Favor

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Could someone please go to www.kcroyals.com and check out the Mike Sweeney 2-run homer clip from last night. If you can find a way to post on here like you all do with the other clips, that would be great. I tried, but with dialup, my computer freezes up. Thanks.

[dannyboy]

same wish.
similar boat.

[CoachZee]

I tried but none of my programs recognize the .flv file format. We need a computer guru to help on this one.

[hiddengem]

Could someone please go to www.kcroyals.com and check out the Mike Sweeney 2-run homer clip from last night. If you can find a way to post on here like you all do with the other clips, that would be great. I tried, but with dialup, my computer freezes up. Thanks.

A good example of what strong hands and forearms will do for ya. Just a little flick of the wrist and he left the yard.

[4for4]

Sweeney HR Clip (http://66.206.15.241/hmimgs/040806_kca_sweeney_hr_tp.avi)

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Well, that clip wouldn't load 4x4, thanks for doin' it though. I swear, this makes me want to throw my laptip through the friekin' window sometimes, but oh well. I saw the original highlihght on sportscenter, and was amazed that he could be that out front, and off balance, and still be able to pull it out to left. Somethings up with the ball this year.

HG, exactly, it's these types of swings, and adjustments made by the hands that can allow for a hard hit ball, when you should either roll over on it, or foul it off, but there's somethin' up beyond that. KC historically isn't an easy park to get it out of, and Sweeney's a strong guy, but this is ridicluous. I was watchin' the Royals game today, and Reggie Sanders hit a should be gapper at best out to right, and it just kept carrying and went out. Even the announcers mentioned how the ball seems "hot" this year. Somethin''s up. Anyway, jusst wanted to get the clip up, wish my computer didn't suck arse.

[tom.guerry]

Nice BHUT.

Nice rubberband winding/hands stay back/back elbow rotates down as front knee turns open. front knee turns open before back knee turns.

Somewhat of offspeeed pitch and lower than expected. Back shoulder drops and back knee hinges more,prolomgrd "drop and tilt".

weight stays back. axis leans back. bat(clubhead) releases and catches ball well on up slope. (long/"extended" swing where bat has lined up with forearm by contact as opposed to hands way ahead of bathead)

perfect swing is adjustment you make.

Adjustment was not primarily by "torso tilt".It was a good one.

[4for4]

Nice BHUT.

Nice rubberband winding/hands stay back/back elbow rotates down as front knee turns open. front knee turns open before back knee turns.

Somewhat of offspeeed pitch and lower than expected. Back shoulder drops and back knee hinges more,prolomgrd "drop and tilt".

weight stays back. axis leans back. bat(clubhead) releases and catches ball well on up slope. (long/"extended" swing where bat has lined up with forearm by contact as opposed to hands way ahead of bathead)

perfect swing is adjustment you make.

Adjustment was not primarily by "torso tilt".It was a good one.

Yup. It's all there:

http://mikeepsteinhitting.com/images/rorysullivan_approach.jpg

[fungo22]

Nice BHUT.

Nice rubberband winding/hands stay back/back elbow rotates down as front knee turns open. front knee turns open before back knee turns.

Somewhat of offspeeed pitch and lower than expected. Back shoulder drops and back knee hinges more,prolomgrd "drop and tilt".

weight stays back. axis leans back. bat(clubhead) releases and catches ball well on up slope. (long/"extended" swing where bat has lined up with forearm by contact as opposed to hands way ahead of bathead)

perfect swing is adjustment you make.

Adjustment was not primarily by "torso tilt".It was a good one. Yup. Textbook swing.

[ssarge]

A good example of what strong hands and forearms will do for ya. Just a little flick of the wrist and he left the yard.
David,

I've looked at the clip 50 times, and I can't see it. THe ONLY thing I see in the wrists is an UNhinging.

Regards,

Scott

[ssarge]

What did I miss? Where did the picture or Rory Sullivan come from, and who is he?

Regards,

Scott

[hiddengem]

David,

I've looked at the clip 50 times, and I can't see it. THe ONLY thing I see in the wrists is an UNhinging.

Regards,

Scott

Don't know what to tell you other that I've "Been there and done that" and know how that feels.

If I went up to the plate and told myslef "Ok, now the only thing I want my wrists to do are "unhinge" and do that without applying any force through my hands. My bat would be slow as heck, never release through the ball and just plain stink.

Now, all my wrists MIGHT be doing are unhinging. But in order to catch up to the stuff I'm facing I have to think about having quick hands.

I'd bet that if you asked Sweeney what happened on that swing. He'd say I was fooled but kept my hands back and threw them at the ball at the last second.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Someone should start a thread, where you guys can post video clips from the night before or something, and discuss what they did on the swing. :atthepc

[swingbuster]

Don't know what to tell you other that I've "Been there and done that" and know how that feels.

If I went up to the plate and told myslef "Ok, now the only thing I want my wrists to do are "unhinge" and do that without applying any force through my hands. My bat would be slow as heck, never release through the ball and just plain stink.

The Reggie Sanders clip on the Royal's site BHUT...bang!

Our Jeromy Smith senior 6-1 185 HS hit a 360 dead center HR on Tues...effortlessly just like that. BHUT / then popped the hands with rotation .

Then our LH 10 grader came up and hit one with pure Olerud- type rotation and no BHUT.

So there ARE two swing patterns. The righties ( top hand dominant) need more arm action many times

Sandman will have both of their set ups and they are quite different

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Buster, check out Sexson's grand slam tonight. Pitch that started middle in and crept in further. Without the adjustment with his hands, he probably would have fouled it off his foot.

[swingbuster]

I will check it out.

Posture and shoulder plane begin the process but hand loading adds pop and late movement adjustment. It also allows the batter to hit low and away. Posture and shoulder plane cannot do that unless you set them for low and away on every pitch...not necessarily a bad thought.

Three centers of rotation

hips
shoulders
hands....you must enhance them all.

Ladies might not be able to use it as much. Don't know.

I asked my wife to test a new tee that I am working on yesterday. She reluctantly agreed. As she drew back, I stopped her and said " honey I want you to stride and really hit it hard."

She frowned up at the unwanted schooling. She crushed a 3" wiffle ball low shot directly into her favorite cat's head that was innocently watching out front of the tee.

He ran off at right angles ....... I had supper on the back steps ..............

[ssarge]

If I went up to the plate and told myslef "Ok, now the only thing I want my wrists to do are "unhinge" and do that without applying any force through my hands. My bat would be slow as heck, never release through the ball and just plain stink.

Now, all my wrists MIGHT be doing are unhinging. But in order to catch up to the stuff I'm facing I have to think about having quick hands.
Yeah, I get this.

As I wrote before, it is obvious that hitters at your level create so much rotational force that it DOES feel like the hands are getting left behind.

Whether or not it's reality - I don't happen to think it is - the swing cues about the hands are universal w/ hitters at your level, and they obviously work.


But again, when teaching kids to hit - who DON'T create the same kind of rotational force you do - I don't think it is the right point of emphasis.


Put another way - my 15 YO daughter and some of her peers attain bat speed around 80mph (best swings). Which is what? Maybe 12-15mph below the MLB average? Which is not insignificant, but may be less than people would expect. Of course, folks might also be surprised to learn MLB bat speed tops out at 100mph or so, when elite male SLOW PITCH hitters get closer to 120mph. The trade-off between bat speed and quickness is a real reality for MLB players. As in how MUCH bat speed can I get without sacrificing 4.5 frame quickness? And a SP hitter is obviously not worried about frame count.

I don't believe the bat speed delta is because of the weaker wrists and hands of a teen aged girl. Their wrists and hands obviously ARE weaker.

But so is their core - so they don't rotate as efficiently. Or load / unload as efficiently. And I think those factors explain the delta more accurately than wrist strength.


Put even another way: Does Piazza get more bat speed because he can squeeze a tennis ball until it pops? If so, his bat speed otherwise is unspectacular, because including his wrists and hands, he doesn't seem to generate exceptional (by MLB standards) bat speed.

Best regards,

Scott

[Mark H]

Don't know what to tell you other that I've "Been there and done that" and know how that feels.

If I went up to the plate and told myslef "Ok, now the only thing I want my wrists to do are "unhinge" and do that without applying any force through my hands. My bat would be slow as heck, never release through the ball and just plain stink.

Now, all my wrists MIGHT be doing are unhinging. But in order to catch up to the stuff I'm facing I have to think about having quick hands.

I'd bet that if you asked Sweeney what happened on that swing. He'd say I was fooled but kept my hands back and threw them at the ball at the last second.

That cue apparently works fabulously for you and perhaps for others at your level. Tell the average youth coach or youth hitter "quick hands" and this is what they "hear/envision". http://www.quickhands.net/pics.html

[Mark H]

Buster, check out Sexson's grand slam tonight. Pitch that started middle in and crept in further. Without the adjustment with his hands, he probably would have fouled it off his foot.

Tightening radius handpath has been discussed a long time though saying he made the adjustments with his hands is obviously a misnomer since the handpath was a function of other joint activity.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Whatever you say :lookitup ;)

[ssarge]

Tightening radius handpath has been discussed a long time though saying he made the adjustments with his hands is obviously a misnomer since the handpath was a function of other joint activity.
You bet. Sequential reversal of the scap loading process to create the fish hook / tighten radius is big. Sure, you can just yank the hands inside. I don't think that is what the best do, though.

Regards,

Scott

[tom.guerry]

4x4-

The still you showed is not like anything in the homerum sequence.The still showws bat drag and no separation.

Are you really unable to see the difference between the two patterns?

[ssarge]

I once killed a rainy Saturday morning playing around with the demo video for "Quick Hands" - which Mark has made absolutely ubiquitous.

Check out the link. This is as accurate as I can make it. Assuming the guy's foot is 12 inches, the plate is 17 inches and the plate is 34 inches. I positioned the plate so that the bat could ALMOST cover the outside - counting on a VERY friendly (towards the hitter) ump.

Ouch.

How does that linear handpath work again?

Regards,

Scott


http://eteamz.active.com/norcalshockers/handouts/index.cfm?subsite=3523412

[LClifton]

http://www.quickhands.net/pics.html[/url]

Mark, Scott,
You guys are far too critical.....
This particular "tool" has been very useful to me.
However, I've not personally ever used it for teaching hitting..;)

LClifton

[4for4]

4x4-

The still you showed is not like anything in the homerum sequence.The still showws bat drag and no separation.

Are you really unable to see the difference between the two patterns?

Hmmm... That still comes from epstein's website as an example of getting it right. So you are saying that still is not an example of high level swing mechanics?

[hiddengem]

That cue apparently works fabulously for you and perhaps for others at your level. Tell the average youth coach or youth hitter "quick hands" and this is what they "hear/envision". http://www.quickhands.net/pics.html

I haven't run into this problem to be quite honest, and I've been teaching for about 8yrs.

[hiddengem]

Yeah, I get this.

As I wrote before, it is obvious that hitters at your level create so much rotational force that it DOES feel like the hands are getting left behind.

Whether or not it's reality - I don't happen to think it is - the swing cues about the hands are universal w/ hitters at your level, and they obviously work.


But again, when teaching kids to hit - who DON'T create the same kind of rotational force you do - I don't think it is the right point of emphasis.


Put another way - my 15 YO daughter and some of her peers attain bat speed around 80mph (best swings). Which is what? Maybe 12-15mph below the MLB average? Which is not insignificant, but may be less than people would expect. Of course, folks might also be surprised to learn MLB bat speed tops out at 100mph or so, when elite male SLOW PITCH hitters get closer to 120mph. The trade-off between bat speed and quickness is a real reality for MLB players. As in how MUCH bat speed can I get without sacrificing 4.5 frame quickness? And a SP hitter is obviously not worried about frame count.

I don't believe the bat speed delta is because of the weaker wrists and hands of a teen aged girl. Their wrists and hands obviously ARE weaker.

But so is their core - so they don't rotate as efficiently. Or load / unload as efficiently. And I think those factors explain the delta more accurately than wrist strength.


Put even another way: Does Piazza get more bat speed because he can squeeze a tennis ball until it pops? If so, his bat speed otherwise is unspectacular, because including his wrists and hands, he doesn't seem to generate exceptional (by MLB standards) bat speed.

Best regards,

Scott

How heavy is the average bat on your daughters team?

[swingbuster]

SCott

What interest me about Piazza and maybe a Chipper is not their bat speed but the direction in which they are able to deliver the blow. Deep oppo gap power adds so much to your ability to hit for average against high level pitching and guys that simply decide to stay away.

It is very rare in HS to see a player that can go there with power by design.

The BHUT seems to deliver out there well for many players

[Chris O'Leary]

A good example of what strong hands and forearms will do for ya. Just a little flick of the wrist and he left the yard.

Is it just me or does anyone else feel like this is oversimplifying things a bit?

It looks like a fairly standard high-level swing to me. The difference in this clip seems to be that he got fooled by the ball. As a result, he hit it farther out in front of his body than is usual.

However, I see most of the essentials that people talk about...

1. Elbow in when turning.
2. Minimal stride.
3. Hips leading the way.
4. Stiff front leg.

IMHO, the fact that his wrist flicked is a product of everything that came before that moment.

[Mark H]

I haven't run into this problem to be quite honest, and I've been teaching for about 8yrs.

Latest example was the guru of a local fastpitch association talking to all the select/travel coaches telling them punching the ball off a tee with the knob of the bat is a good drill and is the motion you should use hitting a ball. As you can see by the advertisement, and this outfit runs a training business and cage as well, this thinking is alive and well in youth baseball as well. Walk through a cage in Houston and you are likely to hear instructions to move the hands in a straight line toward the ball.

[fungo22]

4x4-

The still you showed is not like anything in the homerum sequence.The still showws bat drag and no separation.

Are you really unable to see the difference between the two patterns? Is that bat drag or just good internal rotation of the arm/elbow? Also, I'm curious how you are able to see "no separation" from a still? I thought "separation" occurred between hips and shoulder/hands starting at the initiation of hip rotation.

[tom.guerry]

4x4-

Yes, the flaws in the Epstein student pics have been pointed out many times and discussed ad nauseum.There is nothing wrong with showing pictures of students as they do drills.He has posted many pics of students with bat drag and weight on the back foot (Note Scott's daughter has weight on back foot, should we blame that on Epstein,too ?).All gurus post inaccurate/nonhigh level ilustrations of some kind.Epstein may not be focussed on those particular landmarks other gurus think of as absolutes. He still knows a good swing when he sees one and can teach it and has the best overall description of the swing.I think his main drawback is that he does not describe the swing obejectively so it can be widely understood without his personal intervention, but that is at least as true of all other gurus.

Look at the sweeney clip. Stop it at the frame most resembling "redshirt".This should allow you to begin to see the difference in separation.In a good swing, shoulders should turn to contact,hips decelerated. Hips and shoulders should not turn together.Fungo should definitely be able to see the difference between sweeney and "redshirt" even if it's just this one frame of redshirt.Sweeney has the hips more open and the torso has stayed back so it can then turn to contact. Redshirt's "batdrag" makes it impossible to keep the shoulders back, shoulders and hips have turned together without shoulders staying back.

Can you see that ?

[fungo22]

Tom, I can't get Sweeney's swing to download, so I can't watch it frame by frame. Hence, I was not comparing the still to Sweeney's swing.

Besides, nobody I know of argues that there shouldn't be some separation (good load/unload sequencing) in a "high-level" swing. I still believe in the "rotational whip." It is and always has been a matter of how to teach it. Another fact at issue is that you think that learning a specific arm action is essential to making it happen. It isn't. It has very little to do with the arms or the hands. Ohfor posted several clips of high-level swings with little-to-no arm action.

