Posted by: Jack Mankin (mrbatspeed@aol.com) on Tue Feb 17 15:56:16 2004

>>> It's easy to take comments out of their context. In theory Mike's staying inside the ball, is an attempt to explain staying connected and allowing rotation to the deliver the bat/hand to the ball. The biggest difference is Mike wants the hands and arms to be reactive to the lower body (follow). Jack is trying to say that hand torque is important to stay connected or transfer the rotation momentum.

It doesn't mean a hitter is 'driving the hands forward' to hit inside the ball.

There has been so much debate over linear and rotational and the cues, we forget it's a force production problem. How the hitter is producing force or swinging a bat.

I don't think staying inside the ball means your not allowing rotation to deliver the bat, or keeping the hands back and allowing rotation to bring them forward.

Here's a clip, and perhaps we can start a new thread, of Barry Bonds hitting inside the ball. It's easier to stay inside the ball as a lefty facing a righty.

http://members.aol.com/bellshw2/bonds.mov

I have mixed feeling of going around the ball and staying inside the ball. Going around the ball can 'mean' to much early batspeed and spin out, it doesn't have to be only an extension problem or late batspeed.

Almost all ML hitters are exposed to staying inside the ball and the same cues we hear and use. - Shawn

Hi Jack,

I don't want to preach Epstein here, but you and he define linear much the same way. You just think his hands following rotation involves linear mechanics. The main difference is he wants the hands to follow the lowerbody. And thinks trying to do something with the upperbody prevents them from following the lower body.

I don't think staying inside the ball, which isn't just inside outing the ball, breaks your principles. It depends on how you look at it.

You often say the batter must bring the hand in toward the shoulder. Why? Why is that important? Is it to harness the rotational forces and momentum? To me that is just another way of staying inside the ball.

I'll let you comment. -- Shawn <<<

Hi Shawn

First, let me say that the only time I ever comment on Mike’s batting principles, which is seldom, is in response to his supporters using this site to promote some of his theories that I find “questionable” to say the least. Mike should be commended for the program and lower-body mechanics he developed for teaching hitters to rotate around a stationary axis. However, I do have major problems with the transfer mechanics he demonstrated to me at a Coaches Convention.

Shawn, it is not just some of his cues, fence drill or his writing about the importance of having the elbows bent so the batter could extend the hands to contact that indicates to me he holds linear views on transfer mechanics. At the convention, I demonstrated to him the circular-hand-path and explained its importance to generating bat speed. He claimed it was all wrong and would only lead to a long swing. He then explained (and demonstrated) to me that in order to have a short quick swing, the hands must go straight from A to B.

After that, I felt it would be useless to bring up THT and BHT. That was about four years ago. Could he have changed his views? Possibly so, but I would be more convinced if he dropped the “fence drill.”

Jack Mankin