Posted by: grc (grcrackel@yahoo.com) on Wed Aug 9 18:11:50 2000

I think the posts in this thread are missing Jack's point. The keywords are "other than their contribution to shoulder rotation." He isn't saying the lower half isn't contributing, quite the contrary.
>
> "However, I have to believe that if my body, "from the armpits down" were somehow encased in concrete, I would generate significantly less bat speed."
>
> Absolutely. Because the lower half could not influence shoulder rotation. This would be true regardless of what energy-transfer theory you subscribe to. I have to assume you really meant from the waist down, since encasing it at the armpits would also stop torso rotation. sorry...maybe i misuderstood & i would like to clarify a few things...jack, you previously said of the kenetic chain:
> "I would really like to have a clear definition of the "Kinetic Chain......... It sounds like a new way of stating the old "crack of the whip" theory." ....now this is my understanding of the K.C.....hips 1st, generating x amount of energy...then shoulders, generating y amount of energy...total energy so far is x plus y...if arms were represented by z, then by the cummulative enerhy generated by hips, shoulders and arms would be x plus y plus z..i won't continue with hands since i'm out of alphabet....sorry my algebra isn't much better than my physics, but jcck, steveT tom.guerry, et al....do i correctly understand the kenetic chain? ....because jack, if i originally misunderstood you, and if in fact you are saying that indeed the hips, etc are contributing to shoulder rotation (which the "accumulated energy" continues to arms, etc), then you are in fact saying they contribute WHAT? energy that gets "passed along",THAT'S WHAT, right? and is that not the KENETIC CHAIN?...pardon my science & algebra & lack of the literary prose of the distinguished BLACK HOLE LEXCIOGRAPHER....respectfully, grc.....