Posted by: RQL () on Sat Feb 17 16:20:37 2001

"It could be most enlightening to all if Paul, Charley, Mike, Professor Adair and all serious minded batting enthusiasts would join in the discussion.
> Note: If creditable evidence is supplied that shows there are factors other than torque and an angular hand - path doing work on the bat, I will modify my model." - Jack Mankin
>
> that was big. i mean big. and i think everyone's just letting it go by.
>
> first to offer a forum (not necessarily a challenge). first to offer a consequence if proven wrong.
>
> why don't all you guys lay the cards on the table.
>
> you know, my dad always told me, "if you want the truth, then you have to get all the liar's together".
>
> jack, you are a man's man.
>
> ray porco >>Ray,I think we must get them all speaking the same language.I have questioned Jack,saying I think his rotating on a stationary axis is the same as the kinetic chain just not broken down into parts.I also believe that power is applied by the rotating on a stationary axis and yes using the lower body to transfer that energy to the upper body and out to the hands that ultimately bring the bat around.Your agreeing with Jack's statement that angular hand path and torque create batspeed ,if so then sit down in a chair that does not swivel and use all the torque and angular handpath you want and try to generate the same batspeed as rotating on a stationary axis.When I asked Jack this he said he would get back to me.The whole body must be used to generate the best batspeed so why not use it all just use it correctly as has been described by Jack.