Hitting Instruction for Young Players

[Jake Patterson]

But, the barrel is most definately going it's fastest when perpendicular to spine.

Does this mean that Tiger Woods could swing a golf club faster if he were to swing it pepedicular to his spine?

[MSandman]

In your example above, the angle of the ball and the pole has almost nothing to do with the speed at which the ball can rotate.

Jim, that's why I admitted I'm no physics expert. :p

But do you have some physics background that you're asserting here and you know this to be scientific fact, or is this your own opinion (albeit likely based on personal observation)?

[jbooth]

Oh yes it does.

How so? Provide details of the laws of physics that prove your point.

The bat head is going it's fastest when it is perpendicular to the spine. So is the tetherball or any "ball on a string".

Provide proof of how the angle affects the velocity.

No he can't. He can hit it well.....but not as well as if the bat was perpendicular to the spine. That is the goal. Always. For a reason. Doesn't mean it's always accomplished. But, the barrel is most definately going it's fastest when perpendicular to spine.

Again, back up your statement with some scientific facts.

Force, Momentum, acceleration, velocity, angular momentum and centripetal force are the factors involved in the movement of the bat. Please explain how the angle at which these forces are in effect has any effect on the bathead's velocity.

The force I apply to a tetherball will give it the same momentum regardless of the angle at which I push it. Centripetal force in effect between the ball and the pole will be the same regardless of the angle of the plane of the arc the ball is on.

If I apply a force to move the knob of the bat, centripetal force acts between the bathead and my body and the momentum is not affected by the tilt of my spine.

It may be true that I can apply more force from one angle versus another, due to anatomical factors, but the angle itself is not a factor in the determination of bathead velocity.

[MSandman]

Does this mean that Tiger Woods could swing a golf club faster if he were to swing it pepedicular to his spine?

I would think so... except he'd miss the ball because it's on the ground. :D

As to Jim's comment:
Golfers don't swing perpendicular and they hit the ball pretty well.

I suppose that long ago someone decided to make the tradeoff of a less efficient swing as opposed to having to bend over until their back was perpendicular to the ground. :p

Then again, a lot of what I learn about how high-level hitters swing a bat is from observation. I observe that most exhibit perpendicular posture to the bat, so I conclude that is "better". I had assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that it supplied more power.

But if it's not "better", then why do the very best hitters all do it?

[Ohfor]

The force I apply to a tetherball will give it the same momentum regardless of the angle at which I push it. Centripetal force in effect between the ball and the pole will be the same regardless of the angle of the plane of the arc the ball is on...

Jim

If you want to throw the bat at the ball with your arms the force you throw it at is the same no matter what angle you throw it at.

But, if you want to swing properly by using your body and not your arms and if you rotate around an axis (spine), with proper connection to do so, the bat will reach it's maximum velocity when it is perpendicular to the spine.

This is a fact.

So, the tetherball pole, being an axis and being the applicator of the force to the ball, in Sandman's example, will cause it to be at it's fastest point when it is perpendicular to the axis....the pole.

This is a fact......whether you agree or not.

And, yes Tiger Woods can swing his club faster if perpendicular to his spine. But, as Sandman says, the ball is on the ground. He trades some of this off for the length of his lever and accuracy.

[jbooth]

But, if you want to swing properly by using your body and not your arms and if you rotate around an axis (spine), with proper connection to do so, the bat will reach it's maximum velocity when it is perpendicular to the spine.

This is a fact.

Quote me the fact. You just keep saying it is true without proof.

So, the tetherball pole, being an axis and being the applicator of the force to the ball, in Sandman's example, will cause it to be at it's fastest point when it is perpendicular to the axis....the pole.

Perpendicular means a 90 degree angle. The pole isn't creating any momentum. The ball has momentum and centripetal force on the rope between the ball and the pole causes the momentum to be directed in a circle. The angle of the pole and the rope is irrelevant. The ball can move around the pole perpendicular, at 45 degree up, or 45 degrees down and it will move around the pole at the same velocity.

This is a fact......whether you agree or not.

State the fact.

[Ohfor]

You obviously didn't learn much in your short stay at hitting-mechanics.org.

And, you obviously haven't played much tetherball.

If you throw the tetherball and keep hitting it as it goes around the pole eventually, the momentum created, will take over and the ball will finish winding on it's own. And at this time, while it's speed is at it's fastest point the rope is perpendicular to the pole. In fact you can physically see the ball speed up as it gets closer and closer to perpendicular

Have you ever spun a ball on a string. Well, if we have the same length string and weight of ball, and mine ball is rotating perpendicular and yours is rotating at a 45 degree angle, I'll guarantee mine is going faster.

Finally, the carnival ride that everyone stands in a barrell and it rotates faster and faster until each of us are pinned against the wall and they drop the floor out. This force is so great that the body is thrown perpendicular to the axis and with such force that we don't fall out the bottom. There is a speed that that thing has to get up to before they can drop the floor. Otherwise, the bodies won't be "forced" against the wall....perpendicular to the axis.

I know you have the "prove it" mentality. And, I've witnessed you fight and fight and fight until you were proven wrong. I'd back off if I were you.

I am not a scientist. And, you aren't either. But, I am a gambler. I've posted my $100 bill.......will you post yours?

[Ohfor]

How about the swings at the carnival. The kids are strapped in. The axis starts to turn. The swings rise until they are at the height the ride prefers. But, for sure, the faster they go, the more they rise.

[hit-it-hard]

Is there any trainer out there good enough for you to use, other than a DVD?

By trainer you mean person or thing? Actually either way the answer is yes. But not this thing.

You asked what if a kid didn't have the money for good instructor. My point is he'll be better off spending the money he has on good instruction than purchasing this. Are you disagreeing?

[Ohfor]

Ever do any one arm, lead arm drills against a machine throwing hard.

The only way you can hit is to rotate fast enough so the barrel rises perpendicular to the spine.

If you don't rotate fast enough, the bat lags at an angle down from 90 degrees. You can't raise it into the path of the ball without rotating extremely hard.

Same concept.

The reason you want you bat perpendicular to your spine is so you can be swinging as fast as possible as you line the swing plane with the ball.

Sure, you can hit the ball and not be perpendicular.......but it's not your most efficient point. It is not the goal. The goal is batspeed and quickness. It is maxed out when perpendicular. Then by tilting the spine you can allign the swing plane with the ball.

[jbooth]

You obviously didn't learn much in your short stay at hitting-mechanics.org.

I learned plenty.

And, you obviously haven't played much tetherball.

Bull, from 4th grade to 6th grade, I was the school champion. At recess and lunch our challenge matches were held. As long as you won, you kept playing until someone beat you. I went many recesses and lunch hours without losing my spot.

If you throw the tetherball and keep hitting it as it goes around the pole eventually, the momentum created, will take over and the ball will finish winding on it's own. And at this time, while it's speed is at it's fastest point the rope is perpendicular to the pole. In fact you can physically see the ball speed up as it gets closer and closer to perpendicular

That's exactly right, and it's because the radius of the rope is shortening, which creates more velocity in the ball, due to increased angular momentum.

Have you ever spun a ball on a string? Well, if we have the same length string and weight of ball, and mine ball is rotating perpendicular and yours is rotating at a 45 degree angle, I'll guarantee mine is going faster.

If we both apply the same force, they will rotate at the same speed. You will need to apply more force to keep your ball perpendicular, than I will.

Finally, the carnival ride that everyone stands in a barrell and it rotates faster and faster until each of us are pinned against the wall and they drop the floor out. This force is so great that the body is thrown perpendicular to the axis and with such force that we don't fall out the bottom. There is a speed that that thing has to get up to before they can drop the floor. Otherwise, the bodies won't be "forced" against the wall....perpendicular to the axis.

Man, you really don't know much about physics. The force being applied to make the thing rotate, is what causes the people to stick to the wall. You can tilt that thing at a 45 degree angle and they won't fall to the center when they are above the center. The force is pushing them in a straight line, but the curved wall holds them in and forces them in a circle.

I know you have the "prove it" mentality. And, I've witnessed you fight and fight and fight until you were proven wrong. I'd back off if I were you.

Not this time.

I am not a scientist. And, you aren't either. But, I am a gambler. I've posted my $100 bill.......will you post yours?

I'm not a scientist, but I know more about physics than you do, and yeah, I'll put up $100 bill if you define what the actual question in debate is; and who will be the final arbiter.

[jbooth]

How about the swings at the carnival. The kids are strapped in. The axis starts to turn. The swings rise until they are at the height the ride prefers. But, for sure, the faster they go, the more they rise.

That's right, the more force applied to the axis, the faster they go, and the angle changes as a result of the added force. They aren't going faster because the angle changes, the angle changes due to added force on the axis, which increases the momentum, and increases centripetal force.

I'll take my $100 now.

[Ohfor]

...it's because the radius of the rope is shortening, which creates more velocity in the ball, due to increased angular momentum.

The question isn't why, the question is in what direction, or at what angle as it gets faster. The answer is 90 degrees or perpendicular.



The force being applied to make the thing rotate, is what causes the people to stick to the wall.

Are you this simple or just trying to save face. The question isn't what force is causing it. The question is what direction from the axis.

You can tilt that thing at a 45 degree angle and they won't fall to the center

Only if that thing is really moving. I'd hate for them to tilt it at a 45 degrees and not be going fast enough to force the people 90 degrees from the axis. Again, what direction are these people from the axis.....that is the question.

The force is pushing them in a straight line, but the curved wall holds them in and forces them in a circle.

Not only a straight line (from the axis) but one that is 90 degrees to the axis.

You've got to give me a better effort than that.

[jbooth]

Ever do any one arm, lead arm drills against a machine throwing hard.

The only way you can hit is to rotate fast enough so the barrel rises perpendicular to the spine.

If you don't rotate fast enough, the bat lags at an angle down from 90 degrees. You can't raise it into the path of the ball without rotating extremely hard.

Same concept.

The reason you want you bat perpendicular to your spine is so you can be swinging as fast as possible as you line the swing plane with the ball.

Sure, you can hit the ball and not be perpendicular.......but it's not your most efficient point. It is not the goal. The goal is batspeed and quickness. It is maxed out when perpendicular. Then by tilting the spine you can allign the swing plane with the ball.

The angle has nothing to do with generating power. Generating power which increases the velocity, can change the angle, but changing the angle doesn't affect the velocity.

[Ohfor]

Jim

You pulled a maya culpa on me. Post, realize you're wrong, then edit the post.

Unfortunately for you I quoted it before you could edit it.

