Posted by: Major Dan (markj89@charter.net) on Wed Dec 12 13:29:12 2001

> Batman-
>
> I stand by my remarks.As I pointed out,sometimes the assumptions underlying the world of the question and the world of the answer are different enough that simple Q+A doesn't work.We don't share enough of the same underlying idea of how a body learns to produce a swing to do the Q/A thing to the satisfaction of both.There are better and worse ways for the body to learn how to produce a swing.Among the better swings there are an infinite number of good ones and an infinite number of locations to be hit.The hitter needs to learn good ones for as many locations as possible.This will not happen with any fixed technique or strict adherence to cues.The coach needs to set appropriate limits and have the hitter solve the biomechanical problem.The coach needs good analytical skills including visual and video info feedback to help see how principles are being applied.The specific techniques are variable.Paul Nyman posts the work of another expert to address this perspective at(no spaces):
>
> www.setpro.com/finalwebsite/Main%20html/Classroom/Classroom%20Functional%20Training%20News%201.htm

Batman-
is your purpose to understand or to refuse to understand and refuse to state your differences?
Several people, Tom especially, have spent considerable time addressing your question quite seriously.
What are you really saying in your reply? That you don't understand what is being said so you are rejecting it without substantial response?
IMO Tom has gone far beyond what you've asked and you don't seem to have gotten to first base yet. Perhaps rereading all this might help. If you really have got a handle on it, then respond with something of your own. So far all you've said is "I don't buy it".
Perhaps someday you will be ready to receive the value given to you. For now this thread is more like words falling on deaf ears.