t....but if you were to look at some clips of mantle, ott, and musial, not to mention macgwire & griffey jr, they all made contact at full x-t...some people might sarcastically as "who would in their right mind want to swing like mantle, ott, musial, macgwire and griffey jr"?
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > If "many great hitters" can "deviate" from an "ideal model of the swing" (Bart's words), I suggest we modify our ideal model of the swing.
> >
> > Isn't it a little counter-intuitive to create a model of performance that excludes many of the expert practitioners?
> >
> > Essentially, you are saying that you know more about hitting than Ted Williams did. YOU know that he deviated "from the ideal model", while HE obviously wasn't aware of that, or else he would have complied. That's what "ideal" means. "Universal; perfect."
> >
> > What is so horrible about the way Ted's back elbow worked? Does it lead to weak grounders? What about dreaded pop flies? Maybe it makes you swing and miss a lot. In reality, you would pay any price to have Ted's swing, or get it for your players or children.
> >
> > Melvin
> >
> > good grief, melvin, you are really making a mountain out of a molehill.....i guess your point is that if so many great hitters deviate from the perfect model, why have a model in the first place?....
>
> well, i will start out by pointing out that you, jack, myself, tom guerry and others have our own personal concept of the ideal model, and while there may be some variances among us, overall jack's model is a fairly accurate composite of all of our own ideal models...all i did was to point out that williams, ott, musial and others do not conform to this model....that doesn't mean our model is wrong and useless, it does not mean these hitters were not so great
afterall.....it simply means that if you desire to have a model for which young hitters might want to emulate you have to use hitters who happen to conform to that model.....

Hi

No, that's not what I am saying. I am saying that the model isn't perfect in the first place if great hitters don't conform to it.

This is a very clear point of disctinction among people that says a great deal about their outlook on life, the search for truth and their ability to think logically.

There are often contentious, petty arguments here that become personal and insulting and I am not on that road here. Behind your statement lurks some truth that I will acknowledge shortly. But for now:

One group of people who sometimes post messages here frequently insist that Hall of Fame hitters should NOT be emulated because the very achievement they garnered - stardom - certainly means Godhood, the possession of gifts that allowed for an individual technique, a personal method of hitting, that would be dangerous and foolhardy for the average person to attempt.

Another group disagrees and says that excellent performance is the product of excellent technique and that tecnhique can be described, quantified and recorded. Further, that investigation has shown that all good hitters use the same technique and all bad hitters avoid the techniques of the superior ones.

So I am not trying to be stubborn. It is an important point. If you can say Ted Williams had less than ideal mechanics, you, perhaps without knowing it, logically following from the principles I proposed a paragraph ago, are saying that Ted's superior performance comes not from the same technique he shares with all other Hall of Famers. You seem to be saying, by positing that statement, that his superiority is derived from some magical dust, call it athletic ability or whatever you want. But the fact remains, there have been thousands of Major League baseball players with identical native gifts as Ted, and far different swings, who performed far worse than he did.

Now. Was Ted's swing idiosyncratic, somewhat flamboyant in its posture and body language? Sure. So is Sheffield's. The purpose of Jack's work, I think, has been to strip away those non-essentials and create the model you are talking about. Ted fit it. Sheffield fit it. How do we know? By reasoning. All good hitters look like Ted at the crucial moments, and no bad hitter does.

Would you show a kid a tape of Ted and say swing like that? No. I agree. Neither would you show a 14-year-old a 1966 Mustang with a V-8 and say drive it. It takes training. The big ideas, however, that governed Ted's approach to swinging the bat are perfect for anyone to try.

Melvin