What are Tom G/Swingbuster advocating? [Archive]

wilson68

04-15-2006, 12:07 AM

Long intro to short question.

Back in the fall, I stumbled across the '-mechanics' sites and while I like to take anything I read on the internet with a lot of salt ('I am the only person in the history of the world to understand X. Buy my book.') I was intrigued and through the animations, video clips and explanations of people who mostly post on this board, I came to understand things that I had never understood before. In short, when explanations were made I did not go 'Huh?' but rather things became clearer and made sense, and so I have signed on. Now, while my understanding is as good as I think it can get from reading messageboards, I am sure that I don't completely get it. I can see the box, connection, posture, rotation, swing plane. I am not sure I understand 'forward by turning' or how to properly load either the pelvis or the scaps. That's fine, when the process is smoother I am hoping to get the Englishbey DVD's, and I still like to learn new things. I also like to talk on the phone about baseball for hours.

What I would like to understand now is what Tom Guerry and Swingbuster are advocating that is different/the same as the PCR posse. I have to admit that after attempting a few posts I have stopped trying to read them. I am not trying to insult either gentleman but I have no idea what they are trying to say. Can anyone explain it? It sounds like they do not disagree with the basic principles of PCR but want to include some elements that the posse either consider to be out and out wrong or at least non-universal/non-teaching points.

swingbuster

04-15-2006, 04:45 AM

What I would like to understand now is what Tom Guerry and Swingbuster are advocating that is different/the same as the PCR posse

Posture...totally agree. I do not coach from the 1B box often but posture is a word I can be heard saying. A great word and the only word that I have probably said in a game that I can see amazing results when a batter makes a postural adjustment. The kids know , for me, it means spine angle...butt out chest out. As with most of there definitions, I am sure it can be expended to almost anything

The link between the hips and the shoulders is weak without good posture. the ball is hit harder with good posture....I can guarantee that

Connection..this is where the paths diverge. I include the motion or lack thereof in the preswing here. The diagreement is not whether you must connect to the bottom hand. To get any assistance from the rotation it has to connect. I personally believe more in the mechanisms that force the bottom hand to connect than retraining the bottom hand

Should you practice a hip tuck, turn the shoulders back, and use the middle to drive the shoulders around and the wrist unhinge form C-force and hook ?

Can you learn this and break top hand dominance and get angular displacement and keep the shoulders loaded while the middles starts to drive to the ball?

While their written text from them focuses on the pelvis action( I do not know what they do in lessons ) my focus is more on upper body action, hand set, bat plane transition, and weight shift. I think I get adequate middle action with what I emphasize. I think we get segmentalization, the hand mechanism behind the ball and off the back side. I have never seen these three working and rotation not working in the same swing.

So what about rotation...we agree on it but we probably arrive there two different ways.

This might be where Tom and I think differently from the posse. Do we want PCR..of course we do. We see a hip/ shoulders / hands movement pattern going back and hips /shoulders /hands order coming forward. We see more of a segmentalization of the body parts. We see the swing as a natural move preprogramed like throwing to have the similarities revealed and utilized.

I use starting and finishing indicator points like vertical bat and dragging rear toe and ball contact points( inside seam) and ball flight feedback ( back of batting cage) to help kids understand what we are doing.

Where I think we have made team improvements is oppo hitting, bat displacement, plate coverage, bat speed, and power. I think..excuse me..I know I see less pull field preference build up over time. Less taking call strike three on away pitches.

What about quickness....we have some quick athletic kids that start their move with the pitcher.

Do I credit Steve and Nyman for much of the way I define my goals now?...absolutely! BUT,,,I have been shaped by Epstein, Mankin, Peavy and Yeager too. Will it hurt to study them all when bats cost $279?

If your in this for the long haul and you enjoy this then get educated. Burning $2.90 gas to go to ball games and watching your kid underperform is what is really expensive.

tadlock11

04-15-2006, 08:43 AM

I am not sure I understand 'forward by turning' or how to properly load either the pelvis or the scaps. That's fine, when the process is smoother I am hoping to get the Englishbey DVD's, and I still like to learn new things. I also like to talk on the phone about baseball for hours.
Steve's DVD's explain all three, plus if you talk on the phone with him - you'll be talking for hours.

tom.guerry

04-15-2006, 09:05 AM

Wilson-

Great question. So far only buster and I would seem to think we understand what we think we understand.However, there are others who lurk here that do "get it",enough for me to feel convinced that what I am suggesting is a workable theory to guide analysis to guide learning. These lurkers,however,have had a LOT of (years) of back and forth fleshing things out in e-mails with me and I have not posted anything recently that is more than fragments of my overall approach.I will take a high level stab at things here for your consideration.

I greatly admire the Hansen principles.

1-use video as your truth detector
2-someone else has all the answers for me- ignorant
i know it all - arrogant
everyone has something to offer - wise

and probably some others.

Concerning Hansen rule #2 - The (?wise) approach I take is to try to see how to best integrate/reconcile/rationalize what a number of authorities have said.Along the way, I have found that it is of great benefit to think of the hitting motion as a "swing" that has significant overlap with other skills,especially the golf swing and the overhand throw.

Cocerning rule #1 - seeing is very subjective and what is more significant is at a somewhat below surface/deeper "functional" level. I believe the best way to guide analysis of surface appearance (in the absence of enhanced computer tools like annotation and motionanalysis) is by understanding that there is a certain mechanical sequence the body must go through in a high level swing, and it pays to know the details of this sequence in fairly excruciating detail.

So that covers the basic approach to "analysis" or "diagnosis" of cause and effect.This is necessary to make sense of the more variable and mysterious "how to teach it". The perhaps surprising thing about a great teacher is that the way they teach is NEVER predictable and ALWAYS surprising. That's just the way a great teacher works in a traditional master-student relationship where eventually the student must become their own master. Yes there is an underlying/rational beginning to end cause effect model of how each swing unfolds,BUT learning is unique.Find yourself a good master and stick with them but with the goal of becoming your own master.Never think there is just a simple path to follow that someone has figured out for you.

What makes teaching/learning possible is that every human is born with an innate attraction/tendency to learn certain patterns that have been evolved (over generations - mlb for example can be thought of as an environment that produces hyperevolution/very fast development of better and better hitting pattern refinement through jackson to ruth to bonds for example - what has evolved here is not "genetic" but has to do with cultural evolution and other effects that are not at present understandable) as the optimal solutions for a given task in a given environment.How this exactly works remains a mystery even to the brightest of modern thinkers, but that doesn't matter. What is important is that given the right task and environment,there is a STRONG tendency to develop the desired optimal pattern. This is why,regardless of teaching approach, the most successful practitioners all look much the same at the somewhat under the surface/functional level. All learning is trial and error and involves "emulation". The question is can it be reliably accelerated by the instructor by manipulating the task and environment so the potential is reached ? That is why, in spite of the uniqueness of learning, the resulting pattern/motion/skill is the same. "Nature" REALLY wants to help.The great teacher at least gets out of the way if more prescribed/active interventions are not having the desired effect.Beware of teachers who want to take too much credit for things,or think they know why things work. It is far more important to "know it when you see it and what it feels like" than it is to be able to describe it to others using only words and pictures.

Next installment will be a brief review of what a selection of authorities emphasize and how they might be fot together/integrated/reconciled/rationalized.

CoachZee

04-15-2006, 09:55 AM

fungo22

04-15-2006, 11:06 AM

Posture Connection..this is where the paths diverge. I include the motion or lack thereof in the preswing here.
Whereas the PCR crowd omits the motion or lack thereof in the preswing here. Clear?

I personally believe more in the mechanisms that force the bottom hand to connect than retraining the bottom hand Right. The PCR boys are big advocates of "retraining the bottom hand."

More later. My wife wants to use the computer.

tom.guerry

04-15-2006, 11:18 AM

I would say Scott's "ecumenical" adjective applies to my approach better than "Epstein disciple". I do think his is the best overall approach.More big stuff right,less major flaws than the alternatives.Flaws have been admittted/discussed on many occasions.

For high level summary of detailed analytical approach I use see post #25 and get yeager's DVD for comparison.Alos se Mankin's approach (worth getting a Mankin "swing review" just to see how he approaches things if for no other reason).

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=41943

Summary of authorities/reconciliation to follow.

swingbuster

04-15-2006, 11:43 AM

Right. The PCR boys are big advocates of "retraining the bottom hand."

I think there is better separation, a better inside out swing, a better feel for the bat barrel, and better pitch location adjustmenst when you mechanize the connection to increase hand torque

Simply retraining the bottom hand fails in some of these area even if your successful.

tom.guerry

04-15-2006, 01:06 PM

As I blather on, someone in the PCR school might state the dogma either as it is officially or as they understand it so I do not do violence to it when/if I get to the comparison part.

The usual learning steps in golf include arm swing,arm and body spin, then total body whip/segment pattern (similar to Dixon's observations) according to Bobby Jones.

The stepwise approach to learning golf as discussed by Jones invloves initial focus on setup and lower body,then getting lead arm right,then getting back arm right. Then there comes a lifetime of guarding against the back/dominant arm wanting to take over too soon (top hand dominance/lack of trusting swing/interrupting/rushing swing in trying to hit too much/too soon with top hand - assumes back arm is dominant arm).

Sultan_1895-1948

04-15-2006, 02:23 PM

I think there is better separation, a better inside out swing, a better feel for the bat barrel, and better pitch location adjustmenst when you mechanize the connection to increase hand torque

SB,

So in simple terms, they are saying that there is absolutely no "whip" affect in a proper swing? That the torque created when when the hands are left behind momentarily, isn't optimal? How in the world can you produce a 90-100mph swing without that?

swingbuster

04-15-2006, 03:28 PM

SB,

So in simple terms, they are saying that there is absolutely no "whip" affect in a proper swing? That the torque created when when the hands are left behind momentarily, isn't optimal? How in the world can you produce a 90-100mph swing without that?

Not much whip to oppo..yes

optimal torque when hands are left behind?.....Don't see many clips posted where they are left behind.

Most are leading or one piece turning at best

Sultan_1895-1948

04-15-2006, 03:59 PM

Well, depends on the type of hitter I guess, but when the hands are back after load, the hip cocking, and shoulder action happens so quickly that the hands are left back for a split second. It's not something you're gonna see pictures of unless they snapped it at the perfect time.

Mark H

04-15-2006, 06:16 PM

SB,

So in simple terms, they are saying that there is absolutely no "whip" affect in a proper swing? That the torque created when when the hands are left behind momentarily, isn't optimal? How in the world can you produce a 90-100mph swing without that?

So you are figuring out what Steve says by reading Swingbuster?

swingbuster

04-15-2006, 06:19 PM

Sultan_1895-1948

04-15-2006, 06:49 PM

Right ...but look closely at Ruths mechanism/He doesn't load his hands back around his shoulders by a simple shoulder turn over lap. Neither did Ted Williams or Hank Aaron

His hand action sends the bat out of plane( bat tip away from body) as his hips start to turn. He gets his hips ahead with BHUT

Ruth isn't a good example to use because of his style, but you can still sort of see what I was referring to. Not sure about all the other stuff you mention, with BHUT and all that.

I was talking about with more traditional hitters who straighten out the lead arm (not all the way!) to load. Once those hands are back, there is a split second where the hips have cocked, and the the hands remain back.

Here's are two successive frames of Babe. In the second shot, his front foot has just planted, and his hands haven't moved forward at all, even though he has started to crack the hips. The hand position is the exact same, the only difference is his back elbow. Like I said, he's not a good example, but it even shows up here. By no means am I saying the hands are "just along for the ride,", but I think the whipping along with quick hands that allow for great bat speed.

swingbuster

04-15-2006, 07:05 PM

Here's are two successive frames of Babe. In the second shot, his front foot has just planted, and his hands haven't moved forward at all, even though he has started to crack the hips

Go back a few frames where he tips the bat toward those people in front of him and you will see better the mechanism that locks the hands back and allows the hips to get ahead...you will see BHUT

Sultan_1895-1948

04-15-2006, 08:04 PM

Go back a few frames where he tips the bat toward those people in front of him and you will see better the mechanism that locks the hands back and allows the hips to get ahead...you will see BHUT

That's kinda what I'm saying. No matter how you do it. If you have a hitch, or if you use the traditional "move the hands toward the catcher" load, there comes a point where the hands are left behind. That sounds like a bad term, but it's not. It's a good thing, as it's only for a split second and allows you to maximize the effect of your hips/torso/shoulder torque.

swingbuster

04-15-2006, 08:09 PM

Agreed.

One other consideration..are they left behnd with the bottom hand leading.

Hold your right hand up like your being sworn in. Now rotate hard to the left. You hand doesn't move. That is what happens to top hand dominant kids

The BHUT move connects to the bottom hand when the bat turns back on plane. thats why it helps so many kids

Sultan_1895-1948

04-15-2006, 08:12 PM

K, Swingbuster, will you tell me what you see in any frames of note, is as simple of terms as you can.

fungo22

04-15-2006, 08:17 PM

So in simple terms, they are saying that there is absolutely no "whip" affect in a proper swing? That the torque created when when the hands are left behind momentarily, isn't optimal? How in the world can you produce a 90-100mph swing without that? Sultan, how long have you been on this forum? Have you any discernment at all? Do you really think Swingbuster, who can barely read or string five words together into a coherent sentence or track a line of reasoning, really understands what the PCR people teach? Of course we aren't saying there is no whip in a "proper" (optimal) swing. As I just posted yesterday in response to Tom: Optimally, there is separation and "rotational whip." The question at issue is how and when to teach it in young hitters. We have made this point clear to these two clowns time after time and they are either functionally illiterate, extremely forgetful, or deliberately misrepresenting what we believe.

Don't see many clips posted where they are left behind. Most are leading or one piece turning at best This is a classic example of Swingbuster's commitment to obtuseness. Tom could easily have posted the same thing, so I don't want to overlook a similar commitment on his part. The hitters that we post are in various stages of development. A vast majority of them are learning to how to effectively use their posture to "connect their bats to their body" and rotate "from the middle" in an extremely athletic and efficient way. It is a completely new motor program and it takes a lot of work. We have pointed out many times that these "one piece" swings are simply developmental stages. Eventually a more optimal sequencing of lower body and upper body load/unload will be learned, mostly through trial and error once they have taken ownership of the PCR "core swing" and made it their own.

Mark H wrote:
So you are figuring out what Steve says by reading Swingbuster Mark of course meant that Sultan was not wise in getting his understanding of PCR from Swingbuster. And how does Swingbuster respond?

