Posted by: Brian (support@batspeed.com) on Sat Dec 4 02:29:04 2004

>>> Jack-
> >
> > I would encourage you to participate directly at www.hitting-mechanics.org.
> >
> > The site is owned/maintained/overseen by Paul Nyman,but the attempt is to welcome dissent.
> >
> > I would expect you to be treated with respect,and the site has good indexing and audiovisual capability.
> >
> > Not tt be too much of a pollyanna about this,I suppose there is risk of someone being percieved as right or wrong/winner or loser which could translate into a loss of business or proprietary information,but my guess is that it would really just mean more interest and business for all involved even if more heat than light gets generated.
> >
> > The scientific principles are hard enough to understand with a direct good faith informed dialog.Understanding via intermediaries and proxies is not likely to develop understanding in my opinion.
> >
> > Would you be willing to give it a try ?
> >
> > Specific times for a dialog more or less real time could probably be arranged so you and Paul could interact directly/productively. <<<
> >
> > Hi Tom
> >
> > I thank you for your invitation. Business considerations would play no part in my decision whether or not to accept. I opened this Site to inform the public of my findings from a study of how energy is transferred in the baseball/softball swing. There were no products offered for sale until many readers requested a video explaining the batting principles presented on the Web Site.
> >
> > I have not posted to another site since Batspeed.com came on line. However, my obvious concern with accepting your invitation is that it appears Paul has been successful in convincing his readers that a recognized physics law is “Voodoo Science.” There can be no intelligent discussion until this is resolved.
> >
> > My high school physics book defines torque as, “Forces applied from opposing directions that cause an object to rotate around an axis.” The drawings that accompany and define this can be seen at: http://www.batspeed.com/research10.html
> > Once Paul and his readers accept that this physics law is not “Voodoo Science,” then maybe we can have an informed discussion of how it applies to the baseball swing.
> >
> > Jack Mankin
> >
>
> Jack and Tom and All
>
> Jack your refusal to engage in a real time conversation is intriguing and yet somewhat understandable. There should be a third party mediator that would navigate the conversations and discussion so that they would stay on task. A friendly discussion of opposing views are not always pleasant as each person is exposed to criticism and strongly held ideas are dissected and then can show flaws.
>
> If you believe that one's ideas are flawless then a discussion about those ideas should be very open and irrefutable. To back away from a discussion about those ideas would appear to be a lack of confidence in those ideas or a lack of confidence that the conversation would be enlightening.
>
> I am not saying that either one of you are right or wrong but without a discussion it is impossible to expand the knowledge that we are all looking for in the area of hitting. Posturing is a political way of not exposing your weaknesses or your strengths.
>
> Dave


Dave,

I disagree completely with your suggestion that Jack is refusing to engage in a discussion of batting mechanics. This discussion board has remained free and open for several years and Jack has debated and discussed batting principles with thousands of people, including Nyman, Charlie Lau, Jr. and countless others. When we opened this website, Jack's explanations of rotational mechanics, circular hand path, stationary axis and torque conflicted with almost every accepted belief regarding batting mechanics. Virtually everybody disagreed with Jack and it seemed to be one "hostile" comment after another. Criticism is not something that this board shies away from. However, as time progressed, the public became familiar with rotational batting mechanics, and began to understand that Jack had not developed a new theory, but that he was explaining the mechanics used by the greatest hitters in the game.

In contrast, many other discussion boards have come and gone during this time, many I would presume have retreated after challenges to flawed reasoning, and many of them often hid behind the shadows of member only sections, debating behind closed doors until a new plan of attack was formed. Jack, however, has always kept the doors to this discussion board open, and discussed batting principles with everyone.

If you were reading the discussion boards several months ago, you may recall Jack accepted a debate offer from Nyman, but it never materialized, although they indirectly debated batting mechanics. Ultimately, after a series of attacks on Jack's principles, Jack and I posed several questions to get more information about Nyman's theories, but our questions went unanswered (and as I recall, Setpro put up an under construction sign on its site). Although I have nothing against Nyman, I have had little interest in further debating with him since I believe that players and coaches benefit more from an understanding of the forces acting on the bat and the body mechanics that create those forces, rather than debating the merit and minutia of colorful names such as scap loading, which leads to little practical value when there is not a clear description of the forces applied to the bat and how these forces differ from the mechanics presented by others.

I agree with Jack - another debate would not be productive. Torque is a major component of pre-launch mechanics, the beginning of the swing (THT), and the hook in the handpath (BHT), but Nyman denies that torque exists in the swing - just look at the swings of Bonds, Sosa, Sheffield. (I've always wondered what force - if not torque - the top hand is applying to the bat as the scap abducts and pulls the top hand toward the catcher, accelerating the bat.) When ideas are this far apart, it turns into a war of words without any attempt to learn or acknowledge the other view.

You may find some comfort and benefit in that a quasi debate will continue because viewers of both discussion boards bounce questions and ideas off of each other, thereby further the discussions and understanding of the swing.

Brian