Posted by: () on Thu Jul 12 17:58:01 2001

To Everyone,
> > > >
> > > > The people who come here should understand something about this site. The primary goal of most, if not all, of the comments on this discussion board are aimed at hitting homeruns.
> > > >
> > > > Most of the people who post here use homerun hitters as models. They talk more about hitting the ball far and not so much about hitting it hard and often.
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Some people will argue that the homerun swing will also give you the ability to make regular contact and hit the ball hard. Maybe. But, if you look at the stats you will see that there is a big difference between what homerun hitters do and what contact hitters do. If you look at their swings you will find the same thing.
> > > >
> > > > I am not saying one way is better then the other. I am only saying that people who come here for advice about hitting to coach their young players should know that on this site the ultimate in hitting is the homerun and thats the swing that they advocate.
> > > >
> > > > Louy R.
> > >
> > > This is basically a bunch of crap. The techniques presented on this site are about mechanical efficiency and optimizing batspeed. Correct application of these techniques in no way detracts from ones ability to make contact with the ball. Most of the pros with the highest averages are using rotational mechanics. The few that hit for "contact" and are using linear mechanics would probably benefit the most from learning rotational mechanics - their power numbers and averages would probably rise. It's just a better technique - period. I think an analagous situation in sports was the Fosbury flop in high jump. When it first appeared, it was a novelty. Then it took over the event because it was more mechanically efficient. Now 100% of jumpers use it. If 30-40% of pros today are using rotational mechanics - in 5 years it will be 70-80%. Eventually, it will be 100% because those players that stick to linear mechanics will not be able to compete. IMHO, Daniel
> >
> > Daniel,
> >
> > So, you think that ANY new idea will work because in the past there was a new idea workded?? Is that what you are saying??? If you're not saying that, what whats the point of bringing up the Fosbury FLop? So it worked. Does that mean that anything anybody says will work?
> >
> > Or do you think that hitters should use the Fosburry Flop to improve their hitting? What are you talking about?
> >
> > Louy R.
>
> I usually don't bother to repeat myself since, if you don't get it the first time, there's little hope. Just for clarification - the Fosbury flop reference was an analogy of one technique replacing another. You can look up "analogy" in a book called a "dictionary". And "new" has nothing to do with it. Rotational mechanics have been around for a long time - in the better hitters. The identification of the forces involved and coaching to optimize them is a rather recent phenomenon. You have but to scan down the major league stats for the first half of the year to see that players using the best rotational mechanics are dominating in all categories - including hits and average. Making "contact" is simply not suffering at all.

Daniel

I am sure you have to repeat your self often.

An analogy is pointing out that is two things are similar in one thing they are probably similar in others. So, what do you think are the similarities between the Fosbury Flop and batting? Huh??

What is truly incrediable is that you know what batting mechanics ALL the the hitter in major leagues are using. Interesting comment. I wonder what it means about your credibility??? huh??

Louy R.