Posted by: Teacherman () on Sat May 22 15:19:32 2004

>>> in your diagram you define torque ok but you misinterpret what the hitter id doing.....you are showing the top hand heading toward the catcher and the bottom hand heading toward the pitcher....since these are two "opposing" directions you therefore call it torque...maybe it would be torque if in fact these were two forces (the top and bottom hands) acting in opposition to each other....however, even though the top hand may be headed toward the catcher, i don't see how that the top hand is acting in opposition to the bottom hand....<<<
> > >
> > > Hi grc
> > >
> > > When the top-hand is pulling back on the handle, the bottom is exerting a force on the handle in the opposite direction, even when the bottom-hand is stationary. --- If you push your hand against a wall, the wall must push back with the same force or be accelerated away. --- However, during initiation of the swing, shoulder rotation is accelerating the bottom-hand in an arc around toward the pitcher.
> > >
> > > Therefore, at initiation, the top-hand is being pulled back toward the catcher while at the same time shoulder rotation is driving the bottom-hand around toward the pitcher. The hands are therefore applying force to the handle from opposing directions – just as the drawing shows. And just as I have described it countless times.
> > >
> > > Jack Mankin
> > >
> >
> > The force may be going through the hands to the bat but it is not being generated by the hands. The hands are not generating forces in opposite directions. Therefore it is very poorly named and it has become a very debatable issue which is confusing many people. And, why confuse people simply because of the language you choose?
> >
> > If a boxer lands a right hand was hand torque used?................Makes as much sense as your wall analogy.
>
> to the contrary, jack's wall analogy is a brilliant one....you have to understand that the analogy was not to compare pushing a wall with tht...the wall analogy was specifically directed to my statement that since the bottom hand was not headed toward the pitcher (in the opposing direction of the top hand headed toward the catcher) there was no torque...with the wall analogy, jack is simply illustrating that an object such as the bottom hand does not necessairily have to be moving for there to be an opposing force present...
>
> "The force may be going through the hands to the bat but it is not being generated by the hands."....the top hand headed toward the catcher in opposition of the bottom hand remaining still is indeed a force.....maybe you misinterpret the effect of these forces.....no one is saying that this force somehow generates a humoungus amount of energy....this SMALL, albeit important force facilitates the positioning of the hands in CIRCULAR HAND PATH.....of course we all know how crucial the chp is....
>
> "The hands are not generating forces in opposite directions."....jack's wall analogy clearly shows his understanding and your misunderstanding of the concept of torque....
>
> "If a boxer lands a right hand was hand torque used?"..........well, jack, if pushing a hand against a wall illustrates two forces in opposition to each other, what WOULD be the difference in that and Teacherman's analogy?........

A hitter is far better off to let the forces created by the rotation of his body to go to the bat through the circular hand path and through the hands than he is to torque the bat with his hands thereby breaking the chain and disconnecting from his power source. A small but significant difference.