Posted by: Bart () on Mon Sep 9 10:43:33 2002

Nick, I think the reason your original question got lost is that in reference to Williams’ book, you
> > > > took his statement “hands already past the plate, well in front” and added that “the bat is clearly
> > > > lagging.” But then you went on to equate “the bat is clearly lagging” with the commonly used term “lag position”. And that was one of my points: what is commonly called the “lag position” has an altogether different meaning from your statement “the bat is clearly lagging.”
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Now to get to Williams’ book, the first thing I would like to say is that Williams is NOT a good hitter to model yourself after. I know that’s a mouthful considering that he was probably the greatest hitter to ever play the game. But if you look at the clips, you can clearly see flaws in his swing that most hitters today would not get away with.
> > > >
> > > > And look at his book, the very pp. 38-39 you were referring to. On p38, final frame, it appears that this frame is shortly AFTER contact. Look at his arms and the “Power V” preached by so many coaches of yesteryear. I’m sure that Jack would look at this picture and conclude that he has no “L” in his top arm at contact.
> > > >
> > > > I better quit writing. The more I write the more I sense that I have still not addressed your original question. Without having frame by frame clips to refer to, it's hard to put some of these ideas into words, and Williams's book is not an ideal book to refer to. Do you by any chance have the Louiseville Slugger book?
> > >
> > > "Williams is NOT a good hitter to model yourself after. I know that’s a mouthful considering that he was probably the greatest hitter to ever play the game. But if you look at the clips, you can clearly see flaws in his swing that most hitters today would not get away with. "
> > >
> > > Would you explain these flaws that you see? and why they are flaws/why he wouldn't get away with them today.?
> >
> > I didn't say WILLIAMS wouldn't get away with these flaws today, I said MOST HITTERS wouldn't get away with these flaws.
> >
> > Flaw # 1 At launch position hands way to low
> >
> > Flaw # 2 Before even half way through the swing there is an extreme raising of hands/gipping of bat barrel
> >
> > Flaw # 3 On most of his swings he is near full-extension (very little "L" in top arm) at contact
>
> Flaw # 1 At launch position hands way to low:
> Bonds and Vaughn both do this as well.
>
>
> Flaw # 2 Before even half way through the swing there is an extreme raising of hands/gipping of bat barrel
> The low hands at initiation lead to this action. It is the way the hands are brought into the swing plane. Again, Bonds, Vaughn. In fact many good hitters go to a palm-up, palm-down position by the time the shoulders start turning. And in order to get to that position the hands raise - or think of it as the bottom hand raising. It is necessary for the hands to go palm-up, palm-down in order to do what
> Jack calls top hand torque.
>
> Flaw # 3 On most of his swings he is near full-extension (very little "L" in top arm) at contact
> So was McGuire, another modern hitter who probably did get away with that flaw.
>
> I don't see any of these as flaws but rather a different set of hitting mechanics that worked then and still work now. And are not in conflict with what Jack talks about here.
>

Flaw # 1: Vaughn and Bonds hands are not that low at LAUNCH POSITION. They may start out low, but at launch hands are up there, whereas Williams had them low even at launch.

Flaw # 2: You don't understand what I'm referring to. Williams is one of the only hitters who did this. You are not addressing what I was referring to, but that's the problem in not being able to post clips.

Flaw # 3: Very little "L" in the elbow at contact IS in conflict with Jack's principles. Having said that, I agree that Macgwire, Griffey and other great hitters had this "flaw", but I think keeping the "L" produces the best mechanics.