Posted by: tom.guerry (tom.guerry@kp.org) on Mon Feb 7 10:39:05 2005

Jack-

The hitting-mechanics forum is closed at present for new postings,but here is an interesting thread.

http://www.hitting-mechanics.org/vbforum/showthread.php?t=618&page=4&pp=10

This was an attempt to disprove torque/tht using computer modelling/simulation.

Even though the thread is titled nail in tht coffin {or something like that as Condi might say),it seems to me that one model actually provides some of the best support for THT.

I believe it was "Ironnyman 2" which shows the effect of back arm action in quickening the swing.This is a passive model,but the effect increased with increased mass of the back arm.

I would conclude from this that force production with the scap/arms/hands could do the same thing as increasing mass in the passive system.

Subsequent to this Nyman went through major gyrations to avoid testing this premise.While he demonstarted a force that could be referred to as torque involving the back hand and arm,he claims this does not count because it is purely reactive.

He goes on to say that active force production is not possible because it would have to happen either by back arm extension or internal rotation which degrades the swing.

I do not find this persuasive.I "believe" in fact that force production is possible and essential to quickening the swing.I would also agree that it doesn'y happen via extension or internal rotation.

Nyman also tries to obscure this action by focussing much more on the power of hook action in subsequent models.

At this point my conclusion would be that he has missed the mark by focussing too much on discrediting you and not enough on what might actually be occurring.

I would be interested whether you think his model supports your THT concept.

Perhaps I am just trying desperately to cling to my own belief system.