Posted by: Sergio () on Wed Dec 5 12:37:37 2001

JACK!!!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Recently I made the following post: "Hi. I was wondering how I go about joining your club. I think I understand the rules but I want to be sure I understand them correctly.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Rule # 1 Only top hand torque and circular hand path may be discussed.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Rule # 2 Any discussion that challenges the sacred tenenants of top hand torque and circular hand path is prohibited.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Rule # 3 If anyone points out an inconsistency in top hand torque or circular hand path, club members should do one of the following: (A) get defensive and attack the credibility of the challenger (B) ignore the facts and the poster and confine the discussion to believers only (C) arrange for the post to be deleted.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Do I understand the club rules correctly?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On second thought, I don't think I want to join your club after all."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Now, I know there might be just a trace of sarcasm in the post, but nevertheless there is truth to everything I said. I would like to know just one false statement I made.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thank you
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You wouldn't be closely related to Joe A. would you?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Feeling the way you do, seems like the mature thing to do would just be to walk away? Why do you feel it necessary to communicate your hurt feelings to us?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What I see happen here time after time (forgive me if this doesn't describe you) is that someone finds their sacred, long held swing mechanic beliefs challenged by those who have thought this through and have ready answers available for all their arguments. Sometimes this causes great emotional distress and they lash out. I would be delighted to have you convince me that my understanding of swing mechanics is wrong because that would mean I had learned something I needed to know. Right now, Mike and Jack make good sense to me along with Tom. Tell me where they are wrong. I look forward with an open mind to your response.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mark H.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mark H.
> > > > >
> > > > > My gripe has nothing to do with rotational mechanics. My gripe is exactly what I said and what you just did. As to Joe A, no, he's not a relative and in fact I never heard of him. Maybe you are confusing him with someone else.
> > > >
> > > > Sergio,
> > > >
> > > > I love to discuss mechanics with linear proponents or any kind of believer in whatever mechanics. Furthermore, Jack, from what I see on this board, is a complete gentleman of IMMENSE patience who suffers fools much longer than I would. I'm not saying you are in that group, but there have been some and Jack was patient to a fault. As far as aggressive arguers, this is an open discussion board. If you have thin skin, the internet is not the place for you. On this site though, facts and logic are respected. Stubborness and long held beliefs that the holder cannot logically defend are not.
> > > >
> > > > Mark H.
> > >
> > > I repeat: people like you are my gripe. See how defensive you have become? If someone says something that hurts your feelings, this is a sample of some of the things you say: "they lash out", "suffers fools", "thin skin","the internet is not the place for you","Stubborness". You have no clue as to what you are arguing for or against. All you know is that someone hurt your feelings. And then you are amazed that at eteamz they referred to you as a joke?
> > >
> > > Obviously my assesment was correct: in Jack's zeal to protect this site from the pranksters and troublemakers (which he has both a right and an obligation to do), he has allowed individuals such as yourself to hijack the original goal of "free and open discussion" and convert the site into a platform to spread the gospel of top hand torque.
> > >
> > > Do you here the laughter in the background, Mark H? That is the laughter of major league ball players and instructors . It's not just a case where they have heard your message and disagree. They have heard your message and are laughing at you.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > My feelings really aren't hurt for myself. I'm a little irritated to see Jack get what I believe to be unwarranted criticism. Whether he is right or wrong about his theories, he is unrelentingly a gentleman on this site. And if I'm wrong about mechanics, I stand ready, even eager, to hear your wisdom and explanations on the subject. If you don't feel free to do so here, I would be happy to discuss mechanics on eteamz or any other forum you consider appropriate. If I convince you, fine. If you convince me, even better. If we agree to disagree, fine as well. There are at least a couple of linear guys over on eteamz fastpitch that I have great respect for and have enjoyed discussing mechanics with even to the point of sending them video tapes for their comment. But they have a well defined mechanic which they can describe and discuss in detail in terms of exactly what is happening and what the relative advantages and disadvantages are.
> >
> > So let me know where I can read your specific disagreements with Jack. And also, I would be curious as to your opinion of Epstein.
> >
> > Thanks in advance for your answer,
> > Mark H.
>
> Perhaps you could join in with some of the people on the following thread who seem to feel the same way you do. I'm eagerly awaiting specifics from them as well.(since 11/30)
>
> http://www.eteamz.com/baseball/boards/baseball/message.cfm?id=363722
>
> By the way, when I first hear Tom Guerry discussing Epstein, Mankin, and Nyman, I thought he was an irritating loony bird (sorry Tom). But then I got sick of not understanding what he and Greg Johnston were talking about and I started reading all of the above three. And then I would go swing, and then I would go watch video of MLB hitters. And now, I am very appreciative of his efforts to educate people about the rotational swing. For quite a while though, my first inclination, like you, was to laugh at all this. Now, I think of him and Jack and Mike etc as mentors, which is opposite of what I thought at first. There are still some small areas in which I disagree in substance or emphasis with each of them, but I certainly think long and hard before I do.
>
> Study all of this. Read the old discussions. Watch the tapes. I dare you. :-)
>
> Mark H.
>
>
> This is getting out of hand and it's part my fault. My original post should have been more polite and I should not have overreacted to Mark's rude remarks.

In the near future I will start a new thread specifying some of the flaws in Jack and Mikes theories.Both gentlemen have very sound theories, for the most part, but I'll point out the flaws & hope that honest discussion, not personal insults will result.

Again, to Jack, sorry for the sarcasm in my original post and I'll think a little longer before typing in the future.