Posted by: Jack Mankin (MrBatspeed@aol.com) on Mon Mar 7 13:51:46 2005

>>> Hello Mr. Mankin

I am going to buy your video. How does what you teach compare to Mike Epstein and Preston Peavy.

Peavey (www.peavynet.com) advocates the full transfer method a combo of linear and rotational. He uses slow mo of Aaron and A-Rod that seems to show they are both linear and rotational.

Mike Epstein (http://www.mikeepsteinhitting.com/) seems to advocate strictly rotational.

Thanks <<<

Hi PMC

I could not find any information on Preston Peavy’s Site regarding his batting principles so therefore, I cannot comment. Classifying instruction as linear or rotational depends on how one defines the terms. Some would say that most batters are a combination of the two because they take a linear stride before rotating.

Whether or not a batter takes a long, short or no-stride has no bearing on how Batspeed.com classifies a hitter. This Site defines linear vs rotational by the transfer mechanics a batter uses to transfer the body’s rotational energy into bat speed. When a batter extends the hands in a straighter path by driving the top-hand forward, he is classified as more linear. Batters that keep the hands back at the shoulders and allow shoulder rotation to fling the hands into a circular path are classified rotation.

I recently received an e-mail that requested a comparison of Epstein’s and Batspeed.com’s batting principles. I think the copy below may address the question you asked.

Jack Mankin
##

>>> comments: Hello Jack:

I just ordered your DVD. My 15 year old son has been a big fan of the Mike Epstein "rotational " batting method and has was very successful with it his Freshman year. He hit .568 and batted in the #4 slot. (mostly line drive singles and doubles)

His new Varsity high school coach says the Mile Epstein method is too radical and that my son will never be able to hit a low or outside pitch using this method at the more advanced Varsity pitching level.

I have ordered your DVD because it seems to be similar to Mike Epstein but not quite as "upper swing plane" oriented. My son is getting so much conflicting information -- I really don't want to confuse him anymore if I can help it. I am hopeful that your DVD will offer the balanced approach that my son needs to gain some consistency in his approach to batting. He needs to believe in one basic approach and stay with it.

Can you please tell me one or two basic differences and similarities between your "rotational" methodology and Mike Epstein's?

Thanks for your time. <<<

Hi Richard

I have listened to enough of the batting principles taught by most high school coaches that I can assure you that Mike’s teaching is much closer to the mechanics used by the better hitters.

However, if upper body mechanics is what you mean by “"upper swing plane oriented,” I would say it is just the reverse. I spend a good deal more time on how the upper body transfers the body’s rotational energy into bat speed than Mike.

From my discussion with Mike and reading his material, his definition of a rotational hitter is about any batter who rotates around a stationary axis. He seldom mentions in his video how upper-body mechanics transfers that rotation into bat speeds. When he does, it usually follows a more linear theme of extending the hands.

When I first met Mike, he flatly rejected the concept of a circular hand-path. What he demonstrated to me was un-flexing the boxed elbows to extend the hands in a direct path. However, I understand that in his more recent seminars, he now promotes a CHP.

The basis of a good swing is having the body rotate around a stationary axis. Mike’s video and seminars are having a very positive effect on thousands for coaches and players in promoting Ted Williams rotational concept over the linear weight shift theories that had stalled hitter’s progress for generations.

He asked a question that I always wished I had originated -- “Do we actually teach what we see?” I also agree with his statement, “I often find that the great hitters know the least about hitting technique.” Therefore, we may not put to much weight on what Bonds says about his top-hand, but why would Mike discount what he “sees” Bonds’ top-hand doing?

Richard, when you are deciding on how much of your practice time should be spent on upper or lower body mechanics, keep the following thought in mind. Of what use is a 1000hp engine … if the transmission slips?

Best regards,

Jack Mankin