Posted by: Mark H. () on Fri Nov 23 21:38:03 2001

Does anyone have a succesful communication style when talking to hitting "experts" who have not been exposed to rotational hitting? I take my son weekly to a group practice at a local hitting/baseball indoor facility. I'm often asked to coach the boys on hitting. As a recent convert, I cannot in good conscience continue teaching linear hitting techniques. The owner of the facility is visibly shaken by the concepts I'm sharing with the boys.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This week he gently tried to steer me straight by stating that I was teaching the boys a "long" swing, and that eventually it would catch up with them, and as they got older it would be hard for them to catch up to a 90 mile fastball, and also more difficult for them to change back to the "correct" swing.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > He was especially struggling with pointing the bat towards the pitcher and sending the hands out in a motion perpindicular to the ball's path rather than straight at the pitcher. I was perplexed at how to answer. My 12 year old son was right behind him in a 50 mph cage at 35 feet crushing ball after ball towards deep left and down the line. It seems to me that power comes from bat speed, and thus a batter crushing the ball down the 3B line is getting the bat around pretty quick. He is a very well-meaning guy, so I don't want to alienate him, and (being very excited about the swing mechanics) I genuinely would like to share it with him. He is very technical, and does routine video analysis and training on local kids, using current "accepted" teachings. Any ideas?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In trying to get a person to believe what you are teaching or minimal understand it you need to back it up with something a little more concrete, something visual. Taking mechanics you are teaching comparing them to pictures of the MLB players that demonstrate those same concepts in the stages of the swing. One can't argue with just words you need some evidence for it to stand up.
> > > > > > > Good luck
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tell them to check out this site.
> > > > >
> > > > > ddavies,
> > > > >
> > > > > Did you buy Jack's vedio? Hehehehehe
> > > > >
> > > > > FJ
> > > >
> > > > I'm thinking that if you show them Jack's video without suitable preparation they are liable to go into mental meltdown, hold up a cross and back slowly away from you. lol
> > > >
> > > > Just too long of a jump mentally. Better start them out with Mike's first video since it has all that stop action video comparisons of the hitting greats and then once you get them on your side, show them Jack's video.
> > > >
> > > > Mark H.
> > >
> > >
> > > A difficult question! Learning is progressive. I started twelve years ago as a concerned father who wanted to make sure his son didn't learn the 'wrong' thing. Dusty Baker's book was my starting point. Since then I have read and used Dave Hudgens' material, watched Tom Emanski's tape, read Lau and Lau Jr., Schmidt, Williams, etc., etc., etc. Twelve years ago I wouldn't have known enough to intelligently evaluate Mike Epstein or Jack or Paul Nyman. The same might be true of just two or three years ago.
> > >
> > > The instructor may not be able to evaluate and absorb some of these concepts. Each person learns what they are able and ready to understand. A discussion of cues v. reality is a good starting point that helps those involved understand where the others are starting from. If used in conjunction with video or computer analysis, cues v. reality is a helpful place to start. Also, the concept that Mike articulates well of the difference between style and technique has to be discussed or else you will spend pointless hours on parts of the swing that just don't matter much.
> > >
> > > Good luck.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Thorpe Facer,
> >
> > I too have been on such a research project although not as long as you. I would be very interested in hearing more about your experience and conclusions.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mark H.
>
> Hey guys, please don't take what I am about to say personally, because some ot the things at this site do make sense. But when someone is presented with a "new" hitting philosophy it is natural to be skeptical. Remember, you have dozens of contradicting philosophies out there. You have an ex-LSU coach who emphasizes driving of the back foot. You have a University of Arizona coach who insists "no-stride" is the way to go. You have an ex-Washington Senators player who took a few photos of major league hitters out of context and "twisted" (pun intended)this into a "torque position" philosophy. Some instructors emphasize the bottom arm, some the top. Release the top hand or don't release the top hand. "Stay inside the ball" but at the same time use maximum hip rotation, reinforcing this skill by using the fence drill.On and on and on.
>
> So, who is the coach supposed to listen to? All he can do is try to assess the credibility of the messenger of an unknown philosophy, right? If the coach has heard major leaguers say to "throw the bat at the ball" or has heard major league hitting instructors say to take the knob of the bat straight to the ball, whether you agree or disagree with these concepts, major league hitters and instructors do have credibility.
>
> Contrast that with trying to convince a "non-believer" that a hitting philosophy taken from an internet website is TRUTH. I am amazed that you are amazed that this would be met with skepticisim.
>
> Maybe you are true pioneers in the field of hitting. But with all the "research" and logic to back you up, you won't get far in spreading your message until you start hearing major league hitters and major league hitting instructors preaching the same things you are preaching. And why do you suppose there are major league hitters who take lessons from Lau Jr and zero hitters who have never heard of, much less preach the virtues of top hand torque? (and I'm not talking about just the terminology but the concept itself).
>
> Good luck in spreading your message, but one piece of advice is this: to spread the message you have to do better than just convincing yourselves (and then beating up on anyone who disagrees with you), you need to convince some BASEBALL PEOPLE. The kids and the coaches in the camps listen to people they consider to be BASEBALL PEOPLE. You might not like it but that's a fact. Therefore your challenge is to get BASEBALL PEOPLE to listen to YOU.
>
>