I don't make the news Mark ; I just report it. Take a look for yourself and do what the MLB players do ..it works. Most people would have to really dig deep into the Stupid Sack to pull out a more ridiculous non sequitur than this. "I don't make the news; I just report it, uhh yup, yup, yup."

So enjoy yourselves as you exchange insights into the fine points of separation and sequencing in Ruth's swing, as if it something we've never seen before.

swingbuster

04-15-2006, 09:09 PM

K, Swingbuster, will you tell me what you see in any frames of note, is as simple of terms as you can.

67 bat going out of plane 8 & 9 he is wrist bound at back foot push and barrel loaded. He must turn the hands back on plane before he can swing at front foot block. he cannot swing or top hand dominate there if he wanted

Fungo ...give the computer back to your wife.

So enjoy yourselves as you exchange insights into the fine points of separation and sequencing in Ruth's swing, as if it something we've never seen before.

Didn't exist and now you have known about this all along. Just waiting to make PCR your own. ...thanks Paula

Drives you guys crazy for two people to have a decent exchange about something that is not your stuff......that is a little pathetic don't you think. Are you that insecure?

Bring Ohfer back...he acts stupid in one sentence

It is a completely new motor program and it takes a lot of work. We have pointed out many times that these "one piece" swings are simply developmental stages. Eventually a more optimal sequencing of lower body and upper body load/unload will be learned, mostly through trial and error once they have taken ownership of the PCR "core swing" and made it their own.

we are teaching what you wrote in bold first....something we agree on ...thanks

In the future should we say that we are talking about working with players past a certain developmental stage...fine...another point of agreement

fungo22

04-15-2006, 09:28 PM

Fungo ...give the computer back to your wife. :) Good one.

Didn't exist and now you have known about this all along. Good reading skills. We never said separation and sequencing didn't exist.

Just waiting to make PCR your own. ...thanks Paula Does this make any sense to anybody? Or is it just me?

Drives you guys crazy for two people to have a decent exchange about something that is not your stuff......that is a little pathetic don't you think. Are you that insecure? Yeah, Einstein. That's it.

swingbuster

04-15-2006, 09:37 PM

Quote:
Just waiting to make PCR your own. ...thanks Paula

Does this make any sense to anybody? Or is it just me?

Paula Abdul American Idol." you took that song and made it your own"

fungo22

04-15-2006, 09:41 PM

Dang, he keeps editing stuff into it.

Bring Ohfer back...he acts stupid in one sentence I can't decide how much of yours is an act and how much of it comes naturally.

we are teaching what you wrote in bold first....something we agree on ...thanks For the sake of the gentleman that made the initial inquiry into what Tom and SB teach, this is not exactly true. You are teaching separation and sequencing with a focus on hand/arm action without really understanding or teaching rotation from the middle.

fungo22

04-15-2006, 09:46 PM

In the future should we say that we are talking about working with players past a certain developmental stage...fine...another point of agreement No we shouldn't say that in the future. You serve up the same Shinola no matter what developmental level the player is at.

Sultan_1895-1948

04-15-2006, 10:02 PM

Sultan, how long have you been on this forum? Have you any discernment at all? Do you really think Swingbuster, who can barely read or string five words together into a coherent sentence or track a line of reasoning, really understands what the PCR people teach?

I've been on this forum awhile, but hadn't checked out this section of the boards until later on. I've gotten by my entire life on good high school coaching (just the basics), and applying certain techniques through trial and error. Honestly, I have never had the need to read about this lingo you guys throw around, or to study the swing that in depth. It always came natural. To me, there comes a point where no matter how much info you have, you need to have ability to make subtle adjustments from AB to AB and still succeed. At the same time, I can see if you're a very young kid, and someone gets a hold of you early, maybe you can develop good basics

We probably do disagree on stuff but I wouldn't know, because it's not put into normal terms on here. It's chinese. When you say that hand and forearm strength don't matter, I know I disagree with that, because I'm by no means the strongest player on my team, yet I'm among the SA leaders every year because of something I can't put my finger on. Been working out my forearms and using a hand gripper since the first days after buying the Hulk Hogan workout set a long time ago. I'm strong, but by no means the strongest guy on our team. Guess I always figured, why try to delve too deep into the swing if I'm not struggling. When I give advice to our players, they wouldn't understand if I threw all this lingo at them, so I keep things in terms they know, and show them.

Not sure what you and swingbuster have going. Is it more than just disagreeing on principal's of hitting? Seems like it. Hitting can't be all that serious to throw insults around like you do. Why not stick to debating and sharing ideas?

fungo22

04-15-2006, 10:44 PM

We probably do disagree on stuff but I wouldn't know, because it's not put into normal terms on here. It's chinese. If our stuff is Chinese, then what language is Swingbuster and Guerry's stuff?

When you say that hand and forearm strength don't matter ... Can't speak for the others, but this is not my position.

When I give advice to our players, they wouldn't understand if I threw all this lingo at them, so I keep things in terms they know, and show them. Not sure what lingo you're talking about, but we either use terms they know (when appropriate) or teach them new terms. And we do a lot of "showing them."

Not sure what you and swingbuster have going. Is it more than just disagreeing on principal's of hitting? Yes, it is more than just disagreeing on principals of hitting. Go back and read my post and you'll see what "more" it is. Oh, you thought my comments about Swingbuster was just rhetorical hyperbole. No, I really think his reading comprehension sucks, his reasoning is incoherent, and his writing is mostly unintelligible. I haven't decided whether it is by choice or by nature.

Why not stick to debating and sharing ideas? Because he pisses me off.

swingbuster

04-15-2006, 10:48 PM

Quote:
It is a completely new motor program and it takes a lot of work. We have pointed out many times that these "one piece" swings are simply developmental stages. Eventually a more optimal sequencing of lower body and upper body load/unload will be learned, mostly through trial and error once they have taken ownership of the PCR "core swing" and made it their own.

we are teaching what you wrote in bold first....something we agree on ...thanks

I think I will just savor that statement. I can't do better than that

wilson68

04-15-2006, 11:29 PM

OK, now my chance to sound stupid.

So, Tom and 'Buster, (and I hate to lump them together since I am still not sure that they are saying the same thing,) want to teach hand action and the subtle separation between the hips moving and then the shoulders/hands? And the posse, (and I don't care for that term either but it seems to have been adopted, so I choose to use it,) believe that to attempt to teach something that is so unconscious a movement will create a larger hand movement/separation than is desirable, leading to disconnection and/or bat lag?

And so the conflict exists because one thinks the other is over teaching and thus creating problems and the other believes that if you don't teach the movement you are leaving something important up to chance?

I do understand the anger and personal conflict. I have seen some on this board advocate live and let live and that everyone's ideas have validity and I agree with others that that is not true. Everyone's ideas do not necessarily have validity. Sometimes the other guy is wrong and needs to be stopped. On a larger front, there are ideas and beliefs I would fight wars over and on a baseball level there are things about which I will say, "No, you are wrong. Stop being an idiot."

Steve Englishbey

04-16-2006, 12:16 AM

Sultan I thought I had made myself clear:Swingbuster ----going back almost 2 years when he swaggered into the Hitting -Mechanics as a then Epstein diciple----has in my opinion demonstrated repeatedly a near absolute inability to understand what myself ,Paul Nyman ,and any number of posters who know the ACTUAL contents of Setpro and /or what I ACTUALLY teach and convey.

He has repeatedly mischaracterized it ,misquoted it ,misunderstood it, created repeated straw man arguments ,repeatedly strings together nothing but a series of non-sequiteurs relative to the typical questions and comments coming from scott, Mark H ,Fungo ,et al,created non-sensical pseudo-science terms and frames of reference in response to numerous postings wherein I am using ACTUAL applied science terms as used and understood by ACTUAL experts [and I ACTUALLY understand these sources---as opposed to "throwing around " BULLSH*T that really amounts to nonsense.And I am in no manner using these terms to "impress" you or anyone else. I am using these terms because after years of being at this ,I concluded that traditional baseball terminology does not have much "explanatory power " and have spent years engaged in a very SERIOUS effort to understand how the body actually works in terms of creating ballistic movement like swinging a bat and throwing a ball.And those in the applied sciences,ie biomechanics, exercise science ,etc,etal , is simply more descriptive ,accurate ,and common[to those who actually know and understand the language] ,in terms of explaining movement of the body [causes and effects ,"underlying realities",etc].

I cannot emphasize more that I am a SERIOUS student of information that is RELEVANT to better understanding as to how the body works.And I am a SERIOUS teacher of hitting and throwing -----and have worked own my own and have done nothing else but this for the last 6 years.I have estimated that I have spent well over 10,000 hours involved in understanding what I think I need to understand in order to be a more effective teacher.I am not merely "dabbling "in this stuff,I'm not merely "philosophizing " and speculating about this stuff as if it were a hobby.I do not merely go out and hit for 30 min. or so with merely a few hitters.

Being serious about this stuff , there is nothing that is more irritating and exasperating than for guys like Swingbuster and Tom Guerry to REPEATEDLY mischaracterize , misquote ,or thoroughly misunderstand any number of things that some of us have been saying literally for years in some cases.

And possibly you are not aware but I was in fact the ninth person chosen in the 1972 draft [astros] ,played as high as triple a ,and STILL CAN hit [the one handed swing thats up on my site was hit 310ft [34-29 aluminum].In other words I have "done it" at a pretty high level.

I have spent literally thousands of hours in the last 8 years engaged in all kinds of field "swing experiments " personally ---as well as doing many different kinds of field tests with all kinds of hitters [I have hundreds of hours of taped footage of hitters much of which I have looked at in slow-motion repeatedly.

You might want to ask Hidden what his experience was with me .

Maybe you are not aware of the literally dozens of comments from various sources about me as being the best hitting instructor that they have ever been around [this includes guys like Brent Strom---former big league pitcher and now instructor at that level ,it also includes other professionals in baseball that know me].These comments come of course from "non -posse members" ---this should NOT have to be said but there are those ---like Swingbuster ----who think all of us are part some "brainwashed " cult .Do I need to AGAIN emphasize that this is also BULLSH*T.

[All of us former Setpro guys know that Paul Nyman is in many ways ,a disturbed individual. This did not and has not prevented us from being intellectually honest about his understanding of biomechanics and his "due diligence " in trying to use real applied science to explain how the body works in throwing and hitting.]

Do you Sultan think that these kinds of people above would be this impressed with someone WHO DID NOT FULLY UNDERSTAND THINGS LIKE MOMENTUM /MOMENTUM TRANSFER ISSUES, of which things like "separation " are a function of ?Or did not explain it in ways that "made sense" to them in ways which most "instruction" from traditional baseball has not? Do you think that if I was explaining this stuff using pseudo science babble ,do you think that that kind of BULLSH*t wolud elicit comments like "that is the clearest explanation of hitting that I have ever heard" ? [this comment I have heard many times and in this case I am quoting Kevin Bass ,formerly with the Astros].Do you think that if I did not know what the hell I am talking about ,and/or was talking like a "philosopher king" or ,pseudo-science BULLSHITT*R--------do you seriously think these kind of guys would say the things they have said?

Do you somehow think that I physically do not know what "separation " ,momentum creation ,momentum transfer is ,and that I cannot do it pretty well ?

Do you think that I do not have a pretty good understanding of things having to do with good kinetic chain functioning , bullwhip/kinetic whip analogies,double-pendulum analogies? The utilization of elastic energy as it applies to swinginfg a bat?
All of which could be used to explain and understand "separation".

Do you somehow think that I do not have a pretty good understanding of what a good swing actually looks like ?

Do us both a favor : the next time you have a question about something that even possibly has to do with what you even remotely think might have something to do with what I think ,what I know ,what I teach --------ask me.

You allready had one assumption----presumably garnered by what others were saying -----about me somehow emphasizing middle in pitches.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Do not keep making the same mistake of misunderstanding ---- misunderstanding that is based on either others' utter ignorance ----or agenda driven motivations -----of what I try to convey and teach.

It would be much appreciated.

As I said before I do not at all like to engage in this kind of discourse.

I've got better things to do.

But if enough BULLSH*t is created ,then I will respond.

I take this stuff too seriously not to.

steve

fungo22

04-16-2006, 12:17 AM

So, Tom and 'Buster, (and I hate to lump them together since I am still not sure that they are saying the same thing,) Don't feel stupid over this. Neither of them write intelligibly enough for us to be sure they're saying the same thing. But they agree with each other so we just take their word that they are.

And the posse, (and I don't care for that term either but it seems to have been adopted, so I choose to use it,) It's what Paul Nyman called us before he gave us all the boot from his site. We have adopted it as an act of defiance.

believe that to attempt to teach something that is so unconscious a movement will create a larger hand movement/separation than is desirable, leading to disconnection and/or bat lag? Most likely bat drag, but that's not it exactly. The simple version is that most young hitters have a fundamental motor program that needs to be reprogrammed with a new drive train installed, from the engine to all its linkage. First, you can't accomplish this by tweaking the hand/arm action to achieve better sequencing and adding "hip coil" in the sequence. Second, not all MLB hitters have this hand/arm action. We believe you need to teach the qualities that make MLB swings both quick and efficient. To do this, it is almost always necessary to eliminate segmentation and hand/arm action. When they have internalized the "high level" elements, then we can "readjust" their sequencing. This readjustment will not necessarily include the arm/hand action that Guerry and Swingbuster insist is "universal."

I do understand the anger and personal conflict. I have seen some on this board advocate live and let live and that everyone's ideas have validity and I agree with others that that is not true. Everyone's ideas do not necessarily have validity. Sometimes the other guy is wrong and needs to be stopped. On a larger front, there are ideas and beliefs I would fight wars over and on a baseball level there are things about which I will say, "No, you are wrong. Stop being an idiot." Just in case the reasons for my contempt is being misunderstood. It is not because I think Guerry and Swingbuster are wrong. It is because of the way they repeatedly offer the same advice to new inquirers but ignore and evade our response to their advice, refuse to post video to back up their success claims, and make no real effort to intellibibly engage in rational communcation. They behave as if they are exempt from the conventions of rational discussion and critical inquiry. They are either intellectually dishonest or intellectually ... uh ... disadvantaged. And yet they arrogantly and recklessly persist in imposing their ramblings on every discussion they come across. And then when they are challenged ... (repeat above).

ssarge

04-16-2006, 01:18 AM

Don't feel stupid over this. Neither of them write intelligibly enough for us to be sure they're saying the same thing. But they agree with each other so we just take their word that they are.
I don't think they agree on Epstein, which would seem to be a fundamental difference.

