Posted by: Patrick (pmgeoeiiee@yahoo.com) on Tue Sep 14 15:57:53 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
Hey Jack
Yep, I can see where the confusion would come in. It makes sense that the great hitters would use the terms that they've always known about in desribing the finer points of the swing. But here's the thing: Are they not understanding what they're actually doing at the plate? Or, are we as students of their teaching misunderstanding what is being told and shown supposedly by video? I know for a fact that the eyes can be deceived if all of the necessary and revalent information is not clearly understood. I know I'm gonna get backlash for saying this but I don't think Ted was confused when he said the bat is brought into the ball in a linear fashion. Here's why: (1) Ted was a lifetime .344 hitter. (2) A lot of his hits were to his pull side or power side. He hit the ball THROUGH the shift a la Barry Bonds but even more so. How could he hit for such a high adverage and hit the ball through the shift all the time and then when the shift got to be too tough take his stride slightly more into the pitch hitting the ball away from the pitcher's box? Again, you talk about ted rotating the body around a stationary axis. Yes that's true I believe this strongly. But, you fail to mention the importance of hip action and that is the key component. But of course it's not the only major part the shoulders play a role too. But it's like he said you can't get the proper action without the hops clearing the way first. Notice too that the hips and shoulders have natural rotational elements to them meaning that they seem to be shaped in a circular fashion while the arms wrists and hands are shaped in a more linear fashion. When those elements a used in the optimum way the swing is QUICK. And like he said quickness with the bat is critial which is way he advocated an (A) to (B) path. Notice I said BAT not hands. Meaning that more than just the hands take the bat to ball. I can almost quote him verbatum "Do I look inside...out? Do I try to hit the ball inside out? Or, do I look outside-in try to hit the ball that way? (Shakes head), Logically I could tell anybody in 2 seconds 3,5 seconds why that isn't the best. The quickest way to get to two spots is in a straight line. That's the way you wanna do it it's-BANG! Right there. It ain't...the big circle out. Take you all week to do it. Bup hit you on the fist. How can you hit the ball inside out by swinging in a circle? Conclusion: It's too slow that way. That's probably why he was the last .400 hitter.