Posted by: Rick (rickmiller33@gmail.com) on Sun Mar 29 21:46:06 2009

Jack,

Yes. I am saying shift the paradyme -- the shoulder is connected to the arms, wrists, and hands. The shoulders do become involved, but as variable assist... if you will. Keeping closed and exploding through the ball is how the power is generated.
Again, Ted Williams was the greatest hitter of all time, not the greatest instructor. I saw an interview once where he babbled on about Lau's theory and how he perceived. The interviewer stopped Ted and questioned his description as pretty much what he said was important in hitting at the beginning of the interview. Ted paused and then said he "supposed that was the case". Anyone who has read about Ted Williams knows he was kind of arrogant when it came to hitting. He felt like he was the authority on hitting and anyone else that suggested anything else was going to be attacked.

What about Pete Rose? That to me seems like rotational hitting, and it is completely different than the hitters I have been referencing.

I am really just trying to understand the differences here.


> >>> Thank you for the reply. The repackaging I was referring to was Charlie Lau's theory, which is what his son continues to teach. Unlocking the hips, pulling with the arms (and for all that is holy, NOT THE SHOULDERS), hands inside the ball, snap the wrists through with flat hands, and finish with a high swing which facilitates a nice extension through the ball. ARod credits Charley Jr. openly with perfecting his swing -- a nice one indeed. Larussa, if you recall, insisted the White Sox bring Charlie Lau on board as their hitting instructor when he was hired as Manager ans subsequently went on to lead the league in hitting. Larussa, to this day refers to Charlie Lau as the greatest hitting instructor he has ever come across. The question shouldn't be posed to me as to why I think Pujols is not what he says he is... a Lau disciple, but why you disagree with Pujols own statement and suggest he is something else. George Brett credited Charlie Lau for getting him into the Hall of Fame. I don't doubt that you are trying to help hitters improve their game, but telling kids to pull with their shoulder is just bad, bad, bad on so many levels. You cite Bonds, Ruth, Williams, and Sosa as great hitters to model. First, three of them were left-handed, two played a LONG LONG LONG time ago, and all of them were dead pull hitters. Side-note: I am so sick of everyone pointing to Ted Williams as a hitting source; one shouldn't take exceptions to the game and apply their style to the masses. Then there is Sosa... are you kidding? Sosa in the same breath as the other three? My idea of rotational hitting would be Rose, and perhaps I am misunderstanding your interpretation of what rotational is to you. <<<
>
> Hi Rick
>
> In your opening post regarding Lau's theoy, you listed "top hand release" as one of his key principles. I assumed you were referring to Lau Jr. and I have not kept up with his theories. However, I am familiar with Lau Sr. and concur with Ted Williams assessment of his batting theories. Ted stated that Lau's teaching did more to stall the advancement of young hitters than anything he could think of.
>
> Therefore I can assure you I would not put Lua Sr.s' "repackaged" theories on this site. Take for example the first Lau theory you mentioned, "Unlocking the hips, pulling with the arms (and for all that is holy, NOT THE SHOULDERS)" -- This raises a good question. How does the energy from "Unlocking the hips" get to the bat if the 'shoulders' stay locked?
>
> As Jerry's post above points out, for the hip's rotational energy to be transferred up the kinetic chain and out to the bat, it is the rotation of the shoulders that transferres that energy - Note: The arms, wrist, hands and bat are connected to the shoulders - not the hips.
>
> The post below from the Archives adds more information on this topic.
>
> <a href="http://www.batspeed.com/messageboard/25677.html">Role of the hips in the swing</a>
>
> Jack Mankin