Posted by: daw () on Sun Jan 2 12:38:39 2005

Hi All
>
> In a post above, a coach asked the following question, “Now, tell me, daw, do you believe taking a stride is necessary or do you believe the stride does not add anything to the swing?” – Since we are discussing the stride vs no-stride option, I thought it might be a good time to revisit this long standing controversy.
>
> My position has always been that the stride has no mechanical advantage over the no-stride approach. It is mainly used to coordinate the rhythm of the swing to the rhythm of the income pitch. However, many coaches strongly feel there is a mechanical advantage to taking a stride.
>
> For those coaches that feel the stride does have a mechanical advantage, I would ask that you clarify your reasons for the advantage. The most common reasons given are: (1) the linear momentum attained from the body moving forward is converted into body rotation. (2) The weight transfer from the back-side to the front-side aids in rotating the body.
>
> If you feel the stride does add power to the swing, I would be interested in your thoughts.
>
> Jack Manklin



>>>As I said in my response to the post in question, the one kid on our softball team who somehow naturally picked up rotational mechanics, including THT, uses absolutley no stride. In fact, she uses very little motion whatsoever until launching. She is coiled in her stance, front shoulder already turned inward, with her front knee cocked in and her front-foot heel already off the ground, with the back of her front foot practically facing the pitcher. Though she is not a big kid, she has always had been a big-time power hitter with a hugely quick bat. I also mentioned that the linear hitters on our team, as they became accustomed to rotational mechanics, seemed to shorten up their strides "subconsciously". This leads me to believe that there is a tiny difference, if any, between striding and not striding (using rotational).

daw