[fungo22]

Redshirt's "batdrag" makes it impossible to keep the shoulders back, shoulders and hips have turned together without shoulders staying back.

Can you see that ? No, I can't. I don't agree that bat drag makes it impossible to keep the shoulders back. Bat drag can occur with separation. There is no indication to me that his hips didn't start ahead of his shoulders and he sequenced the internal rotation of the arm (elbow "slotting") to launch his shoulders following his hips. By the time the frame is captured his hips have decelerated and his shoulders have nearly caught up with his hips.

I'm not saying that this is the way it happened. I'm simply suggesting that you can't be sure it ain't. Not from the still.

[4for4]

There is nothing wrong with showing pictures of students as they do drills.

Good one Tom. The fella in the still is exhibiting his epstein non-high level mlb pattern in a ball game (scrimmage). That's what one can see while looking at the swing clip section of eptein's website. Lots of clips displaying the non-high level pattern. Your double standard Tom. What does epstein think of bat drag?

All gurus post inaccurate/nonhigh level ilustrations of some kind.
You’ve posted clips somewhere?

(Note Scott's daughter has weight on back foot, should we blame that on Epstein,too ?).

I’ll let Scott speak to your comments about his daughter, with one exception. Scott pointed out that she was on her back foot. He also indicated that it was related to the legacy of her extensive Epstein training. So yes, epstein’s methodology is flawed. This was my experience with epstein as well.

He still knows a good swing when he sees one and can teach it and has the best overall description of the swing.I

If you want to go from lunger to back foot spinner with bat drag, then his program will work. If you want to reach your potential as a hitter, epstein is significantly flawed and you won’t get you to your destination. Best bet is Englishbey and there isn’t a close second. You have no credibility when it comes to who has the best overall description of the swing and who can teach it optimally. I, unlike you, have field-tested mankin, epstein and Englishbey. You haven’t. Stop declaring that which you don’t know.

As for the claims/commentary in your penultimate paragraph, I’m in agreement with Fungo. I’ve not said there is no separation in the high level swing and your huge leap suggesting that I don’t get it and that Englishbey/Posse, et al. don’t get it or know how to teach it is laughable coming from someone that doesn’t work with players. Or do you? What I have said may not be spot on with what Englishbey surely knows, but I’m confident that I am much closer now than you will ever be. That’s what my field experience tells me.

Keep looking Tom.

[Mark H]

4x4-

Yes, the flaws in the Epstein student pics have been pointed out many times and discussed ad nauseum.There is nothing wrong with showing pictures of students as they do drills.He has posted many pics of students with bat drag and weight on the back foot ?

I think that would be because his drills encourage the weight to be back and don't address arm action.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Today in St. Louis, Encarnacion hit a "would be" homer that Carlos Lee robbed in left field. If anyone can post that clip of Encarnacion's swing, I'd appreciate it.

[LClifton]

You have no credibility when it comes to who has the best overall description of the swing and who can teach it optimally. I, unlike you, have field-tested mankin, epstein and Englishbey. You haven’t. Stop declaring that which you don’t know.
This is not very gentlemanly 4 for 4.:D
LClifton

[ssarge]

How heavy is the average bat on your daughters team?


I'm not sure about the average. Her bat is a 33/24 Rocket Tech. The Rocket Tech's run 1.5 to 2 ozs heavier than the listed weight, so maybe 25.5 oz? She has swung 26oz bats without a drop off in bat speed. Much heavier than that, and I think it would start to decline slightly, though. SHE weighs 150, and if she ever pulled a muscle, I would congratulate her. On HAVING a muscle.

Regards,

Scott

[ssarge]

(Note Scott's daughter has weight on back foot, should we blame that on Epstein,too ?).

Those who actually read my posts on this thread, know that I am blaming it on him (maybe "attributing" is a better word - I blame it on me). This is her reversion pattern, and is a direct result of the time we spent w/ Epstein. In most of her practice swings, even though no-stride, she develops reasonable momentum. And is on her rear toes at contact (very little weight on back foot). In game situations, sometimes she sits on the back leg, because this is how she first learned to hit 3 years ago. Literally tens of thousands of reps w/ Epstein drills and an emphasis on his POINTS of emphasis. And she carries the legacy to this day just as many, many other instantly recognizable hitters do. Whether or NOT they stride.

Regards,

Scott

[ssarge]

What interest me about Piazza and maybe a Chipper is not their bat speed but the direction in which they are able to deliver the blow. Deep oppo gap power adds so much to your ability to hit for average against high level pitching and guys that simply decide to stay away.

It is very rare in HS to see a player that can go there with power by design.

Donny:

The principle reason I posted the two swings by my daughter is because you (and others) have made this point. The first swing - outside pitch (so far outside it was a ball) hit to the right of center was 20' short of the fence, but it was hit much harder than the second swing (HR to left/center on inside pitch). If it would have had the loft, it would have been out. I know the video is lousy quality, and you have to take my word for it. But w/ all the rain in California, the outfield grass was about 6" high, the ground was incredibly soggy, and that ball was an absolute seed. Shot over the CF's head so fast she had barely moved.

I do acknowledge that pulling the ball is more common. But oppo-field on an outside pitch is hardly a rarity.

I also am not experiencing the same as you on the Tee challenge you have offered in the past. Htting balls up the middle off the Tee is fairly routine, in my experience. I think I shared on another board our experience in Arizona this Fall in a hitting contest. A lot of 18Gold players, and several US National team players entered into an exhibition / competition to do just that. Hit off the Tee into a Jugs net at 2B or another one in mid-center field. The large majority of the hits - and all ten of my daughters, as it turned out - were pretty close to the nets. And many went in the nets. It was kind of a lame contest (it was supposed to be a HR contest off a machine, but they canceled that in the interest of time). But virtually no one seemed to have trouble hitting line drives up the middle off the tee.


In a good swing, shoulders should turn to contact, hips decelerated. Hips and shoulders should not turn together.
Tom:

Well, they DO turn together. It's not like the hips turn, then stop, then the shoulders START. But I assume that isn't what you meant, and that I am making a semantical quibble. I assume you meant there should be separation even as the hips and shoulders ARE turning simultaneously?

Is anyone arguing this point?

I would maintain that MUCH of the separation is due to the shoulders being loaded (NOT counter-rotated) prior to swing launch. Whatever the degree of hip coil, it will not match that of the shoulders. So some separation is built in at launch. And more is added post-launch. That said, I DON'T see an attempt by elite hitters to MAXIMIZE the amount of separation.

On my daughter's swing - you have termed her a "spinner," and perhaps she is (note my comments about Epstein above) - I see INCREASING separation after swing launch. Shoulders start more "loaded" than the hips, and it appears to me that the hips then begin to rotate a frame or so before the shoulders in the first swing (the double on an outside pitch), and maybe half that in the second swing (the HR on an inside pitch). I think this 1/2 frame delta is probably the principle reason the first hit went to the right of center, and the second to left/center. Longer delay in the initiation of shoulder rotation is a pretty good timing adjustment for hitting the outside pitch.

But it seems clear to me - in both swings - that there is separation at launch, and enhanced separation post-launch.

Regards,

Scott

[tom.guerry]

4x4-
If you are confusing me with a "guru" you are in serious trouble.

Scott-

I think you are right to put the blame on yourself,noit Epstein. That is certainly what I would do. I do not want to speak for Steve E,but my interpretation is that he doesn't think his stuff can be adequately used without serious hands on involvement from him personally.Alos, the Dixon example is a good one. He practically dedicates his entire work (exceptional player phase) to Lau SR. He talks about trying to figure out what LAu meant by weight shift,etc. His is a detailed interpretation of Lau that goes much further, BUT that does not mean he then turns around and trashes Lau. He appreciates Lau and then does the best he can to understand what it is Lau is talking about. I would highly recommend taking the same approach to Williams and Epstein.

If you look at your daughters clips, note that as the front heel drops, the hands are already coming. This means there is no more coiling, no quick later/last bit of stretch/reabound.As with the Dixon diagnosis, she is lacking the middle phase of the swing that is the key difference between the spin and the whip (although a midle piece, it must be taught by getting the entire sequence right from the beginning).

I think Epstein's description of rubber band winding and drop and tilt is the best one for this middle phase where the hands must stay back until well after the front heel is down (ruber band winding takes about a frame into toe touch,then "drop and tilt" takes about 2 frames of additional coil/adjustment before another almost 4 frames gets you to contact in a high level pattern.

The Initiating or popping of the hips needs to include tilting of the shoulders to resist opening with the hips and to get the additional coil and adjustability.Without this middle phase there is not a high level mlb type swing that Lau and Epstein are familiar with even if they cannot describe it well enough for others to fully benefit without in person oversight.

[Mark H]

4x4-
If you are confusing me with a "guru" you are in serious trouble..

Yup.

Scott-

I think you are right to put the blame on yourself,noit Epstein.


In the sense that Scott chose the Epstein material that would certainly be true.



That is certainly what I would do. I do not want to speak for Steve E,but my interpretation is that he doesn't think his stuff can be adequately used without serious hands on involvement from him personally.

You should take your own advice and not speak for Steve. As far as Mike's stuff, it can be used without him but it creates problems to fix other problems.





Alos, the Dixon example is a good one. He practically dedicates his entire work (exceptional player phase) to Lau SR. He talks about trying to figure out what LAu meant by weight shift,etc. His is a detailed interpretation of Lau that goes much further, BUT that does not mean he then turns around and trashes Lau. He appreciates Lau and then does the best he can to understand what it is Lau is talking about. I would highly recommend taking the same approach to Williams and Epstein.

Epstein is given credit where credit is due. The average youth hitter will get better with his stuff, but with an unnecessary ceiling. Intellectual honesty is mmore important than Mike's or your feelings.





If you look at your daughters clips, note that as the front heel drops, the hands are already coming. This means there is no more coiling, no quick later/last bit of stretch/reabound.As with the Dixon diagnosis, she is lacking the middle phase of the swing that is the key difference between the spin and the whip (although a midle piece, it must be taught by getting the entire sequence right from the beginning).

We can discuss with you what you see in a MLB clip but why you think anyone should take you seriously in terms of HOW to develop a high level swing is beyond me when you, and no one else, has produced evidence of young hitters you have developed from poor to effective and efficient?

[ssarge]

Tom:

There are flaws in Kelly's swing. Thankfully. I'd hate to think she is as good as she is going to get.

As I said when I posted it, the swing was not great - by MLB standards - it's not bad as judged against her peers - and she's traveling in pretty good company these days. For that matter, the clips weren't even representative of her better swings. Her goal is to play somewhere in college, and I suspect she'll attain that - there are a lot of college softball teams out there. We'll see in 2009, I guess. But in the summer, she often plays with / against college players now.


When I posted the swing, I identified the flaws. She has a momentum development issue, and her hands are not initially well connected to the shoulder plane. Her problem is NOT how far back her hands are (as you are asserting). Her problem is that the hands are below the shoulder plane. Consequently, she is not initially as well connected as she should be, and she has to search a bit to find swing plane. This is evident in these swings. But, as I explained, she has been in a developmental stage to eliminate pushing - a far more serious flaw - and I think she has largely successfully done this. Now we are left w/ a kid who rotates quite efficiently (very quick swing), who generates great bat speed, and who doesn't push. There are definitely some things to work on. Working on them in the past would have been band-aiding a GSW. Other things needed to be fixed as an absolute priority, and I think they mostly have been. This is the kind of triage situation I contemplate every day while working with hitters. I suspect sometimes I nail it, and other times, I fail miserably. In Kelly's case, I get concerned when she reverts to the Epstein pattern with too much weight back and limited momentum, but we're working on that. I am definitely concerned about better connecting the hands to the shoulder, so that she will be forced to use the body to properly develop swing plane. In the meantime, she rotates well and is quick. In my judgment, this is a great foundation upon which to build.


But the purpose of posting the clips was NOT to parade her swing, or even to ask for input (though I appreciate it). The predicate was the statement that the "PCR" swing couldn't adjust to an outside pitch. And I disagree. As the clips demonstrate, [her] swing easily adjusted to a very outside and very inside pitch. Against the same pitcher in the same game (basically successive ABs - there were two 4 pitch walks in between). Clearly. the predicate statement was false, even when the "PCR" swing is flawed.[/B]


As always, I am open to criticism and suggestions. But I am not easy to persuade. I have actually TRIED just about every hitting approach on the market with my own guinea pig, and with other kids. This isn't a theoretical exercise for me.


BTW, how did you like it for distance?


Scott

[ssarge]

Alos, the Dixon example is a good one. He practically dedicates his entire work (exceptional player phase) to Lau SR. He talks about trying to figure out what LAu meant by weight shift,etc. His is a detailed interpretation of Lau that goes much further, BUT that does not mean he then turns around and trashes Lau. He appreciates Lau and then does the best he can to understand what it is Lau is talking about. I would highly recommend taking the same approach to Williams and Epstein.
Good advice.

When you're selling something. Which I do vocationally, BTW, with reasonable success.


In this case, I'm not selling anything.

Simply sharing experience and advice w/ interested parties. Who for whatever reason seem to value the advice.


Further, I'm not inclined to ascribe motive or concept interpretation to ANYONE's material simply because I possess an antecedent assumption that everyone "must be right" and "must be describing the same thing." I don't think those assumptions ARE true, and I don't care if they are true.

All I want to do is help kids learn to hit. To do this, I examine every piece of hitting information I can find. I have no desire that all that material ultimately be used or even that it fit together. In fact, I want to ELIMINATE as much material as possible. I want to field test every possible concept and idea, and then eliminate about 90% of it. I want to be left w/ the 10% of the material which I have found to be most effective, and which I can attempt to communicate / demonstrate / develop in increasingly simple ways to young hitters.


And MY antecedent assumption is that simplicity - while potentially slightly limiting the attainment of theoretical perfection - will nontheless lead to greater success for the vast majority of athletes. Nothing I have yet seen or experienced has dissauded me of this bias.



I've seldom been accused of "trashing" or being unfair, and so I find myself unusually defensive. I don't want to be defensive, so I'll just accept the criticism.


The one point I will make is this:

The Epstein "approach" you advocate is not even remotely close to the one HE advocates in his materials. Or demonstrates with the swings on his web site. If you are saying that the Torque, 1-2-3, and Fence Drills will put a hitter in a MLB-level developmental pattern, fine. Because THAT is Epstein's material. I don't agree with your conclusion, but it is a worthwhile discussion. As I've said on about a zillion occasions, kids who follow Epstein's program get better. It's just that after a while, they stop getting better.

Your interpretation, expansion, blending, deletion, modification of Epstein's materials - no matter how valid the ultimate result - CAN NOT credibly be the basis for comparison against other instructional approaches. His material must be compared as it is presented. Because that is how it will be viewed and implemented by 99+ % of the people exposed to it.

Regards,

Scott

[ssarge]

Two other pictures of Kelly, both from home run swings in practice. Black jersey was just to the left of center, white jersey was a dead pull.

Comments welcome.


I don't see any particular weight distribution problems in either of these swings.

Or shoulder plane problems.


Things are a lot easier in practice - no reversion.

Regards,

Scott

[LClifton]

I like what I see in the second still. A lot.
This position, to my eye, says that a lot of good happened to get to here.

1) posture
1a) proper initiation of swing (no throwing of the hands)
2) rotation
3) and she does appear to be connected
4) poised for an unload into the ball

LClifton

[ssarge]

Thank you, Loren.

Attached is a catcher view of the exact same swing that you liked (Kelly2). This still should be synced to the profile view - we had two cameras running that day.

