Posted by: Scott B (baseball@integritycorp.com) on Mon Jun 10 00:19:25 2002

> I do not agree with Epstein’s "weathervaning" cue. I believe it can lead a batter into some real problems. If the lead-elbow works down on a high pitch, the batter is in a heap of trouble. Below is a post I made earlier concerning his concept.
>
> I have stressed in my video, that the lead-elbow MUST always stay in the plane of the swing. If the elbow and bat are not in the same plane, the swing loses power and consistency of contact. Therefore, if the pitch were higher (higher swing plane), the elbow would also move to a higher plane. Obviously for a lower pitch, the swing plane and elbow would move lower. But Epstein’s “weathervaning” cue seems to teach something quite different. He states; ---
>
> “When the hitter is able to match the plane of his swing to the plane of the pitch, his lead elbow works in an approximate 6" slot: if the pitch is perceived as "down," the lead elbow works up in the slot. If the pitch is perceived as up, the lead elbow makes the adjustment and works down. The weathervaning of the lead elbow allows this to happen. The proper swing allows for dynamic adjustment.”
>
> Why would you have a cue that tells the batter to work his lead-elbow down on high pitches and up on lower pitches? “
>
> Jack Mankin
=============================================================
Hi Jack,

The PDF file I referenced also includes two photos of Bonds, one of him hitting a low pitch, and one hitting a high pitch. In those two photo's I can see:

* His lead arm and bat roughly level to the plain of the swing. Even though his bathead dips more relative to the ground for the low pitch, and is roughly level to the ground on the high pitch, the bat itself, shoulder, arm, and elbow are on the same plain. That meets your definition.

* Bonds elbow is about six inches LOWER relative to his chin while going after the high pitch (top photo), and about even with his chin (or HIGHER) while going after the low pitch. That meets Epstein's definition (though I won't vouch that I'm stating his case as he intends, any more than I would intend to speak for you when quoting you on other cites).

In fact, when I've tried this myself, I do see my elbow moving up and down in relation to pitch location, but not very far. Six inches is not a whole lot of room to work with. I think we'd need to grid it out with a biomechanical video camera to be certain. It seems to me that to keep the "power V" during the swing, the elbow is going to move relative to the pitch location, and opposite to the elevation. (When my daughter fails to do this, her elbows come together and she rolls her lead wrist before contact.)

I don't see much distance between what you and Epstein teach on this issue. The differences seem to be more semantical than substance. As you (I believe) have said about the "swing level" metaphore, the question is, "level in regards to what?" What is the reference point?

I know that you're a strong advocate of keeping the elbow up to generate tht to hit the outside (and up) pitch, and Epstein thinks that it's tough to get the elbow down in time to prevent casting. He doesn't argue against it, he just says that it takes a special hitter to make that maneuver. Again, there's a difference, but it appears to be pretty small.

Comparing hitting mechanics between you two guys is like trying to get a Baptist and a Methodist to preach from the same pulpit; Sort of complicated.

I'll keep on reading and learning. Thanks for your time.

Kind regards.. Scott