Posted by: Teacherman () on Fri Feb 13 20:48:18 2004

>>> Where you hit the ball is irrelevant to the cue "hit the inside of the ball". Where you try to hit it is everything.
>
> As compared to "trying" to hit the outside of the ball which is a major flaw in many amateur swings. <<<
>
> Hi Teacherman
>
> I am puzzled as to how the swing is supposed to be improved by concentrating on "hit the inside of the ball". To hit the inside of the ball, the bat-head must be trailing behind the hands in the contact zone. I just failed to see how trying to have the hands leading in the zone enhances the swing. --- I do see some negatives that would occur with this vision during initiation. That is a prescription for a linear hand-path.
>
> Jack Mankin
>
>

It's called cues v reality. I think my post made that very clear. Know the difference and you'll be a better teacher.

And, I see no correlation between the cue "hitting the inside of the ball" and a linear hand path. Using Jim Edmonds as an example (due to his opposite field power and his hitting the ball deep in the zone) do you not believe he hits the inside of the ball when he demonstrates his opposite field power????? He's as rotational as it gets. Like I said earlier, trying to hit the inside and actually doing it are two different things. But, I can assure you, if Jim Edmonds tried to hit the outside of the ball he wouldn't be displaying any opposite field power.

Another great example of a set of words meaning one thing to me and something else to you. English is a great language, huh?

And, you aren't saying the hands never lead the barrel are you?????....They do near the beginning of every swing....linear or circular. "Staying inside"" or hitting the inside" are very effective cues especially when dealing with pull only hitters.

I'm not claiming it's reality. I am standing up for the benefit of the cue.