Posted by: grc () on Thu May 23 18:17:00 2002

>>> a lot of people assume that since the lower body muscles (e.g., hips)are the larger & stronger muscles, these muscles contribute the most towards the hitter's power.....i have heard some speculate that the ratio of contribution is as much as 90-10 (lower being the 90)......
>
> but....
>
> a hitter can, with no rotation, arms only , hit a ball perhaps 320-350 feet, & with the rotation hit the ball 400-430 feet....
>
> this seems to suggest that it is the ARMS, not the lower body that is making an 80 percent plus contribution....
>
> would you agree or disagree?
>
> if you agree, than why is it there is so much emphasis on the lower body & so little on the upper body?
>
> and if you disagree, what is faulty about my logic?....
>
> respectfully, grc.... <<<
>
> Hi grc
>
> I would have to disagree with your assumption. – A batter may hit a ball a good distance without hip rotation, but even an arm hitter must rotate his shoulders. If a batter’s shoulders were glued to a wall (no rotation), I doubt if he could much more than clear the infield.
>
> Professor Adair says it takes about 3 torque horsepower to hit a ball 400 feet. He calculates the arms can deliver about .6 horsepower.
>
> Jack Mankin
>
>
> thanks for the response jack...

you said "A batter may hit a ball a good distance without hip rotation, but even an arm hitter must rotate his shoulders.".......and i said "this seems to suggest that it is the ARMS, not the lower body that is making an 80 percent plus contribution"..........

if i were to amend my statement to read "this seems to suggest that it is the UPPER BODY (which includes arms & shoulders), not the lower body that is making an 80 percent plus contribution", could you find fault with my analysis?