Regards,

Scott

Sultan_1895-1948

04-16-2006, 01:26 AM

Steve,

Forgive me for not quoting your entire post. Reading through that, you were clearly heated, which shows passion, and that I admire. After reading that, I see the dedication and experience you have.

To be honest with you, much like what Wilson68 just presented, I have no clue what the big differences are all about.

When you're not used to hearing these terms, it's not easy to just read them and understand what they mean. It's not a reflection on you and your knowledge, it's a reflection on me and my background that I don't understand exactly what you mean. Never had to get that deep into hitting. Maybe that's a good thing.

No doubt if we were in person and you physically showed me what you mean by some of these terms, it would be much different, and could probably spend hours shootin' the **** about hitting. I know where you're coming from now, and hopefully you know where I'm coming from.

Just keep in mind that when I ask someone a question, I'm not thinking about the battle that you guys are fighting, or trying to put down the other camps beliefs; it's just asking a question.

So to fully understand this all.

There were a bunch of you over at one site, and you all were disagreeing with the head guy, and so he booted you all out? Then you guys regrouped and made a home here, and immediately found swingbuster and tom, who held an opposing view, causing this current rift? Is that about right? Or did you guys ALL come here together, and just continue to share you different views? Just tryin' to get the plot straight, not sure why.

wilson68

04-16-2006, 02:48 AM

Believe it or not, I am not trying to start a fight with this thread. I know there is a lot of history and I don't know most of it.

When it comes to Mankin and Epstein, I do not really know anything about them or their teachings. I had stumbled onto Mankin's site before Hitting-Mechanics and it made me nervous. First was his claim to be the only person to have all the answers. Second, what little explanation was available made me shake my head. I could see the circular hand path but I had trouble with the top hand torque. Last was the need to pay him money to get the super secret answer. It smacked of a late-night infomercial. Buy this device/book/program and you will become rich/thin. If magic worked we'd all have what we want. Epstein, I had not heard of until I was on H-M and by then I had bought into what was being said there. Given that Epstein was being widely dismissed, I never explored his stuff.

What sold me on H-M was that I could see what their point was. There were pictures and coherent explanations by people that I could see were intelligent. I read forums on other subjects as well and it is true that there are always a handful of people that always say things that hit the nail on the head and others that make you say 'What?!?' On the subject of baseball, Ssarge is one that I have come to trust. My original understanding of H-M's points began with his explanations. Now I am not saying that I know what I am talking about. But the basics: tilt, swing plane and connection were things I had never even heard of or considered before last fall. (And that's damn scary. I feel so bad for my little sister, who's now 28.) So, it wasn't that I was having previous beliefs confirmed but that I was learning brand new information that just made sense. And since I have not caught them saying anything that I can prove is wrong, and since they are obviously bright people who do not seem to be trying to tease me into buying something, I am willing to take their word for the things that I do not yet understand.

My reason for starting the thread was that I could not figure out what Tom G. and Swingbuster were saying. In fact I had stopped reading their posts altogether because I just could not make sense of them. Others seemed to get their point, even if they did not agree, and I was hoping to get an explanation of the points of contention.

Regarding Steve, the most telling thing for me is that, despite people with long-standing beliefs defending their turf, I have never read a single person who has seen him work who has not raved about him. Both people here whose opinions I have learned to respect, and others who have no connection to the PCR cause at all, have nothing but respect for his teaching. Less so for his wardrobe, I gather. :)

Fungo 22, I think I understand why you are frustrated. I'm not saying that I am frustrated, but that I get the point you were making.

Steve Englishbey

04-16-2006, 04:43 AM

Sultan I do appreciate you taking the time to read thru what I wrote.

And you are certainly right in thinking that being on a field and being allowed to physically explain what indeed is a physical expression of the the body [the swing itself] is a helluvalot more useful and revealing and illustrative than mere words.

It will be there where I know I will have a much better chance to explain terms like "scapula loading" , the essential components of pelvic loading , the concept of rotational uncoiling and "forward by turning " and other aspects of how elite hitters create movement.

And maybe more importantly ,I will show what I think are the common flaws that many young hitters create in terms of poor movement ie., where the "original sin " occurs [the basic causes of poor movement] and why ,I think many young hitters do what they do [this would have much to do with what the mind is telling the body to do to attempt to solve what amounts to the fundemental motor problem: what do I need to do with my body to get the barrel around.

I can say here -----as I have stated many times ----that THE basic problem for many hitters is that they attempt to "solve the problem" by trying to use the arms and legs to create movement to get the bat around.

Thus they develop habits of movement that over time become the basis upon which they organize the body to create movement,force ,and momentum.

The basic problem with this is that you cannot develop the kind of force /momentum using primarily the arms and legs, that will allow the potential to become really efficient at creating batspeed,swing quickness,and barrel accuracy [swingplane /swingpath efficiency].

Simply put ,it is physiologically impossible to generate large force and momentum using primarily the arms and legs.

This can only come from the body mass,ie the muscles attached to the hips joints up to the scapular complex.

The ability to fully utilize the muscles of the body mass [and the mass itself as an inertial force] -------and the manipulation of that mass-----wherein hundreds of muscles are involved in initiating /controlling movement ,creating large momentum , and have the potential to create large and rapidly generated "twisting power" ---- is what separates elite hitters from essentially everyone else in terms of creating powerful and efficient movement.

My one-handed swing is an example of this argument.

There is simply no way that I could hit the ball 310 ft. without being able to generate large force and momentum that originates ,develops ,and is sustained pretty much throughout the entire load to unload process .

My arm does have to create enough isometric tension to maintain stabilty throughout the swing.I also need to know how to slightly stretch the front shoulder to both load it and to create physical distance from the hips /torso [subtle separation] to allow the momentum of the hips/torso to develop slightly ahead of the arms/bat as I stride [once I start to rotate bat and body are essentially rotating together ["one thing doing one thing".]

I also need to maintain the angle of the front wrist,forearm and bat [approx. 90 degrees ] "maintain the box/hinge angle"-----and I need to unhinge this wrist forearm ,barrel into contact 'rotational extension".

These upper body functions are important. But if I did not know how to use the body mass to load and unload ---and had I not been doing many things to practice and build this capacity -----I would not hit these balls very far.

If my brain and body had been engaged in organizing the legs and arms to "solve the problem " ,I would not have the power and stabilty to hit the ball consistently well.

This is but a single [and simple ]example of how the body mass [and the minds understanding as to how to organize the movement ---based on the underlying understanding that the manipulation and control of the muscles of the body mass ---is fundemental and vital in creating powerful and efficient movement.

Having been around both elite hitters ----and having worked with relatively elite non-baseball athletes [college and professional football ,basketball,and track athletes ]as an exercise trainer ,I have had a chance to personally see powerful and efficient movement up close if you will.

One thing that I begin to realize that was consistent among all these athletes [eliter hitters included] was the power ,stabilty and ,flexibilty ,and movement initiation ,of the pelvic region.

My initial "intuitiveness " about what I thought I was seeing with elite athletes ,my experience with non-elite hitters,pitchers ,and the many many books and articles that I read over the last 7 years about the trunk /pelvic region, all inform some of my central notions in terms of teaching both hitting .

One is that elite hitters are elite hitters because unlike most they know how to manipulate and control the body mass to initiate movement ,control movement ,and generate large force very quickly ["impulse"].

Another fundemental notion -----based on experience in working with many hitters-----is that the best way to develop greater power and efficiency is by focusing on breaking the habits of using the arms and legs to attempt to "solve the basic problem " -----by focusing on learning how to more effectively utilize the body mass . [And everyone should understand that the scapular complex [muscles of the shoulder blades ] are part of the body mass . And they are THE KEY LINK between the bat and the body mass.And this is a key understanding in terms of understanding how elite hitters are "swinging the bat as if it is attached to their body".And it is the scapular complex thru which the momentum of the torso has to efficiently link up with.

All of the above could be much better understood and explained ---using a variety of ways to show and explain it -----on a field.

steve

swingbuster

04-16-2006, 05:13 AM

What are Tom G/Swingbuster advocating?

I made two key points

1. I personally believe more in the mechanisms that force the bottom hand to connect than retraining the bottom hand

2. So what about rotation...we agree on it but we probably arrive there two different ways.

Simple compare and contrast and a fair answer criticizing nobody

I think my first post{( 583) and number 2 on this thread} on the subject carefully outlined what I believe and why. I took considerable time writing it as to answer the question to the best of my ability to offend no one and even give some points in the swing that we watch.

Fungo had no business in the thread. He personally acted me and then proceeded to post language about PCR being a developmental approach whereby you would eventually have to learn a higher level of upper body and lower body synchronization by trial and error later.

I found that amusing since Tom and I promote a higher level of upper and lower body synchronization from the beginning. That is just a fact. Whether it is best ...you decide.

Fungo did a better job answering the question than me. Problem is he made Steve's position look weaker when he rushed in to promote. That was not my goal but Fungo fell on his own sword. Now they are mad at me?? Why? He wrote it! He would make a bad lawyer.

Did I slam Steve or anybody? Read on

Do I credit Steve and Nyman for much of the way I define my goals now?...absolutely!

Tirades of BS and stupid ect do not originate from me and Tom..never have never will.

When the posse comes out attacking others senselessly and just for receation, they need to bring their A Game and you would have less mess to clean up.

The other option is that they could just answer the questions and post their opinion like normal people. Maybe you should publically admonish some of your followers for their abrasive style and have them take a more ethical approach

fungo22

04-16-2006, 09:05 AM

Fungo had no business in the thread. He personally acted me and then proceeded to post language about PCR being a developmental approach whereby you would eventually have to learn a higher level of upper body and lower body synchronization by trial and error later.

I found that amusing since Tom and I promote a higher level of upper and lower body synchronization from the beginning. That is just a fact. Whether it is best ...you decide.

Fungo did a better job answering the question than me. Problem is he made Steve's position look weaker when he rushed in to promote. That was not my goal but Fungo fell on his own sword. Now they are mad at me?? Why? He wrote it! He would make a bad lawyer.

I much better appreciate Ohfor's lapses into three-round bursts of retort. But I don't like being this way, and I don't think I used to be this way, so I think I'll join him.

swingbuster

04-16-2006, 09:15 AM

Chose your words carefully and find middle ground in the debates and there will be no need for this type of exchange.

I want to portray good swing info and models that are inclusive. I am not trying to be devisive. See the thread title. I took no hostile position. I gave honest answers to a simple but important question.

People want options.....you have one and we have one. And they can be combined if understood.

I don't get the problem. I will ask Sandman to post both swings. A perfect one plane LH swing as smooth as the driven snow. He takes PCR to a new level and has unbelieveable separation.

A RH hitter on a tear with plane transition batting .585 and 6 HRS

Have I changed the LH hitter...hell no ...he might be the best I have seen.

tom.guerry

04-16-2006, 11:26 AM

Wilson-

I really do want to anwer your questions and I will continue to address what I can, but as you can see,there appears no way to get an answer out of the PCR crowd about what PCR actually is.

I assume PCR is based on Nyman principles,including the "only 2 adjustments you want to make" approach,setting posture, turning back hip into front, and stayig connected with more handpath hook for inside.

Nyman has NO clue what happens in a high level MLB swing IF he thinks this model is a high level swing. This is why I have described him as the "Mike Marshall" of hitting. He has created a "new"/"nonnatural"/never before existing in nature pattern which is a HUGE risk for anyone following this path,perhaos less so in hot bat technology environments like fastpitch (I think it is suboptimal even there).

Nyman has alos described the swing as including a "hook at both ends",the end of the swing being the "hook" mentioned above and the first hook being knob turning during loading. Apparently he was beginning to get moe focussed on this first hook to add to "PCR" before his latest burnout.

For watever reson,he is hard to get clear info from,suspect most likely to give him wiggle room becasue he probably is well aware whatever he is doing can in no way produce a high level mlb swing.

Without arm action emphasis in loading, it is impossible to get the early batspeed/late adjustability of the MLB swing. The mlb swing MUST begin with early preparation including inward turn and hip coil or early batspeed/late adjustment are impossible. All of his focus seems to be on shortening/eliminating the early phases of the swing becasue of his inadequate understanding of cause effect in the MLB swing.

The greta mystery seems to be "how can you begin well with a full inward turn and not "excessively counter-rotate" ? The answer is that virtually all successful MLB hitters figire this out and I hypothesize the KEY to it is good arm action/sequence which BUSTER also understands well.

It is NOT CLEAR either what the Englishbey/pose variation is whether for proprietary or other reasons, but I have seen NOTHING/ZERO/NADA/ZIP/ANYTHING that would suggest it is a high level mlb swing pattern OR in any conceivable way on the path to one.However, someone should come forward and describe what it is.

WHY the Nyman/Englishbey split - just personality or business conflict or some "REAL" difference in undertsaning of the swing ?

Very hard to weigh in on this without SOMEONE being more forthcoming.

In the meantime I will try to proceed with guru/pandit summary (no true gurus in hitting- in golf Jones and Hogan qualified for guru staus in their era, but they would no longer be so in today's game which has evolved since then).

I will also answer Sultan on Ruth who is the first great example of similar pitching/hitting arm action in tthe swing.

LClifton

04-16-2006, 12:00 PM

Fungo had no business in the thread.
Really?
Fungo did a better job answering the question than me. Problem is he made Steve's position look weaker when he rushed in to promote. That was not my goal but Fungo fell on his own sword. Now they are mad at me?? Why? He wrote it! He would make a bad lawyer.
Greg, do not send in the money to the law school, you'll not be any good at it. Get out while you can!
Tirades of BS and stupid ect do not originate from me and Tom..never have never will.
No, of course not. But referring to others as dogmatic would come from your corner, not a real big difference. (p.s. it's----- etc.)
The other option is that they could just answer the questions and post their opinion like normal people.
No, you wouldn't call anyone stupid, that would not be your style.
Yet you refer to some as "not normal"...
Don't see many clips posted where they are left behind.

The clips that you have seen are from those of us that have dared to put them out here....To be blunt, where the hell are yours?....
Put up the clips.

Donnie, I have read your stuff, I've even posted with agreement on certain things, commended you for working with young hitters, but when there have been clips posted (and more Mr. Guerry than you) can not
find / see any good qualities in them DOES leave doubt about the agenda you guys are on..

I attended the Arizona vs. Arizona State game last evening and some of those (Division I) swings were not optimal either.
Maybe, just maybe, there is hope for them to get there,,,, someday.

LClifton

Mark H

04-16-2006, 01:22 PM

And the posse, (and I don't care for that term either but it seems to have been adopted, so I choose to use it,) ."

