Posted by: Major Dan (markj89@charter.net) on Wed Jun 6 06:21:34 2001

>>>Jack -
> If a hitter opened their hips, then came to a full stop, then rotates the shoulders using only torso muscles, that batter is going through the correct sequence but in a disconnected, extremely inefficient way. This is fine for teaching/demo purposes, but is not a proper swing. I don't know of anyone who really does this when actually hitting.
> I consider transfer mechanics the use of the torso to channel the energy of the lower body (legs/hips) into shoulder rotation. Without proper transfer mechanics, the lower body work is lost - slipped transmission is your excellent analogy.
> Don't you think that the large powerful muscles (quads, gluts, etc) would do a better job of creating raw energy/power than the torso muscles?
> IMO, the torso's main job is to make sure the transmission doesn't slip, not act as the engine.
> I'm not sure where you are going with your post. By the way, who is the author you refer to above?<<<
>
> Hi Major Dan:
>
> I probably should not name the author without being certain, but I think it was a Tom Emanski video I saw advertised on TV that showed the 3-stage drill. Over the past year or so, I have noticed a few college and high school teams practicing the drill as I outlined.
>
> The reason for the post is because I have trouble seeing the benefit of intentional “separation” in developing good shoulder rotation. A few coaches whose opinions I hold in high regard proclaim that the more separation there is between the hips and shoulders the more powerful the results. But I think a good argument could be made that the hips and shoulders rotate for a greater part in unison than in separation. So, I thought I would bounce a few ideas off you coaches before I submit my argument.
>
> First of all Major Dan, I agree with the points you made. Good mechanics should transfer (not slip) the energy from the lower body to develop shoulder rotation. This is why I have trouble allowing the hips to rotate while the transmission is in “neutral.” --- Suppose for a minute, that during the 3-stage drill, the batter did not pause. Suppose the batter started torso contractions once the hips rotated 60 degrees. Would this not constitute “separation?” – What difference do you see in “separation” and the “disconnected” you spoke of?
>
> Jack Mankin
>
>

Jack -
The Emanski video is fascinating - lots of quality insights with NO explanations of anything. The more I learn, the more I think Tom intentionally took the controversy out of it and just said 'the pros do it that way, so lets copy them' instead of getting into the holy wars we love here on the internet

Mike Epstein does a much better job explaining the lower body torque separation. It is momentary at best, certainly not in separate stages with stop action between. For the kinetic chain to work best, transfer should happen when the moving part is at max. speed, not completion of movement. So if the hips turn from sideways to facing the pitcher (90 degrees or so), at some point in that turn, they will be turning at their fastest. It can't be at the beginning or the end, but somewhere in the middle (I'm guessing past halfway somewhere - your 60%). If transfer happens then, the shoulders will use the hip rotation as a booster rocket, and get turning fast more quickly.
So to me, there is a momentary offset, or the hip turn leads the shoulder turn by a 'moment' in real time. The shoulder then accelerate more quickly to catch up.
If the hips and shoulders turn as one, you get the one-piece swing and a tendency to either drag the bat or use the arms to swing/push it. The one-piece swing has equal hip and shoulder rotation speed. This is at best a medium speed for body turn. The upper body (shoulder rotation) develops more speed when the shoulders lag the hips, then snap around to catch up.
I believe that 'separation' refers to the lag or momentary spatial separation, not to a total disconnection of the movements of hips and shoulders.