Posted by: ray porco (rporco@verizon.net) on Fri May 20 16:41:23 2005

Jack,

I think the subject matter is important enough to be brought back up to the top. If you think so, as well, would you be so kind? (I assume Coach Peavy read my latest post, - after all, he replied to tomguerry after my post was posted, in a rather obscure area of the Discussion Board.)

***************************************


Full Transfer Hitting

Posted by: Coach Preston Peavy (smarty1@mindspring.com) on Wed Mar 16 06:07:43 2005


The final statement in this thread about my approach promoting a "longer swing", does not show a clear understanding of what I teach and is in error. I teach a VERY compact swing, to a high terminal batspeed with a movement called a pursuit curve movement...it is compact(short in back)and goes well with the laws of physics (leveraged) for maximum acceleration AND it is a sound, efficient movement (meaning biomechanically-a movement the athlete can actually do and repeat) which maintains a high terminal batspeed while in a quality impact configuration to achieve a relatively long (in terms of relative length out front and through the ball) impact zone after rotation (which occurs at about 75% of swing movement, unlike purely rotational guys that force a top hand cast and who rotate the wrists at about 50% of movement. BUT, it is ANYTHING BUT LONG, as some of my premier students swing in less than .13 of a second, with some in the .11 second range, total effective swing time, proven by my High Speed Motion Analysis....

Just to clarify for those on this thread, that my approach in the Full Transfer Method of Hitting is neither purely linear nor is it purely rotational, as it relates to lower body AND to hand movements.

It is my contention, after countless hours of High Speed Motion Analysis study of the best, that fundamentally we neither move in a linear or rotational way...we use a combination of linear and rotational movements.....when we view the best in High Speed Motion Analysis, which is a specialty of mine, we truly teach what we see....because the best move so fast, we MUST slow them down (and I do not mean 30 frame a second camcorder stuff) to 100 to 250 frames a second to ACTUALLY SEE what they are doing and how they are sequencing it, or putting it together.

These discussions are great, but let's make them accurate when we are depicting others please.....and while I greatly respect Lau and others for their contributions to the game, my approach is not to be confused with theirs..........I base what I promote more on my High Speed Motion Analysis, Biomechanical and BatSpeed Studies of the best in the game...and what they do fundamentally in common, within their own differing but successful styles....

See this article on bat acceleration at www.peavynet.com/news/linerrotational.htm and the other articles as well,to better understand the theories I promote......

Everyone is welcome to view some of the Motion Analysis Videos I have posted at www.peavynet.com which show the best in baseball, doing what they do best, but each in their own style....while achieving the same basic fundamentals...remember, their is a DIFFERENCE between FUNDAMENTALS and STYLES....but, that is another subject.....

And, if all else fails....just ask!

Yours in Baseball, Coach Preston Peavy
VSI Baseball
www.peavynet.com

**********************************************

Re: Full Transfer Hitting

Posted by: ray porco (rporco@verizon.net) on Tue Mar 22 17:51:27 2005

Coach Peavy,


Your quote:

“…as some of my premier students swing in less than .13 of a second, with some in the .11 second range, total effective swing time…”



If I may ask, what are your parameters for “…total effective swing time…”? In other words, when (your definition) does effective swing time start and end? Does it start at heel drop, or one or two frames after at 250 frames per second? Or does it start at the first turn of the shoulders?
And when does it end (the logical assumption is contact)?
I’d like to know start and stop points of a swing timed at .11 seconds?

Thanks,

ray porco

********************************************

Re: Re: Full Transfer Hitting

Posted by: Coach Preston Peavy (smarty1@mindspring.com) on Thu May 5 06:56:11 2005


Ray,

I have been very busy this season and just got back from hitting schools in Oregon and other places. All of my time is spent on teaching....and this is the absolute first time I even had a chance to review the "thread" you mentioned.

You need to understand that I very rarely have time to review threads on boards and cannot answer questions posed there very often.

However, you may ask your questions directly at smarty1@mindspring.com and I will always do my best to answer. I can also be reached at www.peavynet.com

Please realize that I get 175 emails a day and I am instructing tons of students and teams....so I do my best to respond to email.

The effective swing time of .11 to .13 of a second has been achieved many times by my college age players as well as some of my 16+ age students....and is basically measured from initiation of the hand movement to or through lead arm extension, into such a position as to no longer be in an effective impact configuration.

"Keep Your Pitches Down, Your Spirits Up & Keep Swinging"

Yours,

Coach Preston Peavy
VSI Baseball
HIGH PERFORMANCE Baseball Training Tools That WORK!
smarty1@mindspring.com
www.peavynet.com
www.peavybaseball.com

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds"....Albert Einstein


*******************************************


If not a DISCUSSION forum, then what?

