Posted by: Bart () on Thu Nov 28 09:55:26 2002

Hi Gentlemen
> > >
> > > A very good discussion on the question: “Does maximum bat speed occur at full extension.” There were so many replies that we ran out of room on the page. So, I am continuing it as a new thread.
> > >
> > > I would just like to interject a couple questions to your discussion. -- For those that hold the position that maximum bat speed occurs at full extension, is it true for in-side as well as out-side pitches?
> > >
> > > Do you think the “hook effect” has an impact on bat speed? If so, does its maximum effect occur “at” or “before” full extension of the arms?
> > >
> > > Your thoughts,
> > >
> > > Jack Mankin
> >
> >
> > Teacherman: you said Nyman did not say maximum batspeed is achieved at full XT. Here are his exact words: "From everything I know about biomechanics, the greatest bat speed is achieved when a player reaches full extension AT contact. But this extension must be the end result of having "unloaded" the body PROPERLY."
> >
> > You made the comment that dry cuts achieve greater batspeed than game cuts. But what would be more relevant is to compare batspeed of game swings, full XT vs. game swings, non-full XT. Or, perhaps batspeed of dry cus, full XT vs. dry cuts, non-full XT.
> >
> > You assert that full XT achieves greater batspeed than non-full XT, but say that due to "trade-offs" (e.g., needing to be "quicker" in a game situation)that maybe full XT is not possible/advisable. You say that paul is making the same assertion. (1) What scientific basis is there that you achieve greater batspeed with full XT? (2) Paul does NOT make the asssertion that you attribute to him. Again, he said
> > "From everything I know about biomechanics, the greatest bat speed is achieved when a player reaches full extension AT contact. But this extension must be the end result of having "unloaded" the body PROPERLY." He does talk about trade-offs & so forth. He does say full XT needs to be achieved "properly". But he clearly says "the greatest bat speed is achieved when a player reaches full extension AT contact." What he does NOT say is what is the "proper" way to achieve full XT.
> >
> > Again, I am not aware of any scientific studies showing which achieves greater bat speed, full XT or non-full XT. But the clips do SEEM to indicate about a 1/2 frame longer of a swing with full XT. And about 90 per cent of the major leaguers do NOT achieve full XT. Therefore I lean toward the non-full XT theory.
> >
> > By the way, my original post noted that Paul's statement seems to be a major departure from his earlier teachings. At first the responses suggested that Paul was simply being taken out of context and that he and Jack really are saying the same thing. Read the statement again, they are NOT saying the same thing.
>
> Bart
>
> Where did I say "Nyman did not say maximum batspeed is achieved at full extension."?
>
> Also, Paul IS being taken out of context. You simply refuse to address the issue that there is/could be batspeed greater than game batspeed. Batspeed at full extension is/could be greater than batspeed without full extension. You also take 2 or 3 paragraphs from a lengthy discussion and then contend that you are not taking him out of context. All you care to look at is....."From everything I know about biomechanics, the greatest bat speed is achieved when a player reaches full extension AT contact. But this extension must be the end result of having "unloaded" the body PROPERLY." Look at the rest of the statement regarding the Griffey/Bonds comparison and the need for bat quickness and yes he does tell the proper way to achieve full extension.
>
> In an earlier thread you indicated he was using Griffey as his swing model. Read the entire statement and tell me you did not take two or three sentences and attack without full consideration of the entire discussion. He clearly said he would not teach Griffey's swing. He clearly said the proper way to reach full extension is without disconnect and goes on to say it is difficult to do because of the timing requirements and the need for swing quickness.
>
> And finally your statement that....."Again, I am not aware of any scientific studies showing which achieves greater bat speed, full XT or non-full XT. But the clips do SEEM to indicate about a 1/2 frame longer of a swing with full XT. And about 90 per cent of the major leaguers do NOT achieve full XT. Therefore I lean toward the non-full XT theory"...suggests that you don't understand the entire discussion. Just because major leaguers don't extend does not mean they are at their maximum batspeed. If you stood by a radar gun you could very well achieve your maximum batspeed with a swing that you could not use in a game. A swing whose execution time is too long to catch up to elite pitching.
>
> Yes, your entire argument is "out of context"



Teacherman, you asked "Where did I say "Nyman did not say maximum batspeed is achieved at full extension."?

Answer:

On Wednesday, November 27, 2002 you said "You keep wanting to say that Paul says you must be fully extended at contact and he simply does not say that."

You said "You simply refuse to address the issue that there is/could be batspeed greater than game batspeed." I DO agree with this notion. However, you tried to equate full XT with dry cuts & less-than-full XT with game swings. I merely pointed out that you are comparing apples with oranges. You have failed to articulate any connection between dry cuts and the issue at hand.

"You also take 2 or 3 paragraphs from a lengthy discussion and then contend that you are not taking him out of context." There is not enough time & space on this board to re-quote in full his lengthy post everytime we comment on it. I quoted the relevant parts & did an adequate job of summarizing his views. If you think other parts of his statement are relevant to the discussion, you too are free to quote him.

" Look at the rest of the statement regarding the Griffey/Bonds comparison and the need for bat quickness and yes he does tell the proper way to achieve full extension." If he explains the "proper" way, he as well as you have failed miserably in getting your point across.

Now, maybe you are a big fan of Paul and that's OK. I too think he has some interesting views. However, the fact remains that he made a statement that (1) lacks scientific evidence and (2) conflicts with reality. If you think Paul is right, then perhaps YOU can explain it. So far you have not.