It was first used as a pejorative by Paul Nyman. We kept it because it amuses us. ;)

Mark H

04-16-2006, 01:34 PM

tom.guerry

04-16-2006, 01:36 PM

So what is the Nyman approach and how is the posse approach different ?

Mark H

04-16-2006, 01:49 PM

I

I found that amusing since Tom and I promote a higher level of upper and lower body synchronization from the beginning. That is just a fact. Whether it is best ...you decide.

If either of you posted clips of young hitters with poor swings being turned into hitters with "a higher level of upper and lower body synchronization from the beginning" using your bhut or using whatever developmental process Tom would use if he does work with hitters, we might take you more seriously.

Mark H

04-16-2006, 01:54 PM

Wilson-

I really do want to anwer your questions and I will continue to address what I can, but as you can see,there appears no way to get an answer out of the PCR crowd about what PCR actually is.

.

You have had this exhaustively covered at setpro and here but you have your mind closed to any of this because Paul treated you badly, you connect Steve with Paul and Epstein has never treated you badly; therefore, Steve is bad and Epstein is good regardless of the complete difference between what you talk about and what Epstein teaches. In a few weeks, perhaps Steve's site will be open and you can order the dvd's and more conveniently mischaracterize what he teaches.

Mark H

04-16-2006, 01:57 PM

So what is the Nyman approach and how is the posse approach different ?

If you were going to get it, you would have already gotten it. I do not get on here for pointless jousting. I get on here in hopes it will make a difference to some kids somewhere. As you confessed once on one of these boards, you don't think anything we do on here makes a difference to any kids. Obviously, you and I don't have the same motivations. I suggest you do your intellectual jousting on the philosophy boards where no young ones will be involved.

tom.guerry

04-16-2006, 03:28 PM

Sultan-

Ruth analysis for sultan (?of swat?).

TY Cobb on the Babe,BATTING, FC Lane, p.71:

“ He is undoutedly the greatest slugger who ever lived. He has the build. He has the eye. he has everything. But he enjoyed a peculiar advantage which gave him his start. Ruth is more than a slugger, he is a home run hitter. Fortunately for him, he began as a pitcher. A pitcher is not expected to hit. Therefore, he can follow his own system without managerial interference. Ruth made the most of this opportunity. As a pitcher, he took a tremendous cut at the ball. At first it was rather awkward. Left handers bothered him. But he peresevered. He kept on trying to murder the ball. Gradually he gained confidence, experience, and knowledge of pitchers.. When he ceased to be a pitcher himself he had become a home run specialist. Ruth is a slugger; the greatest the game has ever known. I have tried to make myself a batter which is something quite different. A batter is a man who can bunt, place his hits, beat out infield drives and slug when the occasion demands it, but he doesn’t slug all the time.”

All such mlb sluggers have the same mechanical pattern/sequence

set up, not static but with rhythmic preswing activity (lau),then swing unfolds

inward turn
hip cock
hand cock
rubber band winding
drop and tilt
swing.

It is a SWING, a simple back and forth that is somewhat complicated to describe becasue of the way the back and forth and load/unoad motions overlap. The swing requires the FULL back and forth motion and requires adhering to an absolute sequence.In this context:

Frame 1 - narrow stance- this makes coiling back without sway easy.bat is fairly upright/vertical/ “light”. bat at back shoulder similar to bat on deltoid position.
back turned to pitcher somewhat, but not enough so head has to turn back.both feet flat/weight bearing, but positioned so weight will immediately strat forward,NO lateral shift back, only coil of hip over back leg is possible.

First few frames - inward turn by hips turning back and with some sit/crouch/bend at waist.”falls” forward.
up to fram three this is pretty much “in one piece”, no arm action.then the hands are dropped as inward turn continues (bonds very similar,less pronounced).
bat tips/cocks up to/just past vertical

Next comes “hip cok” from about frame 6-8. Among other things, this involves creating muscle tone that permits “offcenter balance” and subsequent “carry” (Dixon cues). This is associated with internal rotation of the limbs,especially back arm and front leg.The rear (throwing) arm internal rotation action becomes primary here. There is elevation of the front hip in spite of the ongoing “fall” forward.

around frame 6, the front leg lifts and “heel leads’ (internally rotated front leg.back arm lifts and internally rotates.THIS HIP COCK ACTION stops the ongoing coil of the hips back.(ongoing arm action will keep the torso back in spite of this).There will be no “excessive counter-rotation”.

Bat coks more, well past vertical (due to back arm,not scap or torso action).

Frames 9-11 “hand cok”. Hands assume punching position primarily by back arm lifting (abduction) as well as back scap pinch.
Bat coks ina different direction/towards pitcher.
Front hip stays up,assisted by “knee spread” (primarily by front leg lift/aBduction synched with back arm aBduction/lift)
The combination of “fall” (set up in the stance) and knee spread/front leg lift produces a “pushing force” at the back foot. This is NOT by pushing with the back leg/foot. The back leg has been passively internally rotated during inward turn and is now more actively engaged in “hinge”/flexion/extension - more extension in case of long stride like this to meter progression of forward “weight shift” (forward and down progress of center of mass of body).

Frame 11 - in punching position primarily by BACK ARM action NOT active extension of lead arm. Arms alternate primacy.Back arm in control since inward turn. This keeps the hands at the back shulder when done “right”. Hips still coked.Bat finishing cock.”Shows sole” of lead foot.

Frame 12-13. Rubber band winding into toe touch. Synchronized external rotation of back arm and lead leg. Front foot turns open and front hip begins to follow then back hip then back leg .Bat begins uncoking/accelerating back toward catcher.Lead arm intral rotation becomes primary in uncocking bat ( no longer back arm, and NOT shoulder action).Sit finishes.Very prominent back to front weight shift wihout release/active internal rotation of back leg back foot drags on heel.

Frame 13-14. Drop and tilt.shoulders tilt finishing coil and plane setting.rotational axis set.bathead launches.head stops forward progress.good firm flex in front knee.

Frame 14 - contact. Swing.front leg should extend.

Steve Englishbey

04-16-2006, 04:27 PM

Mark I agree entirely with your notions about Tom ever "getting it".

A perfect ex. is his recent comment to the effect that "well I guess the pcr crowd is now including changing the direction of the knob as part of their understanding" . His comments were simply stunningly unbelievable.

Almost 5 years ago there was a thread entiltled "Changing the direction of the knob " that had Tim Olsen's son swinging and comparing him to Griffey and Sosa.And Paul commented about the knob changing at both ends of the swing [meaning at initiation and then right before contact.] Tom spent at least 3 years on the Setpro website showing up and writing -----and frequently referring to Paul as "the Maestro" [for those who do not know the context].

Beyond that thread are literally hundereds if not thousands of pgs of stuff that Paul or myself have written that have to with changing the direction of the knob------including of course fundemental aspects of scapula loading /unloading ,aspects of how posture and rotational "impulse" are fundemental to the facilitation of changing the direction of the knob.

It is comments like this from Tom that have been repeated over and over and over in the last two years.Things that elicit the response from me of "how in the hell can he consistently not understand ,or remember ,or confuse " what I have stated over and over?"

And leave one with few good choices in terms of understanding his consistent inability to "get it."

One reason is obvious to those who have been around : He does have an agenda and that agenda stems from him being "fired " as moderator from Hitting -Mech .And stem from his apparently intense dislike of Paul Nyman.

And thus does not want to give credit to anything that comes from Paul NYman.Or Setpro in terms of hitting.

And apparently that includes "my stuff" as well.Meaning that if you notice that he will include ALL other cds out there as having information that is useful -----------except mine [or Pauls of course].

And this is after him seeing literally dozens of favorable comments from people who have worked with me or who have the info on dvd. And have compared my dvd info with that of others----especially Epsteins cd.

And has repeatedly refused to to meet with me when I have been in his area.

And then conveniently falls back on the excuse of something like "well I havent seen all the details of Steve E's material so I cannot comment on it "when some one calls him on something that he either confuses ,or willfully misrepresents .

This is disingenous at best.

My conclusion is that for whatever reasons you do not want to see the dvd.

And one reason would be that it then allows him to keep misrepresenting my stuff --------then falling back on "well you cant fault my misinterpretations ---I havent seen his stuff."

"Clever by half " Tom ----at best.

You apparently recently bought Yeager's cd-----and are now promoting it.

But you refuse to meet with me .

Disingenuous at best Tom.

You call yourself "ecumenical " or eclectic.

Again clever by half. You have a "selected bias" eclecticsm.

And anybody who thinks that I am writing here because I want to "sell and promote " my stuff or that I am trying to make a "sale " to Tom is crazy as hell.

At this point I would not GIVE the dvd to him. Because I think that he would either willfully misrepresent it ----or simply not understand it [because he does not work with young hitters he would have little understanding as to how it relates to TEACHING and development issues.]

And that ESPECIALLY includes Swingbuster ------who used a fake name on eteamz and began a thread by asking "has anyone used the Hands Back Hitter....how good is that product?"---and kept talking on the therad as if he was merely a "disinterested dad" asking about it .

And what about your endorsement conundrum if you will ?

Yet you have the unmitagated gall to talk about me promoting stuff.

Do you not read well? The thread that I was essentially forced to enter into was because I had to tell tell Sultan that with regards "my stuff" you have almost no understanding of what I teach and convey.And you were saying things that amounted to BULLSH*T.

As I said I had to come and DE-PROMOTE your BULLSH*T.

Is this promoting my stuff ? Is this mean ? Is "being mean" the main criteria we should use here in judging info .

I consider logic ,intellectual effort ,intellectual honesty , being able to read and actually follow a line of thought beyond that which an 10 yr. old could follow [or someone with ADD ],being intellectually honest ,having the mental faculties to actually remember what someone said 10 min. ago ---and be able to repeat it without perverting its contents, being serious about the subject matter at hand---------all these things I would consider more important than heeping volumes of cheerful , pleasantly toned ,BULLSH*T.

Maybe I will try to reconstitute myself ,chill out ,go watch the Lifetime and Oxygen channel for awhile ----and come back with a very pleasantly toned ,and cheerfully driven set of comments about the effacaciousness of your very very cute looking "toy" "BatBuster."[see I'm allready getting into it].

steve

tom.guerry

04-16-2006, 04:39 PM

Steve

Let's hear what your system is and how it varies from Nyman.

swingbuster

04-16-2006, 05:54 PM

If either of you posted clips of young hitters with poor swings being turned into hitters with "a higher level of upper and lower body synchronization from the beginning" using your bhut or using whatever developmental process Tom would use if he does work with hitters, we might take you more seriously.

Stay Tuned

I consider logic ,intellectual effort ,intellectual honesty , being able to read and actually follow a line of thought beyond that which an 10 yr. old could follow [or someone with ADD ],being intellectually honest ,having the mental faculties to actually remember what someone said 10 min. ago ---and be able to repeat it without perverting its contents, being serious about the subject matter at hand---------all these things I would consider more important than heeping volumes of cheerful , pleasantly toned ,BULLSH*T.

Tell us what you really think Steve...don't hold back. If you buy one more muzzle and put it on Fungo then your group would not need for you to come in and insult the world for them when they lose debates talking about what they do not understand.

Mental faculties? Tom and I have about 16 years combined college study training in medicine and surgery. People are screened for mental faculties before they get that chance.

We just might get it . We could have a point or two that works.

Cheers!!

tom.guerry

04-16-2006, 06:17 PM

I don't see how the fungo approach of starting with PCR is going to lead to high level synchronization.

The idea is similar to many approaches to inserting a core move into the swing, but how the move will connect and flow should be compatible with the whole motion. Cause effect has to be carried back to the beginning of the swing. As REAL evidence shows, for example, Zigler measures hips ciling back to about 25 dgerees in high level mlb swing. Shoulders max out at 40 degrees. yeagers numbers are 28 and over 50 degrees for shoulders.

What do Ruth's numbers look like ?

This is not "excessive counterrotation". A swing that does not take into account fitting with this beginning is not on the road to a high level swing.

How is the PCR swing going to fit with this high level pattern ?

Inthe MANY PCR swings i have seen, there is universally a conected spin. To let the body spin fast, the spread of the knees is out of sequence to create a narrow base that the body can spin faster on. This is NOTHING like the UNIVERSAL sequence of the high level swing. How is PCR on the road to the high level swing when it trains the body to move out of sequence ?

Only answer I know of is to graft on the right universal arm action sequence letting arm action as king rewire and synchronize body support. That sounds like an approach the PCR school is not contemplating.

swingbuster

04-16-2006, 06:27 PM

Ohioteamz

04-16-2006, 07:02 PM

This and my first post on this thread clearly explain our position.

You cannot get wide with your base and spin fast. You really have no idea how true this is. That is why the weight must shift and the rear foot must release

I realize you haven't seen the DVDs, but are you and on Tom in sync on this? I don't really think the base in PCR is all that wide. The knees sure as hell aren't spread. And if by rear foot releasing you mean you should stay on the back foot, and throw your front shoulder back towards the catcher then there is clearly a divide as to what his this "universal" sequence.

Sultan_1895-1948

04-16-2006, 08:32 PM

TY Cobb on the Babe,BATTING, FC Lane, p.71:

“ He is undoutedly the greatest slugger who ever lived. He has the build. He has the eye. he has everything. But he enjoyed a peculiar advantage which gave him his start. Ruth is more than a slugger, he is a home run hitter. Fortunately for him, he began as a pitcher. A pitcher is not expected to hit. Therefore, he can follow his own system without managerial interference. Ruth made the most of this opportunity. As a pitcher, he took a tremendous cut at the ball. At first it was rather awkward. Left handers bothered him. But he peresevered. He kept on trying to murder the ball. Gradually he gained confidence, experience, and knowledge of pitchers.. When he ceased to be a pitcher himself he had become a home run specialist. Ruth is a slugger; the greatest the game has ever known. I have tried to make myself a batter which is something quite different. A batter is a man who can bunt, place his hits, beat out infield drives and slug when the occasion demands it, but he doesn’t slug all the time.”

Thanks for the breakdown of his swing, although much of it went right over my head.

Regarding this Cobb quote. He's correct in that Ruth was a slugger, however he was much more than just a home run hitter. He was among the batting leaders (hit .393 and didn't win the batting title :eek: ) in several years while doing what he did in slugging. So although he wasn't a scientific hitter to the degree of Cobb, he made adjustments, though along with the pitcher, and took what was given to him when the situation called for it.

