Posted by: Kevin Chase (acechaser@aol.com) on Wed May 25 11:00:46 2005

You are probably correct; the Gibson non-rotational HR is the "exception" (rather than the rule). However, the fact that he hit the ball 385(?)feet by lunging at the ball and "flicking his wrists" is interesting to me. I guess no one could teach such an approach, however.





> > Recently, I've seen Kirk Gibson's famous World Series homerun vs. Eckersley (1988?) featured on Fox Sports. Although I am a believer in rotational mechanics, etc., it appears to me that Gibson used mostly his arms/wrists (not much hip rotation) to hit this HR. Did I miss something? Admittedly, I do not have a clip that I reviewed frame-by-frame. However, it seems to me that there must be a "scientific" explanation of the signigicant power generated by the Gibson swing (and the many others like it that take place in MLB). Your comments are welcome. Thanks.
>
> Kevin,
>
> I don't have a clip of that swing, either. So, I couldn't tell you how linear that swing was. I do remember the homerun very well, though!
>
> I think it's important to note that just because a batter's swing is linear, that doesn't prohibit him from hitting homeruns. Heck, even Tony Gwynn (the poster child for linear hitting) hit the occasional homerun.
>
> I don't know this for sure, but I would just about bet that Gibson was of the old-school linear mentality. But, he was a very strong guy. With rotational hitting, arm strength has less effect on power hitting than with linear hitting, where the arms supply so much of the swing's energy. Gibson hit quite a few homeruns in his career, but never put up a 40 homerun season...or hit the ball near 500 feet (to my knowledge).
>
> You may very well be right in saying this appeared to be a linear swing. I'll sum it up, though, by saying that (in my opinion) on average, rotational hitters will more consistently homer with greater average distance than linear hitters.
>
> Marcus