Posted by: HitMan () on Sun Dec 2 15:35:40 2001

I was just on Mickey Mantle's website looking at his 10 longest home runs. 565 ft. isn't the longest recorded. Try 734 ft. He hit it against Kansas City on 5/22/63. It hit off the lights at Yankee Stadium. By scientific calculations the ball would of travled 734 ft. if it was still heading up and if it was coming down it still would of traveled 634 ft. Even if 734 ft. home run insn't the longest what about the ones he hit 660 ft, or 650ft, or 643 ft, or 630, or 620, your saying that none of those 6 home runs can be considered the longest home run ever. Give me a break. A guy could hit a ball 800ft. in a city league game, and would that be the longest home run ever, noooo, because some people think its unfair.
> >
> > Hey the funny thing is that Mantel never heard of top hand torque.As a matter of fact he once told me that it was a matter of seeing and tyming the ball and applying brute strenth.
>
> Funny how what players say they do and what they do are often different. But don't forget, there is technique and there is strength/power. You can do the technique with more or less power. Mantle swung hard. Doesn't mean he had no technique. Just means he applied a lot of force doing his technique.
>
> Home run distances are notoriously inaccurate. But I've never heard of anyone coming close to 700 feet. 600 feet is a stretch though there are legends of a few. But who knows if they are accurate??

I never heard of 600 feet either. As for "You can do the technique with more or less power" I think good technique and more power/force will result in a harder-hit ball than using good technique with less power/force.