I accept credit cards.....I'll need your number.

[Ohfor]

... but changing the angle doesn't affect the velocity.

Jim

If you try to swing while keeping your bat from getting, or not allowing it to get, perpendicular to your spine you can't swing as fast as if you did.

The faster you swing the closer to perpendicular you get.

[jbooth]

The question isn't why, the question is in what direction, or at what angle as it gets faster. The answer is 90 degrees or perpendicular.

The question most certainly IS, why? The angle is changing because of the change in velocity, not the other way around.

Are you this simple or just trying to save face. The question isn't what force is causing it. The question is what direction from the axis.

Now, you're embarrassing yourself. You are the one appearing to be simple. I'm giving you the laws of physics that apply and trying to explain it to you and you appear to be too ignorant and simple to understand it.

Only if that thing is really moving. I'd hate for them to tilt it at a 45 degrees and not be going fast enough to force the people 90 degrees from the axis. Again, what direction are these people from the axis.....that is the question.

It was called "The Round UP" ride when I was a kid. The spun it flat until it got going fast enough to hold you against the wall, and then they tilted it to 45 degrees. When the ride was over they lowered it back to flat and slowed it down. Yeah, if they slowed it down while it was at 45 degrees everyone would fall out of their slot. The speed which creates enough centripetal force to keep you pinned is the factor, not the angle.

The other ride where chairs are hung from a circle above, that rotates and makes the chairs go from hanging vertical, to spinning almost horizontal is due to the same laws of physics. The chairs are put in motion by a force from a motor. The chairs want to move in a straight line (Newton's Law), the cable holding the chair to the circle changes the path to an arc upward. The cable changes angle until due to the geometry of the device. Since the chair can't go in a line away from the machine, it goes up. The length of cable and the force hold it at a certain angle depending upon the velocity generated, and the arc holding all the chairs causes the chair to go in a circle due to centripetal force.

Get it? The angle of the cables and the direction of the chairs, changes due to the forces applied to them. Not the angle they are at.

You don't have to have a degree in physics to understand the stuff above, a high school class is all you need for this simple stuff, and that's what I have, along with 3 friends who DO have degrees in physics, and I consult them when I get confused or don't understand something beyond my knowlege of physics.

You have a lot of gall to call me "simple" when you have no clue what you are talking about.

[jbooth]

Jim

You pulled a maya culpa on me. Post, realize you're wrong, then edit the post.

Unfortunately for you I quoted it before you could edit it.

I accept credit cards.....I'll need your number.

What the heck are you talking about? I didn't edit any of my posts.

[Ohfor]

In your example above, the angle of the ball and the pole has almost nothing to do with the speed at which the ball can rotate...

I would like to see how fast you can make the ball go while keeping it 45 degrees to the pole and then compare that to how fast you can make it go while allowing it to go to 90 degrees.

That is your original quote that got you into trouble.

You now want to spin things......change things.......use the English language.....do you know Mr. Clinton?

The angle of the ball and pole (barrel and spine) has everything to do with the speed. The faster it goes, the closer to 90 degrees it gets. And if your mechanics won't let it get to 90 degrees, they aren't very good mechanics.

With good mechanics, it'll get there quicker (no slack; no obstructions) but you always attempt to swing there (90 degrees) because that is where you can combine your highest batspeed with your best accuracy.

[jbooth]

Jim, that's why I admitted I'm no physics expert. :p

But do you have some physics background that you're asserting here and you know this to be scientific fact, or is this your own opinion (albeit likely based on personal observation)?

Here is a web link to a simple explanation of some of the physics involved in the swing;

angular momentum (shorten the distance between the knob and your body as you rotate and the velocity of the bathead will increase)
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/solarsys/angmom.html

centripetal force (the force between the bathead and the body)
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/cf.html

I have a high school physics knowledge of physics, but I have several friends who are engineers or physics teachers, who I consult when I need more info.

[Ohfor]

Good try Jim.

Now to the point.....

Please address your original quote.

I'm going to bed.

IF you can stay on point I'll take this up with you tomorrow.

IF not........remember the fence drill discussion?

[Ohfor]

In your example above, the angle of the ball and the pole has almost nothing to do with the speed at which the ball can rotate.

Keeping "the box" perpendicular to your spine has more to do with getting the bat to hit the ball in the center and on the same plane, it has little to do with the power or velocity of the bathead. That is why the kid in the picture supposedly knocked that ball a long way. The velocity in the bathead is not related to the angle of his spine, it's related to how well he rotated his body.

In a real game, if he had that posture and angle of spine and arms, he MIGHT not contact the pitched ball, but if he did (as he did in the video) he can hit it just as far.



Yeah, yeah, I know. I said I was going to bed.

I just can't believe a guy that trains hitters, has his own facility etc can believe what is written above.

[jbooth]

I would like to see how fast you can make the ball go while keeping it 45 degrees to the pole and then compare that to how fast you can make it go while allowing it to go to 90 degrees.

That is your original quote that got you into trouble.

You now want to spin things......change things.......use the English language.....do you know Mr. Clinton?

The angle of the ball and pole (barrel and spine) has everything to do with the speed. The faster it goes, the closer to 90 degrees it gets. And if your mechanics won't let it get to 90 degrees, they aren't very good mechanics.

With good mechanics, it'll get there quicker (no slack; no obstructions) but you always attempt to swing there (90 degrees) because that is where you can combine your highest batspeed with your best accuracy.

You are an idiot and not worth debating with. You can't understand what I'm saying and you have no understanding of how it works.

Get back to me after you read the stuff on the following sites (if you have enough brains to comprehend it)

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/cf.html

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/solarsys/angmom.html

[hiddengem]

By trainer you mean person or thing? Actually either way the answer is yes. But not this thing.

You asked what if a kid didn't have the money for good instructor. My point is he'll be better off spending the money he has on good instruction than purchasing this. Are you disagreeing?

I'm not disagreeing. But you just don't know if the person watching the DVD will be able to take what he is seeing on the video and apply it to his swing. Not everybody can watch something and then do it. In fact, not very many.

Is there a "thing" that you would use? I would assume Steve would be the person you would go to if you could?

[jbooth]

Yeah, yeah, I know. I said I was going to bed.

I just can't believe a guy that trains hitters, has his own facility etc can believe what is written above.

Yeah, well I can prove it and you have shown that you can't. Nobody respects you, and I don't hide behind an internet forum "handle" at least I have the guts to use my real name.

It's easy to act like a jerk and call people names and generally show no class, when you hide your identity.

[hit-it-hard]

...don't hide behind an internet forum "handle" at least I have the guts to use my real name.

Hate to interrupt this squabble but...

Speaking of these "handles", is there a way to change a handle on this forum? My name at h-m.org and setpro was siggy but it was already taken here, so this was the best I could think of when registering. I'm using jsiggy at other forums and would like to change it here.... but I don't see a way, other than re-registering?

[jbooth]

I found this:
4915

Erik, first of all I am not a pro... Coach HS and have had a bunch of my former players play college ball and beyond. Do not consider myself an expert....

With that being said. It seems with the picture above, the devise is set for an upward swing. The example swing does look like it is starting down and will finish up without the bat hitting either arm. Not too sure about his back foot, but he is hitting the ball out front, hand up, hand down and seems to have good rotation. I wish I had the technology to super impose HG's skeleton over this devise. Thoughts??

This isn't 100% accurate but it might give you an idea;

http://firstpickclub.com/images/instructo2.jpg

[Ursa Major]

Speaking of these "handles", is there a way to change a handle on this forum? My name at h-m.org and setpro was siggy but it was already taken here, so this was the best I could think of when registering. I'm using jsiggy at other forums and would like to change it here.... but I don't see a way, other than re-registering?If you think it through, it really doesn't make any difference if you re-register. You'll lose "credit" for the 77 posts you've made, but so what? Any other reason not to?

Well, this thread has made a lot of progress since the day started. Lotta heat, not much light, as they say. Maybe if we back off and ascertain what the debate is about, we'll get somewhere. As I understand it, the issue is what happens on a low pitch -- with all other factors kept constant (i.e., power imparted into the swing) -- under two alternative scenarios. In Scenario A, the batter swings while largely erect so that the angle created between his body and the plane of his arms and the bathead is below 90 degrees. In Scenario B, the batter bends over so that his spine IS ninety degrees from the "swing plane". Which provides a more efficient transfer of the given exertion of power to the bathead?

I don't think the amusement park ride and the tetherball analogies are directly helpful, because you are not controlling the angle of the spin relative to the angle of the axis. Because the connection of the tetherball rope to the axis/pole is not rigid, it is the speed that controls the rope's angle, not some exogenous (outside) force. To the extent the analogies do help, they suggest (as Ohfor contends) that the direction that the bathead wants to go (like the tetherball wanting to increase its altitude heading towards 90 degrees with a given speed of rotation) is the most efficient way to proceed.

Since we posit that the same amount of energy goes into the rotation, we have to assume in our scenarios that there is no physiological strength in hitting from a more erect posture. So, even apart from the physics, it would seem that going with Scenario B would allow more speed because it increases the initial diameter of the hands. And, I can see it would be harder to maintain connection if the hands were pointed lower than the plane of the spine.

The best guidance I can follow is that of discus and hammer throwers, whose rotation is studied to the nth degree. If you watch them slosely, as shown here, you'll note that they try keep their arms at 90 degrees to the spine.

http://s95294420.onlinehome.us/userfiles/discussm.gif

I'm not saying that Jim owes Ohfor $100, but I don't see how it could be otherwise. And my undergraduate degree is in economics, so I sure know what I'm talking about. Hmmmmmph!

[jbooth]

If you think it through, it really doesn't make any difference if you re-register. You'll lose "credit" for the 77 posts you've made, but so what? Any other reason not to?

Well, this thread has made a lot of progress since the day started. Lotta heat, not much light, as they say. Maybe if we back off and ascertain what the debate is about, we'll get somewhere. As I understand it, the issue is what happens on a low pitch -- with all other factors kept constant (i.e., power imparted into the swing) -- under two alternative scenarios. In Scenario A, the batter swings while largely erect so that the angle created between his body and the plane of his arms and the bathead is below 90 degrees. In Scenario B, the batter bends over so that his spine IS ninety degrees from the "swing plane". Which provides a more efficient transfer of the given exertion of power to the bathead?

