Posted by: tom.guerry (tom.guerry@kp.org) on Sat Nov 22 08:38:41 2003

>>> Jack....Pete Rose vs. Ken...Griffey who's swing is longer?
Who generates more batspeed, who hits the ball farther. If you
say less shoulder turn or shorter stride that works for me, but
there is no denying somebody see's the ball longer....is there?
You can make the same argument with Boggs, Carew and
several others. Does less batspeed sometimes mean higher
average? I talked to a guy that play's within the A's organization
the other day...he stated that he become a .300 hitter (vice .220
hitter)and increased his power when his swing went from 100%
effort to 80% effort. This philosophy is rampid through the entire
A's organization. He doesn't want max batspeed he wants
smooth flowing body parts, that can only be destroyed with max
batspeed on the brain. I think Max batspeed discourages
smooth flowing parts, in fact the slower the batspeed the
smoother the swing. This should be the baseline of all swings
and work up from there. Not the other way around. I'm not being
confrontational either, but Batspeed emphasis is why some
people have trouble understanding your philosophy. I am not
disputing how we obtain batspeed (you deserve a lot of credit for
that), but striving for it soley is missing the point of great hitters.
Ted Williams said every home run he hit surprised him. Most
kids would not be surprised when they hit a home run, in fact the
home run ball soon becomes there downfall, because they then
try to hit harder the next time. This doesn't work in any sport
when consistancy is the goal. Do big league oraganizations
carry batspeed indicators in there clubhouses?
>
> I love what you say on this site, but until you've tried 80% effort
at 90 plus MPH, you will never know the difference. I do not want
more Batspeed when the ball is blowing by me....I WANT LESS!!
<<<
>
> Hi Coach C
>
> I did face 90 mph pitching at the University of Missouri and I
was taught basically the linear approach to batting you advocate
with mediocre results. – Rose, Boggs and Carew were all good
single hitters. But I will take the swings of Mantle, Brett, or Bonds
against a 95 MPH fastball anytime. They not only led the league
in batting average many times, their swings generated enough
bat speed to clear the fences when they got lift on the ball. – If
you feel their trying to hit the ball hard makes them inconsistent, I
will take inconsistency every time.
>
> Coach C, below is an article I wrote that expresses our
difference in coaching philosophy.
>
> "Swing For the Fence - Ruin Your Mechanics"
>
> Subject: Pushing the limits of flawed mechanics.
>
> I think all coaches would agree that "setting goals" is an
important tool in the development of good athletes. The goals
should challenge the athlete to be the best he can be. The
setting of a goal that does not place the athlete far ahead of his
past achievements is an insult to his courage. My dad used to
say, "Son, it is far better to shoot for the moon and reach only the
peak of a mountain; than to aim for the foothills an attain it."
>
> When setting goals for hitting the baseball, a strange
inconsistency arises. By far, the number one prize of batting is
that gratifying sensation a player experiences in hitting a long
home run. The soothing vibes of power the bat resonates
through the hitter's body is something a player will never forget.
However, many batting coaches have discovered that the
mechanics they are teaching will breakdown if the hitter attempts
to swing with home run power. The player must be made to
understand that home runs should not be sought after. They are
something that just happens when the hitter least expects it.
>
> The coach must convince the players that to be successful
they must "hit the ball on the ground back up the middle." His
most worrisome time is right after a player hits a home run. How
can he make sure that he and other players do not strive for
another one? He has spent weeks convincing the players to
forget about the fence and just "hit it up the middle." If the hitter
should endeavor for something more than mediocrity it could
ruin his mechanics forever.
>
> I can think of no other sport where striving to attain it's most
prized goal is declared mechanically taboo. The paradox is so
sad but true. With the mechanics coaches have been given to
teach, the more power the hitter attempts to achieve the weaker
the results. But the real sad part is, we have found it easier to
lower the goals than to perfect the mechanics. When the seven-
foot high-jump couldn't be attained with the mechanics being
used, they didn't advise the athletes to settle for a lower mark or
they might ruin their form. Records from the four minute mile to a
twenty foot pole-vault would never have been achieved by
teaching that adversity should lead to the lowering of
expectations.
>
> I feel there is a touch of arrogance in claiming that since a
coach can't teach an average player to hit with power, those that
have power must have been born with "pop" in their bat. Is it
possible the top hitters may not using the mechanics they
teach? It may be time to acknowledge that teaching linear
mechanics will not allow a hitter to attain the bat speed required
to consistently hit the ball hard.
>
> By initiating the bat properly with torque and rotational energy,
the average tension free swing of the hitter carries plenty of bat
speed to clear the fence in most any direction. His main concern
is timing and getting the plane of his swing in line with the ball. If
he is a little high on the ball, it will be a sizzling grounder. Hit it
square and you have a frozen-rope to the gaps -- a little low and
bye, bye.
>
> Jack Mankin

Thanks Jack !

Tom's Thanksgiving RANT :

Something seems to be creating an incompatibility between
"visions" here.To my way of thiking,Jack's vision is that of the
synergistic/whole is greater than the sum of parts approach to
mechanics which he has distilled from watching the greats.Both/
and/wholistic thinking.

Others think there is ultimately a tradeoff that has to be faced-
power vs average,batspeed vs quickness.Either/or/reductionist
thinking.

I vote for both/and.Either or is philosophically a leftover of
materialistic phyiscal only/reductionist thinking.Both/and is the
"belief" that there are emergent properties that result from the
way things fit together that create novel adaptations.

The human body is a miracle of adaptation.If you are aware of
what your goal/challenge is you will encourage and not fight its
wholistic adaptation.

The hitting challenge is essentially a timing challenge.The
solution of the geniuses of human adaptation to this particular
challenge show great quickness AND great batspeed.They
show great power AND great average.The human body does not
survive and prosper when forced to choose either/or.When the
hour is darkest,some creative soul will find a "third way" that
transcends the dead end of either/or.We need to appreciate
these solutions and use them as a guide to help others reach
their potential,not limit the adaptation by the dead end of either/
or.

Jack has shown a way of understanding how to do this.

Nyman has explained more about postmodern/chaos/systems
theory/wholism/upward and downward causation.

You CAN have the best of both worlds.You CAN find the solution
via trial and error IF you don't limit yourself by setting your goals
too low as the result of reductionist either/or thinking.

Jack shows the key mechanics that need to be
implemented.Nyman points out the importance of INTENT.

You must hit the balll hard.That doesn't mean it won't feel
effortless if everything goes well.

Williams said BODY AT 80-85 %,HANDS AT 100%

Palmeiro says HE GETS EVERY OUNCE OF ENERGY INTO
EACH SWING.

Gwynn says PULL WITH THE BOTTOM HAND,DON'T FORCE
THINGS WITH THE LOWER BODY.

Given Jack's model,all these things are clues to HOW to achieve
your goals.

Don't shortchange yourself.Don't sell yourself short by lowering
your dreams and goals because of reductionist either/or
thinking.

Happy Thanksgiving to all !
>