Posted by: () on Tue Mar 21 01:36:21 2000

>>>That kid you trained is the exception. I don't mean to argue forever, but i've seen a lot of potential evaporate because of the homerun hitter complex...and it makes me sad.<<<
>
> Hi FF
>
> I would agree with you that a hitter attempting to generate sufficient bat speed to hit a ball over 400 ft. using weight shift and extension mechanics would not be productive. Those types of mechanics just are not efficient enough to allow a hitter's natural swing to develop that kind of power. But I doubt if Steve was teaching his players linear mechanics. Just a good average swing that transfers the bodies' rotational energy (an angular hand-path) and applies torque over a major portion of the hand travel will deliver enough energy to clear the fence in most any direction.
>
> FF, read "Swing For the Fence - Ruin Your Mechanics" Subject: Pushing the limits of flawed mechanics, (site map below) and let me know what you think.
>
> Jack Mankin
>
Dear Jack,
Assessing your work over a long period of time, I am impressed with the way you teach hitters to use centrifugal force to attain maximum bat velocity (my "black hole" title is derived from the fact that a black hole can generate an infinite amount of centrifugal force.)

Nevertheless, I am still somewhat wary of your sweeping swing approach. Due to readings from your site, I believe you are attempting to inform the reading a way--backed by science--that can provide maximum power. The drawback of teaching a sweeping swing, according to Hudgens, is "an inaccurate bat barrel," which will have a noticeable impingement of consistency.

Jack, do you consider a .238 average, 38 home runs, and a home run frequency of 1 home runs every 12.81 at bats consistent? The owner of these numbers is none other than David Kingman. When Kingman hits the ball, it carries over the fence, including according to Baseball Digest, a 536-foot shot in Wrigley field. Or would you rather cede distance by modified linear hand mechanics, and improve contact percentage (a reason why Steve Ferroli sharply reproves your angular displacement theory) and hit .300 with 40 home runs.

In short, the questions I pose to you now is
a) Do you advocate your circular hand path which will not yield consistent results but more home runs?
or
b) Do you advocate a straight hand path when the hitter is in a slump which will result in fewer home runs, but a better contact percentage?
Please answer a) and b), since these questions I believe will assist me to better understand your theories.
Sincerely,
The Black Hole Lexicographer
Knight1285@aol.com