Posted by: Teacherman () on Mon May 10 10:46:36 2004

>>>Rob, I did not ask for Jack's resume. I asked for Brian's. As far you go, I see you are mentioning your baseball background again. I thought it did not matter, but you keep bringing it up, but keep playing hide and seek. I don't care where you played anymore than you care where I played. I am interested in who has been taught and where are they at.If there are no success stories, what good is the information that you have?
> > > >
> > > > Doug<<<
> > >
> > >
> > > Who cares what my resume is Doug. I played ball for about 12 years. Had Jack undertaken his efforts earlier, it could have been a much different story. I have no regrets at all. I am happily engaged in a new career unrelated to baseball, though I enjoy BatSpeed.com and the discussions that occur here.
> > >
> > > The real question is what is your resume because you are the one espousing unfounded theories. Who did you teach from a young age that made it to the pros? Most pro batting coaches are none other than former pro hitters who retired and thereby gained the "stature" to become a "pro batting coach," regardless of their understanding of batting mechanics. Very few major league coaches have actually transformed a decent hitter from youth and made him into a great hitter. They work with player who have already made it to the pros. This is why many pro coaches believe that you have to "be a born hitter" because they do not know how to turn a fair hitter into a great hitter. That is not very impressive in my opinion nor are your arguments.
> > >
> > > ONCE AGAIN, if you believe that the information presented on this site is incorrect, then describe exactly where the batting mechanics taught on this site differ from the batting mechanics used by Barry Bonds or Sammy Sosa - two of the best hitters in the game.
> > >
> > > Let’s put your baseless theory to the test, but you won't do it. Since you can't discuss the mechanics, you are left with ad hominem attacks on this site. Very weak on your part, but I'll expect more of the same because that is all I have seen from you so far.
> > >
> > > Brian
> > > BatSpeed.com
> > >
> > > PS. It appears that you also post frequently on Setpro, so do you discount everything Nyman writes because he did not play pro ball?
> > >
> > >
> >
> > If you only knew the whole story!!! You are embarassing to those of us who do.
> >
> > Some have come on here and bragged about their "credentials", yet speak in hollow terms and get praise from you Mankinites. Others, with credentials but never mentioned, offer their sound advice and are ridiculed by an officeworker of this site. Please.
> >
> > Doug's beliefs are very similar to yours. He's a rotational type instructor. May or may not believe in every principle you claim. But he's closer to you than against you. Yet, you center the argument on which former major leaguer can coach and which can't.
> >
> > Everyone in the baseball world knows George Brett was taught by Charlie Lau, Mr. Linear. Yet, you claim he's rotational. Arod has been taught by Lau Jr., and you claim he's rotational. The question no one here can answer, that has been asked first by Mr. Nyman and then by others, is, since you believe almost all coaching is linear, why is it that 95% or better of the mlb players are rotational??????
> >
> > I really don't think you have a complete picture. Some things are well thought out and accurate. Other things you say are very naive and elementary. Torque applied by the top hand is totally inaccurate. There is something going on there. It just isn't THT.
>
> Teacherman:
>
> Another ad hominem attack, but who would be surprised. You've shown to have a few one-liners up your sleeve, but I'd have to give you a solid "F" when it comes to analysis of swing mechanics. So I have some questions for you to sort things out. You can ask Nyman for help if needed, but I would like some answers to straightforward questions.
>
> First, however, you would have no clue if Doug teaches rotational mechanics because your post still indicates that you do not understand the difference between rotational and linear. If Doug does teach rotational, then that is good. I'm sure that his players are benefiting.
>
> Second, Jack answered your question with respect to 95% of players. If, in fact, 95% of professional players were using proper rotational mechanics, twice the number of homeruns would be hit this year. I have repeatedly stated in my discussions with Doug that the transformation of the swing has been occurring over the last 10-15 years and most batters are attempting to use rotational mechanics, though a relatively small percentage have it exactly right, but those that do have it right dominate the charts. Linear hitters have been weeded out and/or remain in the A, AA or AAA ranks. No offense, but its true. As I have stated, I believe that more and more coaches are attempting to teach some form of rotational mechanics. With video analysis, more and more players and coaches will continue to perfect rotational mechanics at all levels and the results will keep growing. The same thing happened in golf.
>
> Now I have some questions for you.
>
> In summary, Jack describes linear as knob to the ball with the hands in a line back toward the pitcher, not in a circle. Question 1: Was Brett's swing knob to the ball, hands in a direct line to the pitcher without the hands making a circular arc? Same question for A-Rod? Bonds? Sosa?
>
> Question 2: Lau Sr. - Brett's mentor - maintained that the front leg must be “rigid and firm” before hip rotation begins. Is that what Brett did? A-Rod? Bonds? Sosa?
>
> Question 3: Since torque is not a factor according to you, describe all forces acting ON THE HANDLE of Bond's bat during the first two frames of his swing? (For this question, the swing starts when Bonds commits to the swing and starts the swing - not pre-launch movements).
>
> I'm ready for you to teach this "officeworker" a lesson in mechanics, and lets keep the debate focused on mechanics. While I do spend about half my time in an office, it's not BatSpeed.com's, so it sometimes takes a little while to respond.
>
> Brian
> BatSpeed.com
>
>

Let's start with Question 1. If we address all in one post we will not do justice to them.

Jack's definition of linear is flawed. His demonstration of throwing the bat attached to a rope on the Final Arc CD is ridiculous. It might be uselful if he was selling dog chains to demonstrate what will happen to the dog when he tries to go farther than his chain will allow him. But, it has no relationship to hitting. His demonstration using the steering wheel handle is misleading. Why? because he pushes his hands straight forward without any hip or torso rotation. I've never seen a hitter do that. The most linear hitter that ever played also rotated. What player of any stature has thrown his hands straight to the ball AS DEMONSTRATED?? The answer is none. And, what player who likes the "hands to the ball" cue does so without hip and torso rotation. The answer is none. Therefore, every player who has ever played at a high level has a circular hand path. Some have a better circular path than others and therein lies the definition of linear. Linear will be defined by what difference there is in there circular hand paths? Because, even those who use "straight to the ball" do so as their hips and shoulders rotate and therefore the path is not straight as eveyone of Jack's demonstrations show. So, since the demonstrations are misleading we have to first come to agreement on what is linear. Which, by the way is not limited to the upper body. (another shortcoming of Jack's). He ignores the role of the lower body "except as it relates to transfer mechanics" or something to that effect. The role is much larger than that.