Posted by: John D (John@Dresslar.com) on Thu Nov 10 10:23:05 2005

Scott, it's unfortunate that this has turned into a flame war, focusing more on speculations of others' motivations than on the quality of what they teach. In all candor, I don't think Teacherman is helping the situation by accusing YOU that what makes you so testy about this site and a system is that we're apparently not experienced coaches. I am always suspicious of someone who chooses to make ad hominem attacks like that rather than address specifics, and I can't see how someone with all your vaunted experience would think that such attacks help convince someone of anything. If I come to you for hitting advice, I want to learn the mechanics of why a specific tweak to my swing helps, not some attack on a coach who advises something different. Yet, you launch into comments like, "If there was some mind altering real science here regarding improved hitting you can bet your arce that the very people who make thier living off hitting would be flocking to the site. The fact is, the rotational "$eller$" are making their living off those of you who think they've found the holy grail of hitting...doctor it up with made up terms regarding a psudo science and see how many video's we can sell."

Let's address this. Jack charges $39 for his video, and offers only three additional products -- that he actually uses as integral parts of his teaching systems and videos. And, he freely posts detailed and meaningful responses to folks' questions every day that shlubs like you and me can take in for free (although it may mean a bit more for those of us who've purchased the video). If Jack is just some money-hungry charlatan, he's doing a poor job of it.

Pseudo-science? In what way? There are two scientific principles Jack relies on: centrifugal force and torque. You gotta problem with them? You can debate Jack's method for taking advantage of them, but you can't deny they play a big role in any powerful swing.

Why aren't more people flocking to the site? Maybe they do and don't post, or maybe they just find the video sufficient and don't want to wade through forums and filter out unhelpful posts from naysayers like you. (Not that your views aren't significant, but they don't help use the system, to be sure.) People have a zillion different hitting videos/systems to work with (see http://www.baseballjunk.com/videos_hitting.htm to see what I mean) for about the same price, and many teach similar rotational mechanics. So, not everyone will go to this site. My son's private pitching coach (a college player) has about 25 other kids he works with; the world hasn't beaten a path to his door either, but to the kids he works with he's golden. It's a question of what works for each kid.

Does this system work? I checked with a number of parents with kids my age who'd done some looking, and the only one that received unanimous praise from those who'd tried it was this one. I reviewed the post, and they seemed to make internal sense and avoided claptrap, so I got the video. After viewing it, I realized what he was teaching corresponded with the most succesful hits of my sons and his teammates in 11-12 year old ball. (I'm the team videographer, and went back and looked at those hits, and sure enough it was true.) I showed it to my son, and he started to get excited about it and, when we next went out to hit wiffles in the back yard, he started getting better contact on pitches out of his happy zone just by applying some of the principles. In short, "light bulbs went on" for both of us, because the system makes so much sense. So, for his purposes, we're convinced it'll continue to make a difference as he gets the system down.

As for research, I wasn't questioning your experience, but rather your insistence that Lau was endorsed by the cream of hitters (albeit long since retired) and implication that rotational hitting was somehow rejected by a major leaguers, including Ted Williams. I noted that Williams in fact endorsed the principles of rotational guru Mike Epstein and directed you to video clips of hitters using the technique. Can you show me someone on that page who looks more "Lau" than rotational? You then brought up Barry Bonds. Look at this video clip on the page I referred you to:

http://www.youthbaseballcoaching.com/images/Baseball_Clips_1-t0004.jpg

Watch his hands make a perfect circular hand path. His explanation of his hitting "checkpoints" may use different language that you THINK is inconsistent with a circular hand path, but the results are evident for the eyes.

Can someone use a technique without thinking about it? In order to castigate the system, you then insist that none of your coaching colleagues "think about" a rotational hand path to get to the ball, but for some reason you reject the possibility that "they do it and don’t know it argument".

Guess what? If you watch the video, Jack doesn't say you should "think about" a rotational hand path either! Sure, he explains that that hand path is a RESULT of good mechanics, like the firm lead arm and good hip/torso/shoulder turn (say like in the Rose video I referred you to). As a good coach, I'm sure you realize that the fewer distinct tasks that the hitter has to consciously focus on, the better off he is in that .4 seconds that he has to make his swing.

So the point is this, Scott, if there's is some particular technique taught in the video that you think is counterproductive, please tell us! And if you're such a serious coach of hitting, it's probably worth your while to pay the $40 and to watch the whole thing with an open mind both to (1) see if there are some ideas or observations that might be helpful to your students, or (2) be aware of what your students may have learned so that you can anticipate their questions (or correct what you would view to be their mistakes). But if you're such a good coach, you SHOULD be able to discuss specific mechanical issues that you think are flawed in the system as Jack actually teaches it. We'll listen! We're all scientists on the path of true knowledge. But, if don't, you're open to attack as being just another flamer.

* * * * * *
> Rotational mechanics have been around since cavemen tossed rocks up in the air and hit them with a stick, this is not new.
>
> I have not been a huge advocate for a purely linier swing… its impossible. What I did say was that this site does not address good hitting but rather a fools gold link to increased power…only if you dig into your wallet!
>
> I will say that while going strait to the baseball (hand path) is physically impossible, the linier mental picture will get better results for far more hitters then a rotational mental picture to the baseball.
>
> You ask about my research…my research is playing for 15 years and coaching for the last 15. I work just about everyday in the batting tunnel watching and talking about hitting with all levels of hitters. I have coached at every level both in America and Europe and listened to literally hundreds of different people talk about hitting…I have talked at length with big league hitting instructors, big league hitters, managers, big time college coaches…and the theme of : “the hand path being rotational” is about as far from what they think about in terms of getting to the baseball as attempting to stand on their heads and hit.
>
> ASK THEM! Get someone with credibility that works in the trenches to convert…And save the, they do it and don’t know it argument. Listen to Barry talk about catching the pitched ball with his top hand…see video of him doing it with a glove.