Thanks for your response Tom.

fungo22

04-17-2006, 01:25 AM

If you buy one more muzzle and put it on Fungo
then your group would not need for you to come in and insult the world for them when they lose debates talking about what they do not understand. Since I keep on losing debates about things I don't understand, I guess you'd better just put a muzzle on me, Cletus. Then you won't have to come in and say all those mean things that you don't really mean. I think Swingbuster is right. You owe the world an apology.

Mental faculties? Tom and I have about 16 years combined college study training in medicine and surgery. People are screened for mental faculties before they get that chance. A better test for your mental faculties that is more contemporary and relevant to the discussion at hand would be for you to coherently respond to what has been written. I am not alone in my judgments that your 16 years of combined college education has not served you well in this regard.

But I'm finished with the "insults" because I'm finished with Swingbuster. Not because of his claim to have "won a debate" or his whining about "muzzling Fungo," and not because I have written anything in the heat of the moment that I think inaccurate. I'm finished replying in substance to Swingbuster or about Swingbuster because I don't like behaving this way in public. I caught myself actually being tempted to say something worse than what I ended up writing. I stand behind what I have written, but I apologize to this forum if it has been perceived as being "offensive."

swingbuster

04-17-2006, 05:16 AM

I caught myself actually being tempted to say something worse than what I ended up writing. I

Fungo,

I get tempted to do that some times as well. I could mobilize a small army on line army to slam everything you guys are trying to do on every web site out there. You already have one. Anytime you have product or information for sale, your white underbelly is exposed in the free media.

Because I employ a different method than you doesn't mean I need to be mean. It doesn't mean anything.

The attitude and the edge did not originate with me. I have no desire for that although I have been the recepient of it.

I have had people say they are reluctant to try some "thing" we make based on what people have said on BF that never saw one.

When you enter a thread, you should answer the question or respond about the clip with your suggestion or point of view intended to help somebody.

Remember my points stated...

1. We teach connection by hand set/action not training bottom hand

2. We arrive at rotation differently

3 I credited Steve for how we define our goals

For that I eventually got...BS, no mental faculties, ADD, ignorant, dishonest and my product slammed.

I am the one "turning the other cheek". It doesn't cost you a dime so you say

swingbuster

04-17-2006, 05:33 AM

I realize you haven't seen the DVDs, but are you and on Tom in sync on this? I don't really think the base in PCR is all that wide. The knees sure as hell aren't spread. And if by rear foot releasing you mean you should stay on the back foot, and throw your front shoulder back towards the catcher then there is clearly a divide as to what his this "universal" sequence.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello Ohio,

I don't know where the base is in PCR. The players posted often seem wide but that is not necessarily PCR's fault. I post this as an observation that might be helpful to others as I have had some great revelations with it

We all know we spin around the lead hip. BUT, if you start with your feet past shoulder width and do not get the weight shifted forward releasing the back side then you are not truely spinning around the lead hip. It is much harder to get and keep the hips turning to completion ahead of the shoulders without a moving COG and a shift. You feel strong in the beginning when your wide, but the hip turn will get choked down and passed by the shoulders and hands. I ask kids that are real wide " where can you go from there"? That is why it is so hard to shift COG from no stride. That is why so many no stride guys reverse pivot, swing uppercut and persist in the aluminum bat mode. They also lift more weights than perfect technique.

You should test this in golf...it is laughably evident with each 1-2 inches in width increase in the base stance. YOu could probabaly test it in baseball the same way off of a tee

When you see a decent shift and a complete release of the back foot then you can more assured that the hips are clearing ahead of the shoulder and hand mechanisms and the point of whole body rotation is more focused around the lead hip

http://imageevent.com/siggy/hitting/pro

9-13-20 Cabrera, Boggs, Mauer

If you start base wide, it IS very stable and you can turn the shoulders hard and stay balanced but nearing contact the hips( that did not truely lead) will be dragged forward but the shoulder linkage decellerating the swing badly.

Ohioteamz

04-17-2006, 11:56 AM

I don't know where the base is in PCR. The players posted often seem wide but that is not necessarily PCR's fault. I post this as an observation that might be helpful to others as I have had some great revelations with it

When you see a decent shift and a complete release of the back foot then you can more assured that the hips are clearing ahead of the shoulder and hand mechanisms and the point of whole body rotation is more focused around the lead hip

http://imageevent.com/siggy/hitting/pro

9-13-20 Cabrera, Boggs, Mauer

If you start base wide, it IS very stable and you can turn the shoulders hard and stay balanced but nearing contact the hips( that did not truely lead) will be dragged forward but the shoulder linkage decellerating the swing badly.

I am not going to give away info, but there is a real emphasis on momentum as you no doubt are aware. The only time no-stride is even recommended is when trying to make sure they understand how to rotate. However there is a good amount of info and drills that are an attempt for the hitter to feel the sensation of getting the weight off of the back leg.

You reference jsiggy's site as backup, yet jsiggy on his own site asks if any of the hitters are squishing the bug. Besides, scott went over this already, how staying on the back foot has nothing to with Steve E, and everything to do with the years of working Mike's drills.

tom.guerry

04-17-2006, 12:41 PM

again,I would not blame years of Mike's drills on the back foot spin problem. This has been "discussed" ad nauseum,esp at Shawn's site.IF you follow the Epstein progression you learn to adjust axis upright for high ball without lunging after you have broken the lunging habit by keeping the axis back. Then you understand how to always get off the back side as well as how you adjust the swing for the individual pitch.

on the other hand if you do his system and you don't follow with him carefully and you decide things like enforcer drill and weathervaning are crazy, then you are dooming yourself unless you really understand how the high level pattern works.

It's fine to bail out if you are not making progress, but I would not be so quick to blame Epstein and then start all over with another system.I would be especially wary of the "scientific" type approaches like Nyman who have lost sight of what happens in the REAL/Actual high level swing.

swingbuster

04-17-2006, 12:46 PM

OHIO,

This isn't about Steve with me really...forget that part. I share things that have helped my players.

They make it about him not me. I can talk hitting all day and never mention him. Doesn't mean he can't teach hitting.

I can mention something I like about Yeager and BAMM!! all this posse stuff comes flying out like I am out to bury somebody. I am not.

If I mention shift it doesn't mean he doesn't teach that well. If I mention coiling the hips it doesn't mean he is clueless about that too.

Talk hitting, what you think, and let it stand.

jojab

04-17-2006, 01:31 PM

I attended the Arizona vs. Arizona State game last evening and some of those (Division I) swings were not optimal either.
Maybe, just maybe, there is hope for them to get there,,,, someday.
LClifton

Loren,

We went to the USC v. ASU baseball game on Friday night and were watching the swings (I wasn't saying much and didn't prompt anything) when one of my 10-year olds comments on how the hitter rolled his hands over at contact and says, "that's not right, Dad. Did you see how his hands rolled over at contact?"

All I could think was how great it was that he was taking all this instruction and clip viewing in! Wow, I hope he doesn't grow out of his need to have me help him out? Maybe by 11 he'll be analyzing his own clips and defending Steve's methods on these boards; commenting to Swingbuster how he is a RH pitcher but has a swing that isn't RH dominant (even though he doesn't point the top of his bat to the second baseman) and telling Guerry to come down to Phoenix and he'll show him why PCR really does work! :D

Joe

Ohioteamz

04-17-2006, 01:46 PM

OHIO,

If I mention shift it doesn't mean he doesn't teach that well. If I mention coiling the hips it doesn't mean he is clueless about that too.

Talk hitting, what you think, and let it stand.

Yes but the context of your original statement says that PCR applies no-stride and wide knees, which isn't accurate. Whether you don't care about what Steve teaches is fine, I just don't think you should hold out PCR as a wide-stanced, no stride, keep weight on the backfoot methodology. Do some teach stuff in phases, absolutely.

In the end I see from jsiggy's site not a single player with any real weight on the back foot at contact, which I think is direct contrast to Epstein.

tom.guerry

04-17-2006, 02:18 PM

LClifton

04-17-2006, 03:13 PM

We went to the USC v. ASU baseball game on Friday night and were watching the swings (I wasn't saying much and didn't prompt anything) when one of my 10-year olds comments on how the hitter rolled his hands over at contact and says, "that's not right, Dad. Did you see how his hands rolled over at contact?"
Joe,
My post should be followed with a "he said sarcastically".. These were Div I players that have a better clue than most....most of the swings I witnessed were better than average.
However, I will tell you that I witnessed several batting practices at Spring Training this year. Saw the 40 man roster guys hitting and saw the Minor leaguers swings, big difference. Does this mean they too are "not on the way" to a better pattern?
Tom is trying to create this illusion that he knows what
"on the way to a MLB pattern" is....and is attempting to do it by whatever means he can,,,mostly by putting others down to elevate himself.

Steve Englishbey

04-17-2006, 03:26 PM

The Banks Welch et al study "Hitting a baseball: A Biomechanical Study predates Yeager by a decade [1994] .I had it 7 years ago. And Garhammer goes back to 1984 [another biomechanist who is well know in force output kinds of studies in terms of Olympic lifts ,etal, but who did a study on the baseball swing components from a biomechanical perspective]

Paul created a device for golf that measured com /cop [it measured shifting parameters ].You can [and I think he did ] apply it to hitters to measure com/cop parameters.

Whats you point Tom about citing Yeagers force plate measurements?

Force plate measurements simply measure "the body's total acceleration towards the ground." It measures simply the body mass interacting with gravity and the earth [ big mass].

It in no manner whatsoever ,measures HOW the movement is created.

It can give you rough guidelines to understand any number of things but ,in no manner whatsoever does it measure , qualitatively, elastic energy ,rate of force development , ie.,in terms of really how the "system" [neuromuscualr system] is interacting. [Nor can it much help in terms of knowing how to use the body better in a ballistic context like hitting.]

It does not much help in the way of answering the question : "What do I need to do to get my body[and brain] to move more efficiently?"

And especially in the context of performance enhancement and particular individuals. [Analysis like Zig Zigler has is not that helpful in this regard.It not terribly useful to say to a hitter , "our analysis shows that you are decelerating at .00004 ....and you need to delay that by .000002 seconds.Now go get'em kid."]

Composites of biomechanical descriptions of hitters /pitchers ,cannot much help a single individual better do what he needs to do . The higher the level the more this will be true.

These kinds of analysis cannot much help in terms of getting a hitter to use his body [and brain ] to more effectively create 'momentum into footplant" for ex.

Simple force plate also cannot measure where the force is coming from ,or how it is created , ie.,trying to measure how torque interactions actually occur is essentially impossible [ see Ariel, Gordon and Zajac, Siff ,et al.]

You sure as hell are not going to measure it by using simple force plate parameters.

Had you any real understanding of the "trainers perspective " I would not have to say this . Again and again and again and again.

Are you so utterly ignorant as to what we have written over and over and over--- as to think that Paul or myself do not understand that hitters create momentum and "potentiate the system " if you will ,by creating aspects of translational movement and eccentric action largely created by the pelvic region and scapular complex ?

Does one need force plate measurements to understand that good hitters very effectively create momentum ? Do you somehow think that Paul or myself cannot readily see this ? In real time or otherwise.

Are you kidding me ?

steve

ssarge

04-17-2006, 03:27 PM

IF you follow the Epstein progression you learn to adjust axis upright for high ball without lunging after you have broken the lunging habit by keeping the axis back.
I don't see very many kids lunging these days - most all of us seem to be able to get past that habbit pretty readily. Much concern about not much, IMO.

Then you understand how to always get off the back side as well as how you adjust the swing for the individual pitch.
Is that the 1-2-3 Drill? Or the Fence Drill? That's what comes in the video
How DO folks learn this, Tom?

And why doesn't Epstein post videos of his students who have in fact learned this? Why do the pictures he shows in his book not demonstrate this?

The two swings I see on Epstein's site that seem to have overcome this problem are the Shoemake kid - whose dad is himself an instructor - and I wouold bet, a good one - and Danyele Gomez.

To call Gomez an Epstein hitter is to give more credit to Mike than I'll bet Coach Lotief would. She sure has a great swing, though. Also, it's Hanson's clip, recorded off ESPN.

And there are over a dozen examples of kids who haven't.

Regards,

Scott

swingbuster

04-17-2006, 03:56 PM

OHIO

THis is what I said

I don't know where the base is in PCR. The players posted often seem wide but that is not necessarily PCR's fault. I post this as an observation that might be helpful to others as I have had some great revelations with it

THis is what you said I said

Yes but the context of your original statement says that PCR applies no-stride and wide knees, which isn't accurate. Whether you don't care about what Steve teaches is fine, I just don't think you should hold out PCR as a wide-stanced, no stride, keep weight on the backfoot methodology. Do some teach stuff in phases, absolutely.

The purpose was to caution anyone about being too wide no matter what method and the effect it can have on weight shift and hip turn

Maybe by 11 he'll be analyzing his own clips and defending Steve's methods on these boards; commenting to Swingbuster how he is a RH pitcher but has a swing that isn't RH dominant (even though he doesn't point the top of his bat to the second baseman) and telling Guerry to come down to Phoenix and he'll show him why PCR really does work!

He might be cussin like Ohfer by then..caution

tom.guerry

04-17-2006, 04:16 PM

Scott-

Ultimately of course, the kids learn a pattern by trial and error. Can this learning of the high level mlb pattern be accelerated by expertly applied Epstein system ? yes.Can it be easy for the Epstein learner to fall back into lunging when trying to learn how to make the UP adjustment ? Yes.

Steve's post in this case showed some actual content as opposed to ad hominem complaints. The point I was making,Steve, was that yeager's measures (Which are aggregate) show that in some swings there will still be weight on the back foot at contact which contradicts OHIO's point unless Siggy has selected only clips where the axis is NOT leaned back enough for this to happen.

My point with PCR is NOT that it cannot work, but that it is a different path to a different destination from the hgh level mlb swing pattern which is somehow supposed to be the truth detector/destination for BOTH PCR and Epstein/Lau/Mankin/Peavy/other high level approaches.

I think PCR as I understand it (in absence of anyone actually describing the dogma here in spite of repeated requests) is Not compatible with a high level mlb swing.The approach will NOT accelerate learning the high level mlb pattern.It will teach the spinhook (a different patern) which has early adjustability and late batspeed as opposed to better loading and sequenced momentum transfer that gives early batspeed and late adjustability.

My personal belief is that PCR can work with metal bats because the sweetspot is bigger and also due to light weight,but still a high level MLB pattern will be required to maximize "genetic potential" in both wood and metal bat settings.

What is official PCR dogma ?

How are Nyman and other versions different ?

Anybody?

LClifton

04-17-2006, 04:28 PM

I think PCR as I understand it (in absence of anyone actually describing the dogma here in spite of repeated requests)
Ad Hominem?

