Posted by: The Black Hole Lexicographer (Knight1285@aol.com) on Tue Jan 2 20:22:40 2001

Dear all,

I believe that the primary aspect in teaching baseball deals with a mental aspect of the game. Nowadays, a plethora of coaches engage in the overuse of euphemisms to justify old mechanics, which arouses my ire. Some individuals have forgotten that constructive criticism is an essential ingredient of mechanical growth. When I mention "individuals," please be aware that I refer to no one in particular on this site, nor any other site for that matter, but to coaches in my life who have regurgitated the false jargon on antiquaries for an extended period of time.

This type of teaching method is singularly inefficient in establishing a coach's respect. History can furnish examples of two such individuals. Take, for instance, two historical figures--Queen Victoia, and Elizabeth--that serve as foils to each other when delivering decrees and proclamations.

Queen Victoria internalized every aspect of the petty mannerisms of her age which I am discussing, which is even inherent in her name, which means, according to WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY: THE NEW LEXICON OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, "a carriage drawn by two horses." In addition to my vast and copious understanding of such caked superficiality, I could not suppress a laugh that resulted from reading a textbook where she used a regal pronoun to denounce an impolite act. "We are not amused," she sneered, with the pomp of a vain leader with powdered intelligence.

Compare her weak sneer to the bold proclamations made by Queen Elizabeth, who is listed in the chess books as "an avid chess player." When she gave a critical assessment after studying a certain argument, the strength of her argument was delivered by wit and careful analysis, and, as a result, she was more forceful than Queen Victoria in issuing decrees by tenfold.

The utterances of the Victorian Age, unfortunately, parallel one such expression in our age: "thirty years young". How, other than a polite address, does this make sense? Does not time railway its way only in a forward direction? Does this mean a person born in 1970 will be seventy in the beginning of the twentieth century, assuming one can go back that far? Or does it mean that a person in 1970 who has expended seven decades of his or her life (supposing that person is destined to become a CENTURION) is only thirty years young, and, ironically, becoming younger and younger until their death? The implication of such a statement defies all logic.

As a result, I have began to question the motives of coaches who cloud their method of teaching slap-type hitting in expressions like "running the bases is more fun than walking around them." The incentive is pathetically indirect as these instructors skirt honesty, that one must wonder why that person even wasted money on such minds.

Fortunately, Jack has used scientific arguments--and not petty expressions--to illustrate his board, and I have the greatest amount of respect for him as a result.

Sincerely,
Knight1285@aol.com
The Black Hole Lexicographer