Posted by: RQL () on Mon Oct 11 10:35:28 2004

>>> Hi Jack,
> I just don't agree with this theory that the uppercut, is the only way to approach hitting for all levels .I have had plenty of players approach hitting starting down and leveling out and they have produced.I have been successful as an instructor and I have paid very close attention to their approaches.I have used the ultimate batting tee with different types of hitters and I must say it has done miracles for players that needed to eliminate extreme uppercuts.I have also had great results with helping hitters create power using the ultimate batting tee.I would say that the angle adjustment has really helped players to develope the slight uppercut ,and work slightly down .With this in mind I couldn't change my direction because of the success and results.Why try to fix something that works?I hope someday that you can give the ultimate batting tee the credit it deserves ,this device has helped thousands of players produce.The testimonies support this !! ERIK LASEKE <<<
>
> Hi Erik
>
> First of all, I did not seek this controversy. You came to the site and asked for my opinion. For the most part, I left the discussion to you and other board participants. I did not respond until your post asked me directly. I would have preferred to give you my recommendation in private.
>
> You stated, “I have had plenty of players approach hitting starting down and leveling out and they have produced.” – All hitters approach hitting by starting the bat-head on a downward path. However, your first model did not result in the bat “leveling out” at contact. The bat stayed on a downward path through the contact zone. And, as I pointed out earlier, altering this swing path at the end by changing the final angle (to level or up-slope) is not the correct solution.
>
> I am glad you brought this discussion to the board. Reading both sides of this controversy should be beneficial to all.
>
> Jack Mankin
>>Jack,You know my background as do some others here and I must say that I trained and hit just like THE TEE promotes the swing and yes you can have great success with it.However success by one and their potential can be 2 different things.You see as I was growing up my hometown rival and friend Wade Boggs also approached the swing much like this.We were consistent .500 hitters at each level growing up and we both trained for years like Rocky trained for his Hollywood fight.We had such perfect swing plane ability with the down swing approach even though the margin of error is so great and tough to achieve while swinging down at a ball going down.
You have to remember Wade and I had no speed so we did not ever beat out alot of infield hits.Sometimes we had an odd cut and we actually had upper cut and would hit the ball over people's head for a double otherwise it was a single or oppo. gapper shot for a double.
The main out I believe I made consistently was to hit a very hard ground ball to 2nd base[leftys]this was when we got a ball to pull and we did not force our hands in enough to inside out this good pull pitch and redirect it.So I hit my best pitches for grounders to 2nd because I was swinging down.
My senior year of college when I had somewhat revamped my swing and had learned to pull the ball,it allowed me twice as many homers as my whole career had produced; a doubles record at USC; a college w.s. homerun record, and the all time batting title at USC.Now I was caught up somewhere in the middle of 2 styles and still my largest fault was thinking at times to force the ball up the middle linear and then get that ball in that I could not extend into and go away and I would get jammed or hit hard to 2nd.However when I thought about turning on the ball the rotation flowed and the power came easily.Only a 1/3 of the time did I think turn on the ball and I tried to hit every pitch that was a strike[not good] Look away react in.
My point to all this is that I feel Wade and I was gifted to hit speed or not but if we had been trained rotational we would have hit rotational and the gifts would still be there.All the hard grounders to 2nd would be doubles and homers pulled and I for one would leave the outside corner flair to left alone and made sure not to miss that middle-in pitch to drive every time.I have little doubt that if I would have hit in college as I understand my swing today I would have had 30+ homers and still hit over .400.So though many consider I was having success in hitting I could have had success on a whole different level or 2 up, with a slight uppercut.I also believe Wade could have had 3000+ hits and 400 homeruns with a little different style.We conquered our style with great success but our true potential was never achieved because our style held us back.