Posted by: Major Dan (markj89@charter.net) on Fri Feb 16 07:28:33 2001

to anyone who cares,
> > > > >
> > > > > a one handed swing DOES NOT have a smaller radius than a two handed swing.
> > > > >
> > > > > my "proof" (or rather - jack's proof) is no "thought experiment". it is a concrete proof. an undeniable proof. a clearly visible proof. AND a proof demonstrated by the very person who refutes it.
> > > > >
> > > > > let's examine.
> > > > >
> > > > > quote: "For the record, once I 'launch my hands' (knob to the ball), which to me is the beginning of the swing itself,..." by own admition - swing starts with knob to the ball.
> > > > >
> > > > > let's compare clips: the FULL clip showing the batter's one handed swing and the SHORTENED version showing "launch sequence" only. reference the KNOB of the bat to the batter's anatomy when it FIRST STARTS to the ball. first, examine the clip showing the full swing. please,put your mouse pointer on the knob of the bat when it first starts forward to the ball. reference it to the batter's anatomy. what my eyes tell me is that the knob FIRST starts FORWARD somewhere back at the shoulder (certainly behind the batter's ear). now look at the SHORTENED "launch sequence" clip. clearly, this clip starts with the knob in front of the batter's ear (almost to his nose). much of the swing has been left out.
> > > > > now examine when the knob first starts forward in the two handed swing. examine both clips (full swing vs. shortened "launch" swing). pretty damn close to the same spot.
> > > > >
> > > > > continuing:
> > > > >
> > > > > quote: ".....the reason I synched the two swings side by side."
> > > > >
> > > > > i'm assuming that the camera was not moved, and that the camera angle is the same for both the two handed and one handed swings. it certainly appears to be.
> > > > > please, with a simple ruler, on your computer monitor, measure the distance from the batter's left toe to the center line of the batting tee, for both two handed and one handed swings.
> > > > > i believe that i am correct in assuming that the batter is FURTHER AWAY from the ball in the clip showing the one handed swing. further proof is the front foot in reference to the batter's box line. with this kept in mind, focus on the right hand of the batter in the few frames just before contact. reference the right hand to the background. use the pole forming the back left corner (as your viewing) of the batting cage.
> > > > > in the clip showing the two handed swing the right hand does not go beyond the reference point of the pole. not so in the one handed clip. the right hand clearly goes beyond the pole reference point.
> > > > >
> > > > > continuing:
> > > > >
> > > > > look at the right elbow in both clips. look at the very FIRST FRAME of the "launch sequence" clips. which elbow is further away from the body?
> > > > > it's clearly evident to me that the one handed swing elbow is not in the "slot". clearly, further away from the batter's body.
> > > > >
> > > > > conclusion:
> > > > >
> > > > > while standing farther away from the ball, starting the knob further back, extending the elbow farther away from the body, and extending the hands farther away from the body - i, we, all, (except the batter) can conclude that the swing radius one handed is LARGER than two handed.
> > > > >
> > > > > more to come!
> > > > >
> > > > > ray porco
> > > > >
> > > > > p.s. ".....(knob to the ball)". ON A TEE????
> > > >
> > > > Ray -
> > > > Is El Grande Experimente really an experiment? Is there a significant sample size? Is there a control group? What are the assumptions?
> > > >
> > > > One assumption is not stated. Paul's swing acts as the model for a swing. Using his model, his numbers show what they show. Is this a proper model? Is his swing truly optimized? It is mechanically like a major league swing?
> > > > While 79 MPH is pretty good, good major league swings are 90+ MPH.
> > > > When comparing pitchers, the difference between 79 and 90+ is the difference between the Park League and high level professionals/ between non-prospects and prospects.
> > > > Where is the other 11+ MPH? Is it lack of BHT? lack of THT? Is the torque angle or degree of separation of hips and shoulders large enough? Is the timing of the arms/hands release (flail) correct? Is there a circular hand path?
> > > > Perhaps we should analyze the swing before we analyze the results of the experiment.
> > > >
> > > > Any takers?
> > >
> > >
> > > dear whoever you are,
> > >
> > > no. no. no. none. no. no. no.
> > > see http://www.batspeed.com/mechanics.html.
> > > yes. yes. wha? i dunno. probably not. no. yes. i agree wholeheartedly.
> > >
> > > you are absolutely right, whoever you are. i made a generalization based on one swing. i was wrong.
> > >
> > > but-
> > >
> > > i posted an observation at jack's site, and gave jack a compliment and paul bashed me -
> > >
> > > "...people 'see and hear' what they 'want' (are only capable of), I now 'see' why so few players reach their maximum potential."
> > >
> > > paul bashed jack -
> > >
> > > "I 'assume" Ray is referring to the statement and subsequent 'proof' (thought experiment): [following was a quote by jack]
> > >
> > > paul bashed us both -
> > >
> > > "Again, it us just incredible how poorly people understand or refuse to SEE what is before their eyes (brain/bias 'shapes' what we see)."
> > >
> > > all i wanted to do was prove that i REALLY DO SEE WHAT IS BEFORE MY EYES.
> > >
> > > i answered your questions would you please answer ME one question, whoever you are.
> > >
> > > paul said,"if anything, my one hand swing has a smaller swing radius, especially at the end (fish hook)."
> > >
> > > DO YOU (whoever you are) THINK IT DOES?
> > >
> > > ray porco
> > >
> >
> > Ray -
> > I admit to being 'somebody' and 'whoever you are'.
> > I realized after I posted that I had forgotten to fill in my name. I wasn't trying to be anonymous. I wrote my last post in pieces over several hours and then posted in a hurry.
> > Also, sorry I did not preface my remarks sufficiently. I was not attacking your critique of El Grande Experimente. My comments were aimed at the 'experiment' itself. Your critique has merit, though the differences are not as large as what Jack had stated in earlier posts of his, as Jack has commented on already.
> > I just feel that Paul has set his own swing up as the representation of all swings, and drawn conclusions from that supposition / assumption. Paul disregards tophand torque and bottom hand torque as non-factors. but does he incorporate them in his swing to begin with? If both the two-handed and one-handed swing lack certain elements, then a comparison of the two swings' batspeed will not show any difference due to those factors.
> > I also see different wrist movements in the one handed swing, as Jack mentions, that are hard to reproduce in a two handed swing.
> > Also, though the camera angle is bad, I see swings that are close to unit turn swings - hips, shoulders, arm(s) working almost at the same time rather than in sequence. But one swing, one camera angle, hard to draw conclusions - both for us and for Paul.
> > Anyway, Ray, reread my post and see if it makes more sense from that perspective.
> > Major Dan
>
>
> major dan,
>
> your post made sense the first time i read it.
>
> my quote:
> "you are absolutely right, whoever you are. i made a generalization based on one swing. i was wrong."
> and i meant it.
>
> your quote and question:
> "paul disregards tophand torque and bottom hand torque as non-factors. but does he incorporate them in his swing to begin with?
>
> answer:
> hell no.
> his top hand torque is non-existant and he weight shifts hitting the ball well inside his stride foot (almost prematurely. no, on second thought - prematurely). doesn't get full extension (or close to it)
> thereby cutting down his chances of executing bottom hand torque correctly.
>
> you want to see a (in my opinion - and i would like jack's) great swing that demonstrates bht - check out jeremy burnitz' poke at the "'VOODOO' physics" posts again. in fact paul edited (shortened) the swing to (i believe) demonstrate "whip"[can't get into the archives for some reason]. that's where i got the idea for the one handed vs. two handed "take away flail" experiment (if you don't know what i mean, see a post here by jack on tue. feb 13 00:24:03 2001).
>
> you know major dan, i answered all your questions and i'm still waiting for you to answer mine. do you (after viewing paul's one handed and two handed swings) think that his one handed swing has a smaller swing radius?
>
> by the way, (another question) try the "take away flail" (i'm afraid to call it) experiment. i would be very interested in your take.
>
> sincerely,
> whoever i am (just joking)