I don't think the amusement park ride and the tetherball analogies are directly helpful, because you are not controlling the angle of the spin relative to the angle of the axis. Because the connection of the tetherball rope to the axis/pole is not rigid, it is the speed that controls the rope's angle, not some exogenous (outside) force. To the extent the analogies do help, they suggest (as Ohfor contends) that the direction that the bathead wants to go (like the tetherball wanting to increase its altitude heading towards 90 degrees with a given speed of rotation) is the most efficient way to proceed.

Since we posit that the same amount of energy goes into the rotation, we have to assume in our scenarios that there is no physiological strength in hitting from a more erect posture. So, even apart from the physics, it would seem that going with Scenario B would allow more speed because it increases the initial diameter of the hands. And, I can see it would be harder to maintain connection if the hands were pointed lower than the plane of the spine.

The best guidance I can follow is that of discus and hammer throwers, whose rotation is studied to the nth degree. If you watch them slosely, as shown here, you'll note that they try keep their arms at 90 degrees to the spine.

http://s95294420.onlinehome.us/userfiles/discussm.gif

I'm not saying that Jim owes Ohfor $100, but I don't see how it could be otherwise. And my undergraduate degree is in economics, so I sure know what I'm talking about. Hmmmmmph!

I think you need to stick to law and economics! :D

I think the actual item for debate got burned in the heat.

You are off on the same wrong track as Ohfor (I think.)

This is BASIC simple physics, not something an Einstein needs to consider.

I stated in my original post that anatomically, it is probably most effecient to rotate with the spine and arms perpendicular, but the argument (to me) was in regard to Ohfor's statement that the angle made the bat accelerate faster.

The angle has nothing to do with it. The angle MAY change as the speed increase or decreases. The speed increases or decreases based upon the force being applied to initiate and/or sustain a velocity.

The discus thrower applies force to lift his arm to a perpendicular angle, then he applies a force to make his body spin and that force moves his arm in an arc. Centripetal force goes down his arm holding the discus in his hand until he releases it. The angular momentum created by the spin, accelerates his hand and the velocity at release determines how far the discuss will travel.

If he simply let the discus hang at his thigh and applied zero force to lift it to perpendicular, it would get to perpendicular after he rotated once, because the discuss wants to go in a straight line and its mass during rotation, is applying a force that lifts and straightens the arm.

It's the spinning that raises the arm and creates acceleration of the discus.

Simply raising the arm to perpendicular, without spinning isn't going to make the discus go anywhere. That is what I believe Ohfor was saying. That the angle made it go faster.

A softball pitcher spins the ball similar to how a discus thrower spins the discus and the softball pitcher's arm is at 90 degrees and nowhere near perpendicular yet, many of them throw the ball hard.

Are you saying they could throw harder if the rules allowed them to rotate their arm perpendicular to the spine? I think not. The angle is irrelevant. It is simply how fast you can make the ball or discus accelerate prior to release.

Same applies to baseball pitchers and hitters. Angular momentum and acceleration have nothing to do with the angle or plane of rotation.

A basic High School experiment is to swing a bucket full of water on a string. If you swing hard enough you can keep the water in the bucket regardless of what plane or angle at which you swing it. The angle isn't increasing or decreasing the velocity. The bucket wants to move in the direction that the string is pointing, and that continually changes as you spin.

Ohfor owes ME $100.

[jsiggy]

If you think it through, it really doesn't make any difference if you re-register. You'll lose "credit" for the 77 posts you've made, but so what? Any other reason not to?


Nope. Good point. :waving

[jsiggy]

I wish I had the technology to super impose HG's skeleton over this devise. Thoughts??

Just to give credit where due, the skeleton animation is from Nyman at Setpro. We've all been using because it's a great visual.

[Ohfor]

I would like to see how fast you can make the ball go while keeping it 45 degrees to the pole and then compare that to how fast you can make it go while allowing it to go to 90 degrees.

Please Jim, stay on point.

Your original statement is way out of line. Admit it.

I could care less what all your physics links say.

That is not the point. I'm sure they are right.

The point is.....you are wrong in your belief. Your statement is ridiculous.

If the arms or whatever restrict the barrel from getting to 90 degrees you won't swing as fast. Rotate as hard as you want, to the best of your ability and at the same time restrict the barrel from reaching 90 degrees........your swing will be slower than if it wasn't restricted.

So, yes Jim, the angle makes a huge difference.

Period. No matter what you think or say.

[Jake Patterson]

I did check with a physicist. What I gleaned from the conversation was that the maximum speed of both a golf swing and batting swing has little to do with the bat or club's relative angle to the spine. The maximum force of both swings occurs at the bottom of the swing. This is where the rotational force is greatest. Club going down- accelerating, club going up-deaccelerating. On both pictures the maximum force is where the head of the bat/club is at its lowest point.

4964

4965

[jbooth]

Please Jim, stay on point.

Your original statement is way out of line. Admit it.

I could care less what all your physics links say.

That is not the point. I'm sure they are right.

The point is.....you are wrong in your belief. Your statement is ridiculous.

If the arms or whatever restrict the barrel from getting to 90 degrees you won't swing as fast. Rotate as hard as you want, to the best of your ability and at the same time restrict the barrel from reaching 90 degrees........your swing will be slower than if it wasn't restricted.

So, yes Jim, the angle makes a huge difference.

Period. No matter what you think or say.

You're too dumb to argue with. My statement is not ridiculous, I have the facts to back it up, but you are so dumb you follow the rule, "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts."

You can't even comprehend what I've stated. I originally said that anatomically you could swing better at an angle, but the angle has nothing to do with the generation of velocity.

end of discussion

[Ohfor]

Maybe you should talk to someone who knows how the body generates power.

I'm sure that's not a physicists job.

[jbooth]

I did check with a physicist. What I gleaned from the conversation was that the maximum speed of both a golf swing and batting swing has little to do with the bat or club's relative angle to the spine. The maximum force of both swings occurs at the bottom of the swing. This is where the rotational force is greatest. Club going down- accelerating, club going up-deaccelerating. On both pictures the maximum force is where the head of the bat/club is at its lowest point.



Nice to know that a physicist confirmed my statements, but I already knew I was correct.

Force breaks inertia and causes acceleration. The bat moves due to force being applied to it. Different body positions and angles may increase or decrease your ability to apply force, but the angle of the swing plane, in and of itself, has nothing to do with increasing or decreasing the velocity of the bathead.

[Jake Patterson]

Nice to know that a physicist confirmed my statements, but I already knew I was correct.

Force breaks inertia and causes acceleration. The bat moves due to force being applied to it. Different body positions and angles may increase or decrease your ability to apply force, but the angle of the swing plane, in and of itself, has nothing to do with increasing or decreasing the velocity of the bathead.

He also stated that the reason for the optimum swing planes now used by the pros (baseball and golf) is they allow the body (rotating shoulders and hips) the maximum rotational force possible given the size restrictions of the bats and clubs. The relative angle to the spine is the result of this force, not its cause.

[jbooth]

The relative angle to the spine is the result of this force, not its cause.

That's what I said about 5 times to Ohfor, but he didn't comprehend it.

Actually, in the baseball swing the force doesn't affect the angle. The bat is too heavy for the angle to change in such a short distance. You've already hit the ball before the force from the angular momentum affects the angle of the swing plane.

[hiddengem]

Just to give credit where due, the skeleton animation is from Nyman at Setpro. We've all been using because it's a great visual.

You mean Paul Nyman, the bi-polar, egomaniac that happens to be a genious?;)

[Ursa Major]

JBooth said: I think you need to stick to law and economics! I'm glad you have a sense of humor about it. I was going to send you an Email to warn you that I was going to take issue with you publicly for the first time.... after all these months of defending you (not to mention defending your swing). ;) Jake P said: The relative angle to the spine is the result of this force, not its cause. JBooth added: Actually, in the baseball swing the force doesn't affect the angle. The bat is too heavy for the angle to change in such a short distance. You've already hit the ball before the force from the angular momentum affects the angle of the swing plane.Jake, as Jim notes, that point doesn't make sense and doesn't advance our discussion. The issue is this. Take a hitter who has the ability to accelerate his body rotation abetted by his shoulder rotation and arm and wrist snap at a given speed. That's a constant, unchangeable number. Now, he has the ability to control the angle of the swing plane relative to his spine -- whether at 90 degrees to his spine or at some other angle. The issue is which of those two alternatives will result in the most force being generated by the bathead. As Jim concedes (but may not appreciate the import of), the tendency of the rotation itself to cause the bat or arms to rise is irrelevant to our discussion, as the batter's control will override that centrifugal force for the most part. (Exception: it may overcome bat droop in weaker hitters). With that said, physics will cause a rotation of the object at ninety degrees to the axis (i.e., the spine) to generate more force than an object extended at 45 degrees, if only because of the wider radius possible.

With that said, I realize that I didn't take into account a new issue that may undercut the "spine at 90 degrees" argument. If the batter is upright, the spin of his hips around a pure horizontal axis will generate through the trunk muscles a certain amount of rotational speed to the shoulders. HOWEVER, it would seem that a batter who by contrast is hunched over so that his spine is angled at 45 degrees isn't receiving as efficient a power transfer from his hips to his shoulders as the upright batter, in the same manner that a swing plane that is at 45 degrees from the spine isn't getting as efficient a connection between the two. Since it is impossible to hit a low pitch where both (a) the upper and lower body axes (axises?) are rotating on identical planes, and (b) the swing plane is at 90 degrees to the spine, hitting a low pitch of necessity will result in some inefficiency. It's up to the batter to determine which inefficiency he will tolerate.

So, you both owe me the $100. :crazy

Again, this all assumes that physiology is otherwise neutral -- e.g., your shoulders don't care whether they're moving at 90 degrees to the spine or at some other angle. This is a pretty big "if." JBooth brings up a good point in that regard -- a sofball pitcher (and a hardball pitcher too, to some degree) doesn't use upper body rotation all that much, because the structure of the shoulder and trunk muscles is such that it is so much more efficient to throw in a plane that is closer to parallel to the spine than it is to perpendicular. And, the power generated by rotation is less critical to throwing a 4 oz. object in your hand than it is to rotating a 32 oz. stick whose center of gravity is probably 25 inches away from your hands.

[Ohfor]

...the angle of the ball and the pole has almost nothing to do with the speed at which the ball can rotate.

This is your first stupid statement. Key word is "can". The angle of the ball and pole has everything to do with the speed at which the ball "can" rotate.

And in terms of hitting, the angle of the bat and spine has everything to do with the speed at which the bat "can" rotate.

