Posted by: Sam R. () on Mon Feb 12 15:11:18 2007

Jimmy,

I have read your post and while you seem to agree with Chris you still don't see a distinct difference in teaching rotational mechanics verses linear. I agree with you if you agree with Chris "different" terms and even different methodologies can be used to teach the rotational swing but...you still seem sold on teaching linear AND rotational. If so, a coach that opts to teach and profess linear isn't doing anything to help that player get to the next level.
It doesn't make them a bad coach either.

Be that level HS, College or beyond. Aside from a handful of successful linear labelled hitters in the Majors,(Ichiro) who also happen to have great foot speed and other tools- you won't find many others who aren't rotational in swings. That includes those who "say" they are linear but their swings are pure rotational.

Labeling coaches who believe differently than you as "bad coaches" doesn't help your argument either.


> > "The facts are that every hitter is programed differently in terms of feel and swing-
> thoughts. So if anyone thinks that we as coaches should clone hitters to swing one way,
> then they are not a very good example of a good coach."
> >
> > I agree that different cues work with different people.
> >
> > However, the goal should be the same swing. That is, the swing that is used by virtually
> every major leaguer (and especially the good hitters).
>
> Chris,
>
> At least we agree that the goal is reached in many different ways. That was my point. So
> do we really have to debate what the "goal" or "best mechanics" should be labeled or
> called? If I were to name the "best mechanics" that the best Big Leaguers use it would be
> called "Efficient". I just feel that the terms linear and rotational are too far to each extreem
> of what the goal is. This can mislead and confuse young hitters into executing poor
> mechanics across the board.
>
> Jimmy