Posted by: Shawn () on Mon Dec 22 23:08:05 2008

> >>> Jack wrote:
>
> "Please explain to the readers how a much slower linear movement of the hand accelerates the tippet of the whip to velocities that produce that (Crack of the Whip)."
>
> Please Jack it has been explained to you many times. <<<
>
> Hi Shawn
>
> If it has been explained to you many times and you are able to grasp the physics principles that induces the tippets acceleration, then you should have no problem conveying those principles to the readers. You had no problem accusing me of misleading statement regarding the whip theory. So, show the readers your in-depth knowledge of the whips physics principles that will prove my statement misleading. -- No more dodging please.
>
> Jack Mankin

Jack,

I will not argue with you over your beliefs, how you look at the swing, the science you choose to use.

Although, to say I'm dodging the question just made me laugh out loud. Very funny, and the tactic your trying to use is very funny and amusing. Stuff like this just makes me laugh these days, because I'm not here to argue with what you believe.

I just stated a fact of your belief, and what you believe in, what you have said and how you have tried to discredit one science principle and how you have tried to insert your science into the swing.

I'm not the one who tries to define the whip only "as a linear movement" (as in your response, you defined it as turning linear movement (slow moving linear hand movement to be precise) into cracking the whip) that cracks the whip at the end. That is what you who have done from the beginning. Going as far as tying a rope to a bat and throwing it in a linear fashion, to comparing an arrows linear momentum to the whip affect and saying that if linear can be converted to rotation by blocking then the arrow would snap when it hit the tree. To thrusting your back arm straight forward with your knob turning bat.

I have not seen your analysis DVD yet, but I will just say that your first two videos lack explanation power. In how the swing is generated.

I've seen you try to explain the whip, or to correctly and accurately post the facts, how you have tried to discredit the whip. And nothing you have said in your two videos remotely comes close to how the whip actually works.

The whip principle is pretty simple, and I've explained it to you in the past. It can also be described such as in the article Tom posted, proximal to distal sequencing, kinetic linking, kinematic sequence.

Since you wanted to argue your science, beliefs, with the whip facts and cannot even accept how you have tried to in-accurately discredit the whip affect. I have no desire to argue with what you have said, on tape, and in your posts. And I have no desire to explain it to you again and again, because your not interested in a discussion, you only wish to argue and push the science you created to describe the swing. In which I'm not saying I agree with or disagree with.

The only thing I said, and this is based on fact from your videos and posts. Is you have tried over and over to discredit the science behind the whip. And in every video I've seen you in or a segment on the issue, you have totally and completely proven you do not understand the whip.

A whip works because is transfers energy from the proximal to distal segment. A whip is built from the base on out in a heaver/thicker segment and progressively gets smaller until it reaches the end.

The hand/arm can mostly move just forward coming to a halt (or a blocking action) and transfers this energy into the whip.

The whip takes this energy and creates a loop in the whip (the arm and hand action plays a role in starting the loop), it is the loops in the whip that transfers a pretty slow moving arm/hand momentum from the proximal to distal segments in the whip that results in breaking the sound barrier.

Without the "loops", there is no way you could multiple the energy transfer that results in such a high speed. If you created the same motion with a steel rod, or a very thin rod that might be fairly long, it would not reach or break the sound barrier using the same arm/hand motion. You might make a pretty good swishing sound, and the smaller the rod (more flexible), the better the swish.

In the video of the Golf swing, they used the position that is basically the same position of a baseball hitter, to say that is what creates a loop in the swing. And they said because the golf club flexes at this point, that the flex also has something to do with creating the loop. Although, many great golfers played before a golf club actually flexed. And while I agree, that the flexing has the potential to transfer more energy, it is not the "only" loop in the swing.

This is a little mis-guiding because each segment is a loop in the swing. The ability to create speed at one segment and have an increase in the next segment is the equivalent of what the loop does in the whip. It's not just the heaviest to the lightest, Or torso is the heaviest part of the body. We have muscles/skeleton/tissues that can transfer and increase the energy between joints/segments. Which is the same principle behind the loop in the whip.

We could get into the more detail on creating a loop in the baseball swing, hands staying cocked, the preparation phase, start of the swing. etc,. Acceleration and deceleration, etc., etc,.

Although, I'm not going to waste any more of my time on the subject.

Because I've explained it to you before and you can't even bring yourself to say how you have completely misrepresented how the whip works, and how it works in the swing.

Your post on the subject was,

"Hi Shawn

I have a couple questions regarding the theory that the bats maximum angular displacement rate is due to the deceleration of the hips/torso/shoulder and lead arm. -- First, let us address the bats angular acceleration due to taking the hands being taken in circular path. If I were to swing a ball around on a string, would you say the ball would continue to accelerate as the hands angular acceleration continues to increase? Or, would you say the balls maximum speed occurred because the hand began to decelerate?

I have the same question as it applies to torque. Consider a 4-prong tire wrench. Would you say the maximum turning force is being applied as the opposing forces are increasing or decelerating?

Jack Mankin"


And for you to say I'm the one dodging questions, as I said it's just makes me laugh these days. Same old Jack, same old tactics.

All you want to do is take the facts of the whip principle, and apply your own science. If that works for you, great and I have no problem with your material.

And everything I just wrote was a complete waste of my time. Just like in the past it was a waste of time.

And as far as your readers, who ever they are, a few posts by people randomly, with all kinds of random questions on hitting. And even for those that end up posting regularly, they eventually leave. And for the 1 thousand time, this forum is next to impossible to carry out a meaningful discussion.

Add it all up, I just wasted my time.

At least Tom had something to say and post, and even though he's not the same when he use to let everyone bash him and never responded negatively. He still tried to have a discussion on the subject, as opposed to responding with a question. Which is not a response or discussion, it's just a tactic you use to try to prove your science is better then someone else's science or in this case better then the science behind the whip.

He didn't respond with a question, to push his science.

If I posted the entire Pujols clip, from the start to the end, it would not do your theory any justice. And that isn't why I posted it. I posted it to show the deceleration to acceleration ratio between the body, lead arm, and bat head.

And while I doubt, your readers, have much experience and or would even understand what is being debated. Leaving up to the readers, is not saying much. I doubt they even understand your science.

Shawn