Posted by: Jeff (kidd@islc.net) on Wed Dec 29 19:34:29 1999

Hi all,

I agree with Burgess that no-stride has more potential upside in fp than in baseball. Bill also points out something interesting -- though there are numerous major leaguers who use a short stride, including some who end their stride anywhere from slightly more spread to narrower (Bagwell) than they began, only the most miniscule of minorities take no stride.(Back to this point in a minute.)

IMO, the stride helps break stance inertia and, properly executed, can help you get in rhythm with the pitcher's delivery, leaving only small adjustments for the body's smaller muscle groups to make for changes in pitch location/speed/action. If you get rid of the stride, OK, but you'd better have a damn good substitute for it.

The main argument for no-stride is that it saves time. But the gain is not as great as you might first think, especially when you consider 1.) hitting is a dynamic action that is not easily accomplished from a standstill and 2.) your stride will start before the pitch is released, anyway (the time you're saving isn't necessarily ball flight time.)

There's a similar thread over on the SetPro site about this very subject, and it has yielded interesting comments. I'm sure this one will, too.

I'd like to pose this question to everyone, and I'm especially interested in Jack's opinion on this -- when the games were in their infancies, why did golfers figure out it was best to keep their feet on the ground while baseball hitters figured out a stride was useful? The most obvious difference between the two actions is that the former involves hitting a stationary object and the latter does not. That the stride has been taken at least since the inception of the modern game might not be proof positive that you need a stride, but to me it suggests there sure as heck is something beneficial about it.

Thoughts gentlemen?

Regards,
Jeff