OOOPs my bad, O.K. for you to repeatedly ask, but no one else.
My apologies.
Tom, what is it about any of this PCR that is "owed" you?
That is how you come across. "I asked, therefore it is owed to me."
It appears that you have an agenda and really thrive on the debate?
It's o.k,,,,
But just how is it O.K. for you to continue asking for an explanation of PCR and you despise the continuous asking for clips or evidence of any kind?
How is it different in your mind?

4for4

04-17-2006, 04:37 PM

Scott-

Ultimately of course, the kids learn a pattern by trial and error. Can this learning of the high level mlb pattern be accelerated by expertly applied Epstein system ? yes.Can it be easy for the Epstein learner to fall back into lunging when trying to learn how to make the UP adjustment ? Yes.

This doesn't come close to addressing Scott’s questions/comments. Which epstein drill gets you off the backside? Which drill on the non-high level mlb pattern epstein DVD teaches momentum development/transfer?

yeager's measures (Which are aggregate) show that in some swings there will still be weight on the back foot at contact which contradicts OHIO's point unless Siggy has selected only clips where the axis is NOT leaned back enough for this to happen.

How does it contradict the point? How many swings under what circumstances? I know there are a lot of clips showing this axis problem on epstein's non-high level mlb pattern website, book, dvd. Show me a clip where it's not the case.

My point with PCR is NOT that it cannot work, but that it is a different path to a different destination from the hgh level mlb swing pattern which is somehow supposed to be the truth detector/destination for BOTH PCR and Epstein/Lau/Mankin/Peavy/other high level approaches.

I think PCR as I understand it (in absence of anyone actually describing the dogma here in spite of repeated requests) is Not compatible with a high level mlb swing.The approach will NOT accelerate learning the high level mlb pattern.It will teach the spinhook (a different patern) which has early adjustability and late batspeed as opposed to better loading and sequenced momentum transfer that gives early batspeed and late adjustability.

My personal belief is that PCR can work with metal bats because the sweetspot is bigger and also due to light weight,but still a high level MLB pattern will be required to maximize "genetic potential" in both wood and metal bat settings.

What is official PCR dogma ?

How are Nyman and other versions different ?

Anybody?

How can you have a point about PCR and be so sure about it's efficacy and not know what it is all in the same post?

tom.guerry

04-17-2006, 06:39 PM

What is meant by PCR is not as clear as I would like to answer the question that was asked concerning how PCR compares to the model I "believe in".

Nyman has always been evasive. Was the Nyman Englishbey split entirely because of Nyman's personality or were there actual disagreements about the swing model ?

Not clear to me.

With regard to getting off the backside/momentum transfer/which Epstein drills:

Here are previous discussions at Shawn's site including quite a bit if back and forth with JJA in the first one:

http://s6.invisionfree.com/Hitting/index.php?showtopic=177

This one starts off with JJA poopooing the xfactor (similar to Epstein "body torque") and xfactor stretch (more emphasis on coil dynamics) among other things. Tilt comes later.With respect to Xfactor, JJA states his understanding of the Nyman position which he likes. I do not agree. This is one of the many BIG/DEALBREAKER problems with Nyman's approach (assuming he is supposed to be describing high level MLB swing not his own regularized "spinhook").

This ignores the objective evidence.

Yeager measures max hip coil back at 28 degrees.Max shoulders back over 50 degrees.

Mankin (who prefers the "one piece forward turn" feel/cue) says :

"So the hips already lead the shoulders by 20 to 30 degrees as the batter prepares his launch position"(look at Frame #B of his mechanics page).

And finally Zig has a large motionanlysis database of high level swings with hips turning back 25 degrees, shoulders about 40 degrees,so xfactor starts at 15 degrees THEN xfactpr increase to a max of 27 degrees due to dynamic/later "xfactor stretch".

This is an average across many high level swings. Without this degree of coil/stretch,there is NO high level swing. Without this level of turning back,there is NO "early batspeed" possible.

In spite of Nyman fear of excessive counterrotation, ALL these successful players can turn back/coil/separate this way as they get prepared for a quick swing with early batspeed while at the same time retaining the ability to adjust the bat trajectory very late just before "launch".

Xfactor and xfactor stretch exist and are significant and essential for the high level swing. Omit them (Nyman) and you do not have a high level swing.

15 more pages on Epstein:

http://s6.invisionfree.com/Hitting/index.php?showtopic=284

Epstein's drills ALL (it's a SYSTEM) worktogether to fix lunging,then teach good rotation, then teach good rotation while adjusting for varius locations.

The thing that gets you off the backside with Epstein is the combination of good weight shift and body torque info (how xfactor is created) which includes learning how to do the core movements of rubber band winding and drop and tilt. what is lacking that I think improves trial and error is better arm action info which comes from Mankin/Hodge. To eliminate bat drag, you must "rotate well" AND this requires not only good body torque, but good upper body arm loading action/THT.

In spite of the linked 30 pages of stuff on Shawn's site, this does not have anything that gets into the THT subject which is alsonder discussion here.Stay tuned.

The high level swing includes BOTH xfactor AND torque. Deny this and you will not get the high level swing.Deny this and you will not get the kind of nonspinning momentum transfer that gives "early batspeed" and ; "late adjustability". Not going to happen.

Denying those things are HUGE mistakes in modelling the swing that diving into details for years elsewhere can not make up for.

Maybe that will start to answer Scott's question.

JJA

04-17-2006, 07:01 PM

Everyone,

You need not weigh through those Epstein posts that Tom pointed out. All I did was show video from Epstein's site, pictures from his book, quotes from his book, all of which showed definitively that Epstein teaches a backfoot, uppercut style. Not one iota of the evidence that I presented was ever refuted. Neither Tom nor other Epstein devotees were able to dispute that a great many of the hitters on Epsteins site and in his book were in fact hitting off their back foot. I heard a lot about what Epstein really means and doesn't mean, but nothing that disputed my conclusions about the pictures, videos and quotes. This hard evidence - not verbal rhetoric - was left unrefuted after 13 excrutiating pages of verbiage.

Then I come on to this site, and Scott shows a perfect example of the remnants of the same thing, unfortunately his daughter. The reader who is unfamiliar with these battles needs simply to look at the videos of Epstein students and compare them to high level swings and reach their own conclusions about whether they look similar. It's obvious to me that they are significantly different, and in ways that are fundamentally important to the swing process. And the Epstein method is certainly not how Ted Williams swung, no matter what Epstein says.

Finally, trying to tie X-factor or X-factor stretch to getting off your back side is not credible. It's easy to have a swing with lots of X-factor and be either on your back side or not. The two are completely different issues.

-JJA

swingbuster

04-17-2006, 07:12 PM

JJA,

My season theme...

1. weighless bat and more vertical hand set to slow hands to get separation

2. weight shift to get off back side

Results..priceless

fungo22

04-17-2006, 07:43 PM

Are you so utterly ignorant as to what we have written over and over and over--- as to think that Paul or myself do not understand that hitters create momentum and "potentiate the system " if you will ,by creating aspects of translational movement and eccentric action largely created by the pelvic region and scapular complex ?

Does one need force plate measurements to understand that good hitters very effectively create momentum ? Do you somehow think that Paul or myself cannot readily see this ? In real time or otherwise.

Are you kidding me ? You probably better lose Yeager and Zigler as your hole cards, Tom. You've ignored my comments about Yeager and Zigler and what their technology can show. And I understand that you doctorate holders are sort of impressed with one another, but as it turns out, Cletus sort of understands this stuff pretty dang well. I know it's hard to believe, and it just doesn't seem right that you can't whip out the Dr. Yeager card and send the redneck jock from Texas scurrying back to the oil rig where he belongs, but as many have discovered ... he's smarter than he looks.

Jevan

04-17-2006, 07:49 PM

Talk about laugh out loud!!!:laugh

That is priceless:clapping

Erik

04-17-2006, 08:56 PM

You probably better lose Yeager and Zigler as your hole cards, Tom. You've ignored my comments about Yeager and Zigler and what their technology can show. And I understand that you doctorate holders are sort of impressed with one another, but as it turns out, Cletus sort of understands this stuff pretty dang well. I know it's hard to believe, and it just doesn't seem right that you can't whip out the Dr. Yeager card and send the redneck jock from Texas scurrying back to the oil rig where he belongs, but as many have discovered ... he's smarter than he looks.

Is this one of the "Hanson brothers" from slapshot? :laugh :laugh

EL,

ssarge

04-17-2006, 11:20 PM

Is this one of the "Hanson brothers" from slapshot?
"What did the old man give up for THOSE guys? A used puck bag?"

Tell you what, reading a couple of Cletus's posts lately, I think he is about ready to "put on the foil."

Regards,

Scott

ssarge

04-17-2006, 11:30 PM

Steve's post in this case showed some actual content as opposed to ad hominem complaints. The point I was making,Steve, was that yeager's measures (Which are aggregate) show that in some swings there will still be weight on the back foot at contact which contradicts OHIO's point unless Siggy has selected only clips where the axis is NOT leaned back enough for this to happen. [empahasis added]
In SOME swings, the bat flies out of the hitter's hands into the stands.

Yeager's data would be more useful if it was an aggregate of only GOOD swings. Although I don't know how that determination would be made, or who would make it.

Beyond that, Yeager's IS semi-interesting data demonstrating what - on average - is where, when.

But doesn't help me in the slightest understand what sequence of movements got it there.

It is approximately equivalent to describing clouds over an ice-covered lake as "water."

Right.

All three times.

It also doesn't help me in the slightest understand how to build a swing in a kid so that he someday has a chance to mirror an elite swing.

Scott

jsiggy

04-18-2006, 12:16 AM

The point I was making,Steve, was that yeager's measures (Which are aggregate) show that in some swings there will still be weight on the back foot at contact which contradicts OHIO's point unless Siggy has selected only clips where the axis is NOT leaned back enough for this to happen.

Tom I'll give you a chance here to tell me you're really not accusing me of selectively choosing clips which adhere to my "backfoot off the ground" belief system.

I think PCR as I understand it (in absence of anyone actually describing the dogma here in spite of repeated requests) is Not compatible with a high level mlb swing.The approach will NOT accelerate learning the high level mlb pattern.It will teach the spinhook (a different patern) which has early adjustability and late batspeed as opposed to better loading and sequenced momentum transfer that gives early batspeed and late adjustability.

My personal belief is that PCR can work with metal bats because the sweetspot is bigger and also due to light weight,but still a high level MLB pattern will be required to maximize "genetic potential" in both wood and metal bat settings.

What is official PCR dogma ?

Did you seriously just say "I still don't know what PCR actually is but I'm more than happy to reiterate that it is not compatible with a MLB swing"? :laugh

ssarge

04-18-2006, 12:44 AM

My personal belief is that PCR can work with metal bats because the sweetspot is bigger and also due to light weight,but still a high level MLB pattern will be required to maximize "genetic potential" in both wood and metal bat settings.
It's easier to swing a heavier bat by using the arms more?

I don't get that.

For example, the lighter the bat, the easier I would think THT would be to execute. Which may well be why Jack uses a Billy Club and / or a golf club w/ reversed grip to demonstrate it. (Something I found incredibly non-persausive the first time I viewed the tape, when I WANTED to believe.)

How does one measure realization of genetic potential?

More bat speed?

Better swing quickness?

Higher contact / batting average?

Better LOOKING swing?

The reason I ask is that I think some fairly average athletes come closest to THEIR "full genetic potential" as hitters through utilization of very simplified mechanics.

This is different that the most genetically gifted athlete on the planet reaching HIS genetic potential as a hitter.

Not only different, but more relevant for most.

My gut tells me there is a tradeoff, and that the tradeoff might be unique to the individual. Meaning it can only be discovered through trial and error on the field. Which somewhat renders moot comparison to the theoretical perfect swing. Or maybe that is not what I mean. Maybe what I mean is what is important is understanding which elements in the theoretical perfect swing are most crucial.

Unless your goal is to be Bonds, and you are willing to roll the dice towards that pursuit.

I could well be wrong on this, but this represents my thinking today.

But I know I am NOT wrong that there must be a developmental progression. And based on observed field results (mine, and those asserted by countless others on various forums), I am also right that the most important initial emphasis points for that developmental progression are well contained in (and articulated by) Englishbey's approach.

Regards,

Scott

Pro

04-18-2006, 01:19 AM

Exchange between Nyman & Yeager found here:

http://s6.invisionfree.com/Hitting/index.php?showtopic=258

CENTER OF PRESSURE
Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic
Chris Yeager
Posted: Jan 27 2006, 03:57 PM
Report Post

Nyman says:
QUOTE
What is the relevance of COP other than it's a better way, this person's belief, to describe something about the swing process other than using the term "weight distribution"?

Yeager:
I can understand why a person with a limited education in Human Movement would be confused. Force plates are used to measure the interaction of the body with the ground (Ground Reaction Forces).
The 3-Dimensional forces (xyz direction) are measured.

The resultant magnitude-of-force at each foot (centers of pressure) is then expressed.

With this information we can (among other things) quantify how much force is being produced by each leg as well as when those shifts in CENTER-OF-PRESSURE occur.

Like most athletic movements, the batter’s FORCE PRODUCTION (not necessecaily batspeed, but usually) is primarily determined by how effectively he pushes against the ground.

Force production is usually expressed in Newtons or as a % of body weight .

This informantion is critcal to general performance analysis and to rehab patients. Specifically pitchers testing an injured knee/ankle/hip. If the injury is to the lead leg, he/she will work to get force at the lead-leg CENTER-OF-PRESSURE back to the pre-injury level.

NYMAN Wrote:
QUOTE
In my opinion COP doesn't add any more to the discussion than using the word weight.

Yeager:
And that is exactly why you cannot understand, explain, or communicate the swing or throwing process. The highest CENTER-OF-PRESSURE readings occur during the FRONT-LEG-BLOCK when pressures (force) equals up to and above 130% of total body weight on the front foot in upper level hitters.

Visit a university’s biomechanics lab and see for yourself. (most universities do not have elaborate motion analysis cameras, but most have force plates).

So I guess Paul will tell his studen, uh I mean people he talks to on the internet, to shift 130% of their weight (mass) to the front foot while keeping their weight (mass) back….?????????

COP measurements also tell us the direction of the force. For the right handed batter, force at the left foot can equal up to and above 300 Newtons of shear force in the positive X direction (towards the pitcher) and 290 Newtons of shear force in the negative Y direction (towards home plate).

