Posted by: Teacherman () on Fri Dec 20 10:26:45 2002

Hi All
> > > > >
> > > > > We ran out of room so I am continuing the topic as a new thread.
> > > > >
> > > > > >>> Come on guys!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Where do you see the bat undergoing "a good amount of angular displacement before the hand-path is accelerated" (Jack's quote).
> > > > > > > All the video I watch, the knob turns WITH (as opposed to BEFORE) shoulder rotation.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Frame by frame anylysis does not show this; if it does, then give us a specific reference. What is "a good amount"? The window of timing between cock and launch is not a "window"; it is non-existent, except for purposes of theory and discussion. There is no independent movement of the hands in this phase that is not associated with upper torso/shoulder rotation IMO. And for people to state that a batter "sets his swing radius" and determines the arc of the swing between toe touch and launch based on the location of the pitch (inside or outside) in this phase is beyond belief to me - NO WAY. Maybe the hitter pre-determines his swing arc/radius before the pitch is thrown and just executes it; I still doubt it very seriously. Now, tht maybe is something that "increases the swing arc" in an attempt to create early bat speed - o.k., but varying arcs based on pitch location in a "window of time" that I find hard to believe even exists is stretching it a little bit and overemphasizing the importance and significance of (tht) a movement that is questionable in and of itself. Rotational better than linear, no question; but then to take it to an extreme seems silly. <<< – (rogerh)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >>> I apologize for misreading my notes.The angelfire clip is still working.I estimate end of bat cock/beginning of uncocking after frame #11(hip cock).Hip can be seen uncocking in frame #16,but torso doesn't launch until after frame #17(torso has turned in frame #18),so that's > 5 frames of bat turning before the torso kicks in at 30 frames/sec.Contact estimated at frame # 21. <<< = (Tom)
> > > > >
> > > > > >>> I watched the video and I have a couple of questions to make sure I am seeing and more importantly UNDERSTANDING the same thing you are describing. It can be like the Tony Gywnn deal describing Bonds; everybody sees what they believe or want to.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sooo, in these >5 frames before the hips and torso uncock, what exactly is the bat supposed to be doing?
> > > > >
> > > > > In your opinion, the bat starts to uncock while the hips and shoulders are still cocking? So the question is what forces are acting on the bat to cause it to turn before shoulder rotation and while the hands are still back and connected?
> > > > >
> > > > > It seems that you are saying that the bat starts to turn before toe touch? The hitter is striding(and still cocking the hips and loading the scapula) when the bat begins to turn/uncock? What is the bat doing -- bat head going back towards the catcher, setting up the swing radius, creating early bat speed? What is the purpose or why is this sequence so meaningful?
> > > > >
> > > > > In other words, if the bat did not turn until the hips uncocked and the torso turned, what would be the disadvantage or drawback to that?. IMO, all the frame by frame video I watch, I do not see the bat head turn as early as you believe, but I would love to hear you clarify this so my EYES can be open. Thanks. <<< -- (rogerh)
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Tom & rogerth
> > > > >
> > > > > The clip of Bond’s swing that Tony Gwynn narrated leaves out many of the important frames that make him the great hitter he is. The frames that would have shown the bat speed Barry generates during pre-launch torque have been left out. This sequence makes it appear that he comes to a static bat position in frame #3 (at least the third frame they showed). – If he actually did have a static bat at that point, he would be just another hitter.
> > > > >
> > > > > And, if Gwynn actually understood what makes the Bond’s swing so effective, he would know that what takes place AFTER his frame #3 is made possible by what takes place BEFORE frame #3. – Tony, there is much more than just a timing move occurring before frame #3.
> > > > >
> > > > > Jack Mankin
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I did respond to the post right before Jack's with more detail of the angelfire clip without missing frames.I will wait and hope it appears.The clip does seem to be working,see url under the INTERNAL ROTATION thread below.
> > >
> > > Jack and Tom,
> > >
> > > Ted Williams had a static bat; he held it vertical (straight up and down) he never cocked it, he never loaded his scapula, no pronounced hip cock. He certainly got it done - the last .400 hitter. Garciopora, swings alot like him, not alot of pre-iniation movement, more static - but guess what, real efficient. Gywnn, who you criticize, seems to have more cock and more movement - in fact, his swing (bathead) is very very very similiar to Bonds. Gywnn does not appear to be this extraordinary athlete - but his mechanics made him one of the greatest hitters of all time and for many years he played and batted without much protection in the line-up, but he got it done consistently. My point: you do not have to do all this bat waving and jerking the bat up and down and all these jirations like Shefffield and Bonds pumping up and down to be a great, effective hitter. Williams hit .400 and Gywnn flittered with .400 many times and they certainly did not do what you advocate - cock the bat, cock the hips, cock the shoulders - they got up there and minimized their movements and knocked the ball around enough to make them great hitters. And if you tell lesser athletes to do all these jirations then you are giving them less of a chance to be effective, IMO. Gywnn, in his analysis of Bonds, focused on the CORE, fundamental things that make hitters great - keeping the head/weight back, leading with the hips, and pulling the bat through the zone with the bottom hand. And you are criticizing him for what -- looking at a still frame and not giving enough significance to cocking/uncocking the bathead? Maybe he does not REALLY think it is all that significant. Ted Williams did not do it at all and tom, you say he glossed over it in his book -- you say "not noticed by Williams", I disagree. He knew and he has had major influence on the game long since he has left - Epstein, Garciapora. That is not a point of emphasis in their teachings because obviously they do not think it enhances performance or as you say "being quicker to the ball" Can you be a great hitter and not do all that cocking stuff with your hands and shoulders; obviously the answer is yes. (mike d)
> >
> > mikeyd
> >
> > Your statement....."Gywnn,......,his swing (bathead) is very very very similiar to Bonds" is completely wrong. Gwynn hits with his arms and is/was very linear. Bonds is a rotational hitter. Gwynn pulls the bat through with the bottom hand, Bonds rotates the rear shoulder to the ball. Therefore, Gwynn hits singles and Bonds hits dingers. Nothing wrong with Gwynn's style, a sure hall of famer, but he was limited to soft liners. Now and then some power but very infrequent. Bonds is the ultimate "drive the ball" hitter and therefore some great power numbers. But, also very short and compact therefore good average also. There is really no comparison between the two swings. Totally different "starters", different sources of power and therefore totally different results.
> >
> > Tom, Dan, and I (and others) are not down on Tony Gwynn's hitting. Not our/my favorite style but he did very well. What we disagree with is his analysis of Bond's swing. To say Bonds does what he does because he pulls the bat through with the bottom hand is way off base. There is no way to generate sufficient batspeed with the bottom hand pulling the bat through the zone. It has its role, it supplies some bht as Jack says, but the extremely efficient rotation of Bonds body coupled with his ability to keep his arms connected to this rotation is what produces his numbers.
> >
> > And, one reason I'm frustrated with his comments is it is just more misinformation. Not only that, but misinformation from a very respected source. He would serve himself and others better if he would not give commentary about any other swing type but his own. Or, at least offer questions about what Bonds does as opposed to statements that are clearly inaccurate.
>
> I find it interesting that it was Gwynn (who played the game), not Tom or Major Dan who was aked to provide the analysis of Bonds'swing.

Herbert

Maybe they asked Gwynn because they really aren't interested in the truth but rather to improve viewership/readership. Pick your sport.....there are very few color analysts that provide real in depth analysis. Limited time and really limited interest by the public. They give a few words to gloss over and move on. The problem arises when people with keen interest are influenced by the analysts opinion because of their reputation when others can clearly refute what the analyst said.

Teacherman