Posted by: Bill T (cjm2005@hotmail.com) on Mon Apr 11 14:33:34 2005

Scott,

Jacks study and teaching of "Rotational Swing Mechanics" are right on. What you are talking about is "Linear Mechanics" Your not wrong either.....the difference becomes, who wants to be the best hitter they can be and that would be using Jacks philosophy which is Rotational Swing Mechanics. Barry Bonds does not use what you are talking about neither does Chipper Jones, Ken Griffey Jr., Luiz Gonzalez, Sosa, etc.....They use EXACTLY what Jack is talking about. You can go talk to 10 different hitting coaches teaching 10 different things and they all use these hitters as their models but Jacks philosophy is backed by science and kinesiology. They all look similar but the Rotational Swing Mechanics are there. You have to keep in mind that Jack did not come up with this science of hitting he is just refining it. The University of Alabama is completely switching to it over linear and tons of other major schools. If you want a better subject to study that hits homeruns and covers the outside pitch hitting for average , look at Chipper Jones....what an incredible model for Rotational Swing Mechanics. Jack isnt his teacher, he has a hitting coach teaching him the same exact mechanics that Jack teaches. It is real, it is the future, it is correct and everyone who wants to teach their son / daughter to be a GREAT POWER hitter should learn and perfect it. In conclusion, I would not say that you are incorrect because Linear Mechanics work its just simply not the best method to become the best hitter you can be. My son is 12 and is undersized and has been a Linear Mechanics student since Tee Ball and was always a good singles hitter.....now in his final year of Little League we worked on Rotational Swing Mechanics all this offseason and now he is flat crushing the ball and has approx. 10 more MPH on his batspeed. Two homeruns in tournaments on 250 ft and 2 already on 200 ft Little League. He is batting in the 800's as well. I have studied all types of hitting techniques and I have yet to find anything even close to Rotational Swing Mechanics. I can guarantee you this.....the bathead of ALL of the hitters using rotational swing mechanics is slightly below the ball at contact and the hands are slightly above the bathead causing approx. a 10-15 degree of upward travel at the point of contact. Go to google and run a search for Chipper, Sosa, Barry, etc. and you will see it....its there in crisp color. The downward path you are talking about is exactly what I used to teach my son but it is only in the very beginning of the swing.....to say that a hitter continues on a downward path all the way through the swing is simply not correct. Just my opinion......Thanks for your time.

BT


> > >>> I went back an looked at my post to see where I said ‘outside’...? Couldn’t find it..? If you disagree with “inside and on top” then you must favor “outside and under?” How dose Barry Bonds take a 97 mph fastball an inch off the inside black and hit it on a frozen rope fair with no hook into MaCovey cove…I guarantee you its not by being outside and under!
> >
> > I’ll bet you chunk and hook the golf ball with the outside and around philosophy…any golf pro will tell you that for you to get the ball off the ground you must strike with a descending blow…to maximize spin you must pinch the contact between the ball and a preferably tight lie…same holds true in baseball to maximize backspin on a baseball one must aim one top …in all reality is really only an aiming point…however, to get caught up in attempting to manually lift a ball by aiming underneath will lead to more 0-4’s then you can imagine.
> >
> > I disagree with what you would like to say you see in the thousands of hitters you have looked at, granted Williams was in favor of a slight uppercut…but I see it as an afterthought…pay close attention to the path the hands a good hitter takes…hands ahead of the barrel, barrel above of the hands, hands working inside the ball, hands stay on top of where the ball is going to be when it enters the hitting zone, great hitters like Williams have the uncanny knack for squaring everything up at contact to deliver the blow, if and when they do slide slightly below its only for a split second just prior to contact, which by no means in my mind would justify committing to a ‘under philosophy.’
> >
> > Furthermore, you model in your frame by frame is gross…why select a career .270 hitter that has his lifetime BA and HR totals marred by a corked bat a steroids? <<<
> >
> > Hi Scott
> >
> > I agree with you that talking about taking the hands “outside” the ball is absurd – no hitters do, which makes “hands working inside the ball” a meaningless term. The same is true for keeping the ‘hands above the ball’ – no hitters take their ‘hands below the ball.’ However, the trajectory of the bat-head does bottom-out below the ball and is on an up-slope at contact. I see no problem with a batter having the correct vision of the actual swing plane.
> >
> > Therefore, “stay, 'inside and on top' of the baseball” are meaningless terms with rotational transfer mechanics. However, they do make sense with linear principles of “taking the hands straight to the ball” and “swing down at the ball.” Sad to say, those probably are the principles taught to most young hitters, but they certainly are not the mechanics exhibited by the best hitters.
> >
> > It is interesting that you would ask, “How dose Barry Bonds take a 97 mph fastball an inch off the inside black and hit it on a frozen rope fair with no hook into MaCovey cove.” – Scott, it is Bonds keeping his hands in a “circular path” to contact that allows him to keep the ball from hooking foul.
> >
> > There are a number of clips of Bonds’ swings at - http://www.youthbaseballcoaching.com/swings.html - If you can find any discrepancies between the mechanics Bonds’ exhibits and the rotational transfer mechanics taught on the “Swing Mechanics” page, please feel free to point out the clip and the discrepancy.
> >
> > Jack Mankin
>
>
> Its amazing how we can both see swing and see what we both want to see. Thanks for the link, what a valuable teaching tool.
>
> Give me an idea about what kind of arch your talking about with the hands if one were to start with his hands level with his back shoulder and say 4 inches away from his body. How far do the hands move away from the body (in the arch) before they start work back?
>
> You should not take the 'hands to the ball, you need to take the hands inside the ball, and the as you put it...
>
> “swing down at the ball.” Sad to say, those probably are the principles taught to most young hitters, but they certainly are not the mechanics exhibited by the best hitters.
>
> Where is Giambi under and around?, look at the Art of Hitting .300 by Brett and Lau, see frame by frame and the commonalties of good hitters...hands MUST be inside...they start on top and then get on plane with the bat head sliding below the hands on a down pitch right before contact (Although on Giambi's swings it doesn’t look like his barrel goes below.
>
> If what you are teaching is so contrary to the status quo pertaining to hitting instruction today, yet all the best hitters are doing it, who are they getting this instruction from…? Are they secretly logging on to batspeed.com to get the latest info because their big league hitting coaches instruction is failing them…? I’m sure the likes of Don Mattingly and Rod Carrew got it all wrong.