Posted by: The Black Hole Lwxicographer (Knight1285@aol.com) on Wed Jun 7 11:15:34 2000

>>> Thanks for the welcome, Jack, and yes, i have frequently studied your material, and much of it I agree with.One major point I do disagree with however, and that is your asssertion that using weight shift mechanics (linear mechanics) precludes the use of rotational mechanics. From what I understand of the two systems, (1) the 2 systems have several characteristics common to both systems and (2) the characteristics the 2 systems do not have in common are still similar but differ only by degree. I'm not saying that these subtle differences are not important , I'm just saying that the importance of the differences have been exaggerated. I think the "weight transfer" element of the swing involves two things: (1) the hips rotate and (2) the body shifts forward. With weightshift the body shifts forward in a straight line more than in rotation (but we are talking about "INCHES"), and the hips probably don't rotate as much. With rotatiom, you have less forward movement(in a straight line) and a little rotation. The "axis" of rotation is probably a little farther back toward the back foot than with weight shift. But, even so, "driving" one's foot into the ground sounds to me like making the BACK FOOT the "axis" of rotation, and based on YOUR materials that I have read, I know that is not what you had in mind. But, in fairness to Mr. Lexciographer, I ASSUMED that this is what he had in mind. Maybe Mr. L can correct me if I made an incorrect assumption. P.S. A great site, as is setpro (I can do without Huggens' site) <<<
>
> Hi Bart
>
> I would agree with you that batting authorities now find far fewer differences between the two models than they did when I started my study in 1988. When I first announced that findings from that study concluded that during the swing (hands being accelerated) forward body movement ceased and that the body rotated around a “stationary axis”, I could find no noted authority that would agree.
>
> In 1991 I wrote Professor Robert Adair, Author, “Physics of Baseball” regarding my findings. Professor Adair wrote to me that I should not consider the stride as a timing step. It should be thought of as a “power” step because without that power stride the batter could not develop enough kinetic energy to swing the bat hard. Professor Adair when on to write, (a direct quote): “And any batter who would use your “stationary axis” model, taken literally, could not hit a ball past second base.”
>
> Just a couple of years ago rotation around a stationary axis, a circular hand-path and torque were thought of as absurd, radical and misleading ideas by many of those running or posting on the baseball discussion boards. --- Now BHL writes “I now believe that that Hudgen's "inside-the-ball" swing has nothing to do with a linear shove swing, but a rapid, circular short to the ball (without letting the hands drift away from the body)" --- Wonder if Dave agrees??
>
> So, yes Bart, there have been a lot changes in batting authorities thinking as of late - most of it for the betterment of hitting.
>
> Jack Mankin
>
Dear Jack,
Is there any way that I can, from my stance, get into a position where I can prove that pushing my front leg back straight while pushing my back leg into a bent position will cause hip rotation? In other words, how I can physically prove that pushing on legs from both directions will enhgance hip rotation? Suggested supports of this proof?

Thanks for your patience,

Sincerely,
The Black Hole Lexicographer
Knight1285@aol.com