Posted by: BHL (Knight1285@aol.com) on Sun Feb 22 20:49:57 2004

Hi Jack,
>
> I am just wondering if Epstein has hired a promotions department? I wish everyone could have heard Epstein talk for the last few years and see how much he has changed. I also want to make note that all the people who visit your site should ask questions, instead of thinking they invented baseball. Jack is pretty fair with most posts, but I have to tell you BHL, you are nothing but a mouthpiece for Epstein. I personally do not know him and do not discount how much he cares or tries to help kids. Regardless, I do have this to say and read this carefully, Jack is 100% right when it comes to how to get the bat through the zone. I do not Just because you are able to articulate and type well, does not make you an expert or lend validity to your opinions. Although, I do think you long worded answers expose how well you type.
>
> John Elliott (quakesbaseball@earthlink.net)

Dear John Elliot,

I think that you are taking a concept that I am a xerox of his concepts to the extreme! A while back ago on a post, you cautioned people not to take shots at Coach C. Well, accusing me of being a "mouthpiece" is a personal affront--and I am not afraid to back down on this one! You contradict yourself: first you warn others that this not a board for character assassination, then you pull the trigger yourself!

Now, about your comment that Jack is 100% right--I agree. Yet, I disagree with some of the cues he uses (i.e., open the heel 45 degrees and dropping the heel, instead of pivoting the foot open).
Personally, I put no emphasis on grip (differing from Mankin and Epstein), have a shoulder width stance (Mike likes it the length of the bat the length of the bat), and really like to feel my whole body unravel loosely during the swing (Mike stresses the shoulders; Mike likes to emphasize the upper body). So, I am my own person, who has a couple of ideas that divert from the standard norm.

Furthermore, how the hell could I ever achieve a high level of scholastic achievement if I just did what other people said, and write arguments "keeping math out of English." I then wrote analyses using the theory of the limit to explain perpetuity. And it worked pretty well too, because all those pedants (i.e., those who just parrot literary authorities) soon praised, espoused, and even recommended my argument that trying to prove infinity needs to use wors such as larger and larger and larger, or smaller and smaller, and smaller, rather than "unfathomed." People frustrated with math thanked me.

Listen, I heard you on the tape, and sound like a bright, articulate guy who communicates ideas well to the viewer. However, I am a volunteer softball player / instructor, and not a business man. You want to hear me work through past problems, just go through the past posts, beginning in December 1999. You will see my name BHL, unafraid to accept criticism.

Perhaps, I can accuse you of being so consumed by Mankin's argument that you fail to see other points of view. After all, this is an open-minded discussion of hitting, and I will voice my discontent on this depiction of me, and expose who I really am. Maybe Jeff Kent succeeded because Epstein gave him the right "cues," and Jack nourished your hitting in just the same manner. I am no expert, but I do understand physics, and can argue with the best.

In closing, I sure hope Jack sees what you are trying to do here. I really liked you at first, but you are really beginning to turn me off. This is how I feel.

Sincerely,
BHL
Knight1285@aol.com

P.S. Jack, please post this message, so people do not think I was not afraid to answer!