Posted by: BHL (Knight1285@aol.com) on Fri Mar 12 09:28:19 2004

'tis ... the "Bible" (no religious offense meant to anyone). :-)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > In a few years, I look forward to passing my copy onto my son, and replacing mine.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > his overall theme is that hips lead the way.....that's ok but he does not get into the "how-to-do-it" details like we do at this site or the other site....
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > grc, He knew how to do it and passed along the information that a young hitter needs. The "how to do it" details that I read are of very little value in the batters box. That happens when people who were not hitters try to teach hitting.......they start explaining things about the swing that they think the hitter feels, except the hitter does not feel them. To brush off Williams, shows that you did not spend much time in the batters box learning how to hit.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Doug
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ditto.
> > > > >
> > > > > Anyone who thinks Williams and his ghost writer knew how to write a book does not have an understanding of the game. Try reading Schmidt's book if you want detail. Of course if you don't want detail try consulting with a coach of a 7 year old girls softball team.
> > > >
> > > > Fred and Art, If you feel that you need to be an author to teach hitting, then you should dig up Steinbeck. Williams had more knowledge about hitting in his little finger than schmidt does in his whole body. Schmidt has pics in his book of how he thinks you should swing and demonstrates one way and then has pics of himself in a game doing it the opposite way. Williams taught everything that a hitter needs and described it very well. He also produced results, and results are the bottom line, not chapters on what a physics professor thinks is happening.Details are only good if they are correct. Anyone that feels they can't learn hitting from Williams book will never hit much anyway IMO.
> > > >
> > > > Doug
> > >
> > > Hi Doug,
> > >
> > > Why John Steinbeck? Why not Emily Dickinson? Obviously, Jack Mankin has become lucid in the expository information that he presents on hitter; hence, authorship is essential. In order to articulate ideas to the population, and influence that they have right idea, they need information, as well as the proper vehicle for transmitting their concepts. That vehicle is writing.
> > >
> > > Also, some individuals can develop terrific counterarguments against certain hitting techniques, but cannot defend their opinions becaus they are deficient in inscribing their ideas on a piece of paper. This allows the individuals who have a weaker model--but more writing expertise--to quash their opponent's ideas. This sound frustrating, but it happens every day.
> > >
> > > On the other hand, Mankin, Epstein, and Nyman are all lucid in their opinions and literature. Whenever they clash, they seem to be able to defend their research. Thus, one must conclude that authorship is just as important as coaching.
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > > BHL
> > > Knight1285@aol.com
> > >
> > > P.S. Earlier on this site I accused Nyman of stealing "scap loading" from others. From what I read on his site, that is not true at all, since it occurs even before the shrug, or X-factor. I owe it to him to offer a public apology for making blind accusations against him before I had all the facts.
> >
> > BHL, Are you saying that you can't learn from Williams? That you don't understand him? Have a kid stand in the batters box and tell him to cock his top hand back like he was going to punch you. If he is athletic and knows how to cock his hand into punching position, he will have loaded all he needs to load. If he can't do it, he won't hit anyway, so you won't need to teach him any further.Fancy words have never produced a hitter, they may produce guys who want to argue about how to hit, but it won't help the guy in the batters box. Get a VCR and tape the ML hitters. Buy Williams book and you will be able to help a young kid become a better hitter. Leave the fancy language in the classroom, as the good athlete will read through the BS and start laughing. My main question is always......who have you taught and where are they at. That is the bottom line.
> >
> > Doug
>
> Doug
>
> I think we are pretty close on a swing model. However, a distinction needs to be made between "us" internet people studying the swing to be able to define what good swing mechanics are and actually teaching them. These two operations are not far apart but they are different. I enjoy the learning of "why" we do what we do. I think it is important for the instructor to know why. He may mention it to a student but the student may not need to know why. But the "why" is why we (instructors) get into details of the scapula load or the hip load or all the other new terms that seem to be rejected by traditionalists.
>
> Most kids probably don't want to know the details. And, maybe the instructors language needs to be more "dugoutish" than scientific. But I don't think we should stop learning the defining components of the swing.
>
> Once it has been defined to the best of our ability then we will be able to better instruct.
>
> Wouldn't it be nice if we had a model of the swing like golf has?
>
> How did they get their model?
>
> I believe it was video and science application.....which is just what we are doing.

Hi Doug,

I understand Williams quite well. However, do you think he could ever influence other people if he could find the right way to transmit his concepts?

Sincerely,
BHL
Knight1285@aol.com

I'm not knocking you here--merely lending an idea.