Ray -
After looking carefully at the one and two handed swings, I agree with your assessment that the one handed swing has a slightly larger swing radius. It is not a 2+:1 ratio. But Jack addressed that issue.

Overall, the two swings are more alike than different, but there are differences in technique as well as swing radius.

I will try the 'take away flail' if I can, but it really changes both swings. In fact, from the clips, the flail part of the swing, elbows and wrists is where I see the biggest difference in the two swings.

This could end up being a very interesting discussion. Paul always brings lots of good stuff to the table. While we can poke some holes in the initial experiment, the question it raises is really the biggest hitting question of all: what body actions generate batspeed, in what sequence do they happen to generate batspeed (what contributes how much, when) - or - what's the best way to swing a bat to hit a ball.
Its the holy grail of all these discussions. Not sure we'd ever get a unified model or full agreement. I'm not sure the discussion would ever get past semantics and definitions. But it is worth a try.
I have learned a lot from Paul, Jack and Mike Epstein in the last 6 months. I don't see their swing models as irreconcilable. They have much in common but with different focus, different words, different packaging. I do my best to synthesize what I am learning and turn it into better swings in my players. I try to separate the cues from the realities as I see what works in action and try to figure out how to teach it. Paul has done a good job of reminding everyone that cues and reality are often different. I have attended a number of coaches conferences and a lot of high level coaches don't do separate the two.
I hope we'll all learn more as this progresses.