As the physicist says, the max speed of "any given swing" is at the down point, where the swing turns from down to up. He speaking of any given swing. Nothing wrong with that statement. But, there is everything wrong with saying a swing I take where the bat is 45 degrees to my spine can reach the same speed as a swing I take with the bat 90 degrees to my spine. It is simply not possible for the 45 degree angle swing to reach the speed of the 90 degree angle.

Therefore Jim's next statement....

Keeping "the box" perpendicular to your spine has more to do with getting the bat to hit the ball in the center and on the same plane, it has little to do with the power or velocity of the bathead...

...is wrong also.

If the bat is not perpendicular to the spine, you are swinging "out of the plane of the shoulders" disconnecting yourself from the rotating body and swinging with your arms only. There is no way possible for the arms to swing the bat faster than the body. Impossible.

And, if the bat is swung in the plane of the shoulder turn, the barrel will be perpendicular to the spine.

As for our "physicist". Clearly, he has no understanding of how the body generates speed and power. Why anyone would ask a physicist this question is beyond me. I would prefer someone who deals with biomechanics and kinesiology.

But, I also believe that the question wasn't asked properly to the physicist. You can tell by his answer that he is describing the part of a swing that is the fastest. Not which swing is faster.

In any case, Jim, stay on point. Please comment on your statements above. After all, they are wrong and they led to this entire discussion. I could care less about the other links. I want you to address the two quotes above.

[Ohfor]

a sofball pitcher (and a hardball pitcher too, to some degree) doesn't use upper body rotation all that much, because the structure of the shoulder and trunk muscles is such that it is so much more efficient to throw in a plane that is closer to parallel to the spine than it is to perpendicular.

Oh My God!! Everything was reasonable until you just couldn't stop talking.

Baseball pitchers throw with their arms perpendicular to their spine.

[Jake Patterson]

Why anyone would ask a physicist this question is beyond me. I would prefer someone who deals with biomechanics and kinesiology.
He was available and a former player. Agree with the later part of your statement. Just didn't happen to have one available.

But, I also believe that the question wasn't asked properly to the physicist. You can tell by his answer that he is describing the part of a swing that is the fastest. Not which swing is faster.

Agree

[Ohfor]

...The relative angle to the spine is the result of this force, not its cause.

Now Jim claims this is what he said. No Jim, you didn't say that. At least, that's not what you said that caused the discussion. And, I understand you trying to deflect to another smarter statement. Because the original one is really stupid.

What you said is........for the 4th or 5th time......"The angle of the ball and pole has nothing to do with the speed at which the ball can rotate."

And for the nth time.......yes it does.

Remember the key word is "can". What speed it can reach on the best swing (90 degree swing) is the issue. Not what speed it can reach in any given swing. Not what speed it can reach at a 45 degree swing, or a 60 degree swing etc etc.

[Jake Patterson]

The issue is which of those two alternatives will result in the most force being generated by the bathead.

Not trying to dig myself a hole here. I am not contesting that a swing more perpendicular to the spine will result in greater force. But is the perpendicularty a result of the force or the force a result of the perpendicularity?

Not important for this discussion.

I am trying to look at this discussion with the thread's original intent in mind and I am trying to learn what I can to better teach young players.

How would we take all this and use it with a ten year old?

[Ohfor]

You want mechanics that don't preclude ones bat from getting perpendicular and mechanics that help it get perpendicular. Because as the body rotates that will be where max force is achieved.

And, with these mechanics, you can reach almost every pitch with a posture adjustment only. The more you rely on posture for adjustments the more success you'll have. Arm adjustments (pulling them in or letting them out) are useful also. BUT (and a big BUT)......if you're making your early adjustments with the arms you're not going to get there. God forbid if you start the swing with the arms.

[MSandman]

Different body positions and angles may increase or decrease your ability to apply force, but the angle of the swing plane, in and of itself, has nothing to do with increasing or decreasing the velocity of the bathead.

This statement is interesting.

Consider if one were to build a testing device that simply had a "lever" (hope that's the right word?) fixed to a vertical pole, and both the pole's angle (to the ground) and the lever's angle (to the pole) could be adjusted to simulate reaching a medium-low pitch.

If I understand Jim's physics points, it would seem to make no difference at what angle the lever was set in relation to the pole. However, as I think some have said (or alluded to), this device does not also have a torso and legs supplying power to move the lever.

Is it possible that the human body is actually more capable of supplying force to the lever when the shoulders and bat are 90 degrees to the torso than when at 45 degrees?

[bbjunkie]

Is it possible that the human body is actually more capable of supplying force to the lever when the shoulders and bat are 90 degrees to the torso than when at 45 degrees?

I think, from a common sense point of view, that when your torso is twisting around its axis, the torque is transfered to the shoulders and then to the arms and bat. Since it is something of a spinning movement, the natural tendency is for the energy to be transferred at 90 degrees to the axis. Think of a disc spinning. If there is water on the disc, it will naturally be spun off at 90 degrees to the axis of the disc. If you want the water to go off on a different plane, or if you want to swing a bat at some angle other than 90 degrees to the axis, some other force needs to be applied to deflect it. That extra force (gravity or intentional arm movement) will counteract to some extent the torque being created by your torso, thereby decreasing the speed of the bat. At least it sort of makes sense to me.

[Ursa Major]

Originally Posted by Ursa Major
a sofball pitcher (and a hardball pitcher too, to some degree) doesn't use upper body rotation all that much, because the structure of the shoulder and trunk muscles is such that it is so much more efficient to throw in a plane that is closer to parallel to the spine than it is to perpendicular.
OhFor replied: Oh My God!! Everything was reasonable until you just couldn't stop talking.

Baseball pitchers throw with their arms perpendicular to their spine.Their upper arms maybe, but only pure sidearmers will throw with their entire arm extended ninety degrees to the spine. But the throwing plane, not the arm, is what I was referring to. Certainly my point was more apt as to softball pitchers. Maybe I should have stopped with them.

Anyway, in your continuing zeal to prove somebody wrong/dead wrong/stupid, you missed the point, which is that the structure of the shoulder and arm may undermine the application of pure physics to the realities involved in hitting. I posit that for others to answer; as Jim notes, I ain't no doctor.

[jbooth]

Now Jim claims this is what he said. No Jim, you didn't say that. At least, that's not what you said that caused the discussion. And, I understand you trying to deflect to another smarter statement. Because the original one is really stupid.

What you said is........for the 4th or 5th time......"The angle of the ball and pole has nothing to do with the speed at which the ball can rotate."

And for the nth time.......yes it does.

Remember the key word is "can". What speed it can reach on the best swing (90 degree swing) is the issue. Not what speed it can reach in any given swing. Not what speed it can reach at a 45 degree swing, or a 60 degree swing etc etc.

I'm responding to let you know that I read this post.

"yes it does" is a childish response considering I already proved my point with scientific facts. I think that carries more weight than, "yes it does" with nothing to back yourself up.

There are two issues; 1. the physics of how a tetherball operates and;
2. the most effecient way to swing a baseball bat at a pitch

There is no doubt that you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about in regard to #1.

I already said several times that in regard to #2, swinging with your arms perpendicular to the spine is probably the most effecient and effective method, but not being perpendicular has little effect on the result of the hit ball.

I have been arguing with you about your incorrect statements in regard to the laws of physics as they apply to a tetherball and pole.

As I said before; end of discussion, on #1 I'm 100% correct and you are lost in space.

[Ohfor]

Since Jim won't answer the questions I'll move on to Ursa.

Check out all of them at release.....I've got more if you need 'em.

http://www.teachersbilliards.com/bonderman.gif

http://www.teachersbilliards.com/threesome.gif

Threesome (http://www.teachersbilliards.com/rob-pedro-tom.gif)

Bonderman (http://www.teachersbilliards.com/JBonderman95mph_2B.gif)

Beckett (http://www.teachersbilliards.com/beckett100mph.mp4)

Everyone of them are very close to 90 degrees and they don't throw sidearm. Disproves another pitching "wives tale" that the head stays in a straight line to the plate.

[Ursa Major]

Since Jim won't answer the questions I'll move on to Ursa.Oh, no, everybody! Ohfor's gonna make me his b*tch!
Check out all of them at release.....I've got more if you need 'em. Everyone of them are very close to 90 degrees and they don't throw sidearm. Disproves another pitching "wives tale" that the head stays in a straight line to the plate.I checked a few other power pitchers, and danged if that isn't pretty close to being true. Of course, it's the angle to the spine during the motion, not just at release, that is important. For pitchers committed to velocity, it seems that many do tilt their head and glove-side shoulder to the side to allow the arm to go pretty close to ninety degrees from the spine for the last foot or so of the motion. That's quite eye opening. Thanks.

Since you guys have exhausted the goddam tetherball probe to death, maybe you can cross swords on the "head stays in a straight line" issue. Not that I mean to start a new fight between you and JBooth, but I recall him saying in passing to me once that he believes the head should stay still in the pitching motion, although I think he was worried more about forward and back motion. Obviously, such a debate belongs in its own thread, but I don't want to start it unless there's really a controversy on it.

[jbooth]

Oh, no, everybody! Ohfor's gonna make me his b*tch!
I checked a few other power pitchers, and danged if that isn't pretty close to being true. Of course, it's the angle to the spine during the motion, not just at release, that is important. For pitchers committed to velocity, it seems that many do tilt their head and glove-side shoulder to the side to allow the arm to go pretty close to ninety degrees from the spine for the last foot or so of the motion. That's quite eye opening. Thanks.

Since you guys have exhausted the goddam tetherball probe to death, maybe you can cross swords on the "head stays in a straight line" issue. Not that I mean to start a new fight between you and JBooth, but I recall him saying in passing to me once that he believes the head should stay still in the pitching motion, although I think he was worried more about forward and back motion. Obviously, such a debate belongs in its own thread, but I don't want to start it unless there's really a controversy on it.

With Paul Nyman involved, of course there's controversy. Nyman says pitchers rotate into landing, and Tom House says you go straight sideways, and then rotate. Nyman says the head moves offline, and House says it must be centered at release.

[tominct]

With Paul Nyman involved, of course there's controversy. Nyman says pitchers rotate into landing, and Tom House says you go straight sideways, and then rotate. Nyman says the head moves offline, and House says it must be centered at release.

Correct me if I am wrong, but shouldn't rotation initiate AT landing? To begin rotation even JUST before landing would expell, albeit to a small degree, some
energy which would otherwise be trust into the pitch, thus generating more velocity? To rotate INTO landing would therefore decrease velocity, which one is attempting to maximize, no?

Tom

[Ohfor]

Wrong again, Tom. Study up. Play the Beckett clip frame by frame. I count 5 frames of rotation before foot plant.

