Posted by: Herman () on Wed Oct 10 09:38:23 2001

Hello
> > >
> > > You can call it whatever you wish, but the videotape proof is conclusive.
> > >
> > > Poor hitters advance their hands toward the ball with a shoving or throwing motion that disconnects the lead arm from the upper body.
> > >
> > > Good hitters accelrate the bat back toward the catcher, then the hands move into a circular orbit and the lead arm moves in sync with the upper body. The bat head then gains maximum speed from shoulder rotation.
> > >
> > > Personally, I cannot see how throwing the hands would be a useful thing to think about. But if someone can do that and the result is consistent with what good hitters do, it doesn't matter.
> > >
> > > It is unreasonable to think that someone could come to this board and say disconnecting the hand path from rotation is good technique and not expect to be corrected.
> > >
> > > Melvin
> >
> > Hey, your not paying attention, yiu can sling something in a cirle path or you can sling it straigt.but it doesnt matter anyway.Havnt you heard of a hammer throw? I dont agree or disagree but at least adress the experiments the guy did
>
> Hello
>
> I don't think I'll be addressing any experiment because no experiment was performed. An experiment requires a lot of work. It requires a hypothesis, standards, control groups and calculation for dozens of variables. It then must be repeated by someone else if the hypothesis is proven. Let's not profane true standards of intellectual rigor by reading a few paragraphs about top-hand torque, going and swinging the bat, and calling that an experiment. It's not. It's called anecdotal evidence and is the most unreliable testimony there is as to an ideas reasonableness.
>
> I almost have to laugh at all the people who write in here and say they read the site, told Junior about it that night and the results are amazing! I play about 40 ballgames a year and hit two or three times a week and it was taken me months, months I say, to even become reasonably fluent with bottom-hand torque, let alone top. And that was after week upon week of just trying to figure out what it was.
>
> No, sir, I don't think there are any experiments being written about here and I certainly call anyone an intellectual lightweight who says they read it last night, tried it today and loved it/hated it.
>
> Melvin

Melvin, I don't come to this site much and I'm not very vocal, but Joe is right, you are not paying attention to what people say. Is it because your feelings are hurt that someone would dare suggest that just maybe Jack is not always 100 oper cent correct? RB said that with his experiment, which he acknowledged was not science, he VIDEOTAPED the hitters. He said that when they thought "throw" that their hand path remained circular. If you are too chicken to try your own experiments, fine, but why do you put down people who tried something and it worked for them? Like RB said, you rather stick your head in the sand . Closed minds is certainly not conducive to learning, but I guess you think you already know it all. But the troubledome thing is, because you think YOU know it all, it's ok to denigrate anyone who disagrees with you.

And like RB said, maybe this site is just for a handfull of people to discuss top hand torque and nothing else. You are incapable of a civil, point-by-point discussion so you resort to defensive attempts to discredit the poster. You (meaning your entire clan)don't give newcomers a chance to be converted, or buy Jack's tape because you scare them away.

And like RB said, I will let you have the last word. Go ahead and talk among yourselves, I will not respond, I too am otta here for good. a note to Jack: creating unpleasnat experiences for newcomers and DISCOURAGING an honest dialog is an unusual way to build up a business. I'm gone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!