Posted by: Patrick (pmgeoeiiee@yahoo.com) on Tue Sep 14 10:19:35 2010

> > Ok. I havent posted a topic in a long time and quite frankly is was because of a lack of knowledge, understanding, and fear on my part. But I'm back now. Here is my thing; I'm finding that I know a great deal about hitting and how it works and doesn't. I'm also finding out that I have a great deal more to learn about this difficult task. This, and I've said this before, whole rotational vs linear debate has really gotten me just fired up to talk about the similarites and the differences. In my opinion, it seems to me this whole debate got started about 25, 30 years ago when ted published his batting bible "The Science of Hitting" and Charlle Law published his batting bible "The Art of Hitting .300." Also, one could mention Tony Gywnn's "The Art of Hitting" but I don't hear as much debate about his book as the other two. I'm not sure why. Anyway here's the deal; Ted Williams said this himself in an interview with a lady named Ann Laquiri(youtube); "The quickest way to get to two spots is in a straight line." He also mentions that you want to hit the ball "inside out" not "outside in" (because that's the quickest way between two points) At this point, if you understand math, you must know that he's speaking of a linear approach. Not a curcular approach. Now you might think that I'm a linear avocate. You would be incorrect in that thinking beacuse i believe what he said also that the power in the swing is supplied by the rotation of the hips into the ball. Reading that, you might think that I'm an advocate of the rotational approach that this site and others preach (mike epstein's, chris o leary's). So which one am I an advocate of? Neither one, nor am I an advocate of both. I am an avocate of what Ted describes that you hit the ball "inside out" So, I am an inside out hitter. I try to use this method to connect the hips, shoulders, arms, wrists and hands just like Ted describes in the TSoH. Also, you should know that I'm not an advocate of Lau's "Art of Hirting .300" I haven't read it personally but I will anyway, just for the knowledge that He talks about. I've read Gywnn's book and I like it but I disagree with some points of it-like the bottom hand being the dominant hand. Yes, while it's true that I consider myself a disciple of everything Ted preaches I think some things he said have been subject to misinterpretation, and misunderstanding. Hopefully all of us can learn something from each other by listening, understanding, and doing. Let the discussion began...
>
> I strongly feel that Ted's saying that he should get on top led to a lot of people thinking that he meant hit the top of the ball. I am relatively sure that this led to the myth "hit the top of the ball"

See that's the thing. I think he did. When a hitter tries to get on top of the ball they are doing what he advocated normally- swing slightly up. Swinging slighly up forces the hips and shoulders to rotate. Now, He was saying again Slighly up from level to up about ten degrees. Throughout the years, I think that this approach has been taken to the extreme. Guys are swinging up too much . I don't see this particular approach as much anymore. The talk of "swinging down" has had a similar effect, especailly in the late 70s early 80s. When ted spoke up getting on top of the ball, I truly believe this he was not talking about totally swinging down on the ball. It's very likely he was talking about swinging slightly down, the opposite of swinging slightly up. The advantages of course of swinging slightly up would be that the swing would be shorter and giving the hitter more time for the incoming pitch. A hitter would get good wood on the ball with this approach when used optimally but would not hit with as much power and authority as compared to the up swing. But the up swing takes more time to develop and when it comes to timing there is no substitute for a slump buster than a swing that requires less time to develop.