Posted by: Tony (t_stefko@yahoo.com) on Wed Jun 28 08:27:49 2006

> >>> Hi Jack
>
> Very interesting read and being a biomechanical person I read and then reread very carefully and then analyze. I am concered that in the final experiment that the players hit off a tee. Since the ball is not moving it has no energy and thus is not a true test of two objects colliding and the resultant forces measured.
>
> On the surface it looks like an example of how grips affect ball speed but if you dig a little deeper I believe that there maybe some faults within the study itself. Just like the presenter mentioned about previous experiments that were not true tests of the hypothisis this test though more convincing is also lacking in absolute conclusions.
>
> I believe that the law of motion that states that an object in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by another force and its resulting formulas would need to be explored more closely in order to find the final answer to this question. <<<
>
> Hi Dave
>
> I would also be skeptical if it were just one study. But four bat companies also ran similar tests and came to the same conclusion.
>
> Jack Mankin

Jack,

I still wouldn't discount that all of the similar tests are similarly flawed. I believe in physics and we can get as scientific as we want, but it really comes down to common sense. Based on what you believe, are you saying that a 250lb man and a 150lb man who generate the same batspeed are capable of hitting the ball the same distance?

If you look at all of the greatest homerun hitters of the past and present, they all have substantial size and mass. I don't see how you can prove that all of these larger players generated more batspeed than the smaller ones. For example, you won't see Brian Roberts hitting 500+ homeruns in his career, but you may see Albert Pujols do it. You can't say this is because Albert Pujols has more batspeed than Brian Roberts. Mass and Momentum of the player are definately a factor.