You make some valid points. My irritation is not with someone who understands the different schools of thought on hitting and, for reasons he can articulate, disagrees with me. Had a LONG lively discussion on this subject over on the eteamz fastpitch board. The moderator, although he didn't fully understand rotational hitting, understood and could fully articulate his philosophy and carry on a substantive give and take discussion on hitting mechanics. He still believes in linear for fastpitch, but I can respect that because he at least has some understanding of the alternatives and can discuss them. My problem is with "coaches" who are charged with the responsibility for kid's careers and they don't even know there IS a question. Much less what the question is or why they teach what they do. In Mike's words, "Do we teach what we see?" Mike and Jack are making every effort to avoid repeating the cues and cures of the past unless they have a basis in reality as shown by video analysis. Baseball is a very tradition and superstition bound game. I'm sorry, but that's just not good enough for me when it comes to my kid. When Mike and Jack show me video of the games greats from past to present doing things a certain way, that's what I'm going to follow rather than what a player says. Video doesn't lie, but athlete's perceptions of what they are doing can be very different from what they actually ARE doing.

As far as "baseball people" saying it, I don't think Jack and Mike are different really except in emphasis and Mike and his mentor Ted Williams certainly count as "baseball people". With my apologies to both, I think Mike does the best job of explaining the lower body and starting a new rotational hitter and I think Jack explains the transfer mechanics and handpath better than anyone anywhere. I do think tht is something you learn when everything else is solid. Kind of like getting your masters degree in hitting. All that having been said, it's certainly understandable that people would be skeptical of something new (at least to them). But, other than the concept of tht, I see no excuse for a professional baseball coach to not have a working understanding of the various schools of thought on hitting and an idea as to which drills might be appropriate for each type of hitter. As to convincing them? If I, or someone else, lay it out there for them and they don't see what I see, then, even if they are wrong, I've done all I can. All the kids they teach linear mechanics too in the future are no longer my fault. I can lead them to water etc.

I don't see how someone can study the various hitting gurus here on the web, watch Mike and Jack's tapes and not believe rotational is the way to go for baseball. On the other hand, maybe for a certain type of small fast guy, he could make a decision to be a linear punch the ball the other way type of contact hitter and make it work well. Maybe a Glen Barker type? Can't hit anyway, might as well give it a shot. IMO they just have to realize that they have not chosen a power mechanic and they should not be trying to hit for power or pull it IMO.

I do agree with you though, that you have done a good job of explaining how some baseball coaches would perceive the argument.

Mark H.