[Ohfor]

...Of course, it's the angle to the spine during the motion, not just at release, that is important...

More nonsense.

[bbjunkie]

Correct me if I am wrong, but shouldn't rotation initiate AT landing? To begin rotation even JUST before landing would expell, albeit to a small degree, some
energy which would otherwise be trust into the pitch, thus generating more velocity? To rotate INTO landing would therefore decrease velocity, which one is attempting to maximize, no?

Tom

I believe the hip rotation begins before landing, or else the front foot would not be correctly placed pointed toward home plate. There is a sequential rotation beginning with the hips and working up through the torso and finally into the shoulders and arm. It's a whip-like effect that results in maximum force being placed on the ball upon delivery.

[tominct]

I believe the hip rotation begins before landing, or else the front foot would not be correctly placed pointed toward home plate. There is a sequential rotation beginning with the hips and working up through the torso and finally into the shoulders and arm. It's a whip-like effect that results in maximum force being placed on the ball upon delivery.

Fair enough. I would imagine that this would have to occur not long before landing however, correct? I had a pitcher, a number of years ago(babe Ruth Level), who completely opened his hips as his stride leg began its downward movement. He never generated the velocity he was capapble of. It was too bad too, becasue now he's 6' 4 200 lbs and a lefty to boot. In college, even without the correction in his mehcanics, he was clocked at 92 and was a walk on at a DI school. Unfortuantely he did not throw strikes consistently, didn't pitch, transferred to a DII, still didn't throw strikes, sat, then packed it in.

[Jake Patterson]

To rotate INTO landing would therefore decrease velocity, which one is attempting to maximize, no?

Tom, just remember many of these discussions are discussions concerning "optimum" form, fit and function for higher level players. How some of this applies to a Little Leaguer is questionable. Optimum force angles may be a little too much when your teaching a new ten y/o pitcher how not to fall on his ass when steppping back. There's a lot to learn here put keep it in perspective with the level you teach.

Remember the thread!

[tominct]

Tom, just remember many of these discussions are discussions concerning "optimum" form, fit and function for higher level players. How some of this applies to a Little Leaguer is questionable. Optimum force angles may be a little too much when your teaching a new ten y/o pitcher how not to fall on his ass when steppping back. There's a lot to learn here put keep it in perspective with the level you teach.

Remember the thread!

OK, I don't know how we got on pitching, there's a thread for that. But maybe this can focus us abck the the thread: What do we think a coach should do first when a fresh tee-ball or coach-pitch player shows up to practice, having virtually NO experience swinging the bat. Of course I am talking about hitting exclusively here.

[Jake Patterson]

What do we think a coach should do first when a fresh tee-ball or coach-pitch player shows up to practice, having virtually NO experience swinging the bat. Of course I am talking about hitting exclusively here.

I would recommend that you go see Andy Walker at America's Game in Waterford. After an hour with him you'll see all this from a different perspective. Better yet come to our clinic March 18th and watch him. There is a difference between those that can teach effectively at the upper levels and those that can teach effectively at the youth levels, I have only found a few that can do both. What we need to remember is that they are two very different animals.

[tominct]

I would recommend that you go see Andy Walker at America's Game in Waterford. After an hour with him you'll see all this from a different perspective. Better yet come to our clinic March 18th and watch him. There is a difference between those that can teach effectively at the upper levels and those that can teach effectively at the youth levels, I have only found a few that can do both. What we need to remember is that they are two very different animals.

My question was not about "what should *I* do?" It was more of call for information, an opportunity for everyone to share what they do, just out of curiosity.

I'm not sure how to take your "you'll see all this from different perspective" comment. I mean, perhaps I was born at night, but it wasn't last night! Of course I admit to not knowing everything, but I certainly don't know NOTHING! That being said, it might be a good idea to do exactly as you suggest, but Waterford is about 45 minutes from me. You would say its worth the trip?

Thanks, as always!

[Jake Patterson]

That being said, it might be a good idea to do exactly as you suggest, but Waterford is about 45 minutes from me. You would say its worth the trip?Thanks, as always!

Spending 1 on 1 time with Andy, having him demostrate basic teaching concepts was well worth the trip for me. I am also 45 mins. away and make the trip every year. There's a lot to be learned here, but some one on one is always helpful. Based on what I see from JBooth and HG's places I would also feel comfortable spending some one on one with them.

[tominct]

Spending 1 on 1 time with Andy, having him demostrate basic teaching concepts was well worth the trip for me. I am also 45 mins. away and make the trip every year. There's a lot to be learned here, but some one on one is always helpful. Based on what I see from JBooth and HG's places I would also feel comfortable spending some one on one with them.

The americasgame website is impressive and it looks like the facility, not to mention the staff, is top-notch. I may just schedule some time for my son. he had an extremely tough night in his hitting league, and I'm not sure how best to help him, and get him morre motivated. I really don't want to be an overbearing dad, I do lots of coaching and my son doesn't need the added pressure.

Thanks.

[hiddengem]

Does this mean that Tiger Woods could swing a golf club faster if he were to swing it pepedicular to his spine?

Does he not?

[Jake Patterson]

Does he not?

Did take a look at Tiger's swing... He's pretty close. Wanted to look at others in the game.

[hiddengem]

Did take a look at Tiger's swing... He's pretty close. Wanted to look at others in the game.

I recently spoke with a golf pro that said he does...just some food for thought. Thats off the topic of this thread though..sorry.

[Ursa Major]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ursa Major
...Of course, it's the angle to the spine during the motion, not just at release, that is important...
OhFor tactfully replied: More nonsense.Since the point I intended to make is absolutely unassailable -- you can't tell how efficient a pitching motion is from viewing a still shot taken at one point in the motion -- I'll assume that I just didn't articulate that point well. I could see your point if you somehow thought I was saying that, if you have a good arm angle during the motion, the angle at release was irrelevant.

[Jake Patterson]

Did take a look at Tiger's swing... He's pretty close. Wanted to look at others in the game.

Hmmm.....

5001

Tough angle to tell

[hiddengem]

Hmmm.....

5001

Tough angle to tell

Tough to really tell from that angle, but it doesn't appear to be at 90 degrees in this image.

[jsiggy]

Sorry for the slow response... I changed ids and missed this question.

I'm not disagreeing. But you just don't know if the person watching the DVD will be able to take what he is seeing on the video and apply it to his swing. Not everybody can watch something and then do it. In fact, not very many.

Agreed. But that's really no different than saying someone will misuse the equipment in question.

So again the choice is excellent advice which I admit might be misinterpreted/misapplied OR a product that is almost certainly going to be misused without some very good instruction (which was not affordable according to your original premise). Yes either one could be applied incorrectly - but to me it's an easy decision which is the better use of your money.


Is there a "thing" that you would use?


There are some hitting products I use & recommend. I like the swingaway (not the hit-a-way!) for example. I'm intrigued by the devices that measure both batspeed and batquickness but have not used one. If they work properly, I think the per swing feedback would be great.

There really are not any of the more "correctional" type devices like this one that I like enough to recommend though. I've found most have problems, are overpriced, or are easily made/found at home. Many reinforce mechanics I don't teach (incorrect swing plane, disconnected hands to the ball, squishing the bug, etc.) I'm not at all averse to purchasing and/or recommending them (I've bought more than I wish to mention!) and have several that I wish someone would invent and sell so I could purchase them. Something to better reinforce keeping arms in the box for example.

I guess the primarily "thing" I use is slow motion video. Probably not what you meant - but I use it like most use a gadget like this one in question. Once a hitter is past major flaws, I've found I'm much more accurate reviewing video than trying to see things realtime.

I would assume Steve would be the person you would go to if you could?

Absolutely.

[hiddengem]

Sorry for the slow response... I changed ids and missed this question.
No problem.





So again the choice is excellent advice which I admit might be misinterpreted/misapplied OR a product that is almost certainly going to be misused without some very good instruction (which was not affordable according to your original premise). Yes either one could be applied incorrectly - but to me it's an easy decision which is the better use of your money.

I understand you position and don't disagree. I just think that this specific trainer when put in the "up" angle, can give an immediate understand of the swing path you are wanting him to take.

If he swings down, he is going to smash his bat against the bars. Do that once or twice and he is going to figure it out. FROM THERE, we can move on to the more delicate aspects of rotational mechanics. I just know how frustrating it can be to try and break a 7 yr habbit of swinging down on some kids.

One of my "Rich" lessons ordered one of these for me to use with my lessons, and is going to leave it in my facility. I'm very anxious to try it out for myself to see if I can get in the right hitting position. I will take some video and report back on what I find.

By the way, there is a 2 week back order waiting list to get one of these. According to the vendor he called.





Many reinforce mechanics I don't teach (incorrect swing plane, disconnected hands to the ball, squishing the bug, etc.)

What terminology do you use instead of "squish the bug"? I don't use it very often if ever, but I'm curious.

[Ohfor]

Hiddengem

You say not everyone can watch a DVD and do what's on it. You're right. But, you are making a huge mistake by not getting Steve's DVD. And, if I were in your shoes, I'd get it right now. You don't have time to "get it before spring training". When you get it you'll wish you had it with time to develop what he's talking about. It's relatively simple but powerful stuff.....but it will take you time to change. I'll front you the money if it is the issue. Call him, ask for the DVD and have him send me the bill.

I've never seen you swing but we've talked briefly about where you are in your career. Steve's information is very important.

As far as your question about "squishing the bug" you don't need to replace it with anything. What the rear foot does is of no relevance. Talk about creating a solid base with the feet and legs from which you can rotate from your center. Leave the feet out of your instruction.

[Ohfor]

...I'm very anxious to try it out for myself to see if I can get in the right hitting position...

All good swing planes will not fit through this contraption if set on the downswing or level setting. Probably, all good swing planes will fit through it on the upswing setting. Yet, there are so many other potential flaws that this contraption will not detect, bat lag, bat drag, disconnection, hip slide, to name a few......where is it's value?

[hiddengem]

All good swing planes will not fit through this contraption if set on the downswing or level setting. Probably, all good swing planes will fit through it on the upswing setting. Yet, there are so many other potential flaws that this contraption will not detect, bat lag, bat drag, disconnection, hip slide, to name a few......where is it's value?

Its Value is in giving a kid "actual" feedback when he swings down. Kind of like the old game "Operation" where you had to try and take out parts of the body without hitting the side or buzzed at you.

This trainer will NOT teach you about any of the things you have reccomended, I or the qualified instructor will do that. I have kids that I go through the entire process with, showing them my swing, putting them through their swing(with my help) and once a live ball is coming at them, they go back to swinging down. I want this trainer to give the kid a "head start" on knowing the "good swing plane" as you call it before we get into the details. Thats all.

[hiddengem]

Hiddengem

You say not everyone can watch a DVD and do what's on it. You're right. But, you are making a huge mistake by not getting Steve's DVD. And, if I were in your shoes, I'd get it right now. You don't have time to "get it before spring training". When you get it you'll wish you had it with time to develop what he's talking about. It's relatively simple but powerful stuff.....but it will take you time to change. I'll front you the money if it is the issue. Call him, ask for the DVD and have him send me the bill.

I've never seen you swing but we've talked briefly about where you are in your career. Steve's information is very important.

As far as your question about "squishing the bug" you don't need to replace it with anything. What the rear foot does is of no relevance. Talk about creating a solid base with the feet and legs from which you can rotate from your center. Leave the feet out of your instruction. I agree, but if you have a kid that leaves his back foot flately planted on the ground while swininging, and you go through all the "stops" of showing him proper hip rotation, ect and he still does it..as soon as I say "squish the bug" his hips start working. I don't do it all the time, hardly ever. But there are some specific times when I do.

So whats the difference if I spent 4-5 hrs with him one day this coming week(which we have plans for) or bought his DVD today, which will get to me in about the same time.

I asked him personally if his DVD is something I should get. He didn't necessarily think so. What I would like though, is to have worked with him one on one, and then get his DVD to have with me during the season.

[jbooth]

Its Value is in giving a kid "actual" feedback when he swings down. Kind of like the old game "Operation" where you had to try and take out parts of the body without hitting the side or buzzed at you.

This trainer will NOT teach you about any of the things you have reccomended, I or the qualified instructor will do that. I have kids that I go through the entire process with, showing them my swing, putting them through their swing(with my help) and once a live ball is coming at them, they go back to swinging down. I want this trainer to give the kid a "head start" on knowing the "good swing plane" as you call it before we get into the details. Thats all.

I agree with you, but you see, Nymanites like Ohfor can't comprehend logical, real world stuff. If you don't do it EXACTLY the way they say, they believe you are guaranteed to fail, and are a complete idiot, who knows nothing, and will never amount to anything, unless you drink their kool-aid.

[hiddengem]

I agree with you, but you see, Nymanites like Ohfor can't comprehend logical, real world stuff. If you don't do it EXACTLY the way they say, they believe you are guaranteed to fail, and are a complete idiot, who knows nothing, and will never amount to anything, unless you drink their kool-aid.

The Nyman nation as a whole seems to be very "cult" like. I agree.

[Ohfor]

....as soon as I say "squish the bug" his hips start working.

I can almost guarantee this never happens. For sure not anywhere near the quality of rotation you need. Foot moved but what moved it......and worse yet, the kid now thinks it comes from moving the foot.

Is it Jason Bay on the Pirates......many if not most of his swings are executed with the foot almost flat on the ground.........But his hips move nicely.

[hiddengem]

I can almost guarantee this never happens. For sure not anywhere near the quality of rotation you need. Foot moved but what moved it......and worse yet, the kid now thinks it comes from moving the foot.

Is it Jason Bay on the Pirates......many if not most of his swings are executed with the foot almost flat on the ground.........But his hips move nicely.


Trust me, I understand this. Jim Thome does the same thing, as does Berkman, Bonds, myself and others. But you weren't here to see what this kid was doing before and after I told him, so you don't know.

[jsiggy]

What terminology do you use instead of "squish the bug"? I don't use it very often if ever, but I'm curious.

I don't focus on the foot at all. Some cues/explanations I use:


Move with the middle
For those who aren't using the middle well, I stress belly button to be pointed back at the pitcher or past at the end of the swing
I like the swinging the gate vs. revolving door explanation of how the back hip turns
The back foot movement is a reaction to what the hips do

I can squish a bug with NO hip movement (pure internal rotation of the femur). Most bug squishers don't do that - but they do have very inefficient rotation.

For bad bug squishers I will put a ball touching the outside of their back foot. After the turn, if the hips have turned properly, the ball will not have moved. Bug squishers will send it rolling. (I see coaches teaching bug squishing who want the ball to be kicked out!)

[wogdoggy]

For those who aren't using the middle well, I stress belly button to be pointed back at the pitcher or past at the end of the swing


I like jack mankins cue of {FOR RIGHTIES} pull the left shoulder back to the catcher.it helps my kids alot.the only problem i see it can cause is make you become bottom hand dependant,whereas i feel the top hand really generates the power.:confused:

[jsiggy]

Its Value is in giving a kid "actual" feedback when he swings down. Kind of like the old game "Operation" where you had to try and take out parts of the body without hitting the side or buzzed at you.

This trainer will NOT teach you about any of the things you have reccomended, I or the qualified instructor will do that. I have kids that I go through the entire process with, showing them my swing, putting them through their swing(with my help) and once a live ball is coming at them, they go back to swinging down. I want this trainer to give the kid a "head start" on knowing the "good swing plane" as you call it before we get into the details. Thats all.

HG we just differ in perspective on training tools. For one, I think of something like this in a kid's backyard under minimal supervision.. a parent puts it out there, so the kid can get in 100 swings a day, etc. I think it's likely to have problems in this case.

I also suspect it will be misused by well intentioned coaches - and reinforce/require poor swings. A lot of this comes from my past history of watching coaches (current HS coaches do this with my kid) trying to help but in reality enforcing very bad swings (hands to the ball, swinging down, squish the bug) and using a tool which requires a bad swing - and then watching some very good swings began to have problems. A product which can be setup and used incorrectly, will be setup and used incorrectly.

So I want a tool like this to be much more foolproof than this is before I would recommend it. If you're standing there supervising and know what you're doing (set it up correctly, are watching to make sure their swing plane is not being set by dropping the hands and then swinging level/up, etc), I don't think it will hurt and the feedback of banging the tubes when used properly will provide some benefit.

So ror those who think they know how to use it properly and want to spend the money, I have no issue. However I definitely believe I can teach the same thing that this product tries to do in a much less expensive manner (i..e., I think it's just a poor use of money).

[Ursa Major]

JSiggy said: I don't focus on the foot at all. Some cues/explanations I use:
Move with the middle
* * * *
For bad bug squishers I will put a ball touching the outside of their back foot. After the turn, if the hips have turned properly, the ball will not have moved. Bug squishers will send it rolling. (I see coaches teaching bug squishing who want the ball to be kicked out!)Excellent, excellent tips, JS. I've cut and pasted them into a document in my coaching folder called "JSiggy Tips". :D

A couple of points about squishing the bug that haven't been mentioned, I don't think. First, kids focused on squishing may lean back to the catcher too much. They instead should want to keep their head and spine centered all the way through the swing, using their rotation to drive their weight into their front leg. This leads to the second point implicit in JSig's post: squishing may lead to spinning in place -- hence the preference for "swinging the gate vs. revolving door", as he notes.

Other possible cues: Jim Booth has described to my son "tucking your back knee under your butt". This still risks the revolving door problem, but at least it moves the center of attention up from the foot, and it's helped my son.

Also, Nyman talks about "scissoring" the front and back leg. This may have the added benefit of discouraging premature opening of the front leg.

HG, I think you talked once about a cue of "replacing the front hip with the back hip", or something like that. That may not help younger hitters who don't turn their back foot enough -- it seems to be more of an advanced cue.

[jbooth]

For those who aren't using the middle well, I stress belly button to be pointed back at the pitcher or past at the end of the swing


I like jack mankins cue of {FOR RIGHTIES} pull the left shoulder back to the catcher.it helps my kids alot.the only problem i see it can cause is make you become bottom hand dependant,whereas i feel the top hand really generates the power.:confused:

I don't believe the top hand generates any power. I teach my students to basically imagine that they don't have a top hand. The top hand just sets the bathead on the proper plane before the bathead moves at the ball.

Trying to use the top hand can create many problems;

1. casting the bathead
2. pushing the handle out away from the body
3. rolling the wrists
4. straightening the arc of the hands,
5. pushing the bat down off the correct swing plane

[bbjunkie]

For bad bug squishers I will put a ball touching the outside of their back foot. After the turn, if the hips have turned properly, the ball will not have moved.

Did I miss something? Are you saying you don't want the back foot to move?

[hiddengem]

I don't focus on the foot at all. Some cues/explanations I use:


Move with the middle
For those who aren't using the middle well, I stress belly button to be pointed back at the pitcher or past at the end of the swing
I like the swinging the gate vs. revolving door explanation of how the back hip turns
The back foot movement is a reaction to what the hips do

I can squish a bug with NO hip movement (pure internal rotation of the femur). Most bug squishers don't do that - but they do have very inefficient rotation.

For bad bug squishers I will put a ball touching the outside of their back foot. After the turn, if the hips have turned properly, the ball will not have moved. Bug squishers will send it rolling. (I see coaches teaching bug squishing who want the ball to be kicked out!)


HMM..This is all sounding waaay to familiar. I believe quite some time back I was discussing this. Either on this board or on H-M. What you are describing to me is what I refer to as "overrotating" or "spinning on your backside" (revolving door). I also like to tell my kids to to replace the front hip with the back hip(like Ursa said).

If you sit on your backside and spin on your foot, your "direction" as I like to say is going to be pulling off or spinning off the ball.

Luke Scott, a prolific power hitter in the Astros system, was my roomate a few years ago and was really the first person I came across that address this issue with me. He noted that I was overrotating and spinning and ended up pulling off sliders and fastballs too at times. He showed me how you can't drive the ball anywhere but to the pull side doing it this way.

So we sat down and watched video of successfull major league hitters. Giambi, A-rod, Thome, Chavez, Walker ect. In Very few of the swings I watched did the hitters back heals get verticle. But that back hip was driving forward, replacing the front one, like the "swinging gate" you describe.

I would agree that if you put a ball against the outside of my back foot, I could drive a ball up the middle, with correct hip rotation and barely move the ball.

[hiddengem]

Did I miss something? Are you saying you don't want the back foot to move?


I shouldn't be the focus point of hip rotation. On an inside pitch its going to happen more, but on balls middle away, some hitters foot won't move much at all.

[wogdoggy]

I don't believe the top hand generates any power. I teach my students to basically imagine that they don't have a top hand. The top hand just sets the bathead on the proper plane before the bathead moves at the ball.

