Posted by: BatMan () on Wed Dec 12 14:12:53 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.

Major Dan, I don't know how I could be any more clear but I'll say it again.If you have a philosophy )hitting or any other kind)you want to share with someone, that philosophy will indeed be rejected by most people if it can not be understood. The process of understand includes (or should include) seeking clarification of the parts that are being misunderstood. The process of teaching should include seeking to clarify the parts that are being misunderstood.

Yes, I know Tom has spent a considerable amount of time addressing the issue, but no time answering the question. I don't question his motives. I suspect that he has an over-all theory he has developed overtime. In his model everything fits into place quite neatly. But again, if someone exposes something that doesn't seem to fit so neatly afterall, and if an adequate explanation can not be made, it seems to me that not only could the one part of the model be called into question but perhaps the entire model could be questioned as well.

I don't want to beat a dead horse and I hope you don't either. Let's just leave at that. I might also point out, though , that maybe a month or two ago someone asked Tom a specific question about contact points and bat angles. After several rounds of what I just went through (long essays but total non-answer)apparently he gave up.

A few days ago Ray Porco asked a specific question and got a non-answer from Jack.Like I say, why don't we just put the matter to rest because I'm not going to get a specific answer to a specific question. I accept that reality and so we might as well move on to the next topic.