Best regards,

Scott

[tom.guerry]

Scott-

Seeing clips of the practice homers would be better.In this case, I can not compare this to the game clips and see what is different.

You mentioned key flaws before:

"hands not initially connected to shoulder plane"

I would describe this, of course, as primarily (not entirely by any means) an arm action sequence problem which would require working on the same sequence in throwing and hitting at the same time,getting the mechanics right from the beginning of the motion.Hands do need to load up next to the back shoulder and stay there until into the approach to contact.

I gather the "PCR" crowd is now trying some sort of approach to "knob turning" to improve the swing, but if you do not understand/believe that arm action is king, it will be hard to suceed there trying to turn the knob with the shoulders or "in the shoulder line". Remember, Lau says specifically "pull the knob with the arms NOT the shoulders" and he knows what he is talking about - this is a cue that has enough reality to it that it can't be ignored.

"tendency to revert to weight back/limited momentum"

The flatbed momentum needs to get transformed into better coil for better uncoiling.It is hard to do this without the rubber band winding then drop and tilt sequence with the "tilt" of the shoulders creating last quick coil and plane adjustment.I don't think the reversion will go away until some sort of mechanical sequence including/acknowledging the importance of tilt is learned.



"Approach is to better connect hands to shoulder which will force the body to properly develop swing plane"

I think you need more of the "rql" type apporach of learning a basic swing,then learning how to adjust.

Look in or out.

Outside means loading the hands back/in more which creates a higher load/more inside out swing plane (different direction of tht as Mankin describes it) and requires more back to front weight shift (more to front leg as opposed to against as LAu describes it.

Inside means drop and tilt will interrupt the hand loading sooner, hands loaded less back and in/lower load to rotation.

Adjust up/down on fly.

Well described by Epstein as drop and tilt/weathervanne. Back scap positioning with the "tilt" here is probably the determing factor, but it can certainly be felt/"cued" by weathervane. Low ball, back scap down more,more hinge,axis stays leaned back,lead arm goes up in slot,swing still perpendicular/in power plane as it needs to be.

High ball means level shoulders by back scap STAYING (hard to get up there if not ready/there to begin with) up,getting axis more upright before bathead fires,lead elbow working more down in slot.

Top hand stays with back scap until drop and tilt is over in any case as in Joe Morgan's hitting for dummies or Epsteins bat on deltoid.

I think if you are expecting all the answers from a single system, you will be disappointed, but you might well get them from a single good teacher.

rql approach is briefly descried at

http://s6.invisionfree.com/Hitting/index.php?showtopic=304

[LClifton]

I have one thing to say,

GO KELLY, GO KELLY...
You rock girl....
Very nice.

LClifton

[Comm]

" Knob to Ball", what a farce that is. Does A-Rod, Bonds, Ramirez, Ortiz, Pujols, Lee, etc.... Pull the knob to the ball? Read the Book on Ted Williams Hitting Mechanics - he did finish his career with a .345 BA, and 521 Homers.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Here's a shot of Bonds for ya.

[Comm]

Here's a shot of Bonds for ya.

Bond's isn't pulling the Knob to the line of the ball. He is applying Torque just before contact. ( Read www.batspeed.com)

[Sultan_1895-1948]

You can argue about "how" the knob ends up toward the pitcher all you want, the point is, with all great hitters, the knob does end up pointing toward the pitcher.

[Mark H]

Bond's isn't pulling the Knob to the line of the ball. He is applying Torque just before contact. ( Read www.batspeed.com)

Been awhile since I've seen three Mankin devotees on the same board other than Jack's. Comm, we all (almost all anyway) have been through Epstein and Mankin. Most of us then read setpro and now Englishbey. I recommend it. Don't post on setpro though, just read. At least until you've read everything on there. Don't buy anything either, except the ten dollar a month access, unless it comes COD.

[swingbuster]

the knob does end up pointing toward the pitcher.

It does. But if you take enough images it will point to lots of people before the barrel release

[fungo22]

You can argue about "how" the knob ends up toward the pitcher all you want, the point is, with all great hitters, the knob does end up pointing toward the pitcher. If that's the "point" then it's a pretty blunt one. The real issue is how the direction of the knob gets changed so that it points toward the pitcher. The action is either efficient or it isn't.

[ssarge]

I posted the clips of Kelly because they had been on TV, were convenient, and to illustrate that hitting an inside and outside pitch using "PCR" mechanics (bad / incomplete description, but well understood to reference Englishbey, so a nice abbreviation) is no big trick.

Obviously, game swings are almost never as good as practice swings in young hitters. I didn't think this was even a particularly good game swing, and said so, pointing out the flaws. It WAS a good example of hitting both an inside and outside pitch w/out any difficult adjustments.

But again, not her best swings.

Her BEST swings - which have been viewed by many on this board, including Englishbey - certainly have flaws. But in her best swings, she connects up well, finds a solid shoulder plane, rotates efficiently, creates far more than typical bat speed, and has a 5 frame swing. These are good checkpoints that the developmental pattern is tracking. As are HRs and line drives against different pitch locations.

I deem this a good building point. Good enough so that even when her swing is flawed she can hit balls out at the college distance.

And as I indicate, her reversion is generally to mechanics most familiar to her. As well demonstrated in these clips. (See below).



from Tom:
(Note Scott's daughter has weight on back foot, should we blame that on Epstein,too ?).



from Scott:
Those who actually read my posts on this thread, know that I am blaming it on him (maybe "attributing" is a better word - I blame it on me). This is her reversion pattern, and is a direct result of the time we spent w/ Epstein. In most of her practice swings, even though no-stride, she develops reasonable momentum. And is on her rear toes at contact (very little weight on back foot). In game situations, sometimes she sits on the back leg, because this is how she first learned to hit 3 years ago. Literally tens of thousands of reps w/ Epstein drills and an emphasis on his POINTS of emphasis. And she carries the legacy to this day just as many, many other instantly recognizable hitters do. Whether or NOT they stride.



From Tom:
I think you are right to put the blame on yourself,noit Epstein. That is certainly what I would do.
Yes I know. You've made that clear.


But see picture below.

The two outside photos are Kelly in her HR swing.

The photo in the middle is from the Epstein CD.

RIGHT AFTER he says "rotate hands downward to bring elbow in close to your body," he then has the girl swing from this position he deems perfect for the Torque Drill. This is the drill Epstein says (on the CD) is "the foundation of rotational hitting."

And I think Kelly fairly squarely emulated the position mandated in that drill, other than the fact that she has better posture and a scap load.

Kelly has thousands - perhaps tens of thousands of reps from this position.

Very few work harder than she does, and few have taken more reps.

It is the position to which she reverts. In her REVERSION swing, regretfully, she seems to have MASTERED the poisition Epstein advocates, except her posture is much better than the hitter on the Epstein CD.

It is the foundational position of the teaching approach Tom advocates.

NOTHING is presented in the Epstein materials Tom advocates - which are all most hitters will ever see, not being exposed to Tom's unified hitting theory - to deal w/ hand position or connecting the hands to the shoulder.

Which NEEDS to happen.

But hitters are left - by Epstein design (he actually states it is his design on the CD) - to find mechanics to connect their hands to the shoulder plane.

Something Englishbey spends a lot of time with as he works with hitters. Although Tom is unaware of this, because he has not seen the materials. He criticizes the materials and the approach, but he has NOT seen them.



From Scott:
When I posted the swing, I identified the flaws. She has a momentum development issue, and her hands are not initially well connected to the shoulder plane. Her problem is NOT how far back her hands are (as you are asserting). Her problem is that the hands are below the shoulder plane. Consequently, she is not initially as well connected as she should be, and she has to search a bit to find swing plane. This is evident in these swings. But, as I explained, she has been in a developmental stage to eliminate pushing - a far more serious flaw - and I think she has largely successfully done this. Now we are left w/ a kid who rotates quite efficiently (very quick swing), who generates great bat speed, and who doesn't push. There are definitely some things to work on. Working on them in the past would have been band-aiding a GSW. Other things needed to be fixed as an absolute priority, and I think they mostly have been. This is the kind of triage situation I contemplate every day while working with hitters. I suspect sometimes I nail it, and other times, I fail miserably. In Kelly's case, I get concerned when she reverts to the Epstein pattern with too much weight back and limited momentum, but we're working on that. I am definitely concerned about better connecting the hands to the shoulder, so that she will be forced to use the body to properly develop swing plane.



From Tom:
I think you need more of the "rql" type apporach of learning a basic swing,then learning how to adjust.
OK, so Tom thinks she needs to start over and learn to hit HRs another way. I think that is a little harsh, almost insulting, but I could have a bias, and almost certainly have a blind spot. I think she clearly made good inside / outside adjustments on these two swings which were admittedly not her best, but I agree w/ Tom that there is a serious flaw in these swings relating to the connection of the hands to the shoulder plane. Sometimes she does this in games, less so in practice. It is clearly a reversion. And it has to be fixed so that she DOESN'T revert. We are working on that very thing.

But I'm not sure what Tom would have her return to for learning a basic swing. She has clearly mastered the material he advocates, AS IT IS PRESENTED by its author.

I personally know of no FIELD TESTED add-ons to that theory that actually have worked to develop hitters. They may be out there, but I am pleading ignorance.

But I'll say this - tell me which Epstein drills to eliminate (hopefully you'll say the Enforcer Drill, which is ludicrous), but that will leave him w/ only two - not much of a system if we take one of THOSE away - but tell me which drills to eliminate and what to add to them to actually build a hitter.

I'm really asking.

But I think the evidence is rather clear that at one time, Kelly learned the Torque Drill rather well. Maybe the answer is in the 1-2-3 Drill. She did thousands of reps of that, too.



From Tom:
Look in or out.
The reason I posted the two clips in the first place. Same swing against same pitcher in the same game. The VERY outside pitch was hit to the right of center field. The inside corner pitch was hit to left center field. The hitter is setup about 10" off the plate on both swings. The speed of the pitch put her reaction time at just slightly more than MLB reaction time. She is typically early, and fights being early. Much of her reversion to Epstein - or other slop she brings into game swings is a RESULT of her brain wanting to start the swing earlier than she has to.

Fortunately, she has not reverted to the bat drag type mechanic so prevalent w/ Epstein hitters - even the ones he posts on his web site. Obviously not something he is concerned with. But it sure would slow down her swing so she wouldn't be as early. I QUAKE in fear that this will show up one day.

Anyway, I DO NOT believe it is necessary to give up half the plate on every pitch. I believe posture adjustment prior to launch - and some slightly variable arm action as Tom suggests - can solve this problem.



From Tom:
Adjust up/down on fly.

Well described by Epstein as drop and tilt/weathervanne.
I am unaware of ANYONE who has been successful with weathervaning. And we were not. I have read dozens of accounts from posters in the past 3 years indicating they can't make it work. No one in the hitting community advocates it except Epstein and Tom.

Too bad, because it sounds like a good concept. But the evidence seems clear it is not reality.

Certainly, if you keep the box, the tilt angle of the front elbow will change as the rear elbow changes. But it isn;t unique to the front elbow, and it doesn't happen "on the fly."



Here's some good news:

My daughter reverted to an Epstein pattern - well ingrained in her brain from close to 50K reps (about the actual number) of Epstein drills / live swings w/ Epstein principles.

And she hit both an outside pitch and an inside pitch well. HR at college distance against a live, well regarded pitcher in front of the TV cameras. Not bad.

But not anywhere near her best swing, or her best result. Because Epstein mechanics are not consistent against top pitching.


Nor is Tom consistent. I don't know how to describe a situation where he advocates Epstein as the best foundational approach, then savages a hitter who demonstrates the characteristics of Epstein's most foundational drill almost perfectly. So I won't try.

But I'll add this: If you use Epstein as a basis of learning to hit, you will improve. You may improve enough to satisfy your goals, depending upon what those are. No one needs to hit a ball any better than Kelly did to play in college. It cleared a college distance fence. And she hits for a pretty high average as well. But you WILL also hit a wall where further improvement is not forthcoming. And Kelly did. She has moved past that wall, using a better instructional approach, but sometimes reverts to what is demonstrated in the clip.

As Tom points out, the clip swings are not MLB quality - or even close.

Her best swings - which do NOT demonstrate the obvious flaws in the approach that Tom advocates as the best foundation - are not MLB quality either. But they are closer. That said, those swings are still flawed as well.

I am resigned to the fact that Kelly will not play MLB.

I am optimistic that she will attain HER goal of playing somewhere in college. I believe the developmental pattern in which she finds herself has her well on track. Without question, Englishbey has been a huge influencer.

Frankly, so was Tom, a couple of years ago. And I value his assistance and friendship.

However, what he is now advocating is inconsistent, and does not work with real hitters in the field. It is fine to build swing theories. That is so dramatically different from actuially developing hitters at a young age that they aren't even the same subject.

And I believe Tom has backed himself into a corner. He has grudgingly admitted the flaws in the Epstein approach as they have been pointed out - by many - in the past year. But has continued to insist it is the best approach, and been critical of an alternative approach advocated by many who are getting great results. Many of whom used Epstein first.


Tom:

I never want to level criticism at a friend. Actually, I don't like to level it at anyone, and seldom do. But you have backed ME into a corner. IMO, You CAN NOT maintain credibility and continue to criticize Englishbey in veiled and subtle ways without examining his material. That is patently ridiculous. You CAN NOT point to an optimal foundational approach and then criticize hitters who use it as being on the wrong track. You CAN NOT compare 15 YO female hitters to MLB hitters, find them deficient, and think that has contributed meaningfully to the conversation. And you CAN NOT consider unified swing theory as valid until you test it on some hitters and validate the results. I don't mean people you may correspond with, I mean YOU. Finally, you CAN NOT seriously expect that people are able to take your posts and use the material you present - however valid it may be - as part of a developmental process in young hitters. The only developmental advice you give is to use Epstein. OK, fairenough, valid opinion. WHAT COMES NEXT? What is the next drill? What does SB Mom or BB Dad do next?

This is NOT a theoretical exercise for most of us. We actually want to build hitters. Help us do that please.

I am NOT criticizing the validity of your information. Frankly, I don't always understand your information. But I am sure there is value there. I think you get a lot of it right. However, there is also inconsistency. And a lack of validated field result.

I am always QUITE interested on your assessment of MLB hitters, how they vary, what they do. However, your assessment on how to DEVELOP swings is not something I weigh heavily.

In the case of my daughter, she has worked hard and become a decent hitter (based on results). I actually think Epstein helped her in terms of using the lower body. I do think it hirt her in other ways. A couple of which are demonstrated her. Again, she avoided the bat drag issue so prevalent w/ Epstein hitters, so that was good. Others are not as lucky.

I actually think she has come a long ways in 3 years, and Epstein deserves some of the credit - and some of the blame, too.

I believe she would have come considerably further had I been exposed to Englishbey's materials sooner.

Others need to weigh that decision for themselves, and I trust are doing that very thing.



BTW, the bridge under the Epstein girl's foot was placed there by Epstein (while on camera). He indicates the hitter gets tired otherwise, and that this helps her to take more reps. Without question, resting the weight on the rear foot for a couple hundred swings is fatiguing.

Scott

[fungo22]

Very good post, Scott. Well reasoned and even tempered. I admire you greatly. So much that I'm going to strive to keep this post well reasoned.

I think you are right to put the blame on yourself, noit Epstein. That is certainly what I would do. In the context of what Scott was saying, the blame rightly falls on Epstein. Kelly internalized his ****** drills* and now it seeps back into her swing from time to time. Guerry, you like to sit back and take cheap shots at our kids' swings and yet you don't have the guts or integrity to post swings of yourself or your students. You can bet your mean-spirited ass that Scott wouldn't take shots at you or them the way you did at his daughter's swing.

* I've got clips of Epstein's drills. I'll post them when I get a chance so that you can all witness just how much pond water they suck.

[JJA]

Scott,

I just kills me to see the remnants of those Epstein drills in your daughter's swing. It kills me not only because of the thousands of swings it will take her to unlearn those habits, but because I too taught Epstein stuff to young hitters, and it makes me wonder how many of those unfortunate kids have similar remnants in their swings. Fortunately, I learned quickly from my mistakes and would like to think the damage I wreaked was fairly minimal, but who knows if I inadvertently wrecked the chance for a child to make the high school team.

As you know, I agree wholeheartedly with all your assessments. The Epstein crowd, with Dr. Guerry at the front of the line, argue that Epstein doesn't really teach all of the objectionable items we list (back foot hitting, counterrotation, etc.). Yet the video from his own site prominently features swings that are consistent with these objectionable teaching points. As much as the Epstein apologists argue that he really doesn't mean exactly what he says, Epstein himself has never attempted to retract, clarify or add anything on these points. With the thousands of students who own the Epstein materials, it is not unreasonable to assume the videos on his site are of his best students, who unfortunately do not display major league mechanics.

Scott, your daughters mechanics are getting there. Certainly not perfect, but 100% better than an Epstein swing. With her work ethic, she will have major league mechanics in probably another year. Great work, keep it up, nice dinger. You both should be very proud of her progress.

-JJA

[ssarge]

You both should be very proud of her progress.
Thanks for the kind words from Fungo and JJA. I could not be more proud of my daughter, and by that I am not remotely referencing RESULTS. VERY few kids work harder. I have often mentioned her lack of athletecism, and people seem to assume it is false modesty. It is not. It is not even genuine modesty. It is simply an accurate assessment of reality. Not being blessed with athletecism, she has worked her living butt off. And she carries the burden shared by the daughters of many of us who publically post. Which is that she feels every failure lets ME down. She worries constantly that people will look at her results and say, "well, your dad doesn't really know much about hitting." She has been hit on purpose because others had an ax to grind towards her father - not that I said something nasty, just that they didn't like my opinions about hitting. To say that none of those things should be worried about by a 15 YO kid is to demonstrate a lack of knowledge of how such kids think. I think this is something that ALL OF US should bear in mind any time we assess a clip or offer advice. This MATTERS to these kids.

And of course, she is also a guinea pig for every half-baked idea that goes through my head.

And she just keeps smiling, and keeps working. She is my hero.


Her mechanics are getting better, and really are better than she displays in the clips I posted.

Sometimes.

Her best swings are pretty darned good, if too infrequent.


In this case, I just thought the clips were cool, because of the inside / outside pitch adjustment. And a nice result, whether or not merited by the swing quality.


The concept of reversion is tough. But the fact that it so clearly occurs in all young hitters stresses for me the importance of the development pattern.

How absolutely optimal it is for a hitter to tackle the important stuff early.

Because whatever they first learn, that is going to be the pattern they carry for a very long time.


Which is why I think it is crucuial to learn things like posture and how to rotate first. THEN worry about things like striding, sequential loading / unloading, etc. It isn't that those later things aren't important. It's that they aren't AS important IN THE DEVELOPMENTAL PATTERN. And in my experience, no one can learn it all at once. I think Steve concurs w/ this opinion. The purely reactive nature of the swing puts it in a different category from golf or other complex bio-mechanical exercises.


I'm not saying I completely understand the optimal development process for a young hitter. I DON'T have all the answers. The opinions I am forming are based on working w/ a lot of kids. But there are variables. Unless it is your own kid, no one gets to start w/ a kid from his / her first swing. And follow every swing to adulthood. Tough even w/ your own kid, unless you're the head coach every step of the way, including HS and Club ball. There is always legacy and / or outside influences with which to deal. A huge complicator. And the laboratory window is probably 10 years, so few of us - even those who work w/ hitters - have enough data. Steve is an exception, and I rely heavily on his observations. And the window in FP may be slightly shortened over BB, because by about age 14, the elite girls are facing pitching that is also pretty elite (closer to the best in the world than is EVER true for a 14 YO boy). Still not enough data, though.


But that is part of the fun. I am so often wrong about this stuff. And learn so much every day. I don't know how I am wrong now, but I KNOW there are things I am wrong about. I am looking forward to that being revealed to me. And always trying to maintain the goal of understanding how better to communicate it to kids. That's what it REALLY is all about.


There are certain in the online hitting community who don't ever think they are wrong. You can look at a posting pattern / history and NEVER find an example of their admitting a mistake - or even growth. No examples such as "I didn't use to get this," or "I thought this, buit now know I was wrong." If I EVER assume such a position, I hope someone will literally slap me. This isn't an exercise. These kids work their asses off. They are quite gracious when you make a mistake or correct something you told them previously. They deserve our best efforts, sans ego.

Regards,

Scott

[wilson68]

For me there is an ego thing that likely should not be there. I want to be able to point to a kid and say, "See, I taught her that." Truthfully, I can seldom do it.

I coached a little sister, nine years my junior, and I started when I was seventeen and had one year of youth ball under my belt. I hated this sport as a child. So I was trying to learn stuff as I was trying to teach it to her. Trial and error? That was the name of my coaching technique. Thankfully, she was a good athlete and was able to figure out a lot simply by me pointing at someone and saying, "Do it like he does." She did turn out well and I can point at her and say, "I taught her that." And she will admit that I did, so there's one success, we still speak to one another.

Magic bullets don't exist, and frankly I do not get the time with each child that I need to affect a great deal of change. And since I have mostly dealt with req level kids (not counting the sister), there is another problem. We draft new teams each year. By the time I get a fourteen-year old, she has heard six completely different approaches from six different coaches. What she has learned is that at least 5 out of 6 coaches have no idea what they are talking about and her best chance is to ignore us all. I find if I get a kid two years in a row she will start to listen to me in the second year.

The points I am trying to make, relative to Scott's post, are:

The crap that gets taught early doesn't just screw up their mechanics; it destroys their trust in their coaches. This is what makes some rabid on these boards, that bad advice is being perpetuated.

It's constant work that makes the difference and no one yet has the magic phrase or drill that will fix everything in an hour. You try things, and then try something else, and go back to the first thing. Scratch your head and try again. If you are doing this, and your kid is sticking with you, it takes a really big man to have someone come along and offer up anything that sounds like criticism and not react badly. And that person had better be able to point at his success stories in order to prove to you that he has done it better. Scott, you're a better man than most.

Now I have my other sister's 8-year old and I have a chance to do it again knowing what I think I know now. And so far, still no magic. My biggest challenge might be to keep her from going back to watching television full-time, given how much work I want her to do. I love it, my sister loved it (most times) but the jury is still out on the little one. Still, we've barely started and I think I see some progress.

[Mark H]

OK, so Tom thinks she needs to start over and learn to hit HRs another way.

Scott

I don't spend as much time refuting Tom because I think it just encourages people to read all the way through his stuff and I don't have time to go find Kelly's clips but my recollection is her swing is pretty darn quick and I do know she is successful at the highest levels of JO ball. Tom would do well to think about that as he considers the level of his understanding of developing a hitter in the real world.

[swingbuster]

HRs are hit when enough energy is applied to the right location on the ball.

Matters not how...your right. Aaron seems to hit the top hand down in hammer position right at contact . Some clips of Clemente too and Schmidt talks of finishing low.

THese guys had a feel for getting the right swing on a ball to go yard.

I high five all HRs...that is a fun part of the game for me...

[Mark H]

OK, had an extra minute as the ladies aren't ready to leave yet. Looking at the still of the Epstein hitter reminds me, the mechanics Mike teaches encourage a reverse weight shift, and I use weight shift reluctantly but it's really not momentum development. This drill encourages an axis of rotation that moves back toward the catcher DURING rotation something like an antenna bent and then let go. Good grief.

[swingbuster]

Horizontal connections by themselves can create just what you say...reverse pivot

there must be weight shift added

momentum transfer COULD BE weight shift ( vertical connections) interwoven into horizontal connections. Yeager points them out well. Any middle move COULD BE hard to EXPLAIN without including the combination

again drills to teach.... I get your point and it is certainly a good one that I use often. Don't be tilted back before launch where you will tilt back more. Head over belt buckle to foot plant

[LClifton]

Scott, your daughters mechanics are getting there. Certainly not perfect, but 100% better than an Epstein swing. With her work ethic, she will have major league mechanics in probably another year. Great work, keep it up, nice dinger. You both should be very proud of her progress.
JJA, good to see you here. I've read a lot of your posts elsewhere.

I am just posting to echo your thoughts on Scott's daughter. Very well said.

LClifton

[Mark H]

Wilson68,

Good post.

SB,

Add momentum to the swing position of the girl doing Mike's drill with the block under her rear foot and you get lunging. No salvaging that position.

[tom.guerry]

I'm not sure I see what is so hard to get about my position.

Expect system to do it for you-naive.
Expect to know it all - arrogant.
Expect many sources of help - wise.

If you take the wise approach,the burden is on you to figure out how to reconcile the various sources in your own head or through someone's help.

No single source is perfect.

The NYman swing is not/never will lead to a high level pattern.

The englishbey one won't either unless it is significantly different. I have seen no evidence it is.This is a forum to discuss what the Steve E system IS among other things - or is it just to sell his stuff ? Let's hear what the Englishbey PCR +/- knob turning is.

Epstein knows the high level swing and has successfully taught it.His system can work.

His description along with Williams is the best. Not perfect.I have gone into excruciating detail here and elsewhere about my opinion of its strengths and weaknesses.It is the best in spite of flaws. Understanding the flaws makes it better.There are other sources that complement any deficiencies well.It is the least flawed system.

Lau/lau jr/peavy can work.Same deal.

The weird Nyman spinhook quick swing with early adjustment and late batspeed may work just fine in fastpitch. GREAT!

It is NOT an MLB swing.You must get familair with and believe in the destination you are headed for and live with it. If you don;t understand the destination, any road will get you there,but potential will not be realizable.

Why then do we hear all this mlb as truth detector stuff if that is not the destination.

This will confuse the learner.

If the learner has a good overhand throw,this nonnatural pattern will also be confusing.

If throwing and hitting are constantly worked on together,they will be reinforcing.

Epstein is not the reason whatever flaws are showing up. The kid is doing what they are told/practicing (Zig's motionanlysis shows this)

If you do not think you the dad and /or teacher are to blame, you are not being accurately self critical.

This is a fairly simple and straightforward position.

[Mark H]

Epstein knows the high level swing and has successfully taught it. .

Wonder why he didn't include that information in his materials?

[4for4]

I'm not sure I see what is so hard to get about my position.

Expect system to do it for you-naive.
Stupid statement. Not surprising guerry would say something like this. He doesn't get it. He's stuck on the epstein non-high level pattern that creates mediocre back foot spinning bat draggers that will never reach their potential.

Expect to know it all - arrogant.
Expect many sources of help - wise.

It takes a lot of work to build a high level swing from the ground up. It takes even more work and effort to unlearns flaws engrained from the non-high level pattern taught by epstein and endorsed by guerry and re-teach via the efficient methods used by Englishbey. guerry has absolutely no appreciation of what it takes to develop a hitter because he doesn't work with hitters. guerry is about as arrogant as they come and I would not use wise to describe his approach.

The englishbey one won't either unless it is significantly different. I have seen no evidence it is.

guerry hasn't looked where the evidence is. guerry is arrogant and dishonest.

This is a forum to discuss what the Steve E system IS among other things - or is it just to sell his stuff ? Let's hear what the Englishbey PCR +/- knob turning is.

Nope, it's not really. guerry is wrong again and what's really amazing is that guerry had his chance to find the answer to this question but refused so that he could continue to engage in his blatant dishonesty. guerry's arrogance and hurt feelings are what motivates him. I am astounded at his willingness to engage in this dishonest behavior.

Epstein knows the high level swing and has successfully taught it.His system can work.

The evidence on his website says otherwise. The field-testing by me and many others better at this stuff than me have testified to the contrary! More dishonesty from guerry.

His description along with Williams is the best. Not perfect.I have gone into excruciating detail here and elsewhere about my opinion of its strengths and weaknesses.It is the best in spite of flaws. Understanding the flaws makes it better.There are other sources that complement any deficiencies well.It is the least flawed system.


Lau/lau jr/peavy can work.Same deal.

guerry just grew another head.

The weird Nyman spinhook quick swing with early adjustment and late batspeed may work just fine in fastpitch. GREAT!

It is NOT an MLB swing.You must get familair with and believe in the destination you are headed for and live with it. If you don;t understand the destination, any road will get you there,but potential will not be realizable.

More blather from guerry. guerry should go play golf.

Why then do we hear all this mlb as truth detector stuff if that is not the destination.

We live by the MLB as truth detector. guerry lives by dishonesty.

This will confuse the learner.

guerry does this every day that he posts. Wilson68 is just the most recent person to point this out. guerry doesn't really care. he just ignores it and continues with the dishonesty.

If the learner has a good overhand throw,this nonnatural pattern will also be confusing.

If throwing and hitting are constantly worked on together,they will be reinforcing.

Another rabbit turd from guerry.

Epstein is not the reason whatever flaws are showing up. The kid is doing what they are told/practicing (Zig's motionanlysis shows this)

If you do not think you the dad and /or teacher are to blame, you are not being accurately self critical.

guerry says dad taught it wrong and its all his fault. All dad did was follow the advise exactly as shown on the non-high level pattern dvd put out by epstein. This is what all moms and dads do when they buy the non-high level pattern dvd. guerry has no clue, he doesn't work with hitters and doesn't care that he gives bad advice and screws with a kid's potential. He's just a bitter old dishonest guy that lays lots of rabbit turds.

This is a fairly simple and straightforward position.

Sure, for those that eat lettuce from a briar patch. Therefore, guerry eats lettuce from briar patches.

[tom.guerry]

Another great truth detector is the regression to ad hominem attacks and pleas for clips.Then I know there is no substantive answer.

I would like to make it clear that i think Sarge has done a fantastic job supporting his daughter. nothing is more difficult than mixing up these parent coach roles.

She is improving tremendously and having great success. Sarge and I have had this "what pattern is it" discussion for a long time. results are the bottom line.

Analysis remains important. The destination must be understod and consciously chosen for progress to happen. My contention is that PCR does NOT lead to a high level pattern that it seems to be equated with by the posse.Let the clips be your truth detector.

[Ohfor]

My contention is that PCR does NOT lead to a high level pattern that it seems to be equated with by the posse.Let the clips be your truth detector.

You stupid mf. You don't even know what PCR is. You admit it by asking "what is Steve's stuff" and "how does it differ from Setpro", which you don't know anything about either.

But you're quite sure it does not lead to a high level swing.

Nice diagnosis doc.

I repeat. You don't know what it is but you're sure it doesn't lead to a high level swing.

And your buddy claims you two are educated.

You can't tell it by his grammar or by your reasoning power.

[4for4]

Another great truth detector is the regression to ad hominem attacks and pleas for clips.Then I know there is no substantive answer.

I would like to make it clear that i think Sarge has done a fantastic job supporting his daughter. nothing is more difficult than mixing up these parent coach roles.

She is improving tremendously and having great success. Sarge and I have had this "what pattern is it" discussion for a long time. results are the bottom line.