Trying to use the top hand can create many problems;

1. casting the bathead
2. pushing the handle out away from the body
3. rolling the wrists
4. straightening the arc of the hands,
5. pushing the bat down off the correct swing plane


John,if the top hand has no role in power,take your kids out and hit them some outfield using your left hand and your right hand only.I don't see how you can say the top hand isnt the power hand.Sure if you get overdependant on it you may devolop the 5 don'ts you listed but i'm sure you can list 5 problems for bottom hand dominance as well.
When i hit out field i'm amazed the power i get from just the top hand.

[hiddengem]

John,if the top hand has no role in power,take your kids out and hit them some outfield using your left hand and your right hand only.I don't see how you can say the top hand isnt the power hand.Sure if you get overdependant on it you may devolop the 5 don'ts you listed but i'm sure you can list 5 problems for bottom hand dominance as well.
When i hit out field i'm amazed the power i get from just the top hand.


I can hit the ball twice, maybe 3 times as hard off the T with my left hand(I'm a right handed hitter) as I can with my right. The same would happen if I went on a field. By your comments I'm going to assume you don't know how to use your bottom hand correctly, or you wouldn't have this opinion.

[jsiggy]

Did I miss something? Are you saying you don't want the back foot to move?

No... I'm saying if it moves, I want it to be pulled forward by the hip rotation, not spinning in place. Make sense?

The foot IMO is just along for the ride. There is some debate on whether it's hips and a leg push or just hips. I absolutely believe it's just the hips. But either way the movement is such that the foot is pulled forward as it turns (and sometimes it doesn't even turn).

See Cabrera for a good example of hips pulling and foot along for the ride.

http://photos.imageevent.com/siggy/hitting/pro/MCabrera2005FLA_SView02.gif

Vs. this young hitter squishing/spinning:

http://photos.imageevent.com/siggy/forums/squishing-spinning.gif

[jsiggy]

John,if the top hand has no role in power,take your kids out and hit them some outfield using your left hand and your right hand only.I don't see how you can say the top hand isnt the power hand.Sure if you get overdependant on it you may devolop the 5 don'ts you listed but i'm sure you can list 5 problems for bottom hand dominance as well.
When i hit out field i'm amazed the power i get from just the top hand.

I think you were addressing Jim Booth but since I'm john, I'll reply. :confused:

As HG says put a ball and tee and do it both ways using your real swing. If you're using your middle to turn and staying connected, the bottom hand ball will go much further. Try it.

So why can you hit a ball a long way with the rear hand? I think it's because you don't hit one-handed flies to the OF anything like you actually swing a bat. Video it and watch - severe bat drag/lag. Try doing that against in anything other than a slowpitch league and you'll hear that "pop-swish" sound of the ball hitting the glove and then the swing occurring.

[hiddengem]

No... I'm saying if it moves, I want it to be pulled forward by the hip rotation, not spinning in place. Make sense?

The foot IMO is just along for the ride. There is some debate on whether it's hips and a leg push or just hips. I absolutely believe it's just the hips. But either way the movement is such that the foot is pulled forward as it turns (and sometimes it doesn't even turn).

See Cabrera for a good example of hips pulling and foot along for the ride.

http://photos.imageevent.com/siggy/hitting/pro/MCabrera2005FLA_SView02.gif

Vs. this young hitter squishing/spinning:

http://photos.imageevent.com/siggy/forums/squishing-spinning.gif

If you notice in the clip of Cabrera, he is hitting this ball to center/right center. As I said earlier, the back foot should hardly rotate at all on a ball hit this direction, if it does it will result in you spinning off the ball(revolving door syndrome) and you will lose power dramatically. Also, I'd bet the house that not only did his back foot slide forward slightly, but I'll bet it slid backwards as well, to help keep his front hip closed(hinge on the swinging gate). I played with Vlad Guerrero this year, and he does this regularly.

[tadlock11]

I just want to again put a word of thanks out to few of you guys - Jake, Ursa, Jim, HG and others. We just had our last day of LL try-outs and some of the things I've learned here were put to use in my evaluations. Terms on hitting lines like "kept the box", "arm hiter", "no rotation" etc. Of course we had our share of "sand baggers" and it was hard to get a good (real) look at them. What I can foresee is that some of the players that have been playing for 6+ years may have been coached by inadequate coaches that have only echoed what they've heard and will make it real difficult for these kids' future coaches to straighten them out. On the other hand, a 12 year old may have come up and I would use a word like "raw" as in he's never played, shows a great desire to want to learn and gives 110% and even though he misses every pitch, he will possibly be a better pick due to the opinion that it will take less effort to mold him as opposed to having to make a kid unlearn what he has already built into his muscle memory what he believes is proper. There were some "arm swingers" that hit every ball and may have a high average with Texas leagers and seeing eye hits, but the most impressive and rarest were the kids that kept the box, had good rotation, didn't disconnect - they CRUSHED the ball!

[jsiggy]

If you notice in the clip of Cabrera, he is hitting this ball to center/right center. As I said earlier, the back foot should hardly rotate at all on a ball hit this direction, if it does it will result in you spinning off the ball(revolving door syndrome) and you will lose power dramatically. Also, I'd bet the house that not only did his back foot slide forward slightly, but I'll bet it slid backwards as well, to help keep his front hip closed(hinge on the swinging gate). I played with Vlad Guerrero this year, and he does this regularly.

Sounds like we pretty much are in agreement?

Maybe a little bit of wording semantics but just wanting to make sure I'm clear...

I agree the back foot will typically rotate very little on a ball hit in this direction, but again I think the important thing is that the foot's rotation is solely in reaction to the middle movement. It (the foot) is not doing anything on it's own and that's why at times you'll see this violated. Concentrating on the foot (as is often done when teaching bug squishing) is focusing on the magician's hand and missing what's really happening.

[hiddengem]

Sounds like we pretty much are in agreement?

Maybe a little bit of wording semantics but just wanting to make sure I'm clear...

I agree the back foot will typically rotate very little on a ball hit in this direction, but again I think the important thing is that the foot's rotation is solely in reaction to the middle movement. It (the foot) is not doing anything on it's own and that's why at times you'll see this violated. Concentrating on the foot (as is often done when teaching bug squishing) is focusing on the magician's hand and missing what's really happening.


I agree, you can squish the bug without moving the middle at all.

[tominct]

I just want to again put a word of thanks out to few of you guys - Jake, Ursa, Jim, HG and others. We just had our last day of LL try-outs and some of the things I've learned here were put to use in my evaluations. Terms on hitting lines like "kept the box", "arm hiter", "no rotation" etc. Of course we had our share of "sand baggers" and it was hard to get a good (real) look at them. What I can foresee is that some of the players that have been playing for 6+ years may have been coached by inadequate coaches that have only echoed what they've heard and will make it real difficult for these kids' future coaches to straighten them out. On the other hand, a 12 year old may have come up and I would use a word like "raw" as in he's never played, shows a great desire to want to learn and gives 110% and even though he misses every pitch, he will possibly be a better pick due to the opinion that it will take less effort to mold him as opposed to having to make a kid unlearn what he has already built into his muscle memory what he believes is proper. There were some "arm swingers" that hit every ball and may have a high average with Texas leagers and seeing eye hits, but the most impressive and rarest were the kids that kept the box, had good rotation, didn't disconnect - they CRUSHED the ball!

PLease define "disconnect" for me. Does this mean that the box breaks down?

Tom

[hit-it-hard]

Removed post - old computer, old user id...

[jsiggy]

PLease define "disconnect" for me. Does this mean that the box breaks down?

Tom

Yes that is a form of disconnection - probably the most typical one folks mean. Normal example is with a hands to the ball hitter where the hitter extends the arms downward and the box "comes apart".

My definition would include more than just the box breaking down though - something along the lines that the body and arms are not "connected" and turning as a unit during the swing. So the arms are not being moved by the body's rotation but rather are doing something else on their own.

Another common example of disconnection is when the torso begins to turn and yet the knob of the bat is being moved forward with it. Instead, typically the rear elbow lowers to the side on it's own (not moved by the torso). Bathead is dropping and knob just sitting there. This is a form of early disconnection - but disconnection nonetheless.

[tominct]

I know there are a number of guys ehre who give lessons, have businesses, and all that. I am wondering...

You get a new kid, mom or dad brings him in to take lessons from you, What procedure do you follow?

1. What is the first thing you do?

2. What are the first drills you do?

3. What specifically do you do to make it fun?

4. How do you monitor progress?

Thanks,

Tom

PS I watched a guy give lessons this week near me, he was bouncing the ball to the kids, (simulating a change-up I think I heard him say). I heard him say, on a few occasions, "That's the worst swing I have ever seen!" It wasn't done in a terribly mean-spirited way, but the words are the words....what of that?

Tom

[hiddengem]

I know there are a number of guys ehre who give lessons, have businesses, and all that. I am wondering...

You get a new kid, mom or dad brings him in to take lessons from you, What procedure do you follow?

1. What is the first thing you do?

2. What are the first drills you do?

3. What specifically do you do to make it fun?

4. How do you monitor progress?

Thanks,

Tom

PS I watched a guy give lessons this week near me, he was bouncing the ball to the kids, (simulating a change-up I think I heard him say). I heard him say, on a few occasions, "That's the worst swing I have ever seen!" It wasn't done in a terribly mean-spirited way, but the words are the words....what of that?

Tom

Depending on the age of the kid, I do things differently. But I always start on the T, work on posture and watch him swing a few times. I try and detect some things he might be doing wrong and go from there. I go from the T to front toss, and if I like his swing from there I'll move back and do some overhand toss. In the 10 yrs I've been teaching, I don't think I've ever told one of my students, "that was the worst swing I have ever seen". I find positive feedback and constructive critisism, followed with something positive works great for confidence. I'm always giving "high Fives" to my young kids when they attempt to make an adjustment and hit the ball well.

I hear so much negativity surrounding teams these days and I dont want them to have that same experience with me. You never know what "one" comment you make to a kid positive or negative, will stick with him for the rest of his career.

[bbjunkie]

I am a little confused about maintaining a "box" while swinging. Doesn't that depend a great deal on where the ball is? Seems to me you are less likely to keep the box if the ball's on the outside of the plate than if its on the inside.

[jbooth]

I am a little confused about maintaining a "box" while swinging. Doesn't that depend a great deal on where the ball is? Seems to me you are less likely to keep the box if the ball's on the outside of the plate than if its on the inside.

Sometimes you have to deform the box a bit, but the way to hit an outside pitch effectively, is to tilt your back more and move your head more toward the ball (before you start to swing), and wait longer on the pitch and hit it when it is closer to the catcher. Hitting the outside pitch effectively is very difficult, even for MLB players. Just ask Hiddengem.