Posted by: ray porco (rporco@verrizon.net) on Sat May 7 12:13:19 2005


Coach Peavy,

In your post on Wed Mar 16 06:07:43 in the thread titled (Full Transfer Mechanics) you:

A) Refuted what you believe to be an incorrect assumption of your teachings.
B) Clarified your approach (although not fully).
C) Stated your contentions.
D) Made Claims (although not definitively) based on high speed motion analysis.
E) Praised these discussions by calling them “…great…”.
F) Admonished these discussions, for not being accurate.
G) Pleaded that these discussion become accurate when depicting others.
H) Promoted yourself by extending an invitation to your website.
I) Advertised by posting your website address.
J) Offered to answer questions.

Some of us responded to your post. Attempted to promote discussion. Asked questions.

There had been no response from you until 46 days later.
In your post on Thu May 5 06:56:11 2005, you:

A) Gave An Excuse as to why you haven’t responded earlier.
B) Directed that we “…need…” to understand why.
C) Gave Us Permission to ask questions directly at a posted address (to which I might add, I tried in May ’05 with no response)
D) Asked Us To Realize how busy you are, with regard to email and instruction.
E) Gave An Extremely Vague One Sentence Answer To My Very Specific Question. (More on that, later).
F) Included A Quote By Albert Einstein that could be construed as a personal insult. (More on that, as well).


Well, here is my response.
You have posted to a DISCUSSION FORUM. While you justifiably did so to correct incorrect assumptions of your teachings, you none the less posted to a DISCUSSION FORUM.

What is DISCUSSION?
It is an extended communication (often interactive) dealing with some particular topic.
It is consideration of a subject by a group; an earnest conversation.
It is a formal discourse on a topic; an exposition.
It is consideration of a question in open and usually informal debate.
It is a formal treatment of a topic in speech or writing.

What is a FORUM?
It is a medium (as a newspaper) of open discussion or expression of ideas.
It is a public facility to meet for open discussion.

The way I see it, back in May you had three choices in response to tomguerry’s post.
1.) Ignore it.
2.) Sue him.
3.) Defend yourself , but not without strings attached.

You chose to defend yourself, AND to ignore the purpose of discussion forums (unwritten rules of politeness – speak when spoken to). You entered the Arena. More than that, you Advertised in the Arena. And you made promises that you did not fulfill, in the Arena.

Enough of that.


My question (March 22, 2005):
>>>If I may ask, what are your parameters for “…total effective swing time…:? In other words, when (your definition) does effective swing time start and end?<<<

Your answer (May 5, 2005):
>>> The effective swing time of .11 to .13 of a second has been achieved many times by my college age players as well as some of my 16+ age students....and is basically measured from initiation of the hand movement to or through lead arm extension, into such a position as to no longer be in an effective impact configuration. <<<

My reply:
For someone who contends, - your quote - “It is my contention, after countless hours of High Speed Motion Analysis study of the best, that fundamentally we neither move in a linear or rotational way...we use a combination of linear and rotational movements.....when we view the best in High Speed Motion Analysis, which is a specialty of mine, we truly teach what we see....because the best move so fast, we MUST slow them down (and I do not mean 30 frame a second camcorder stuff) to 100 to 250 frames a second to ACTUALLY SEE what they are doing and how they are sequencing it, or putting it together.”

That’s the best answer to my question that you can come up with?
“…basically measured…”??????
“…from initiation of the hand movement...”??????
- WHEN IS THAT, GOSHDARNIT?
If you claim that total effective swing time is measured to hundredths of a second and that you analyze with video slowed down to 250 frames per second, can’t you be a bit more specific on what you consider to be the “start of the swing”?

And what the heck is - your quote – “…to or through lead arm extension, into such a position as to no longer be in an effective impact configuration.” Is that intentional obscuritism for “contact”? Or some mysterious point before contact?

What you have done Coach Peavy, is made claims (“…as some of my premier students swing in less than .13 of a second, with some in the .11 second range…”) at a DISCUSSION FORUM without offering PROOF. Instead, you have delayed an extremely vague answer, offering that you have been just too busy. While all the time, Jack has been cordial enough to permit your advertisement.
And if you see this post as being too harsh, please consider the reality.

One last item.

In your last posts you have included a quote by Albert Einstein:
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds"

This was not included in your prior post. By quoting Einstein, what are you hoping to accomplish?
One might misconstrue an attempt by you at achieving martyrdom. Comparing your “…great spirit…” to a (violent?) opposition by my and tomguerry’s “…mediocre minds…”

Actually, used in context, Einstein was expressing his abhorrence of racial prejudice. The correct quote is:
"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence."