Posted by: BHL (Knight1285@aol.com) on Wed May 5 22:38:07 2004

The way I see it BHL is between rotation and linear,Teacherman is linear and Jack is full blown rotation all the way. From what I have seen at the college games most power hitters fit in with the Jack Mankin model. Nothing personal to BHL and Teacherman but I think anything less than 100 percent rotational is self defeating.
> > >
> > > I agree Jack is rotational (actually he is the Father of Rotation) and Teacherman is linear (he thinks you can take hands straight to the ball). However, I don't see anything in BHL's posts that suggests he is one way or another. BHL, can you clear this up?
> >
> > For the third or fourth time, please find a post of mine that supports linear hitting!!!
>
> For the 3rd or 4th time you said at setpro that tophand torque does not exist.You also denigrated John Elliott's teachings and you believe in throwing hands straight to the ball.If you want to be linear that's ok, who cares? You just need to be advised that most of us at this site are rotational and you might feel out of place.Stick around, though, maybe we can convert you.

Hi All,

Although I now discount torque as a component of the swing, I will say that arcing bat-head provides 100 percent of the power.

It's just a matter of degrees.

For example, a bat-head rotating at an increasing rate 90 degrees to contact certainly will not generate as much bat-speed as 180 degrees of angular displacement. I have noticed how those who accelerate 270 degrees of rotation are often said to have "long swings," but they also tend to hit the furthest home runs.

Obviously, some individuals are capable of generating the same bat-speed in 90 degrees of a CHP than other players can using 180 degrees of rotation, and this might be the result of how effeciently the player can use hip rotation to turn the shoulders.

Hitters, as one person pointed out to me, can also enjoy success using an elliptical bat-head trajectory.

However, while Jack may want to re-examine his theories on torque, I believe that Adair should give serious thought into revising his "crack the whip" bat analogies he uses to illustrate "The Physics of Hitting."

When I said in a past post that Jack's information was "flawless," I really should have said that it had the potentential for perfection.

One way that Jack could do that is highlight his points about CHP.

Now, what should he do about his use of the word "torque?"

Well, I understand the lotus of his argument. His premise is this: if a hitter "keeps the bat back and simply rotates," the reactory force will be "the bottom hand to rotate around the bottom hand"; if a batter rotates partially in order to reach the ball, "both hands need to rotate around each other," since this will force the top arm to cast out further, and create a wider CHP; and, finally, if the batter rotates the minimum amount, the top hand will be forced to cast out real wide, creating the greatest arc, and as a result, "the top hand will be forced to rotate around the bottom hand."

The operative word here is not "cause," but "reactory."

I think that making such a revision--and reviewing my thoughts--could make his research much tighter.

Sincerely,
BHL
Knight1285@aol.com

P.S. It might also for Jack to list a works cited page.

However, do not get my intentions wrong: I am here to point out flaws in a humane manner, in order to criticize Jack for the sake of degrading him. Sometimes, constructive criticism helps everybody.

And yes, I am rotational, since I believe in rotational developmental mechanics, a CHP, and increasing the bat-head arc whenever possible.