Posted by: Mark H. () on Tue Aug 27 11:14:36 2002

Hi All
> > >
> > > Note: This topic from the discussion below.
> > >
> > > This thread brings up some valid and interesting questions that deserves discussing. But I think we can reach more clarity by discussing the topics one at a time. Some might say, “you might not see the trees for the forest.” So let us start with the questions surrounding the back-elbow. – Is there a value to having the elbow elevated or is having it up just a batter’s style with little or no effect on the swing?
> > >
> > > Below are a couple of statements regarding the back-elbow from S. Procito, Bart and Derby Boy.
> > >
> > > >>> S. Procito --- “I will end this argument. Then the swing starts the upper arm of the back arm goes to the side against the body elbow pointing straight down to the ground. This is where it belongs there should be no disagreement on this point. If you disagree on this point you really shouldn't be in this discussion.
> > >
> > > So, the elbow goes to the side when the swing is launched. Therefore, before the launch it dosent matter where the elbow is. Unless you put it in a place that prevents you from getting where its supposed to be when the swing starts. The thing can be in you ear for all I care as long as it goes to the side in preperation to launch the swing.
> > >
> > > When teaching younger kids it might help to have them keep the arm at the side in the stance to minimize the movement.” <<<
> > >
> > > >>> Derby Boy --- As far as the high elbow is concerned, it is nothing more and nothing less than a cocking mechanism and a matter of personal preference. Delgado has a high elbow, Macgwire does not. <<<
> > >
> > > >>> Bart --- "I will end this argument". I don't think the argument will ever end so I'll put in my 2 cents. I assume that no one argues that at launch position the elbow should be high;that would be rediculous. I also assume that no one argues that in the stance itself that the elbow should or should not be high; that argument would be rediculous simply because it would be irrelevant. Many hitters do elevate the back elbow somewhere between start & finish of the stride. For some hitters it is, as someone said a "cocking mechanism". For some hitters the bringing down of the elevated elbow adds power. I think this is a figment of their imagination. Truth is, as long as the elbow is back down where it belongs at launch, whether you use a high or low elbow does not matter a hill of beans. <<<
> > >
> > > I think it is fairly obvious that all of the above feel there is no value in an elevated elbow. They are basically saying that hitters like Sheffield or A-Rod would hit just as well by keeping their elbow flat to their side. I will argue just the opposite. I would say that we may never have heard of any them if they never raised the elbow for better leverage in the pre-launch position.
> > >
> > > So to get the discussion started, it would be helpful if they clarified a couple of points for me. --- Do you think a hitter can develop greater bat speed starting his swing with a stationary bat-head or if the bat-head is accelerating back toward the catcher as he starts his swing? --- Although most of the better hitters have the bat-head moving well before they fully initiate their swing, Gary Sheffield exhibits the most exaggerated form of pre-launch torque I have seen. We can clearly note his bat-head accelerating some distance back toward the catcher as his elbow lowers to his side. During this time, he has not yet initiated his swing. Although the bat-head has been accelerated, his hands are still back and rotation has not started. Do you think that the lowering of his elbow and the bat-head acceleration that was achieved was just “style” – or would you think it may have had an impact on his final bat speed?
> > >
> > > Note: It is important for the discussion that you address the static vs accelerated bat question.
> > >
> > > We are running out of room with this thread. So I will bring it to the top.
> > >
> > > Jack Mankin
> > >
> >
> >
> > Well, since I started this whole argument, I'll tell you what I think. Great major league hitters, like Nomar and A-Rod, have the top of their bat pointed in the direction of the pitcher. If you can't see that with these guys, check out Robin Ventura or Roberto Alomar. Its really obvious. That bat is clearly pointing in the direction of the pitcher. This gives these guys great top hand torque. Their whole bodies are sort of "wound up" away from the pitcher. On A-Rod, Manny, Nomar, and many other hitters, you can actually see their number when looking at them from the front. Because their bodies are turned away from the pitcher, it is much more natural and powerful to have the back elbow up. Plus, it is easier to initiate a circular hand path. Even these guys that try to swing down on the ball aren't actually swinging down on the ball. I really get a kick out of guys in the on deck circle practicing swinging straight down on the ball. There is simply no way to fight it. That first move is going to be in the direction of the catcher. Every hitter has some resemblance of a circular hand path. Why fight it? I say keep the back elbow up.
> > -Greg
>
> "In the beginning there was no launch position, they knew they could gain batspeed by starting the hands away from the body and then bring them back into the body." I won't bother repeating the entire quote but it seems as though someone thinks lau invented the launch position. Actually he "discovered" it's existence, which is simply the moment in the swing where the front foot has landed & the swing is ready to start.
>
> "Their whole bodies are sort of "wound up" away from the pitcher.", "That bat is clearly pointing in the direction of the pitcher. ". Seems like what someone has already described, a cocking mechanism.
>
> "That first move is going to be in the direction of the catcher." Yes, the simple and natural uncocking of the wrists will move the bat the opposite direction of the pitcher, which of course is the direction of the catcher.
>
> But how does any of thesestatements or the other statements pertain to the benefits, if any of the high elbow? I do think it is true that the more you have the bat cocked toward the pitcher the higher the elbow will be. And I think the more the bat is cocked, the more it will need to be uncocked, leading ultimately to a greater torque angle at the torque position. The trade off to this, however is time. An extra 15 degrees of cock can cost an additional .033 seconds earlier that the swing needs to be started, increasing the chances of error later in the swing.

I don't believe there is a time problem if you start the bathead moving (pre launch tht?) prior to shoulder launch. Further, I believe this pre shoulder launch bathead velocity is optimal to put the bathead in a position to receive the rotational energy from the shoulders (or flail if I'm using the word in the accepted fashion). I don't think there is a static bathead position that works optimally for this. If my bathead is static at the initiation of shoulder rotation, then inertia causes it to want to stay still thus banging against my shoulder unless I resist with my arm muscles degrading accuracy, reducing batspeed and putting unnecessary tension into the upper body. Epstein gets around this for training purposes by just starting with the bat against the shoulder. If I have the bathead moving out toward the catcher at launch then it is ideally ready to receive rotational energy from the shoulders. On the other hand, I don't think more is necessarily better. Too much or too soon with the pre launch bathead velocity puts the bathead past the ideal angle and velocity to receive rotational energy. This theory comes from fooling around with Jack's tht ideas and a heavy bag. To me, this is the biggest function of tht.

I posted on this before but I think it was lost in the website problems. Threw this post together quickly as time is short. Forgive me if it is unclear.

Mark H.