Bat Speed -- Baseball Hitting Forum

Posted by: rasha ayyad (ra-ayyad@hotmail.com) on Tue Mar 29 12:44:17 2005

> Hi Jack,
>
> I have thumbed through a number of your posts, checking for semiotic accuracy. In many places, I found your descriptions of the swing to be accurate--that is, if I substitute what you intended to write for what you actually wrote.
>
> Put succinctly, I find flaws not with the concepts, but the labels used to signify the concepts (see Ferdinand De Saussare). For instance, many times you note that, if there is a better way way of explaining the "reactionary" effect of torquing hands--such as making Nyman's / your idea of allowing body rotation to turn the hands on the bat--more lucid, you would. Since simplifying some terms leads to reducing them to "cues," I believe that you should designate an operational definition to every complex scientific physic principle that you simplify.
>
> Another error I see in your text is termiology contradicting each other. This is apparent in passages where your research about the lower body turning the upper body is refuted by message board responses suggesting that the upper body powers the lower body. Aporias (i.e., places in the text that deconstruct themselves), as Jauss suggested, are capable of ripping a thread apart.
>
> Finally, sometimes the site tends to affix "cues" to a ubiquitous understanding; hence, those who learn the same concept through other "cues" are wrong. In view of the lower of body mechanics presented in this site, I see few variations between your way of teaching good lower body mechanics, and Epstein's method of teaching good lower body mechanics. Thus, you should attempt to make "cue" all-encompassing.
>
> On the other hand, although the site could benefit from verbal revision, I find little fault with the underlying principles of the swing that you are trying to convey. I just believe that the terminology should not obscure one from its bedrock meaning.
>
> You have done a fine job with this site, and deserve accolades for your attempts to comprehend the biomechanics of the swing. With some revision--not necessarily dictating a flux in principle, but a more precise choice of words--your site can back its "scientific claims" more rigorously. E-mail me if you need any help, and I will be more than happy to assist.
>
> Best wishes,
> BHL

Followups:

Post a followup:

Name:

E-mail:

Subject:

Text:

> > Hi Jack,
> > 
> > I have thumbed through a number of your posts, checking for semiotic accuracy.  In many places, I found your descriptions of the swing to be accurate--that is, if I substitute what you intended to write for what you actually wrote.
> > 
> > Put succinctly, I find flaws not with the concepts, but the labels used to signify the concepts (see Ferdinand De Saussare).  For instance, many times you note that, if there is a better way way of explaining the "reactionary" effect of torquing hands--such as making Nyman's / your idea of allowing body rotation to turn the hands on the bat--more lucid, you would.  Since simplifying some terms leads to reducing them to "cues," I believe that you should designate an operational definition to every complex scientific physic principle that you simplify.
> > 
> > Another error I see in your text is termiology contradicting each other.  This is apparent in passages where your research about the lower body turning the upper body is refuted by message board responses suggesting that the upper body powers the lower body.  Aporias (i.e., places in the text that deconstruct themselves), as Jauss suggested, are capable of ripping a thread apart.
> > 
> > Finally, sometimes the site tends to affix "cues" to a ubiquitous understanding; hence, those who learn the same concept through other "cues" are wrong.  In view of the lower of body mechanics presented in this site, I see few variations between your way of teaching good lower body mechanics, and Epstein's method of teaching good lower body mechanics.  Thus, you should attempt to make "cue" all-encompassing.
> > 
> > On the other hand, although the site could benefit from verbal revision, I find little fault with the underlying principles of the swing that you are trying to convey.  I just believe that the terminology should not obscure one from its bedrock meaning.
> > 
> > You have done a fine job with this site, and deserve accolades for your attempts to comprehend the biomechanics of the swing.  With some revision--not necessarily dictating a flux in principle, but a more precise choice of words--your site can back its "scientific claims" more rigorously.  E-mail me if you need any help, and I will be more than happy to assist.
> > 
> > Best wishes,
> > BHL

Anti-Spambot Question:

How many innings in an MLB game?
   4
   3
   9
   2