Posted by: Spike () on Sun Nov 14 13:20:05 2004

Bonds and Mcgwire were always pfo hitters and so was Ted Williams.
> > > > > > *******************************************************************
> > > > > > Flail - noun
> > > > > > "ancient hand tool for threshing grain. It consists of two pieces of wood: the handstaff, or helve, and the beater, joined by a thong. The handstaff is a light rod several feet long, the beater a shorter piece. "
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How in the world could it ever be a linear method of swinging??
> > > > > > Clearly to use a flail properly it would have to be swung in a circular motion. Understanding the physics of the flail will increase batspeed, ball compression and increase ball velocity off the bat.
> > > > > > Which I will save for another post.
> > > > >
> > > > > mb, Don't take the term "linear" so literally. Of course pure linearism in the dictionary sense of the word would mean a swing similar to making a shot in the game of pool. Obviously we don't mean that. Linear is thrusting the hands forward whereas rotation is the hands being in a circular hand path.As far as Mcgwire, Bonds and Williams are concerned, I agree they were PFO's and they were rotational. Certainly Carew was not as PFO and he was linear. You don't have to be a PFO to be rotational (e.g., Piazza), but there does seem to be a correlation between PFO mechanics and rotational mechanics. For the flail stuff, I won't comment because frankly I can't find anyone who can explain what it is, and I have never heard any baseball commentators use the term.It might be a term someone made up to describe something that meant something to them personally in their own way, I don't know. If I'm misinformed please let me know.
> > > > ******************************************************************
> > > > The True flail as defined is an excellent way to understand the physics of the swing. The talk about linear and rotational is really ridiculous. As you ascertained you cannot have a true linear swing or hands. The swing must move in an arc. Down and out. The swing indeally would be modeled after a gyroscope. If one can learn to crank the gyroscope he/she can impart maximum force into the ball as long as the hitter maintained the law of the flail. Ideally the bathead should never pass the hands until well after the ball has left the bat. Think of the flail tool. The end of the flail must due to centrepedial force is always attempting to maintain its "straight inline" position. If it moves past the straight inline position it must slow down to regai the straight inline position.
> > >
> > > The bathead passes the hands at contact on most all balls that are pulled. The bathead does not pass the hands at contact on most balls hit the other way. Check the overhead clips of Murcer, Rose, Robinson and B.Williams. The bathead is past the hands on the pulled balls by Robinson, Murcer and Williams. The bathead did not pass the hands at contact on the clip of Rose, and he was hitting the ball just to the right of center.
> >
> > So is flail consistent or not consistent with PFO and THT?
>
> *****************************************************************
> The flail has nothing to do with either of them. PFO is your geometric alignments at contact point. THT is a full sweep release
> style swing. BTW in 1974 Mike Austin hit the longest drive in PGA history (515 yds) using a similar (THT) technique.

I dont think tht or using pfo techniques has anything yo do with golf.I golf the object is on the ground and therefore different anatomical contortions are required to hit the ball.A PFO clearly has the objective to hit the ball over the fence at it's shortest point, which is the pull field.THT has to do with knob to catcher and contacting the ball with top arm in the "L" position. I never saw a golfer who contacted the ball in the "L" position and I would describe golfers as CFO's (center field orientees)not PFO's.