Posted by: The Hitting Guru () on Sat Dec 9 15:50:56 2006

> >>> Therefore it is likely that Williams could swing a lighter bat significantly faster than Ruth could swing his heavier bats. So I conclude that as much as bat speed is warranted, Ruth's back to forward weight transfer must account for some of the difference in relative distance. <<<
>
> Hi Guru
>
> Could you expand on the reasons you came to that conclusion? What mechanical reasoning or physics principles would you site to support your conclusion that his weight shift was a factor?
>
> Jack Mankin
---------------------------------------------------------------------

My premis is that one can swing a lighter bat faster than one can swing a heavier bat. Thus I assume that Williams can swing a bat that weighs a pound less significantly faster than Ruth can swing a bat that weighs a pound more. And if we assume that batspeed creates more difference than bat weight the relative distance has to be made up by something in addition to the 20lbs extra that Ruth had on Williams.

I also assume that other great hitters who hit at least some homeruns applied rotational principles after Ruth. But yet know one is really in the ballpark with regard to batted balls hit for distance. And if no one used Ruth's stride of note with the exception of later Mickey Mantle who was in Ruth's league with regard to distance, the stride length has to be considered.

I AM NOT saying the stride contributes to bat speed. But I believe the stride helps create distance. Ex. Howard Johnson Vs. Paul Molitor. Johnson a picture for rotation used his stride along with rotational dynamics to cause into question if he was doing something illegal. He lead the league in homeruns at 170lbs and was close to other times. Moliter also rotational (no stride) hit homeruns but was not even close to a contender for a title. Yet he was 10 to 20 lbs heavier than Johnson a probably stronger as well as being taller.
Yet another example would be Ben Oglevie (40 homeruns and weighing 160 to 170 lbs).