Posted by: Brian () on Fri Dec 17 17:28:46 2004

I have said before that I am a realist, not an idealist.
> > > Truth and reality is my code.
> > > Anyone who has ever lied, knows how easy it is as compared to telling truths.
> > > Likewise someone who runs away or sticks his head in the sand when confronted with a distasteful reality.
> > > Truth and reality can be very harsh.
> > >
> > > You have wagged a finger at me, when in REALITY I have only spoken the TRUTH.
> > >
> > > The statement that you made was (in every sense of the word) ridiculous. Nothing can be obvious if you cannot see it. That is the truth. That is the reality
> > >
> > > You should thank me for pointing that out. Instead, you vilify me for telling it as it is.
> > >
> > > Your quote:
> > > “…your condescending attitude makes having a discussion with you very ‘uncomfortable’, regardless of whether your comments have merit or not.”
> > >
> > > Meaning I should sacrifice truth and reality to make you comfortable? Never.
> > >
> >
> > ray:
> >
> > I cannot imagine that I am the only one perplexed by the anger in your tone. Somehow Jack makes a post noting that in frame #1 on the Swing Mechanics page, "The hands are closer than 6 to 10 inches away from the shoulder," and that sets you off, suggesting that there must be "mirrors," Jack is "absolutely ridiculous," using numerous caps (generally indicates yelling), and that Jack's post was "very unscientific;" but amazingly you feel that you responded to Jack with "truth and reality." Please.
> >
> > As a side note, you oddly stated, "Nothing can be obvious if you cannot see it." Where to being with that one, but frankly I'm not interested in wasting my time by giving you thousands of examples to disprove such a sophomoric statement nor am I interested in discussing with you the principles of deductive reasoning, the laws of physics, circumstantial evidence, and so on, all of which can demonstratively show that the "obvious" does not have to be visually seen to be true.
> >
> > Getting back to the point of my post, I just don't understand why you couldn't have said something to the effect of, "Jack, I cannot agree with you because it is impossible for me to see the hands and tell how far they are away from the shoulder. Can you either explain how you came to your conclusion or agree with me that it is not possible to tell the actual distance?" Would that have been "sacrificing truth and reality?" Never (as you suggest), and it may have stimulated a discussion rather than this mess.
> >
> > Brian
> > you and jack are dodging the issue...thousands of hitters have their hands 8 inches or more away from shoulders...very few have hands glued to shoulder...maybe you think ray was not polite but i have certainly been polite in my questioning to jack, and what did it get me? instead of addressing the issue jack says he does not value my comments.....brian, i don't think you and jack realize the magnitude of the gross error jack has made......we can all talk about top hand torque until the cows come home, but until jack gets away from generalities and gets into SPECIFICS of how to do the knob to the catcher thing, nothing gets accomplished...but guess what?...jack finally articulates how to specifically do the knob to the catcher thing, and what is it? it's the glue the hands to the shoulder thing!again, you don't understand that this is a significant, major departure from reality....you can spin this thing by talking about how the extended thumb might account for 2 inches here and something else might account for 3 inches there, but this is essentially what jack is saying (and he had NEVER, at least so clearly & specifically said before): he is saying that the hands should be fairly close to the shoulder thru launch position, and major league hitters, by and large have their hands 8 inches or from the shoulder...again, don't try an "nuance" this thing by saying the extended thunb = 3 inches, therefore we are really talking about a variance of 5 inches, then find another "nuance" to try and diminish the difference further....the bottom line is JACK IS HAVING HITTERS HAVE THEIR HANDS SIGNIFICANTLY CLOSER TO THE SHOULDER THAN THE AVERAGE MAJOR LEAGUE HITTER....so....why should jack be so suprised at being asked to defend such a radical concept, especially when it is so easy to see the clips?......maybe you feel you don't have to "defend" your ideas...afterall. it is your website....but you have said you welcome an exchange of ideas, and if one is polite and respectful (which i think i have been in the past)he should explain his errors....
> by the way, i think the regulars at this site should speak up...if you think i am full of baloney in interpreting jack's comments, if you think thatmost major league hitters really do have their hands almost glued to their shoulder, fine, say so, if we disagree we disagree...and if you think jack is the one in error you should say so...but this issue of glueing the hands to the shoulder could have a sigificant, powerful impact, either positive or negative on hitters and which ever side you are on , i think everyone should speak up.....

----

grc:

I'll leave your and Jack's ongoing discussion up to you guys, and of course, it is fine if you disagree. My post only addressed how we should be disagreeing with each other.

As to your comment that: "JACK IS HAVING HITTERS HAVE THEIR HANDS SIGNIFICANTLY CLOSER TO THE SHOULDER THAN THE AVERAGE MAJOR LEAGUE HITTER," you are probably right. Most major league hitters are not great hitters. Great hitters use different mechanics than average hitters.

The proximitely of the thumb to the rear shoulder is, in my opinion, a cue to get in a good launch position. It causes a batter to take the slack out of the front arm, promotes a good inward turn, and puts the hands and arms in a position to launch the bat with a circular hand path.

I believe Jack is absolutely correct that the swing mechanics of most great hitters have the thumbs within a few inches of the rear shoulder. If you keep your thumbs (as a point of reference) more than 6-10 inches or so away from the shoulder, then there will be a tendency to develop "slack" in the lead arm, which will cause the bat to drag behind shoulder rotation. Also, having the hands away from the shoulder makes it very difficult for the batter to use pre-launch mechanics and to accelerate the bat in the proper swing plane during the beginning of the swing. Having the hands extended from the shoulder causes the batter who is attempting to apply rotational mechanics to throw the bat vertically down rather than into a circular arch, causing the bat to get out of the swing plane and creating a loopy swing. On the other hand, for the linear hitter, having the hands extended from the shoulder promotes a straight hand path (knob to the ball), which is not a mechanic used by great hitters.

Do not become confused or distracted by the location a batter holds the bat in the batters box before the swing beings. Instead, focus on where the hands are during the first two frames of the swing. As Jack pointed out, the batter in frame #1 of the swing mechanics page most certainly has the thumb closer than 10 inches (which is ALMOST ONE FOOT) from the rear shoulder even without mirrors or a direct visual path, and that swing has produced some of the best power numbers in the last 5 years. I'm sure that you would have to agree with that statement grc.

Brian