Posted by: Teacherman () on Fri May 14 09:07:44 2004

> > 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.
> >
> >
> > Hi Teacherman:
> >
> > Good idea to keep the questions separated. Otherwise, the posts get too long and confusing.
> >
> > For those who haven't seen the Final Arc 2 instructional video, the demonstration that you are referring to is when we tied a rope to the handle of a bat and tied the other end of the rope to a stake in the ground. We then threw the bat in a straight line with the handle first and the barrel directly behind. When the rope ran out, the bat stopped - the barrel did not fling around like the crack of a whip.
> >
> > Considering that you're a Nyman advocate (dare I use “Nymanite”), it was interesting for you to say that the demonstration was ridiculous because the whole point of was to disprove one of Nyman's fallacies. At least as far back as 2000, Nyman was pushing the whip effect on the bat, as well as conservation of momentum. I recall two examples used to support Nyman's theory: 1) a goat running with a rope tied around its neck, and when the goat hits the end of a rope, the goat's body will fling around like the crack of a whip (which was oddly similar to your dog example), and 2) a sprinter running a full speed and both feet are suddenly stopped by hitting a board, which will cause the upper body to fling forward like the crack of the whip. Nyman claimed that the bat would also fling around like the crack of a whip when the hands - being directed toward the pitcher - stop at full extension. Therefore, we used the demonstration to disprove Nyman's theory in that the bat when moved in a linear direction will not suddenly fling around like the crack of a whip because the bat is a rigid object, unlike the whip, goat or sprinter. These topics were covered in depth four years ago and I've put a link below to two of Jack's post in response to viewers asking about Nyman's theories (one which referred to the goat example).
> >
> > http://www.batspeed.com/messageboard/output/2243.html
> > http://www.batspeed.com/messageboard/output/2340.html
> >
> > Let me also address the steering wheel knob test, which is an excellent test and practice aid. In this demonstration, the steering wheel knob was placed on the handle of a bat in order to eliminate torque. Because the steering wheel knob spins freely, no torque can be placed on the bat handle when gripping the knob. The test proved that if an object is placed in a linear direction and torque is eliminated that there would be no bat speed generated. In this case, it DOES NOT matter if you shove the steering wheel knob in a linear direction with one hand moving at 20 mph, full rotational (with a linear hand path) moving the knob at 40 mph or a robotic machine moving the knob linear at 1000 mph, NO bat speed (angular displacement) will occur. The bat will stay behind the batter without coming toward contact. The reason is because a rigid object that is thrust in a linear direction can have no bat speed without torque. There are only two forces acting on a bat: circular hand path and torque. This is why linear hitters MUST use a great amount of torque (not BHT or THT though) as their hands reach full extension, otherwise there could be no bat speed.
> >
> > The linear hitter uses torque differently than a rotational hitter, meaning that at full extension, the bat is still trailing well behind the contact zone, and as full extension occurs, the linear will shove the top hand around the bottom hand. This is pure torque, not a whip effect. It is the opposite for a rotational hitter, who uses the lead shoulder to pull the bottom hand at contact (BHT) or the “hook” in the handpath, which also refers to the lead shoulder pull causing the bottom hand to hook at contact.
> >
> > On the other hand, if you grip the steering wheel knob in one hand and you gently rotate you hand in a circular motion, you will get a lot of bat speed. Whenever we are working with new players, we always use the steering wheel knob so that they can get the feeling of a circular hand path. Prior to shooting the Final Arc 2, we had to work with the young players a little that morning with the steering wheel knob so that they could begin to understand the circular hand path. When they first used the steering wheel knob, they could not get any bat speed because they were shoving their hands directly toward the pitcher. It’s a great demonstration and practice aid, as Jack will make a player use this object before picking up a bat.
> >
> > Anyone can try it. Buy a steering wheel knob and a wooden dowel and see how it works for you. I think if you give it a fair test that you will like it as a demonstrative tool.
> >
> > I'll close by noting that Jack does not discount the lower body. He is a strong proponent of the body rotating in unison with the lower body slightly leading the upper body (which is due to overcoming the inertia of the bat). The video spent a decent amount of time on the lower body. Many coaches focus more exclusively on the lower body, whereas Jack has always said that the lower body energy is wasted if the transfer mechanics are not efficient. He uses the example that a 1000 horsepower engine is of no use if the transmission slips. That is why he focuses mostly on upper body transfer mechanics. Also, it is much easier to learn lower body mechanics and less time is needed in that area.