Analysis remains important. The destination must be understod and consciously chosen for progress to happen. My contention is that PCR does NOT lead to a high level pattern that it seems to be equated with by the posse.Let the clips be your truth detector.

And yet another guerry head.

[4for4]

Analysis remains important. The destination must be understod and consciously chosen for progress to happen. My contention is that PCR does NOT lead to a high level pattern that it seems to be equated with by the posse.Let the clips be your truth detector.

How many clips do we have to post showing you that you are wrong before you will accept it?

[Steve Englishbey]

And another truth detector would be your repeated refusal to come to a field and show me how you would teach a 12 yr old .

And refuse the challenge of putting what you think you know about what I teach up for scrutiny .

And refuse to put up any videos of people you have worked with.Or show any videos of young hitters that look like elite hitters.That have worked with ANYBODY.

And as somewhat of an aside ,Robert Stock is a potential first round draft choice and he and his dad are setpro guys.
My son -----who does not even like baseball----can swing the bat very well.[And as opposed to Swingbuster's fantasy hitters, there are numerous people that have seen my son hit balls well over 400 ft. as a 16 yr old.]

And there are others who I have worked with that are pretty damn good .[And contrary to you I do not mischaracterize info as a result of having an agenda ---as you have consistently done in the last 2 years. This is something that at least 10 people I know have said either publically or privately to me .

Meaning that ONCE AGAIN you have mistated the facts [you know Robert Stock] or mistated what I know from my own experience.

You ask me to explain Pcr and knob -changing .

Since literally thousands of pgs have been written ----and you are still not understanding---- this is worthless as a solution.

I will be in Northern Ca. in May.I am going to say once again-----I think this is the 5th time now------that in order to best test what you think you know about any number of things about hitting and the teaching of hitting, you need to show up.

Otherwise I have no choice but to conclude you are nothing but a guy who is mostly about maintaining the fiction that you are intellectually honest.

That is my conclusion at this point.

Prove me wrong .


steve

[ssarge]

Another great truth detector is the regression to ad hominem attacks and pleas for clips.
Tom:

I think civility may be strained at the moment. Hopefully, it can be restored.

I'm not sure the attacks are ad hominem, however. I see reason beyond the emotion. Specifically in the areas you stipulate - it is hard to assess credibility absent evidence that takes this material beyond the theoretical. And so the request for clips seems to many to be reasonable.

Absent that kind of evidence, I think it is fine to speculate, and to advance ideas as to what will / will not work or develop a high-level progression. IMO, those ideas will not be as credible as the same offered by someone demonstrating evidence, but could still have a measure of credibility. You may not chose to provide them, but surely you recognize their power to document and persuade? In this case, you offer a substitute - evidence provided by the author of your preferred instructional foundation. But there are obvious problems there that many of us have encountered.

That doesn't mean it is a bad approach. Not conclusively. I happen to believe it is a limited approach, based on the roadblocks I encountered. Others apparently agree. You don;t, but I think you're ignoring evidence.

I do think that when those same limitations are demonstrated by MY hitter - AND on the hitter examples posted by Epstein on HIS web site, it is unreasonable to conclude that the limitation is solely mine. These factors - which you criticize to the point of saying the kid needs to start over with her swing - are either unrecognized or not deemed important by Epstein.

This is a huge disconnect for me, Tom.


I am happy to report that Kelly has moved on. Obviously, she occasionally struggles to overcome the legacy. Her weight / momentum transfer problem is largely solved. We are working on her upper body loading sequence, and connecting her hands to the shoulder plane. I think we'll get there. I definitely see positive signs in practice.

You are right that these are problems. You are incorrect that Epstein's approach could EVER solve them. He doesn;t even address them. And it is Pollyannish to think that the average person buying Epstein's materials will solve them alone, buy and correctly blend the appropriate materials to assist in doing so, or solve this problem in any other way other than a lucky early discovery under trial and error. An extreme rarity for most.


Kelly may end up lucky. I have been fortunate to be in a position most parents won't enjoy. And she is an apt student. I'm betting on her.


Regards,

Scott

[wilson68]

I do like to argue, but I can be persuaded. And, while I don't have the background in the personal debate, or the knowledge of all of the approaches involved to get into a discussion of right and wrong regarding Epstein vs Englishbey, I can recognize a fatal flaw here.

The englishbey one won't either unless it is significantly different. I have seen no evidence it is.This is a forum to discuss what the Steve E system IS among other things - or is it just to sell his stuff ? Let's hear what the Englishbey PCR +/- knob turning is.

I will be in Northern Ca. in May.I am going to say once again-----I think this is the 5th time now------that in order to best test what you think you know about any number of things about hitting and the teaching of hitting, you need to show up.

Tom, you cannot claim ignorance as a reason to dismiss a point of view. Not when an explanation is available. You claim in depth knowledge of every other point of view, why not one more?

[jsiggy]

Tom's preferred foundational system for the MLB swing. Add in weathervaning (i.e. teeter totting of shoulders) to adjust for pitch height.

http://photos.imageevent.com/siggy/forums/epstein-young.jpg

[Steve Englishbey]

Ah yes............this is where Tom developed his "arm action is king " theories.

Notice the tremendous arm action involved here. The intricate[and very powerful loading of the shoulders and how it creates the tremendous coiling and uncoiling of the lower body. [For a further description of all the "superficial kinematics painfully described " see master teacher Tom's new e-book "THE 7000 HITTING STEPS YOU AND YOUR DAUGHTER NEED TO KNOW IN ORDER TO REACH YOUR POTENTIAL, subtitled " IT TAKES .2 SECONDS TO SWING ,BUT IT WILL TAKE YOU A YEAR TO READ THIS BOOK!!]

We all can now see why master teacher Tom is so so so very fond of saying why Mike's "approach is the best overall approach."

Clearly all you "fly -over people " ought to be able to see why Tom would be so so so very enamored with this approach ----and how it perfectly fits with Tom's master teaching technique of learn how to hit by learning how to throw that he has developed by his empirical testing that he has done for years with his many students.

Tom actually learned this from Mike Epsteins book [see pgs 64-65 where Tom's intellectual source is fully revealed .]

Notice how it all becomes an elite like "weight shift into rotation " like Tom so effectively teaches all his many students in northern ca.[ From this we can see where Swingbuster mastered the art of teaching high-level shifting---and how this high-level expertise is so utterly consistent with the "Hands Back Hitter." Yes I know that one critic referred to it as the "LOAD TODAY--UNLOAD TOMORROW " device but what the hell do the critics know anyway relative to TWO DOCTORS for God's sake.Of course that same damn has said these two need to start a website entilted ,"TWO DOCTORS AND HITTING MALPRACTICE.COM." People can be so mean sometimes.]

Back to the pictures.Tremendous "band -winding " here.Unquestionably this is what high level coiling looks like.Cant you guys see it ? Dammit ,keep looking.

I could go on but suffice it to say that "a picture is worth a thousand words" and clearly you can see everything that Tom and Swingbuster so effectively teach and so effectively communicate to us.

I concede. This is THE young elite development in action.


And in case there are some that might not be aware the above comes from BELATED APRIL FOOLS DEPARTMENT.

Fungo mentioned cutting and pasting his high-level "logic stuff" that he imposed on Tom at Shawns website.

Maybe I'll cut and paste the "highlights from the "Abreu" thread in which I fairly thoroughly "checkmated " Tom by using his own internally inconsistent and "incompatible" series of statements that even he could not "reconcile. "

Essentially this revolved around the notion ----his notions ----that "arm action is king" [and arm action CREATES ipso facto high level pelvic action and perfect sequencing of the entire swing ]---coupled with "Mike Epstein has the best overall approach is closer than anyone in terms of teaching/understanding a high-level swing." [One of Mike's big advantages over all of us is that ,as Tom says is because "he knows it when he sees it."]

Talk about getting hung by your own words and internal inconsistencies.[And yes ,Tom's sidekick was involved [Swingbuster ] .It was his ongoing ignorance of what scapula loading/unloading is and his challenge to "compare all of what the gurus say to video of ML hitters" that prompted my response.]

I'll find the really good highlights if need be .

steve

[Steve Englishbey]

Whoa !!!! Wilson 68........I just saw your last post. That kind of logic has no place on a website like this ! How dare you to be so mean.And demanding.

Now try to imagine this .Lets say you had asked similar type questions over and and over and over and over and over and you got the same lame response over and over and over and over and over.

Now try to imagine this . Lets say you tried to explain a concept like how to blow up a ballon to someone and they say "you did not explain it to me ."

And you proceed to repeat this process over and over and over and over and over -----for lets say 4 years.

Can you imagine this ? And if you can ,then you have some idea how myself and others feel about Tom and Swingbuster.
steve

[swingbuster]

Can you imagine this ? And if you can ,then you have some idea how myself and others feel about Tom and Swingbuster

Steve,

I teach a more vertical hand set, lead elbow down/ rear up and weight shift. I have been consistent in my post on that. I promote it because it has helped my team set a 34 year old batting record.

I promote it hoping other kids can benefit from it after their coaches read about it. If you think all this is about Steve Englishbey it is surely not... I wish you success but don't flatter yourself.

You lumping me into no -stride for some reason and I do not teach that. Your lumping me into you fight with Tom in that regard. My common ground with Tom is about patterns of loading that synchronize the hip and shoulder linkage. You know that

Your getting a little carried away with you personal acts on me don't you think? Just because Tom and I share certain ideas on sequence don't give you the right to slam me everytime you feel a need to slam Tom and Epstein

Show me were I got personal please.

This is as close as I will get...You and Nyman( if you insist on lumping Tom and me then I guess this is fair) never could handle a different point of view posted in your proximity even if posted in good faith and civility. Maybe it is time to lock the castle and pull up the bridge again.

[Mark H]

Steve,

I teach a more vertical hand set, lead elbow down/ rear up and weight shift. I have been consistent in my post on that. I promote it because it has helped my team set a 34 year old batting record.

.

Teaching BHUT as an absolute because you saw it help one team when you know from clips on here that it is NOT an absolute with MLB hitters seems a huge over reach.

[Ohfor]

... never could handle a different point of view posted in your proximity even if posted in good faith and civility...

One stupid mf deserves another. No wonder you two are on the same team.

For the 1000th time (at least) the argument is not about differing points of view. The argument is about babbling lunatics who refuse to substantiate their "different point of view" with anything other than their own words.

No clips. No evidence. Just pontificating.

And, when faced by a barrage of evidence including video which proves you're are completely wrong, and you ignore it, then your "stupid mf name" becomes earned and most descriptive.

EXAMPLE: The 20+ clips of very good to great mlb players that do not BHUT and do not have a low lead elbow....yet you continue to say that BHUT and a low lead elbow are the foundations of a high level swing. And you point to your 4 or 5 players who do and claim absolute.

I have no problem using "stupid mf". Especially when it is clearly on point and the most concise way of describing someone.

When you stop ignoring the facts as proven by video I'll come up with a new name for you. Until then your are stupid mf's.

[DamageG]

This site is developing into a very good replacement for hitting-mechanics.org.

Many of those members are here and the numbers seem to be increasing.

Dissention is allowed instead of banned. As much as I argue about this stuff I never feel threatened by other opinions like the huckster did.

******** like me are not muzzled.

Lunatics like Tom are not muzzled.

Wannabes like Swingbuster are allowed to post as long as they can take a beating.

Lots of clips are posted. Lots of opinions given.

Lurkers learn a lot.

We've got a current active big league prospect/player actively participating.

As I learned yesterday, we've got a dad (at least one) whose daughter is being recruited by DI schools.

Steve keeps us all in line.

No complaining about "feelings" being hurt.

I like it.


Like a car wreck, this site is hard not to look at.
If anyone learns a high level swing from these threads, I'll be impressed.

[swingbuster]

BHUT and a low lead elbow are the foundations of a high level swing

Never said that. I said it is the foundation of what I teach to the kids that benefit from it.

[FlippJ]

SSarge,

I've been around these online baseball/fastpitch instruction debates for a few years now and IMO there are two people who stand above everyone else when it comes to guiding people in the right direction and checking their ego's at the door. Without hesitation one is Mark H and the other is you. You have both helped tons of people and you've done it with respect and class and for that I admire both of you.

I've been down a similar road and know first hand how difficult change can be. Thanks for sharing your journey and best of luck to you and your daughter.

Jason

[swingbuster]

stupid mf

Ofher...this website is no place for that and you know it and you have been asked not to do that by people that own this site.

I know you have seen kids posting here recently.

Borrow some class or have somebody explain what it is to you.

ignoring the facts?

MLB players coil their hips

MLB players feel and use their hands in the right way

MLB players say strong hands , wrist, and forearms are important

MLB players use hip/ shoulder separation

MLB players use lead leg extension in time with wrist unhinge

MLB players shift weight

MLB players are well defined by Chris Yeager along with the clips playing so you can see the steps.


www.baseballscience.com

[4for4]

SSarge,

I've been around these online baseball/fastpitch instruction debates for a few years now and IMO there are two people who stand above everyone else when it comes to guiding people in the right direction and checking their ego's at the door. Without hesitation one is Mark H and the other is you. You have both helped tons of people and you've done it with respect and class and for that I admire both of you.

I've been down a similar road and know first hand how difficult change can be. Thanks for sharing your journey and best of luck to you and your daughter.

Jason

Boy, I sure do agree with you Flipp. Mark H. and Scott are several cuts above me and you and others of this world. I would add one other person that has been around for a long time on these boards that has really tried to help out others and has given much of his free time to us Dads and Moms in the trenches and that would be Fungo.

Scott, I couldn't be happier for you/Kelly's current success and I what know will be future success. I wasn't kidding when I said I wanted her autograph when I met her. I have no doubt she will make it big. Thank you for sharing your Super Star with us.

[Ohioteamz]

Boy, I sure do agree with you Flipp. Mark H. and Scott are several cuts above me and you and others of this world. I would add one other person that has been around for a long time on these boards that has really tried to help out others and has given much of his free time to us Dads and Moms in the trenches and that would be Fungo.


I know that fungo has helped me out personally on a specific drill, but Mark and Scott have as well. They are generous with time and help.

[Diamondboy]

If throwing and hitting are constantly worked on together,they will be reinforcing.


This is utter, unmitigated gobbledygook.

Apparently unlike you, I have a 14 year old son who has been training his pitching and hitting skills since he was 8 years old. I’ve shared the last six years with him immersed in the real world of baseball development. He started with Mankin’s “The Final Arc” video, moved on to Epstein and then Nyman/Englishbey. He is currently a successful but still-learning pitcher and hitter playing Babe Ruth and travel ball in the competitive southern California area. I know he would agree with me in saying that at no time has there ever been any perceivable relationship between his hitting and pitching progress. And please don’t tell me that there is a connection, but I just can’t see it. I am far too intimate with the details of my son’s trial and error development, and with what has been required to get him over the numerous obstacles we’ve encountered, to believe that the truth is actually the opposite of what we’ve experienced.

There is little or no correlation between the back leg turnover in pitching and what the back leg does in hitting. This is a critical movement in pitching development and has no parallel in hitting.

There is some correlation between the symmetrical scap loading in pitching and the rear arm scap loading in hitting, but also some huge and significant differences.

There is little or no correlation between the front arm action in hitting and the front arm’s role in pitching.

There is little correlation between learning the elbow-driven arm action in pitching and the connectivity of arms to shoulders to torso in hitting.

There is little or no correlation between the flat back finish in pitching and the postural adjustments in hitting.

Clearly there are some overlapping principles as well, mostly related to momentum development and rotation. But in terms of helping the body learn what to do in the proactive skill of pitching versus the reactive skill of hitting, the differences overwhelm the similarities, and the few times we have tried to literally transfer some principle from one discipline to the other, the often subtle and sometimes blatant distinctions have forced us to backtrack.

