Posted by: daw () on Fri Dec 3 15:41:39 2004

>>> Sometimes I really don't know where Jack is coming from other then he appears to be confused about the nature of work and momentum. Of course there is torque involved. The torque being generated by rotating the torso (shoulders). This has been my position from day one. Most everything else is reactive to the rotation of the torso/shoulders. You cannot instantaneously moved a mass from zero to maximum speed without applying an infinite amount of force. Same thing is true with rotation. You cannot rotate something from a rest position to maximum angular velocity unless you apply infinite torque. In this case the infinite torque is being applied by the rotation of the torso and everything else is holding on for dear life as it accelerates up to rotational speed. This whole concept of active torque of the hands is a can of worms. As demonstrated by the simulations, the reactive torques a changing rapidly and it is virtually impossible for the human body to make adjustments other than just letting " it happen" as in rotate like hell and hold on for dear life and then apply some fishhook at the end." <<<
> >
> > Hi Dale
> >
> > I seriously doubt that all readers at Paul’s site hold your view of torque. However, let us get to the bottom line. You stated, “. This whole concept of active torque of the hands is a can of worms.” Do you dispute the definition of torque in my post to Tom?
> >
> > Jack Mankin
> >
> > Jack, that's not much of a response to " The torque being generated by rotating the torso (shoulders). This has been my position from day one. Most everything else is reactive to the rotation of the torso/shoulders. You cannot instantaneously moved a mass from zero to maximum speed without applying an infinite amount of force. Same thing is true with rotation. You cannot rotate something from a rest position to maximum angular velocity unless you apply infinite torque. In this case the infinite torque is being applied by the rotation of the torso and everything else is holding on for dear life as it accelerates up to rotational speed."
> How can you begin to address the concerns if, from the above statements (which are only a part of the entire thread) all you have to say is "Do you dispute the definition of torque in my post to Tom? ". Will you at least address the concerns in the above statements?

>>>I (and many others, no doubt) read both sites every day, along with other batting sites. They have a lot in common, I think one of Nyman's moderators even said so on this site recently. One thing is obvious, though: Nyman is patently scornful of Mankin's thoery of THT and seems quite intent upon debunking the concept on his site. One of his recent posts is entitled "another nail in the THT coffin" or some such thing, a later one is entitled "the final nail". Yet another is entitled "You can fool some of the people some of the time..." and is a detailed refutation---some might say fulmination---of a recent posting from Mankin. As a coach interested in helping my players hit better, I find the most helpful posts on either site to be those explaining THAT SITE'S theory and teaching methods in detail.