> >
> > I'm running long on this post, but we need to talk about your statement that every player who has ever played at a high level and on has a circular hand path, which is an area where we have different opinions.
> >
> > Brian
> > BatSpeed.com
> >
> >
>
> 1.) Again, the bat on a rope demonstrates nothing related to a swing. You threw the bat linearly. No hitter has ever thrown the bat linearly without his hips and torso also rotating. I have no disagreement that a circular hand path is a key. I disagree with you demonstrating a completely linear movement and saying "this is what many hitters do". I've never seen a player, Jr. high age and above, do what Jack demonstrated. And, if you add the rotational element to this, then the whip effect comes into the picture.
>
> 2.) You use the steering wheel knob to eliminate torque. You demonstrate that it takes a circular hand path to get angular displacement. Very good. Agreed. THEN.....you later say that torque is used to generate batspeed. The torque that is felt is reactionary to the circular hand path and the flail and the rotation of the body. It may be felt in the hands but the hands are not torquing. The force may be delivered to the bat handle through the hands, but the hands are not torquing. Teaching a kid to torque the hands, insinuating there is torque from the hands, calling something hand torque when it is really something else is very misleading and will cause many a kid to struggle. Our goal should be to make it as short a learning cycle as we can. The words we choose shouldn't be vague or misleading. Our language is already subpar when it comes to describing movements. We should be very careful in our selection.
>
> You are absolutley correct that we need to talk about all hitters having circular hand paths. Jack may have been the first to talk about it but it's been going on since the beginning of baseball. The relationship between the arms, hands, bat, and shoulder varies from player to player yet they all move circular. Within this relationship is where you can spot linear and rotational traits. Arod is a very good example of a good hitter with linear traits in his hands and arms. He's one of the few. He hits at or near extension often. His rear arm comes out of the "L" more than most hitters. Of course, he rotates and so the overall hand path is circular. But, his path is much different than Bonds. In Bonds swing you can find most all the normally defined rotational concepts. If you put these two hitters side by side you will note obvious differences in their hand paths yet both are circular. The differences are interesting. The dirty word (linear) is present in one of the best hitters who ever played. What does it mean. I believe in rotational hitting. I believe Bonds is a poster boy for rotational hitting. But for you or Jack or anyone to tell me Arod is completely rotational when our eyes can clearly see the difference between him and Bonds, is dishonest. Maybe we should learn why it works for Arod. Maybe there is some good in it. Maybe it offers him the ability to make adjustments "on the fly" better than most all hitters. Maybe the good rotational base allows a hitter to go linear to hit tough pitches well that are in tough locations. Maybe it helps him not just fight off but get the barrel on these tough pitches. Maybe it's the difference between a weak ground ball or weak fly ball and a soft liner that falls for a base hit. There is only a 5 hit difference per one hundred at bats between a .250 hitter and a .300 hitter. That's 25 hits in a season (500 at bats). That's only 1 more hit every 6 or 7 games.
>
> I'm not suggesting I know that all these "what ifs" are accurate. I am suggesting that Arod is different than the rest and we should figure out why. He does not fit the rotational mold. He's close but he's different. Yet, he is considered to be one of the best if not the best player in the game. Hits for average and power. But not completely rotational. Why???

First, let me say that I and others who challenge this site are closer to your beliefs than others. We are rotational believers, just like you. However, we have some problems with the way things are described. We disagree on what is cause and what is effect.

But, what is on display here, in this thread, is a perfect example of why we challenge Jack's beliefs. This discussion between Brian and I went about 2 exchanges before the facts got in the way of their theory. And, the discussion comes to a quiet end. We've reached a point where they "stop talking" or "agree to disagree" which never gets to the bottom of things. And, my only conclusion is they can't get to the bottom of things because the finding won't support their beliefs.

We are on question #1...the definition of linear. There are 2 other proposed questions. It looks like we won't finish 1 let alone progress to 2 and 3. And, shortly, I'll be accused of never offering anything of substance. Just personal attacks.

Why? Because this tactic gets old. Bait and switch. Bob and weave. Serpentine. And.......finally......ignore. Please address my last post so we can move on.