In fact, not only have throwing and hitting not been “reinforcing,” but at times the movements required by one have confused certain issues in the other. And the time required to work on both has no doubt retarded the progress we would have made had we focused on only one.

Nonetheless, my son has been successful so far because he is an unusual child who would rather go out to the backyard and do some trial and error than spend the afternoon playing video games. He works hard because he has a baseball-driven goal.

Your notion that hitting and throwing exist in a state of symbiotic evolution is, to put it kindly, an unverified hypothesis. I think this is what happens when you live in the world of theory and never get out to the lab. In baseball, that lab is diamond-shaped and indispensable. Accept no substitutes.

[tom.guerry]

STill waiting for the official PCR dogma.

Whwnever I ciritcize,the excuse is I don't know the dogma.

let's get the dogma out here and we can go over it point by point.

I see plenty of PCR clips from disruntled people who have seen Englishbey.Not many have actually seen Nyman.

The result is inevitably the spinhook.

This comes from emphasizing the back hip turns into front as a core move and loss of good early swing motion (long knwn in traditional baseball as the "dead stop" hitter or more recently characterized by DMAC as dead hands no stride).

The point is that PCR is not on the road to the MLB swing. Simple as that. If you think it is, then you are not doing good video anaysis.IF you want to do good video analysis I would HIGHLY recommend you:

1- get Yeager's stuff and

2- Ask Mankin for a swing review.

The you can get familiar with how to see the REAL MLB destination which ios a different one from the metal bat/PCR destination (which CAN be a fine destination for metal bat hitting).

Scott-

I do NOT recommend a "rebuild" for your daughter UNLESS you want to set the mlb swing as a destination. Results seem good now.I would not risk confusing the body.

If she goes on and keeps playing and does well,she will be a good/adaptible enough athlete to rebuild if she hits the wall.

I would say IF you are playing baseball,even with -6 or -3 metal bats, GO THE MLB ROUTE.

A word to JJA-

I would use your scientific knowledge to understand how LIMITED scinec is in characterizing the high levl swing.

Nyman has made the mistake of reducing the swing to parts then building it back up in a way that is NOT a high level pattern,then somehow thinking this pattern IS the same, or is on the road to high level, or (even worse) is different but better than the MLB pattern.

No one has it perfect. Everyone has flaws. The scientific/redcutionisn/scientistic type flaw is FAR more dangerous than the flaws that come from people like Lau and Epstein who have the science somewhat wrong but continue to be guded by what the actual mlb swing is.

One system will work better for one student if the points of emphasis are what the student is missing. In the Lau/Epstein example, one is not right and one is not wrong. They BOTH describe the high level swing as well as anyone.

It would pay to analayze them so as to reconsile them.

YOU could say EPstein creates back foot spinners (Lau opinion) OR you could say LAU creates front foot lungers (Williams opinion) OR you could say they both are describing the SAME high level pattern, but different styles/different places along the spectrum.

You COULD note that the LAu type (AROD for example) has a very upright axis,BUT he is by no means a "singles hitter".

Epstein says the upright axis makes you a "singles hitter".

Epstein likes a belly-up style.

Lau likes an off the plate style.

Epstein says look in OR out then adjust up/down.

LAu says get off the plate, get the axis upright,THEN adjust in out on the fly.

Lau enphasizes lots ot FORWARD wieght shift.Epstein less.

WHat if you bely up and shift a lot of weight forward ? MAy not work to well.

What if you get of the plate and don't shift ? How do you get that outside pitch (BONDS having great trouble now becasue even though he bellies up, he can not get adequate additional weight shift as needed for outsiode location.

Maybe you could actually learm more by thinking of Lau and Epstein as nonidiots who are describing the same elephant pretty well.

Nyman is not decribing the same elephant, it's just some camel; he invented that might work for metal bats.

Steve E won't say here.

[LClifton]

Scott-

I do NOT recommend a "rebuild" for your daughter UNLESS you want to set the mlb swing as a destination. Results seem good now.I would not risk confusing the body.

More condescension...
Just a little angry this morning?

This comes from emphasizing the back hip turns into front as a core move and loss of good early swing motion (long knwn in traditional baseball as the "dead stop" hitter or more recently characterized by DMAC as dead hands no stride).
Do you have an opinion of your own? Or just happy quoting everyone else?
What are you currently working on with some of your hitters?

With dead hands the ball would not have gone over the fence. Think about it.
DMAC has seen my daughters' swing and the comment was no lower body load. Agreed, but not dead hands, far from it, in fact. Which is what you may want to pay attention to ---the facts...You are clearly over generalizing.

[JJA]

Tom,

I have always said that science is very limited in what it can say about the incredibly complicated mechanics that comprise the baseball swing.

The issue is that many gurus (Mankin and Epstein in particular) use scientific jargon to justify or "prove" their teachings. In Mankin's case, he believes that his teachings are scientifically valid to the point that his assertions have been proven. The only reason I care is that science is very highly regarded in today's society. Many unknowing people will believe in something if they are told the science is correct. Tying science to a concept is one of the biggest seals of approval one can apply in modern society.

So when the science is incorrect - and in Mankin's case it's absolute rubbish - I feel it is my responsibility to state the truth so that nonscientific types understand the fallacies of their arguments. There are many well-meaning moms and dads out there looking for help, and I don't want them attracted to a guru because their method is "scientifically proven" when in fact it is not. You shouldn't be chastising me, you should be chastising them for using science in an irresponsible manner. If they stayed away from using scientific terms, they wouldn't have to deal with me and others who feel similarly. If you can't stand the heat ...

-JJA

[tom.guerry]

So JJA-

Do you think Nyman has satisfactorily proved scientifically that torque does not exist in the swing ?

A lot of people here think so and have closed their minds.

How about Xfactor ?

[Steve Englishbey]

Loren ,that he is condescending does not quite capture his arrogance and hubris.

The following quote from Tom is probably one of the most contemptable and despicable that I have seen on any website [and it also goes to the blatent bias that the arrogant doctor from Yale suffers from:

" Epstein is not the reason whatever flaws are showing up.The kid is doing what they are told/practicing."

"If you do not think that you the dad are to blame ,you are not being accurately self critical ."

In other words people like JJa ,Scott and a host of people that commented at E-teamz about my stuff vrs. Epstein are all stupid --------all these people simply are not smart enough to really get what Mike is teaching. Dads and moms who have full time jobs and limited time to try to help their sons and daughters and who then rely on an "expert " ,in whom they have put their trust-------you guys are really stupid. You have learned how to use Mike's system.

Though he later realized his passive-agressive tendencies had been revealed and had to scramble to do "damage control" ,his true tendencies were nonetheless revealed.

On the other hand ,if you have are practicing what I try to convey and are not perfect after 2 days ,or weeks ,or months, then it would be my fault.[ And I am not being hyperbolic here. Tom took a young hitter on setpro [13 yr. old] doing a very basic turning drill and spent 3 pgs. criticizing why he did not remotely look like Sammy Sosa [in a game swing].

Which elicited comments from about a dozen people : "Has Tom gone completely nuts .Does he not understand that this is a simple turning drill?"

Of course if its a Epstein drill then its ALWAYS going to be a fine ex. of "a work in progress."


Tom further reveals himself when he says he gets MANY clips from people that are "disatisfied " with my stuff.

In saying this ,I will now add that not only do I think that he is arrogant and biased.

I think he is a liar flat out.


I say this because I have talked to almost everyone that has ever seen me or has bought my stuff [I have sold only about 50 dvds up to this point and thus have a good idea as to who these people are.I also get feedback from many people that I have visited.]

I have also talked to hundreds of people who say the same the following about Tom:

"I dont even read his stuff anymore . " Or : "Who is writing this for---who does he think is reading this ?"

Not a single person that I know has ever told me that they use his words to inform them in terms of how they actually work with hitters.[The only public exception would be Swingbuster--he may of may not use Tom's words to inform his hitters. This is not a given however.]

And this would amount to hundreds of people.

steve

[JJA]

Tom,

The "Iron Nyman" simulations that Paul posted on hitting-mechanics.org were very conclusive, at least to me. They did a convincing job relegating bottom hand torque and top hand torque to scientific oblivion. Despite this, they may very well provide good cues for many people, from the many favorable responses on batspeed.com that have been written. From a science viewpoint, they're nonsense, but again they may have value for many people whether they are scientifically correct or not (though personally I would run away from top hand torque as fast as I could).

You and I have jousted about X-factor several times. When I first started studying baseball, I was convinced that X-factor (and X-factor stretch) was the key to power in baseball, just as many people believe it is in golf. However, as you know the baseball swing isn't golf because you don't have the time to load up like you do in golf. You simply don't have the time to accentuate the X-factor in baseball like you can in golf. Pitching, that's a different story altogether and though I'm no pitching expert, I could easily forsee X-factor and X-factor stretch to be extremely important in pitching as well. But for hitting, I just don't see it as the key feature.

-JJA

[tom.guerry]

JJA-

On the torque question,was the answer yes or no ?

[tom.guerry]

STEVE-

Let's hear the PCR dogma and how yours differs from Nyman's.Not in person,here. Otherwise, why be here ?

[JJA]

Tom,

To answer your question directly, yes, I believe that Nyman proved conclusively that torque is not a major contributor in the swing process.

-JJA

[Steve Englishbey]

Tom do you even remember ANYTHING that others have incessently talked about ?

JJa has talked about "hand torque " on Batspeed ,Shawns cite, and setpro and hitting -mech.

But this goes to the issue of your mindset and intransigence and hubris.

After 400 pgs[at setpro some 2 years ago that JJa and a number of posters who were apparently science types of sorts] of very solid evidence from numerous sources who have a great deal more expertise than you will ever have about physic/biomechanics you said at the end that:

"well I still think I see it and feel it.


Unbelievable. And this is why you were banned from the website .Because you offered NO SUBSTANCE to the discussion at hand .It was not because you had "evidence" that Paul wanted to censor.

You consistently had no evidence . Paul had 400 pgs. You had "feelings".

[And these are not "feelings " that come from someone who actually knows how to swing a bat at a high level of efficiency.

It comes from a rank amateur. At best. You yourself once said that you were an "armswinger". To that I have little doubt .Most people are.]

You consistently offerded NOTHING but your own personal suppositions.

And in the case of "Hand torque " or tht ,--as is the case with almost any argument that requires substance---you consistently DID NOT LISTEN to the arguments presented.

Thus it is as if you suffer some kinfd of permanent anmesia to all arguments and facts that do not fit with your idle and largely irrelevant speculations.

Thus , there is this telling you over and over and over and over and over that is a funtion of your unwillingness to even listen to others .

Ex. "Tell me about this PCR thing again. What is "scapula loading?" . " Whats this "Changing the direction of the knob" thing you guys have now added?"

And on and on and on and on .

And not ONCE have you ever publically stated "I was wrong ", or "I see what you are saying now ".

Not once .At least not since the early days of setpro.

Best thing for you to do is to for you and Swingbuster to start your own website.

In the meantime why dont you show us your swing where you "feel the hand torque/bht."

steve

[tom.guerry]

JJA-

I think your conclusion is wrong.

Nyman used his models as best he could to disprove the existence of "THT".

What he found was back arm inertia applied a torquing force through the top hand when the trunk rotated.

His conclusion was that this was an extermely important torquing force that quickened the swing AND that THT could not exist.

The 2nd conclusion was then examined in another model where Nyman (disingenuously) then showed that active top hand torque application via arm extension and arm INternal rotation degraded the swing.

Either he does not understand arm action (where the force would be applied first by rear arm external rotation OR he is intelectually dishonest.

You should review those 2 simulations.

Concluding that this disproves torque is unwarranted.

What are you thinking ?

[4for4]

JJA-

I think your conclusion is wrong.

Nyman used his models as best he could to disprove the existence of "THT".

What he found was back arm inertia applied a torquing force through the top hand when the trunk rotated.

His conclusion was that this was an extermely important torquing force that quickened the swing AND that THT could not exist.

The 2nd conclusion was then examined in another model where Nyman (disingenuously) then showed that active top hand torque application via arm extension and arm INternal rotation degraded the swing.

Either he does not understand arm action (where the force would be applied first by rear arm external rotation OR he is intelectually dishonest.

You should review those 2 simulations.

Concluding that this disproves torque is unwarranted.

What are you thinking ?

Ahh. We've all just witnessed the real tom guerry.

[tom.guerry]

Steve-

When will your site be up ?

[4for4]

Steve-

When will your site be up ?

tom doesn't want to address the very poignant statements by Steve so he asks when Steve's site will be up.

[tom.guerry]

4x4-

Good point (post#103). If you find those NYman demos, they will be just as I describe.

I don't see how the results can be logically interpreted as discrediting THT.

That is why I do not understand JJA's thinking. I respect his thinking ability. He is a trained/practicing engineer familiar with many scientific principles.

I would like to hear how he reconciles this.

How do you interpret it ?

[Jevan]

you are Tom. For the life of me I don't understand your motivations. Around and around and around it goes. If your postings are intended to help people, please give up and concentrate on your day job or perhaps find a less wasteful and more rewarding hobby. Contradictory opinions are often valuable and desireable, but your banterings (for quite some time now) have failed to even spur any rational debate (IMO), much less educate. I can't imagine that much, if any, of your prose has enabled any of us out here to develop kids that are more productive hitters.

In my opinion, and all honesty, you have little proclivity in communicating through the written word. Do you ever reread your posts before sending them? If you do, and they make perfect sense to you..........well, maybe you are in the wrong place.

You, more so than any other on these boards, should appreciate the difficulty in describing athletic movements by the written word. Rather than requesting that these other positions be re-described through writing for your benefit, why don't you accept the invitation to, go to the field, that's been out there? If your so confident that you've got the answers, you should relish such an opportunity. I know Steve is willing to put it on the line and debate and demonstrate with anybody.

Why don't you find your manhood and show us what you got, why and how it works, and how to teach it. Could it really hurt that much? You're not really that emotionally fragile.........are you? Seems like it would resolve many issues much more easily and quickly than back-and-forth writing. Who knows, maybe you do have insights on the holy grail and you've just never been able to communicate it. We can make sure Scott is there so that the information presented can be documented such that everyone can understand.

You want credibility? Then earn it, be there. If you are indeed on to something, I'd like to know. But I'll never understand by reading your posts (which I've long ago given up on for the most part). Or do you just want to continue to be the internet-hitting-board-philosopher king?

Jim

[4for4]

4x4-

Good point (post#103). If you find those NYman demos, they will be just as I describe.

I don't see how the results can be logically interpreted as discrediting THT.

That is why I do not understand JJA's thinking. I respect his thinking ability. He is a trained/practicing engineer familiar with many scientific principles.

I would like to hear how he reconciles this.

How do you interpret it ?

Tom, I know you have them. So send them my way or tell me the exact names so I can look at them again.

Did you send LClifton a PM under an assumed name advising him to send the clip to Mankin for review?

[LClifton]

Or do you just want to continue to be the internet-hitting-board-philosopher king?
I can answer that:D
Good post Jevan.
Steve does indeed put it on the line.

[tom.guerry]

Thanks 4X4.

I will be at the computer that has the old NYman sims tomorrow.I will get you the names. If you can't find them it can take another day or two to send becaause I need tech supports to send them over my firewall.

Understanding these sims and how tht could actually be effectively applied by rear arm EXternal rotation is an important detail.