Nyman:
QUOTE
As I said, while the word "weight" may not be scientifically correct (again depending upon context) with respect to describing how the transfer of momentum occurs, neither does COP.

Yeager:
Again the amount of force produced at the CENTER’S-OF-PRESSURE tell us a great deal about how much liner momentum is created by the back foot and how much force is BLOCKED and transferred into Rotational momentum by the BLOCKING-FORCE of the Lead leg.

We create Force and Momentum by Pushing against the Ground. The EARTH PUSHES BACK with an equal and opposite push.

Nyman:
QUOTE
With respect to COP having significant importance with respect to swinging in throwing, not unless you can "map" (translate) COP into something practical. In other words how does one use COP to develop a better swing? Specifically how does COP relate/translate to ballistic rotation? Other than using terminology as "verbiage" to promote some foolish pseudoscientific agenda.

Yeager
Your ignorance on display again. Based on your lack of knowledge of how linear momentum is translated into rotational momentum I would say that do not even know what ballistic means.

ssarge

04-18-2006, 03:09 AM

I'm pretty certain that most on this board read the entire thread at Shawn's site within hours of it being posted several months ago.

The above post kind of makes this look like a dialog.

It wasn't.

It was a core dump of Yeager on Nyman. Yeager took selective Nyman quotes and responded to them. He did this because he felt provoked by Nyman undertaking a similar endeavor on the Setpro site. Evisceration in both directions. But NOT a dialog.

I wasn't sure how to react, what to believe. My initial impression was basically validated by Steve when he posted extensively on the subject recently. Again as I think most on this board are aware.

1) I personally have NO IDEA how to use Yeager's data.

2) I firmly believe the use of the word "push" (prevalent in Yeager's materials) as a cue in ANY context when working w/ young hitters will be disasterous. And that anyone using it as a cue has probably not worked much with young hitters. I do recognize that Yeager is NOT providing cues, simply presenting his findings. But again, where to go from there?

"Apply another 10 lbs of force here," or "take another 0.003 seconds there" is NOT helpful.

It is data useful for theoretical swing models.

You have to be way smarter than me - many will tell you this is no big trick - to use his data in a manner that will actually help kids learn to hit.

Regards,

Scott

Steve Englishbey

04-18-2006, 03:53 AM

Uh Mr. Pro I think I allready described the uses-------and limitations -----of relatively simple biomechanical descriptions of the swing .

"Relatively simple " meaning relative to the the much more complex motor control and neuromuscular reality invoved in coordinating over 500 muscles creating powerful and efficient goal-driven movement in less than one second.

Please refrain from trying to make some kind of a point with that particular exchange.[Yeager vrs. Nyman] There is not much to be gained from reading that exchange.

I will say however that if you think that Yeager "won " the argument ,you are incorrect. I say this because I am quite sure that neither you nor Yeager have read the early setpro stuff [especially],which contains hundreds ,if not thousands of pgs. of stuff that is drawn from physics /biomechanics sources.[ As an aside I will also say that the implication of " the greater the ground reaction ,the greater the force production" would be interpreted by many to try to push harder off the back foot to stride and push harder against the ground when rotating ,and try harder to push down hard with the foot while swinging.Some would interpret this as meaning one should try to push harder against the ground to try to move the body mass with front leg.all of which is inconsistent with what I think needs to be understood and or done to create efficient movement in terms of swinging a bat.]

Having said above that I do not think Yeager "won" ,does not mean that I in any manner condone the manner in which Paul induced Yeager's rejoinding vitriole.I did not then and I do not now think this.

This is precisely why this citing of this "exchange" is not terribly productive in proving much of anything.

Now if you want to try and build a case as to how these parameters ,ie "ground force reaction ", cop/com measurements, segmental acceleration differentials, etc ., can be utilized to PREDICT or enhance the performance of individual hitters,and can do so consistently, then by all means ,make your case.

If you can demonstrate empirically ,that understanding these parameters is vital to my teaching a 12 year old how to create the motor control ,muscle action, and cognitive awareness necessary such that he/she can learn how to get his/her body to consistently do what it needs to do in order to create greater efficiency in swinging a bat, then ,by all means, show us the empirical proof that this kind of knowledge is highly relevant and effacacious in terms of teaching applications.

steve

swingbuster

04-18-2006, 04:47 AM

OBTW Josh Barfield, a Yeager student, made the ESPN HighLights with a HR last night. Not in the Nyman / Yeager debate...over my head but.....

Congrats Pupil and Student.

The force plate data , while maybe not specifically applicable in terms of numbers helped me know there was much more than horizontal connections at work. It gave me confidence that more shift was indicated and OK.

To coil , pick the foot up and put it back down is poison and I had a few kids doing that.

Sometimes a hard scientific fact helps to gain confidence in what you doing or your goal. Studying MLB swings where the back foot was dragging helps.

Nyman called it reactice torque and I was looking at it but I was seeing it from more of what happens to the back foot when the hips turn through which is good but not enough from the point of where did the weight go.

It was a piece of the puzzle that I was not seeing in a manner to better utilize it. It drove home the importance of shift or momentum transfer for me.

His comments on barrel loading gave me confidence that I was not all alone in that either. I had seen good results in some kids but needed some affirmation in that area too.

You pull out key points that help you coach from many people and move forward best you can with what you have to work with in terms of talent and commitment

Steve Englishbey

04-18-2006, 07:37 AM

"Sometimes a hard scientific fact helps to gain confidence in what you are doing or your goal."

I agree entirely with this statement.

For example Robert Adair's book "The Physics of Baseball " [specifically the chapter on hitting] is a book that I read before i came across setpro and his numbers on hand speed vrs. tip speed [and his rock on a rope analogy] was the first explanation that I felt I could really trust in terms of the role of things like momentum, the role of the arms, momentum transfer,etc.

The fact that he was a professor of physics ,and the fact that I knew he knew more than I did about the basic forces at play in swinging a bat allowed me to quite naturally defer to his expertise on a matter such as the cause of batspeed [ at least from a physics perspective ,not from a neuromuscular perspective].

And this had very important implications in terms of what I would teach thereafter. And how I tried to explain the swing.

I could have said ,"aw ,what the hell does some ivory tower type know about hitting.Hell he cant hit a damn curveball."

But I knew that as a teacher ,I knew that I needed to justify ,scrutinize , and legitimize what I was trying to convey.It was no longer about me hitting ,or me being a player.It was about what I needed to know as a teacher.

I knew I needed to somehow test what I thought ,and I knew that somehow I needed to get beyond just my opinion [or opinions that came from other baseball players.i knew none of those sources knew what Robert Adair knew about some very fundemental aspects of how batspeed is actually created .]

And so it has gone for the past 8 years: Force yourself to find sources which thoroughly test and scrutinize what you think you know .

And one of the most influential souces are the players themselves.

Aside from all the sports biomechanics sources that I constantly use to check myself if you will ,the players themselves, force the issue of really understanding what I think needs to be understood to really know this stuff and try to convey ideas clearly ,simply ,and accurately.

And this is ongoing.

steve

tom.guerry

04-18-2006, 12:16 PM

Siggy-

You have a great page/pages. I have not looked through it. OHIO made the comment that there was no weight on the back foot at contact in all the clips on your site. I expect sometimes there is. I find it highly unlikely you have specifically thought of posting only clips where ALL weight is off back foot.

Others-

I think it pays to "know it when you see it" (it being the high level mlb swing pattern) and this forum/the web IS a good medium for that which can be reasonably supplemented with other accessible materials and a lot of TIVO is good too.

To understand the high level swing and a really nice organizing framework, I would recommend getting Yeager's stuff.

My own model is broken into more phases which permits seeing the lower body dependency on upper body/arm action better as well as reconciling various sources better including accomodating/comparing motions from overhand throw and golf, but Yeager's works very well.

Barfield has a high level pattern that can be improved and yeager shows the improved swings.

Burroughs has a much poorer spin type pattern which also makes for good viewing.

As I have said, the authorities who are sticking to describing the high level swing (rather than losing sight of it in some "scientistic" haze like Nyman) are describing the high level swing,sometimes more objectively,sometimes more subjectively.

Yeager states that the primary flaw for Barfield is poor back arm/elbow slotting (see written analysis that comes with CD).This is asociated with not "finishing back leg push before front leg block begins".

Whether or not you like the "push" word, the point is that there is force production at the back foot that sends the body forward.

In terms of cause/effect, I would say that both the poor leg sequence AND the poor slotting action are coming mainly from a poor rear arm action sequence a little more upstream/earlier in the swing.

A good arm action sequence (better sequence seen in "after" clips,hands stay with back shoulder better) will demand better loading which means that coiling will continue longer with better dynamics (xfactor and xfactor stretch)
so that front foot blocking does not happen prematurely due (causally) to pushing/rushing with the back arm.

Mankin is the one who first pointed out how this back arm push as opposed to THT (which is necessary for high level swing) is the primary factor in improving the swing.

This is an excellent example of how better THT/arm action improves the high level pattern.
I will repeat,it will help to get yourself a swing review from mankin.

See also this thread which has the names of the related Nyman simulations (if you can find them) including the poorly interpreted one (#6) that supposedly proves tht (which NYman admits exists) can not be actively/consciously applied (highly dubious conclusion):

http://s6.invisionfree.com/Hitting/index.php?showtopic=305&st=45

Ohioteamz

04-18-2006, 01:24 PM

Mark H

04-18-2006, 08:07 PM

Mark H

04-18-2006, 08:17 PM

Evidence wise, Yeager's pressure plate studies of high level mlb swings show 16% body weight on back foot at contact.

Sure would be nice for someone to state PCR dogma clearly, either Nyman or Englishbey or some other version.

When it's someone else's stuff it's "dogma". When it's stuff we like, it's a high level swing description. Tom, you have had this stuff offered to you in person with demonstrations and discussion. There is an offer currently on the table for same. Take Steve up on his offer. He's funny and personable. Who knows, he might change your mind on something.

Mark H

04-18-2006, 08:45 PM

JJA,

My season theme...

1. weighless bat and more vertical hand set to slow hands to get separation

2. weight shift to get off back side

Results..priceless

How old are they and what level are they currently playing?

swingbuster

04-19-2006, 04:55 AM

How old are they and what level are they currently playing?

16-18

3A HS

Hit 21st HR yesterday in 22 games. 1 D-1 prospect

Mark H

04-19-2006, 07:16 AM

Siggy-

I think it pays to "know it when you see it" (it being the high level mlb swing pattern) ...

I think it pays to continue to question whether you "know it" by noticing when clilps posted by others refute your statements and beliefs.

tom.guerry

04-19-2006, 01:06 PM

Mark-

As I have said, I find the model I describe nearly ubiquitous in high level mlb swings, as close as possible to universal/absolute. Pick a clip and I will try to back this up with the same sort of approach as with the babe ruth clip analysis for wilson.While everyone does not the same style as the babe, they still use the same arm action sequence and the body synchs the same way for high level mlb swings. While slightly below the surface,this kinesiological sequence is easy to reconcile with surface appearance but is deep enough to be accurately refelective of the underlying function.

Video IS a great truth detector.

Video remains unavoidably subjective.

What is more important is below surface/functional, so much has to be inferred by small details whose interpretation depends on things like cause/effect/what is active what is passive,what is primary,or not.

What is still not clear to me is your position that the MLB swing should be considered the destination for the PCR approach.

The MLB whip pattern is quite different from the connected spin that PCR encourages.

Mark H

04-19-2006, 02:23 PM

Mark-

As I have said, I find the model I describe nearly ubiquitous in high level mlb swings, as close as possible to universal/absolute. Pick a clip and I will try to back this up with the same sort of approach as with the babe ruth clip analysis for wilson..

Find one of the clilps Ohfor presented that show tht. Find some teachings of Epstein that teach tht or arm action is king or getting off the backside.

Video IS a great truth detector..

Imperfect but important. Problem is, you look at a clip and see weathervaning and the front knee fanning open. I look at the same clip and don't.

Video remains unavoidably subjective..

Sometimes moreso than seems reasonable.

What is more important is below surface/functional, so much has to be inferred by small details whose interpretation depends on things like cause/effect/what is active what is passive,what is primary,or not..

You should have been a Supreme Court Justice finding penumbras.

What is still not clear to me is your position that the MLB swing should be considered the destination for the PCR approach..

Well, you could always meet Steve on a field for a one on one extended discussion and explanation as offered. Many pay good money for such and it is being offered to you, again, for free.

The MLB whip pattern is quite different from the connected spin that PCR encourages.

As you have stated, you really don't know what Steve teaches. What is your definition of spinning?

tom.guerry

04-19-2006, 02:59 PM

Epstein IS describing the high level MLB pattern pretty well.

When asked about Mankin/chp/tht,etc, what does he say ?

It's a perfect opportunity to bash Jack back to the middle ages, BUT what does Mike say- He says there is torrque and its similar to his scoop sand flat hands, but he thinks it is not simple enough or essential enough to use as part of instruction.

Pretty good answer.actual quote:

QUOTE

"I am not in position to comment on some other person’s interpretation of the baseball swing. Many I do not have knowledge of! It seems everyone has their own theory on what they believe is correct. However…

After all these years, I do not believe there are any stones that have been left unturned when it comes to hitting. As an example, rotational hitting has been around since the beginning of the last century. I have always maintained that I stand “on the shoulders” of many brilliant hitters and their experiences – and bring nothing “new” mechanically to the table. What I bring is the ability to TEACH what has heretofore been proven successful by the vast majority of major league hitters. While this may not seem like “much,” to some, my mentor, Ted Williams, thought it was an absolute “gift” to be able to get hitters to execute hitting’s correct movements while in the batters’ box. In his words, “Anyone who can get hitters to do this in days – what used to take many years to learn through emulation – has certainly got my attention.”

So, in my personal opinion, no one re-invents the wheel. What it seems like is, today, we merely ascribe different words and terminologies to information that is not “new.” Is this wrong – or bad? I don’t think so; I support anyone who understands the mechanics of rotational hitting, whether or not anything new is offered! This is certainly not out of disrespect to anyone or their offerings.

Ted Williams had it right more than 60 years ago when he said, “The hips lead the way,” “A hitter must swing LEVEL TO THE BALL,” and “The hitter must stay inside the ball.” Add to these pearls of wisdom is, “The bat MUST flatten out before launching the swing.”

What he was saying was the back elbow must tuck down and in when the swing is launched! For this to occur, the top hand moves rearward as the lower hand moves forward. Is this a move that TW thought had to be mastered? No, he didn’t. Rather, he said it was a natural response for the top hand to work underneath so the hitter’s swing could be “level to the ball.” Not level to the ground.