[hiddengem]

Sometimes you have to deform the box a bit, but the way to hit an outside pitch effectively, is to tilt your back more and move your head more toward the ball (before you start to swing), and wait longer on the pitch and hit it when it is closer to the catcher. Hitting the outside pitch effectively is very difficult, even for MLB players. Just ask Hiddengem.

Yea, its difficult, especially when its 90-95mph out there. Jim, When you say move your head toward the ball, you mean sideways, right?

[dacoolman88]

never swing down unless the ball the pitcher threw was made to be that way

[tominct]

[QUOTE=jbooth]

I currently have four 7 year olds who are hitting 80% of the golf ball size wiffle balls that shoot out of a machine and they hit them with a SwiftStik.

QUOTE]

I realize this is a response to an old post, but Jim....do you use the Personal Pitcher for this?

Thanks,

Tom

[Mark H]

I would recommend that you go see Andy Walker at America's Game in Waterford. After an hour with him you'll see all this from a different perspective. Better yet come to our clinic March 18th and watch him. There is a difference between those that can teach effectively at the upper levels and those that can teach effectively at the youth levels, I have only found a few that can do both. What we need to remember is that they are two very different animals.

The goal is the same but the journey is starting from different locations with different tools.

[Mark H]

My question was not about "what should *I* do?" It was more of call for information, an opportunity for everyone to share what they do, just out of curiosity.

!

Developmental methods are always interesting but to me, the first step is to know your destination. IOW, know what a high level swing looks like to the point where you can describe it as well as recognize it.

[Mark H]

The Nyman nation as a whole seems to be very "cult" like. I agree.

Thanks for the broad brush generalization.

[Mark H]

I agree, but if you have a kid that leaves his back foot flately planted on the ground while swininging, and you go through all the "stops" of showing him proper hip rotation, ect and he still does it..as soon as I say "squish the bug" his hips start working. I don't do it all the time, hardly ever. But there are some specific times when I do.

.

Sounds like you are on the same page with Nyman when he said he never met a cue he didn't like as in any cue may help any given kid any given day? Don't go cult on us now. ;)

[Mark H]

HMM..This is all sounding waaay to familiar. I believe quite some time back I was discussing this. Either on this board or on H-M. What you are describing to me is what I refer to as "overrotating" or "spinning on your backside" (revolving door). I also like to tell my kids to to replace the front hip with the back hip(like Ursa said).

If you sit on your backside and spin on your foot, your "direction" as I like to say is going to be pulling off or spinning off the ball.

Luke Scott, a prolific power hitter in the Astros system, was my roomate a few years ago and was really the first person I came across that address this issue with me. He noted that I was overrotating and spinning and ended up pulling off sliders and fastballs too at times. He showed me how you can't drive the ball anywhere but to the pull side doing it this way.

So we sat down and watched video of successfull major league hitters. Giambi, A-rod, Thome, Chavez, Walker ect. In Very few of the swings I watched did the hitters back heals get verticle. But that back hip was driving forward, replacing the front one, like the "swinging gate" you describe.

I would agree that if you put a ball against the outside of my back foot, I could drive a ball up the middle, with correct hip rotation and barely move the ball.

PM your email address and I'll send you a relevant side by side clip you might be ablet to use as a teaching tool on this point.

[yoitsTino]

yo, my name is Tino, i am in Jr. high and i play for tominct. He told me bout this site and i wuz like no way man, i dunnooooooooo
so here i am man
i need sum help on my swing
so please sumbody
help tino

[Mark H]

Best thing to do would be to try to produce a clip of your game swing and put it on here for comment.

[Ohfor]

I suggest you learn to write like an adult when you talk with adults.;)

[Mark H]

Easy there Ohfor, you don't know the age or background.

[swingbuster]

I suggest you learn to write like an adult when you talk with adults.


Put him in D-Hall Ohfer. Is there anybody or anythng you won't attack?

[dougmac]

PM your email address and I'll send you a relevant side by side clip you might be ablet to use as a teaching tool on this point.


Right now, Hiddengem is busy tearing up Coast League pitching. Two home runs against Sac the other night. Keep smoking the ball David.

[Mark H]

Dmac,


To be clear, I'm not suggesting he personally needs the clip. I'm thinking he could use it to convey the idea to a student.

[dougmac]

Mark, No need to get defensive. I was just congratulating David on his nice start this season. I agree with him about the cult type following, but I understand it too. Don't agree with it, but understand it.

[Mark H]

Didn't mean to sound defensive. Just wanted to assure you I knew who HG is and don't think he needs to change his swing on the basis of a clip I'd send him. On the cult thing, I don't know how much of that is true across the board and how much is irritation at Paul's personality and character shortcomings and how much is irritation at a group of guys who are pretty sure of their position (though always open to contrary thoughts backed up with video etc.). Those on here who studied Paul'stuff in the past and tend to think Steve is the best instructor we've come across obviously see Paul's aforementioned shortcomings. Speaking for myself, and some others I've talked to, Paul is very good at analysis of what is really happening and is knowlegeable and interesting on motor learning theory. When it comes to application and development in the real world, he's an engineer not an instructor. In any case, I'd rather not be included as a Nymanite outside of acknowledging his mind as stated above. If I must be stuffed into a group, you can put me down as one of the "posse" as we were pejoratively named by Paul himself. Which episode we thought was funny enough we kept the nickname. ;)

[tadlock11]

Oh jeez Mark, why go and start quoting old forum stuff :eek: I haven't been around these forums very long, but have learned more over the past few months than over the past 30 years! Been fortunate enough to spend a few days with Steve E and Hiddengem as well. Like many that are now coaching this stuff, I wish I knew it when I was playing! Thanks to all of you who have contributed to my new found wisdom (and still learning).

[Ohfor]

.


Put him in D-Hall Ohfer. Is there anybody or anythng you won't attack?

You call that an attack?.....

Just a suggestion on how to get the most out of adults.

I can show you an attack if you want to see one.

[Ursa Major]

I think Tino's post reflected a reluctance to jump in, and trashing his grammatical stylings might make him think we're a bunch of stuffy old dudes not worth the trouble to deal with. Which, while truthful in part, would be his loss.

Still, Tino's tone does suggest an attitude so casual that I would be reluctant to sit down and ponder for 20 minutes his swing and how I would fix it, as I have no sense that he really cares enough to stop and follow the reasoning of all who would offer suggestions.

So, yo, Tino - dude. Think of it this way. You go to a doctor with a bum ankle, you don't cop a 'tude with him. Man, you just want that limb to get better, right? So, you swallow the street talk and just tell him the straight up, "I was rounding first and my foot slipped off the top of the bag and it rolled to the right and rolled a little bit." And you get him to wrap it and give you some medication and some advice, and you listen hard and do what he says because all that counts is getting it better so you can dance and play, fer sure.

Same rules apply here. We're swing doctors. You want to cure what ails your swing, right? So come in, tell the doctors where it hurts, and listen carefully to the cures.

[wilson68]

This thread has come back from being long dead and some of the posts in it reflect opinions that have since changed. It is interesting to read old posts and notice that certain people have changed their minds considerably.

Having said that, when I went through the start of this thread last week, when I had too much time on my hands one night while at work, I noticed this and was curious, but reluctant to drag the subject up again.

Some players, especially girl softball players, like to stuff a stuffed toy between their hands and back shoulder, then swing. Depending on where the toy fall, they can see if they disconnect too soon. It's sweet to see a freshfaced 11 year old girl on hitting-mechanics.org tuck her plushy CareBear on her shoulder, and then rip into wiffle ball on a tee.


I can visualize the drill but where does the bear have to land to indicate good vs bad?

[tominct]

A THOUSAND?!

I can't imagine why you need more than 5.

Great, what five would you recommend?

Thanks, this is exactly what I have been looking for!

Tom ;)

[Erik]

I suggest you learn to write like an adult when you talk with adults.;)

Ohfor,
YoYo you be tweaking man.:lookitup :lookitup


EL,

[Erik]

I think Tino's post reflected a reluctance to jump in, and trashing his grammatical stylings might make him think we're a bunch of stuffy old dudes not worth the trouble to deal with. Which, while truthful in part, would be his loss.

Still, Tino's tone does suggest an attitude so casual that I would be reluctant to sit down and ponder for 20 minutes his swing and how I would fix it, as I have no sense that he really cares enough to stop and follow the reasoning of all who would offer suggestions.

So, yo, Tino - dude. Think of it this way. You go to a doctor with a bum ankle, you don't cop a 'tude with him. Man, you just want that limb to get better, right? So, you swallow the street talk and just tell him the straight up, "I was rounding first and my foot slipped off the top of the bag and it rolled to the right and rolled a little bit." And you get him to wrap it and give you some medication and some advice, and you listen hard and do what he says because all that counts is getting it better so you can dance and play, fer sure.

Same rules apply here. We're swing doctors. You want to cure what ails your swing, right? So come in, tell the doctors where it hurts, and listen carefully to the cures.

Ursa Major,
Word! Good post.


EL,

[Jake Patterson]

yo, my name is Tino, i am in Jr. high and i play for tominct. He told me bout this site and i wuz like no way man, i dunnooooooooo
so here i am man
i need sum help on my swing
so please sumbody
help tino

Tino, I suggest you work with your coach. He seems like a coach who is willing and able to help you. Also - baseball is an individual sport - you need to be at the cages receiving individual instruction if you plan on excelling in baseball. Your coach knows of several places you can try.

[Mark H]

Good point. I'd say work directly with your coach. He's on here learning. Let him apply it to you.

[BBCanuck]

The interesting thing about the Griffy & Chipper sequences in contrast to what looks like a graphic from SetPro (?) is that no one has commented on the shoulder line. If you look at the shoulder line through the hands to the bat head, that's where everything is relatively on a plane - more obvuious in graphic, less so in captured images.
But that torso tilt - look how low to the ground the back knee gets - is something you can get in a trained older athlete that you seldom see in young ones. Is it possible that that's where training differences first have to come into play. The youngest kids certainly don't have that tilt ability - instead they would tend to caste out and drop the bat head - wouldn't you want the bat head to stay on the plane. Talking teaching here - not what pros do - after all we saw at least one lefty golf a home run - not sure I or anyone would teach that. But if we teach kids too early to go for that low elliptic, do you think they would understand the torso tilt or would they just golf it badly?
That's the trouble with theory versus reality, no?
Just asking.