[JJA]

Tom,

We have had this discussion many times before. I did save a copy of Paul's "Iron Nyman" simulations, including the famous "rotational_simulation5.wmv" which has the portion of the simulation that you object to (which is located between 4:20 and 4:40 on the video if you saved a copy). I may try to post it, but it's almost 15 MB and my server only allows me 25 MB. (Hopefully Paul won't mind if I do that. Paul, if you are reading this and you object to me posting this, please e-mail me and I won't do it.) I think it would be useful for you to review it again.

The reason that I find these simulations so conclusive is that when "top hand torque" is added to the simulation in the way that Mankin describes, the swing does not remotely look like anything like a real swing. It doesn't quicken the swing or have any positive benefits. It simply destroys the swing. Tom, it is safe to say I have studied these videos harder than anyone out there, and as a non-posse member (never been banned from Setpro for better or worse), I can give you this opinion objectively. Believe me, if Paul were wrong I would give him the same harsh treatment I give Mankin. But the simulations he presented were accurate.

-JJA

[tom.guerry]

Thanks JJA.

There are 2 consecutive sims.

The first demonstrates the back arm inertia/merrygoround effect.

The second one shows this can not be actively applied by back arm extension or INternal rotation (which is a no-brainer).

EXternal rotation is not studied.

[swingbuster]

Best thing for you to do is to for you and Swingbuster to start your own website.

Thats twice I have asked you to fight your Tom battles with Tom. I already have a website and I will post that stuff free and Advertise it on google if you want me to...just keep it up

[4for4]

Great post Jim. Where the heck have you been?

One thing I do want to emphasize that Jim said:

I know Steve is willing to put it on the line and debate and demonstrate with anybody.

So true. It's time to meet with Steve, Tom.

[Jevan]

Hey Tim,

Spend most of my free time in the trenches on ballfields just tryin to help kids be better! Always trying to make myself better also (or at least trying). Helping with the HS team, LL Girl's Major team and 10u ASA team. Other than that I try to make enough money to support my habit.:crazy

I'm just a stealthy lurker who's trying to pay attention and learn more ways to get the message across (or maybe I'm shy). I also often find myself shaking my head in disbelief and amazement. Maybe certain others would be better off being more like me. How does the saying go?

Better to be silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.

Thx and I hope all is well. I'm trying to get Cletus here in June. You want in?

Jim

[Ohfor]

Never said that. I said it is the foundation of what I teach to the kids that benefit from it.

Really.....

What is tiresome is the lack of acknowledgement that the greatest hitters of all time ( pre-steriod) have great segmentalization of their bodies and a natural flow of kinetic chaining. THe upper body was working in great synchrony with the lower and yes.. x- factor in the early greats was present. With new regulations, it will sell at a premium again. I look forward to the time when a great swing will matter again and it is coming

What is being " revealed" on line and erroneously implied to posters by the posse is that you can turn hard enough to have a good swing.



You do have a problem with honesty.

My cuss words come from the pool hall. Where does your dishonesty come from?

[fungo22]

This is utter, unmitigated gobbledygook.

Apparently unlike you, I have a 14 year old son who has been training his pitching and hitting skills since he was 8 years old. I’ve shared the last six years with him immersed in the real world of baseball development. He started with Mankin’s “The Final Arc” video, moved on to Epstein and then Nyman/Englishbey. He is currently a successful but still-learning pitcher and hitter playing Babe Ruth and travel ball in the competitive southern California area. I know he would agree with me in saying that at no time has there ever been any perceivable relationship between his hitting and pitching progress. And please don’t tell me that there is a connection, but I just can’t see it. I am far too intimate with the details of my son’s trial and error development, and with what has been required to get him over the numerous obstacles we’ve encountered, to believe that the truth is actually the opposite of what we’ve experienced.

There is little or no correlation between the back leg turnover in pitching and what the back leg does in hitting. This is a critical movement in pitching development and has no parallel in hitting.

There is some correlation between the symmetrical scap loading in pitching and the rear arm scap loading in hitting, but also some huge and significant differences.

There is little or no correlation between the front arm action in hitting and the front arm’s role in pitching.

There is little correlation between learning the elbow-driven arm action in pitching and the connectivity of arms to shoulders to torso in hitting.

There is little or no correlation between the flat back finish in pitching and the postural adjustments in hitting.

Clearly there are some overlapping principles as well, mostly related to momentum development and rotation. But in terms of helping the body learn what to do in the proactive skill of pitching versus the reactive skill of hitting, the differences overwhelm the similarities, and the few times we have tried to literally transfer some principle from one discipline to the other, the often subtle and sometimes blatant distinctions have forced us to backtrack.

In fact, not only have throwing and hitting not been “reinforcing,” but at times the movements required by one have confused certain issues in the other. And the time required to work on both has no doubt retarded the progress we would have made had we focused on only one.

Nonetheless, my son has been successful so far because he is an unusual child who would rather go out to the backyard and do some trial and error than spend the afternoon playing video games. He works hard because he has a baseball-driven goal.

Your notion that hitting and throwing exist in a state of symbiotic evolution is, to put it kindly, an unverified hypothesis. I think this is what happens when you live in the world of theory and never get out to the lab. In baseball, that lab is diamond-shaped and indispensable. Accept no substitutes. Let me attempt to tentatively summarize: You're suggesting that they are not really analogous?

[JJA]

Tom,

I did find rotational_simulation6.wmv at home, which is the followup, but unfortunately my copy of rotational_simulation7.wmv has been inadvertently damaged and that too was a good simulation. I've got 4 rotational_simulations, not just two, and I actually think there were more.

I've decided not to post them because right now because 1) I think you are on tilt and not ready to discuss these in your normal manner and 2) Nyman might consider these simulations Setpro proprietary. If you have particular questions on the simulations, I will be happy to address them. It's up to you, but I suggest we discuss this a bit later when things calm down.

I reviewed them again, and in general, they are very well done. I've got a few quibbles here and there about the way the simulation was done, but his overall conclusions that top hand torque is fiction is correct in my opinion. They are very compelling simulations.

-JJA

[wilson68]

IF you want to do good video analysis I would HIGHLY recommend you:

1- get Yeager's stuff and

2- Ask Mankin for a swing review.

The you can get familiar with how to see the REAL MLB destination which ios a different one from the metal bat/PCR destination (which CAN be a fine destination for metal bat hitting)....

...One system will work better for one student if the points of emphasis are what the student is missing. In the Lau/Epstein example, one is not right and one is not wrong. They BOTH describe the high level swing as well as anyone.

It would pay to analayze them so as to reconsile them.

YOU could say EPstein creates back foot spinners (Lau opinion) OR you could say LAU creates front foot lungers (Williams opinion) OR you could say they both are describing the SAME high level pattern, but different styles/different places along the spectrum.

You COULD note that the LAu type (AROD for example) has a very upright axis,BUT he is by no means a "singles hitter".

Epstein says the upright axis makes you a "singles hitter".

Epstein likes a belly-up style.

Lau likes an off the plate style.

Epstein says look in OR out then adjust up/down.

LAu says get off the plate, get the axis upright,THEN adjust in out on the fly.

Lau enphasizes lots ot FORWARD wieght shift.Epstein less.

So, Yeager, Mankin, Epstein, Lau and Williams can all tell you what the correct way to swing a bat is. The only idiots here are Steve and the couple dozen who have tried all of these approaches on their own kids and reached their own conclusions. Of course, by your admission, Lau thinks Epstein is wrong and Williams thinks Lau is wrong.

No one disputes they are all looking at the same swing but they all seem to make different points on how to do it yourself. I believe Nyman's original point, and I believe Mark H reiterated this to Swingbuster recently, was to look and see the points that all good hitters have in common. And because these men have such differences in their beliefs about what is absolutely necessary, it is obvious that at least some of them have it wrong.

My problem is this: I have an 8-year old niece, who has a short attention span and is not completely sold that she wants to play ball. So far, she is enjoying it and she likes to humour her uncle. She has never played in a game and she is not very good at this yet, although, she is getting her assorted mechanics lined up and she is good at listening to what I tell her and changing what she does. We suspect she might be a decent athlete. How do I get her to hit well? As well as throw, pitch, field, and run the bases well?

What do I tell the 18U team, who either believe they are already good or have no faith left in coaches because they have been taught ten different things in the last ten years?

What do I tell my 28-year old sister, who still plays and likely will till she's fifty? I finally got a look at her swing on Sunday, for the first time since I have started reading these forums. I used to think it was pretty decent, if not really good. At least she has a B.SC in Kinesiology and is a chiropractor. She used the term 'momentum transfer' in our conversation and sounded like she knew what it meant, (which made one of us). So that is one person who might be able to come here and learn how to swing.

What do I tell the rest? How do I teach it to them?

[jsiggy]

What he found was back arm inertia applied a torquing force through the top hand when the trunk rotated.

His conclusion was that this was an extermely important torquing force that quickened the swing AND that THT could not exist.


Tom, you conveniently left out that Paul's sims primarily showed that THT was not necessary for the high-level swing (i.e., ability to generate enough batspeed and bat quickness without it). To me - and as I believe Paul said at the time - what you're ignoring is the principle of simplicity.

Personally I didn't think Paul's sims absolutely closed the door on the possibility of THT either - at least, the existence adding to the speed of a swing. But as I mentioned, it did tell me that it wasn't a requirement. And adding it absolutely increases complexity - timing, coordination issues. Which reinforced my personal experience of working with kids (my own had 2 months of THT instruction, and then almost a year to get rid of new disconnection problems which it introduced).

In my experience, it's a bad idea, even dangerous, to start recommending mechanics which add complexity without proven benefit.

[ssarge]

Personally I didn't think Paul's sims absolutely closed the door on the possibility of THT either - at least, the existence adding to the speed of a swing. But as I mentioned, it did tell me that it wasn't a requirement. And adding it absolutely increases complexity - timing, coordination issues. Which reinforced my personal experience of working with kids (my own had 2 months of THT instruction, and then almost a year to get rid of new disconnection problems which it introduced).

In my experience, it's a bad idea, even dangerous, to start recommending mechanics which add complexity without proven benefit.

Siggy:

Yeah, agreed, some of these problems can be very deep rooted. 18 months after abandoning Epstein training in favor of something much more optimal, the Epstein tendancies still occasionally crop up. As demonstrated in last week's clips. Less frequent all the time, thankfully - especially in practice. I probably need to start filming more in games - it may be happening there more frequently than I realize. Geez, I hope not (and suspect not). But obviously, it does still sometimes happen.


There are a lot of ways to add bat speed.

That is why Majors SP softball guys generate up to 120mph of bat speed (20mph more than MLB hitters).

And sometimes hit balls much larger and heavier than a baseball over 500' despite the fact that the incoming ball is traveling only about 24mph pitch.

It is freaking awesome to behold. If you've never seen it, you wouldn't believe it.

But it's kind of irrelevant, unless that is your sport.


Not only do these skills NOT translate into baseball or fastpitch, it is rare that an MLB player can make a mark in the SP game. Many have tried (in fact, Jose Canseco was actually on the USSSA Majors Player list for a couple of years). But few have been successful.


Adding bat speed in a manner which affects swing quickness is NOT acceptable, IMO.

Adding complexity of any kind to the swing of a young hitter had better yield a clearly demonstrable quid pro quo. Or it is a very bad idea.


I not only don't see the value of THT for a young hitter, I am virtually certain it will actually be a detriment.

In the best possible scenario - which I reject, BTW, based on field experience - THT will add SIGNIFICANT complexity, and gain MAYBE 5% bat speed. I happen to believe it would add complexity and gain NO bat speed, but best case, 5% enhanced performance. (I am basing this on the fact that bat speed in MLB basically ranges from the high 80s to the high 90s. And THT - IF it exists at all as described and not simply as a manifestation of other rotational forces - is present / not throughout this rather narrow bat speed range.)

Given the complexity - VERY hard for a young hitter to actually do - it is not remotely worth it.

With wood bats at the professional level, 5% might matter.

For kids, who cares?

The challenge isn't whether a kid can hit a ball 425 feet. It is HOW OFTEN can he hit it 350 feet.

And in my sport of FP softball, the number is 200 feet. From age 14 through college, that is the maximum fence distance.

And those distances are attainable without THT. In fact, they are attainable much more often without THT, because the swing is simpler.

If the tradeoff is NEVER hitting a ball that clears the fence by 50 feet instead of 20, I'll live with that.


I CAN NOT get past the statement of John Elliott on Final Arc when he describes his own bat speed as being in the high 70s. USING THT.

I found this stunning.

First, because he apparently was actually able to get a reading on a Batspeed.com radar device - which means he's a better man than me.

And second, because he is a former pro ball player, and I work w/ some 15 - 18 YO girls who generate at least that much bat speed. In a five frame swing. Without a hint of THT.

And I'm not ripping Elliott. I've been told that his curent bat speed is now more than it was when the DVD was filmed. Additionally, he seems like a genuinely good guy, and I'll bet he is a good instuctor. It is too bad he wasn't well versed in a circular hand path in his playing days. Who knows, the outcome may have been different. But attempting to employ THT as a player would not in and of itself have led to a different outcome.


As a case in point, you can add bat speed w/ bat drag, too. And SP hitters often do that. Because they have a 3X time window (as compared to an MLB) hitter, adding a frame to the swing is no big deal. Also, they have a bigger margin for error in overcoming the planar difficulties created by bat drag. So it's not a big deal for them. It would / is devestating to a hitter w/ 0.4 seconds with which to work.

Same with excessive weight shift.

Regards,

Scott

[Diamondboy]

Let me attempt to tentatively summarize: You're suggesting that they are not really analogous?

They may share some internal motor functions, but in our experience with respect to the learning process they most definitely are not analogous.

[4for4]

Hey Tim,

Spend most of my free time in the trenches on ballfields just tryin to help kids be better! Always trying to make myself better also (or at least trying). Helping with the HS team, LL Girl's Major team and 10u ASA team. Other than that I try to make enough money to support my habit.:crazy

I'm sure you are seeing great results. The kids are lucky to have you involved.

I'm just a stealthy lurker who's trying to pay attention and learn more ways to get the message across (or maybe I'm shy). I also often find myself shaking my head in disbelief and amazement. Maybe certain others would be better off being more like me. How does the saying go?

Better to be silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.

Ain't that the truth. You know this stuff better than most. Join the party more often.

Thx and I hope all is well. I'm trying to get Cletus here in June. You want in?

Jim

Heck yes I want in. I'll buy dinner this time.

[tom.guerry]

Wilson-

Teaching a young one is somewhat a different question than the general how does PCR compare.

My advice, find a baseball player coach who knows a high level swing/throw when they see one.LET them coach your kid.

Do NOT overspecialize at a young age. Play many sports. LEarn golf if at all possible.

The high level swing has become more and more rare becasue kids do not play enough and coaches mess them up with overstructured dead hands/no stride stuff emulation of high level role models is interfered with.

It is now unusual to see high level hitting moves at a young age like 8 (it was less unusual when I grew up).You still see the ocasional high level throw at this young age.

On the other hand,ingolf,there are more and more kids who learn high level whip mechanics at a youger and youger age becasue coaches (pga pros) are good and backswing is NOT overly shortened (remember, arm action is king,suppress it and you will not load adequately).

keep it fun.

[tom.guerry]

Sarge-whatever Elliot's measured batspeed was, contact was solid and ball was flying pretty far/staying fair.

[tom.guerry]

OK,so now we are saying tht exists,but it overcomplicates the swing.

We are making progress.

THT and xfactor exist.

NOW,keep looking and understand that they not onle exist,they are essential for a high level swing.