And, since this is physics – for “every action there is an equal and opposite reaction,” if the rear elbow must tuck down and in, the lead elbow must work up and away.

Today, a respected colleague has articulated this as “top hand torque.” That’s fine. However, it adds nothing new to what has already been introduced many years ago. BUT, perhaps the new terminology can help some others understand proper hand action as the swing launches. This is good.

The correct definition of “staying inside the ball” that TW alluded to is simply “the hands follow the rotating body around its axis.” Again, this colleague has labeled this, “bottom-hand torque.” Is it something that must be learned? No, it isn’t. It’s a natural response to the above definition.

Are these things something a hitter must consciously think about while at bat? They shouldn’t, because my personal opinion is that the more emphasis there is placed on the “hands,” the less correct a hitter’s lower body movements will be. My experience is the weaker hands are subservient to the larger, stronger muscle mass of the legs. This is where “torque” (the separation of the hitter’s upper and lower torsos enters the picture. This torque move, also known as the “kinetic link,” is the absolute “linchpin” of productive hitting (hips lead hands).

One of the reasons I do not advocate torquing the hands during the hitter’s pre-swing movements is because it can very easily (and often does!) lead to a “long swing,” where the barrel of the bat begins to point back at the pitcher. We do not teach this to amateur players at our Academy because of the difficulty they have “timing” pitches; the barrel of the bat has much further to go to contact. To me, “timing” is the name of the hitting game, not power. As a hitter, I would gladly trade a few extra feet on batted balls for consistently making hard contact.

In addition, when a hitter torques his hands (cocks his bottom wrist) at swing launch, one also sees a straightening of the lead elbow (“barring”). This sets up a false radius to the swing arc and makes it much more difficult to stay inside the ball. Sure, I see major league hitters do it, but having played the game at the major league level for nine years, I know it more “style” than “technique.” At the major league level, we always copy others’ styles.

Again, I admire those who have a propensity for helping hitters. We ALL get ahead through innovative and creative thinking and this must not stop if we are to improve. But please remember, physics is physics and this will not change. And, since hitting is physics, over the years we have exhausted every physical truth involved in the baseball swing. Adding new terminology does not change the swing, but hopefully may help some better understand the subtleties and nuances of this complicated – yet simple – function.

Gene Mauch, who died Monday, was one of the more insightful managers in the game. One of his favorites was, "You can't lead anyone else further than you have gone yourself."

See other post for some spinning comments.

I would prefer you pick a clip for me to analyze re universal arm/scap loading action.

ssarge

04-19-2006, 07:10 PM

And, since this is physics – for “every action there is an equal and opposite reaction,” if the rear elbow must tuck down and in, the lead elbow must work up and away.
Which I suppose is why my left hand shoots out straight behind my body when I throw with my right hand.

Regards,

Scott

Ohfor

04-19-2006, 07:11 PM

I'm proud of you Scott.:D

Steve Englishbey

04-19-2006, 08:58 PM

And to Scott's thoughts I would add here that the arm action in question has almost nothing to do with physics ,and almost everything to do with motor control and degrees of freedom.

There is no "equal and opposite " in this context.

It is much more about creating the kind of control ,stability ,and timing of the upper body action involved in creating [or not creating ] an efficient swingplane /swingpath.

JJA recently talked on Shawns website about the degrees of freedom with regards to simple hand movements.

When you add the degrees of freedom involved in other joints involved in moving the bat [upper body elbows,glenhumeral, scapula] this then complicates things enormously . There is no "equal and opposite" There is movement that essentially can go "chaotic" at any moment.

And is something that is much more problematic ----in terms of the relative precision that has to be involved in doing it well in a live context----than many fully understand and appreciate.

Those that "do it " or have tried to do it in a live context understand the inherent difficulties in consistently creating an efficient loading/unloading of the upper body and creating a consistently good swingplane /swingpath.

It would be nice if it was about "equal and opposite".

It is not.

steve

Mark H

04-19-2006, 10:01 PM

Epstein IS describing the high level MLB pattern pretty well.

You keep saying the sky is red but when I look up, it looks blue to me. This is a perfect example of why we think you are not being honest with us/yourself/the world or who knows who. Your statement above is just ludicrous to anyone who has seen Mike's tape. He doesn't teach jack squat about arm action except a ridiculous version of the old fence drill. He DARN sure doesn't teach something approximating your arm action is similar to throwing beliefs. Tom, given our history, it just pains me to say I cannot take you seriously in a hitting discussion.

tom.guerry

04-20-2006, 09:27 AM

I will work on analysis of Pujols from the oaffie in p. 2 of thread and then post here when time allows:

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=42190&page=2

Mark H

04-20-2006, 09:36 AM

But you aren't going to answer the above post directly?

Diamondboy

04-20-2006, 10:30 AM

Video IS a great truth detector.

Video remains unavoidably subjective.

What is more important is below surface/functional, so much has to be inferred by small details whose interpretation depends on things like cause/effect/what is active what is passive,what is primary,or not.

And how on God's green earth do you ascertain these "below surface/functional...small details" by sitting in front of a computer and refusing to meet on the field? I really, really want to know.

fungo22

04-20-2006, 07:58 PM

I will work on analysis of Pujols from the oaffie in p. 2 of thread and then post here when time allows

Would you mind doing it so we can understand it?

tom.guerry

04-20-2006, 10:25 PM

from the oaffie pujols clip:
http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=42190&page=2

45 frames beginning to contact at 60 fps.
Stance/setup is "preloaded" in a sense that the hands are held up and back with back shoulder/scap elevated.(NOT preloaded in sense of most of weight being on back foot - weight ie evenly distributed on feet).

Upper and lower body are matched in the sense that knees and stance are well spread.

Back foot is pigeon toed in with back leg internally rotated in hip socket.

Weight forward with belly button about centered and head slightly ahead of center line/midpoint between weight bearing portions of feet.

1-inward turn to hip cock - bends at waist,turns/coils back with hip leading,internally rotates back arm and lead leg together.lifts front foot,establishes offcenter balance,hands come down,bat coks vertically. Hip is coked at about point where toe touches after stride foot lifts.If we call contact frame 0, this would be about frame -23 (23 frames before contact).Hips coil/turn back ward during this time.

2- hand cok - bat cocks toward pitcher,back elbow elevates and extends.back scap pinches some.weight goes forward faster,hips stop turning back,shoulders turn back to max.Reaches punching position about frame - 16.

3-wind rubber band - synchronized external rotation of back arm and lead leg. Hands start "up and over" move,front knee turns open ahead of hips which turn ahead of back leg.then lead arm and back leg start internal rotation. this arm action uncoks/starts the bat accelerating back toward catcher which keeps shoulders/hands back.This starts by frame -15.weight continues forward and down."PRElaunchTHT". bat turns NOT due to shoulder action,but due to arm action.

4- drop and tilt - starts by frame -11 when the shoulders begin to tilt which resists/keeps them from opening with the hips and keeps the hands back.This is what mankin calls "tht at launch". AT the end of this phase torque/separation is maxed out and bathead is ready to fire/launch into swing plane which can be adjusted up until the end of drop and tilt.Drop and tilt ends/"swing" begins at about frame - 7.lead arm finishes internally rotating and connection is established as shoulders finish tilting with more acceration/uncoking of bat.head finishes forward progress/getting axis upright for high ball in this case.This is point of max separation/where Epstein would measure "torque angle" for example.xfactor stretch created here.Still weight on back foot at beginning of this phase.Hip/middle action includes "projection" as shoulders tilt while hips boost to max turning momentum by transformation of linear weight shift with front leg blocking.

5-swing - 7 frames from launch to contact (top mlb hitters in general are less than 4 frames per second launch to contact at 30 frames per second).good front leg extension by contact.shoulders turn to contact.wrists unhinge in last frame or two before contact,etc.

Jevan

04-20-2006, 11:57 PM

This is painful.

Did anyone try to understand this? Why? So what?

fungo22

04-21-2006, 12:26 AM

It is painful, but I actually think he has at least made an effort to communicate something. I think I can actually understand what he's trying to say. The pictures help. And there's no digression into golf or throwing and no references to Epstein, Mankin or Harpo Marx. At the very least, this will help us understand what he is trying to say.

Thanks, Tom. But Pujols admittedly is the classic example of some of the stuff you advocate. The real test is your analysis of some of those whose "universal arm action" is allegedly "below the surface."

DanC

04-21-2006, 12:39 AM

Well I kinda just scanned it but it looks to me like Tom believes Pujols takes about 8 frames at 60 fps or about 4 frames at 30 fps to go from arm action is king that starts accelerating the barrel backwards (frame -15) until the actual swing starts at (frame -7). :confused:

That sound about right?

tom.guerry

04-21-2006, 08:22 AM

The under the surface kinesiological sequence can be figured out becasue the hands are attached to the bat and the tip of the bat accentuates even the smallest action.The way the bat coks and uncocks (also way knob turns which is harder to see,but easier to "feel" SHOULD be the result of the "universal arm action sequence" below the surface and the way the arms SYnch with the lower limbs.

Sequence is near universal, just as it is in throwing.

Internal rotation,abduction/extension,external rotation of back arm for example.

Synched external rotation of back arm and lead leg for example.

I picked PUjols as an oaffie example of someone who supposedly does not conform, not as someone who does.

Ruth also conforms.

Care to pick someone else ?

tom.guerry

04-22-2006, 01:47 PM

I'll try to wrap up this brief summary with the promised summary/reconciliation of gurus,authorities and pandits.

I would start with who I consider the most important pioneers describing the "high level mlb swing", Williams and Lau Sr.

Interpreters make much of their differences, but the similarities are far more prevalent. They are both describing the SAME basic mechanical pattern.For political and personal and marketing purposes, te diferences are accentuated and the value of each diminished by uninformed/disrespectful characterizationsa such as back foot spinner (Lau descrition of Williams result) or "front foot lunger" (Williams descrption of Lau result).

Williams described things more from the perspective of a perfomer. Lau from the perspective of an analyst. A key finding of Lau was how similar players looked at "launch". His initial poster boy was aaron, but he was unable to realy figure out how aaron executed his short belly-up swing, and eventually Lau settled on the Brett model. I would suggest that Lau's rudimentary understanding of a good handpath as "lead arm extension/top hand release" was key to getting things to work. His initial focus was weight shift and he ended up calling his method "weight shift and extension". His foremost interpreter has been, of course, Lau Jr, but Dixon and Peavy have also been important more recently.

Williams and his foremost current interpreter, Epstein together describe the belly-up version of the high level swing (Explain more what aaron was actually doing) as opposed to the Lau off the plate/Brett version (different ends of spectrum).

So I would recommend thinking of Epstein as emphasizing key points that relate to belly-up/short swing radius style whereas Lau et al are emphasizing things that go with the longer swing radius style.

Epstein says look in OR out,then adjust up/down on fly. There is not as much emphasis on forward weight shift.

Lau/Jr. always get the axis upright with emphasis on forward weight shift,then recommend adjusting in/out by degree of weight shift to front leg/timing of front leg firm-up/extension.Both Jr and Epstein get into more "arm action" details than the originals, not a lot.

Lau Sr. and Williams both made fairly frequent references to the golf motion as being similar.More recent intepreters have not emphasized this crossover, BUT pointing out the similarity between hitting and the overhand throw has become quite popular (Epstein,Hodge,Nyman,Dixon,for example).

I would speculate that the golf reference was more important in the Williams/Lau Sr. era because golf had focussed on instruction and research for many years including the use of videoanalysis techniques that could work for baseball (lau was probably the first huge user of video in baseball) BUT also because the "classic" golf swing of their era WAS very similar to the high level hittingpattern. Since then the golf swing has evolved due primarily to the change in equipment,especially the metal shaft, and it has become less and less like hitting.

It is still worthwhile,however, to study the classic golf swing as it is described by Bobby Jones. He was the first great sports analyst with broad deep knowledge of all aspects of the game and a later focus on highspeedvideoanalysis and teaching. The basic principles he developed still apply directly to hitting such as the exsitence of a universal mechanical pattern/series of patterns and how the high level pattern is best taught.

More specifically,there are concpets and portions of the golf mechanical pattern that carry over directly to hitting such as ho weight shift synchs with the mechanical sequence and how swing plane is developed and adjusted.

As compared to the classic golf swing, the hitting swing needs to be shorter and quicker and adjustable on the fly, but there are still many important essentials in common.Both motiosna are best thought of as a "swing", a simple back and forth motion that is repeatable.The classic golf swing and the hitting swing both emphasize "hips and hands" where and active back and forth hip turn and a full "arm load" optimize swing timing and clubhead control. This is unlike the more modern golf swing where distance and error prediction are much more important and are produced by minimal backward hip turn and minimal arm load are combined with maximum sepration between hips and shoulders.The hitting swing is best thought of as a modification of the classic golf swing when making a useful comparison.

So as we move on to the next generation authorities, the emphhasis has switched to the similarity between throwing and hitting.Dixon went along the path of trying to better understand Lau Sr. whose hitting info was a big success for Dixon. The hardest thing for Dixon to figure out was what Lau Sr. meant by "weight shift". In exploring this, Dixon found that it was necessary to study throwing and hitting in depth becasue studying one helped undertsand the ither becasue they were so similar. Dixon also recognized the same series of developmental patterns that Jones had recognized in golf learners (Dixon makes no mention of golf). he called them pull, spin, and whip. H thought of throwing and hitting as identical except for arm action and highlighted arm action in hiitng about the same as Lau eventually did.Dixon retained the "SHIFT" word in his system and described the throwing and hitting motions as having the same 3 basic phases;

1 SHIFT to travel (same as negative move/"coking hip")
2 SHIFT to explode (positve move up to about toe touch)
3 Explode.

At the same time,Nyman was concentrating especially on understanding the throwing motion. His general approach and specific throwing model were a HUGE advance permitting a much better understanding of how throwing and hitting related.

Hodge at the same time reached his conclusions about arm action sequence/details and upper/lower body synchronization as well as some emphasis on similarity to hitting.

At about the same time, mankin was doing his studies coming to the coclusions about the swing consisting of a torque and rotational component with arm action as king and the importance of good "transfer mechanics".

Studying these sources togteher and seeinghow they fit can produce mani insights into how to analyze and teach hititng.

Videoanalysis is very important and Yeager and Mankin have good approaches to study. Skilltechnologies/Zig Zigler and Peavy are big motionanalysis users if you are interested.Slaught has a good video comparison tool as well.
All thesa nd other sources have important pieces of the puzzle that can be of benefit if you try to figure out how they fit for you and your students.