Posted by: Jack Mankin (MrBatspeed@aol.com) on Tue Sep 14 11:28:20 2010

Hi Patrick

Over the past years we had discussed numerous examples where 'what great hitters say about batting principles' does not match the mechanics they exhibit in their swing. I think Ted fits in that category. He deserves immense credit for being the first to break with the traditional linear theory that the energy for the swing is derived from the batter's forward weight shift.

Ted correctly proclaimed that the energy for the swing came from the rotation of the batter's body about a stationary axis. This break from traditional teaching was met with irate resistance from that day's batting authorities. This was probably the beginning of the "Linear vs Rotational" controversy.

However, 'weight shift' vs 'stationary axis' being the energy for the swing is only part of the "linear vs rotational" debate. The second part of the debate addresses the upper-body mechanics that transfers the body's energy into bat speed. I have often asked, "Of what use is a 1000 hp engine -- if the transmission slips"

Basically, the linear theory of generating bat speed relies on the (A to B) extension of the hands producing a "whip effect" at full extension. With the rotational model, bat speed is generated from, (1) the "pendulum effect" of taking the hands in a circular path (CHP) and (2) Torque (push/pull of the forearm).

This is where what Ted writes in his book regarding upper-body mechanics does not match what his swing exhibits. He advocates an (A to B) hand-path while his swing clearly takes his hands in a circular path. - He advocates 'hitting the inside part of the ball' while most of his hits were pulled -- meaning, his bat struck the 'outside part of the ball'.

I do mean to single Ted out. It is common with most of the great hitters to speak in terms and cues they grew up with. The linear principles they were taught preached that all straight movements were 'good' and anything curved was 'taboo'.

Jack Mankin