[ssarge]

OK,so now we are saying tht exists,but it overcomplicates the swing.

We are making progress.

THT and xfactor exist.

NOW,keep looking and understand that they not onle exist,they are essential for a high level swing.
If you're talking to me, it's a monolog, because you AREN'T listening.

Emphasis added in (my) quote below:

In the best possible scenario - which I reject, BTW, based on field experience - THT will add SIGNIFICANT complexity, and gain MAYBE 5% bat speed. I happen to believe it would add complexity and gain NO bat speed, but best case, 5% enhanced performance. (I am basing this on the fact that bat speed in MLB basically ranges from the high 80s to the high 90s. And THT - IF it exists at all as described and not simply as a manifestation of other rotational forces - is present / not throughout this rather narrow bat speed range.)


I DO NOT concede that THT exists. I allow that there is a small possibility that it exists in some hitters. But what I BELIEVE is that what appears to be THT is actually a manifestation of earlier, far more important movements. It is clearly NOT a universal of high level hitters as the dozens of videos Teacherman and others have posted clearly show. It is NOT something any high level hitter consicously attempts. In fact, attempts to describe the movement to high level hitters results in a blank expression EVERY SINGLE TIME. So if they ARE doing it, they are doing it unconsciously and have never had it taught to them. Which means that at BEST it's a no teach, and far more likely, doesn't exist.

Scott

[ssarge]

Sarge-whatever Elliot's measured batspeed was, contact was solid and ball was flying pretty far/staying fair.
Tom,

You are killing me.

Whatever Kelly's weight distribution and connection / plane problems, the contact was solid and the ball was flying pretty far/staying fair.

Despite the problems, she attained a good result. As I pointed out when I posted it, and you studiously restated with excruciating detail, the swing demonstrated was flawed.

Other of her swings are LESS flawed.

Although her quickness and bat speed - which are right up there on the importance scale (numbers one and two on mine) - are quite consistent. And not too bad.

Scott

[tom.guerry]

The earlier arm motion preparation is certainly something someone can consciously apply and which will then unfold as desired to apply force actively. This is easier to control with the light/vertical bat and with plane transition. Evidence of the arm action sequence including tht is nearly ubiquitous in high level swings including all the ones supposedly shown her without it.

You can be as conscious of it as you can be of arm action in the throw (you can feel back elbow get back to 90 degrees and you can feel back arm come up by external rotation as the front leg thigh turns over -synched external rotation - see Hodge tape for clear explanation.

Back forearm is pronated,back arm (humerus) internally rotates, back arm lifts and extends (back scap loading), back arm externally rotates,lead arm internally rotates,shoulders tilt.

These actions all move the hands which move the bat which you can think of as how the bat tip coks and uncoks or "how the knob turns".

[tom.guerry]

Scott agreed about Kelly, but what is the point ? They can both get good results, but they are Different patterns which derive from they way thay have/have been trained/instructed.I am not trying to make any big judgement beyond that.

[LClifton]

Despite the problems, she attained a good result. As I pointed out when I posted it, and you studiously restated with excruciating detail, the swing demonstrated was flawed.

Other of her swings are LESS flawed.
And isn't the improvement noticeable?
To my eye it is.
Wait, til she get another movement pattern "mastered"...
She IS going the right direction.
Positively.
The latest stills indicate some good movement patterns are starting to take hold.

Scott, ever worked with her trying to improve an area, go inside review the video and say, "Nope that's not it" and then back out to take some more swings, back in to review video and say "Yes, now Kelly look at this, this is the movement we are working towards."

Not only is it rewarding, it is, in fact, happening.

I think that means moving toward a higher level swing, which she and you are clearly doing. Just keep it up. Who believes in you----I do.

Sincerely,
LClifton

[ssarge]

Tom:

We differ in how we view the development pattern.


I think understanding posture, and using it to take MOST of the variability out of the swing is Job 1.


I think creating momentum and learning to rotate effectively is Job 2.

I think this is measured primarally by bat speed relative to peers.


I think eliminating slop and extraneous movement is Job 2A. This kind of insures SOME level of connection as it basically MINIMIZES the use of the arms.

I think this is measured primarally by swing quickness (frame count).


I think BETTER momentum transfer and sequential / efficient loading and unloading comes next. Establishing connection earlier, more efficiently, more consistently. I do NOT think these things add power to the swing, unless a hitter gets VERY good at them. The best hitters kind of use them to optimize the swing. Gain that final incremental edge.

Those things are important - crucial if you want truly to be elite.


There is no easy way to learn any of these things. ALL are challenging. And in my estimation, it is NOT helpful to try to learn everything at once. I have to believe you agree, since you say to start w/ Epstein. Certainly a tiered approach, if a flawed one.

Well, you agree except when you don't.


You can derisively dismiss this as PCR, and that's fine.


But I am flat out telling you with every ounce of sincerity I can muster that emphasis on arms, arm action, sequential loading patterns, things like THT, "late adjustability," inward 'coks' followed by external rotations, in swings at an early (progression) age of hitting is absolutely counterproductive. Hitters who tackle these kinds of things first NEVER learn to rotate well. They inevitably have slop in their swings. Their swings break down from too many moving parts because the pattern is not well established in the brain, and they frankly struggle. Some wash out.

And I know you believe that is a teaching limitation - AND IT MAY WELL BE. But I ain't alone, I don't see many doing it better, and I am out in the trenches w/ young kids. With a keener eye than most. I realy think I DO know what works, and I'm coming to understand what the teaching progression must be.


That is NOT to say it is wrong to point out the flaws in a young person's swing. But I question your priorities as to what they need to learn first, and how to teach them.

And I would also add that most are intimidated when posting a swing. And this should be considered. Said posters already know the swing isn't MLB quality. The occasional "hey, this kid's doing some things well, might want to try this next and see how it goes," other than "Bonds does it better; not an MLB progression" would be my suggested improvement to bedside manner. Both because it is typically true that the kid is doing some things well, and because it will insure the poster listens to the message.

In other words, "this basically sucks" is not a great message. Even if you're right, and I often don't feel you are. But even when you are, it's still a rotten approach.

Regards,

Scott

[jsiggy]

OK,so now we are saying tht exists,but it overcomplicates the swing.

We are making progress.

THT and xfactor exist.

NOW,keep looking and understand that they not onle exist,they are essential for a high level swing.

Tom this is a great example of your purpose/motives on these forums the past few years.

Read a post, look for any evidence that may support your view, totally ignore everything else in it no matter how overwhelming it is against your case and then respond by stating/twisting the small evidence that adds support for your position.

You don't actually listen to anyone else, you don't try to learn anything, you don't care if your ideas are harmful to other hitters - you are only here to try to show yourself as a guru, bash Nyman, & defend your dogmatic position with illogical/unsupported assertions.

A hitting guru wannabe who doesn't work with hitters. I don't get it.

[Daddylawman]

I've continued to lurk, though not post as I try to educate myself. Last night Andruw Jones hit a home run off a ball pitched practially in the dirt. I've watched it over and over on mlb.com, but I don't know how to save it or slow it down.

What amazes me is that it appears that his weight is off his back foot, but he "falls" off his front foot during the swing. The reason I mention it here isthat I believe he HAD to have transferred incredible strength and energy from his "middle" to his bat in order to accomplish this.

I would really appreciate the insight of others if you can view this clip.

[tom.guerry]

>>>>>>>>>>>Response to Scott<<<<<

Tom:

We differ in how we view the development pattern.



>>>>>>>>>>>my understanding is compatible with Dixon as far as I can tell. This is also compatible with Nyman's
view of the progression of typical human learning going from arm to arm and body spin to total body whip.
These are patterns you evolve through in series and discontinuosly, organized by things like strange attractors.
I would say the stages can NOT be skipped AND once in a higher pattern you can always flip back into a lower one unconsciously
OR know how to consciously adopt the lower pattern.For learning I would not try to teach a lower pattern, but
but keep teaching the attributes of the higher pattern while expecting to see the high pattern emerge and be sustained more and more but with
frequent flipping back. Same of course for overhand throw, windmill and hitting.
PCR type instruction I have heard about/seen emphasizes key attributes of spinning, so progressing to a whip
pattern and staying in it for any sustained period of time would seem unlikely.This does not mean that the spin pattern can not be very successful
or a great and ongoing improvement,at least in metal bat situations.I think it is less possible to make a case for the spin
in baseball and definitely not for wood bat<<<<<<<<<<<<



I think understanding posture, and using it to take MOST of the variability out of the swing is Job 1.



>>Understanding posture in a spin pattern will be different from understanding posture in a whip pattern.
You may be in the world's foreforent of understanding the high level spin pattern/spinhook,but this posture/progression/flow
through positions will be different from the mlb pattern.

In the whip, there are postures associated with inward turn,then cocking the hip, then coking the hands
which begins setting the swing radius with more sit for long radius and less for short,then winding rubber band
with more ongoing sit for low ball, then late adjustment by shoulder tilt/weight shift.<<<



I think creating momentum and learning to rotate effectively is Job 2.




>>I think getting the swing sequence right from the beginning is key for encouraging whip.I like the Williams emphasis on hip cok and han cok here.
Then body torque is very important as described by Epstein.Lots of good info on how to rotate well there-windrubber band,weight shift
drop and tilt,initiate hips from front,learn to stop lunging, learn to get off backside,keep hands in,feel of swing driven by rotation,
not disconnection.<<<



I think this is measured primarally by bat speed relative to peers.

>>I Like to see ball hit hard back where it came from<<<




I think eliminating slop and extraneous movement is Job 2A. This kind of insures SOME level of connection as it basically MINIMIZES the use of the arms.

I think this is measured primarally by swing quickness (frame count).



>>Frame counting might be fine for spin pattern,I don't know. I don't find it useful for whip.A well sequenced and synched pattern is unlikely to have too much slop.<<<


I think BETTER momentum transfer and sequential / efficient loading and unloading comes next. Establishing connection earlier, more efficiently, more consistently. I do NOT think these things add power to the swing, unless a hitter gets VERY good at them. The best hitters kind of use them to optimize the swing. Gain that final incremental edge.

Those things are important - crucial if you want truly to be elite.



>>I would work more on adjustment next,history on inside,learn to adjust up down,learn to adjust outside,
learn to adjust offspeed,learn 2 strike adjustment<<



There is no easy way to learn any of these things. ALL are challenging. And in my estimation, it is NOT helpful to try to learn everything at once. I have to believe you agree, since you say to start w/ Epstein. Certainly a tiered approach, if a flawed one.

Well, you agree except when you don't.



>>Agree tiered approach,agree Epstein flawed,so are others BUT I think Epstein is least flawed of high level,
Mankin and LAu OK too<<


You can derisively dismiss this as PCR, and that's fine.



>>not at all. if it works fine,but I can deride someone who confuses it with a high level MLB swing or denies a difference.I can also
believe it is not likely to encourage a jump to the discontinuous whip pattern<<




But I am flat out telling you with every ounce of sincerity I can muster that emphasis on arms, arm action, sequential loading patterns, things like THT, "late adjustability," inward 'coks' followed by external rotations, in swings at an early (progression) age of hitting is absolutely counterproductive. Hitters who tackle these kinds of things first NEVER learn to rotate well. They inevitably have slop in their swings. Their swings break down from too many moving parts because the pattern is not well established in the brain, and they frankly struggle. Some wash out.

And I know you believe that is a teaching limitation - AND IT MAY WELL BE. But I ain't alone, I don't see many doing it better, and I am out in the trenches w/ young kids. With a keener eye than most. I realy think I DO know what works, and I'm coming to understand what the teaching progression must be.



>>I do think it is primarily a coaching limitation or at least that's the best way to think of it.
I like Epstein's quote about the hall of fame USC coach feeling bad about his own "bad coaching messing so many kids up".
Be familiar with the pattern,structure task and environment to take max advantage of strange attraction.
Do NOT mix patterns. Teach throwing same way if teaching whip.<<<

That is NOT to say it is wrong to point out the flaws in a young person's swing. But I question your priorities as to what they need to learn first, and how to teach them.


>>Teach throw and hit together is desirable<<


And I would also add that most are intimidated when posting a swing. And this should be considered. Said posters already know the swing isn't MLB quality. The occasional "hey, this kid's doing some things well, might want to try this next and see how it goes," other than "Bonds does it better; not an MLB progression" would be my suggested improvement to bedside manner. Both because it is typically true that the kid is doing some things well, and because it will insure the poster listens to the message.


>>I would get over being intimidated.There are no bad questions only bad answers right?<<<<<<<


In other words, "this basically sucks" is not a great message. Even if you're right, and I often don't feel you are. But even when you are, it's still a rotten approach.


>>I think you are confused about what/who it is I think might "suk". My communication skills among other things could certainly be better.Point taken<<<<
Regards,

>>Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I would repeat that I think you are doing a fantastic job for your kid in the near impossible situation of wearing mutiple conflicting hats<<<<

[ssarge]

think it is less possible to make a case for the spin
in baseball and definitely not for wood bat
Half the participants here are excluded form ever using a wood bat because of their gender, and of the other half, way less than 1% ever will.


I think you are confused about what/who it is I think might "suk".
Meaning it's me, not my daughter?

I can live with that.

Scott

[Ohfor]

You aren't the one who called the mf a picolo player. He's self appointed.

He has no followers. Not one.

Why humor him.

[jojab]

PCR type instruction I have heard about/seen emphasizes key attributes of spinning, so progressing to a whip pattern and staying in it for any sustained period of time would seem unlikely.This does not mean that the spin pattern can not be very successful or a great and ongoing improvement,at least in metal bat situations.I think it is less possible to make a case for the spin
in baseball and definitely not for wood bat<<<<<<<<<<<<


So now Tom is claiming that PCR type instruction won't work if the hitter is using a wooden bat because it is nothing but a big spin? Is that what we do now, Tom, just close our eyes and spin around on the balls of our feet?

Wow, this guy really is clueless. Ohfor’s right – why bother?

Joe

[tom.guerry]

Scott I don't think anyone in you family S+++.

Happy Easter.

[Jevan]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I would repeat that I think you are doing a fantastic job for your kid in the near impossible situation of wearing mutiple conflicting hats

What a guy. Ummm, thanks for the kind words??


Why humor him


Now this is wisdom. Scott, take heed.

[Mark H]

OK,so now we are saying tht exists,but it overcomplicates the swing..

In terms of your definitions I have no idea. In terms of Mankin's definition, no, it does NOT exist. In terms of SB's definition which he calls BHUT, many elite hitters do it, many don't.





NOW,keep looking and understand that they not onle exist,they are essential for a high level swing.

As I said, not in terms of Mankin's definition and even in terms of resembling Mankin's definition, Ohfor's clips showing MLB hitters who don't do anything even Jack could interpret as THT demonstrate conclusively that, even if it did exist, it is NOT "essential for a high level swing".

You have a swing theory that bends evidence to your will. You should bend your theory to the evidence.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Could someone please go to

http://newyork.mets.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/multimedia/tp_archive.jsp?c_id=nym

and try to post

April 6: WAS @ NYM

• Delgado's big blast: 350K

AND...

April 7: FLA @ NYM

• Wright's solo shot: 350K

Thanks

[fungo22]

My communication skills among other things could certainly be better. The communication skills of all of us could be better. Yours, on the other hand, couldn't be much worse. The first requisite for improving communication skills is to actually want to communicate something. You have given very little indication that you want to communicate anything. You're a lot like Nyman in that regard, albeit for different reasons, I think. Your refusing to define your terms for BenSam and your arrogant, condescending, "go do your homework and figure it out for yourself" lecture was classic Nyman.