Posted by: BHL (Knight1285@aol.com) on Fri Apr 13 00:50:34 2007

> > > > Hi Jack:
> > > >
> > > > I am challenging you to a debate whether the "L" in the back arm or the "L" in the back leg is more important to the swing. Personally, I believe that both constitute commensurate importance, and am concerned that you place too much emphasis on upper body mechanics. Do you accept the challenge?
> > > >
> > > > Best Wishes,
> > > > BHL
> > > > Knight1285@aol.com
> > >
> > > I would answer this by adding 'what do you think is more important: The engine or the steering wheel'?
> >
> > Hi Dennis W.,
> >
> > Let me address your analogical concern. I believe that, no matter how adeptly one handles a steering wheel (i.e., the parts of the body that control the bat), that individual can only provide that the engine (i.e., the lower body) will allow. Inversely, regardless of how much power the body generates with the engine (i.e., the lower body), only proper application of the steering wheel (i.e., the parts of the body that control the bat) will allow the hitter to transfer the power that he or she developed from the engine to the steering wheel. Therefore, when comparing the engine to the steering wheel, I would hesitate to use the term "more important," since both parts are of conmessurate importance to the swing.
> >
> > Best,
> > BHL
> > Knight1285@aol.com
>
>
> BHL. I don't know if what you say is really debatable, though I did see JD. Drew lunge and hit a ball over 400 ft to center to days ago against seattle. Also Barry Bonds hit one out to left center 390 ft for a homerun with a half swing on monday.
>
> As such one could argue the lower body supplied all the power since both hitters we out in front. But an argument remains that the swing mechanics in the batter's swing still generated almost maximum power by generating batspeed early in the swing that was trnsfered to the ball effecienlty and since, since batspeed after contact contributes littel to the batted ball, how one looks after contact is not very relevant.

Hi Dennis W. and George,

Allow me to take issue with one of your points. I will start with Dennis W., then proceed to George.

Dennis W., in your post you state that both the upper and lower body rotate in unison, which I whole-heartedly agree with. However, I must depart from your belief that the rear knee and rear arm should bend concomitantly for a reason which I will describe step-by-step. The rear knee must bend first, simply because any swing with power must create have the hips leading the hands in the swing. This is achieved by assuming what Mike Epstein calls "winding the rubber band" (i.e., top half open, bottom half closed). When the front heel hits, the lower body will spring ahead of the upper body. This will cause the lead hip to open, and allow the rear hip, the hip connected to it, to open, effectuating the bent leg which you refer to. The bent back arm, on the other hand, occurs an instant after, and ensures that the upper body will also follow the circular motion of the upper body. Thus, I must conclude that we hold approximate--though not exact--view on whether the upper and lower body travel together from start to finish during the swing.

George,

I find your argument interesting, but want to point out that my primary area of focus in the swing was not aesthetics. Instead, I was merely attempting to argue that the upper body and lower body must work together to create maximum batspeed under regular circumstances. In keeping with Jack Mankin's principles, the upper body applies what the lower body generates. Most of the time, hitters do not usually fare as well as they do when lunging. Occasionally, a really strong individual might hit a home run this way, but you will find that most hitters who hit off-balanced consistenly fall into slumps. Hence, your observations are keen, but statistics can refute that these swings can generate consistent home run power.

Best,
BHL