One constant in the hitting arguments....

[Paulypal]

It just seems everyone - for the most part - agree fully or atleast in part with Yeager.

[tom.guerry]

not Nyman.
He spent quite a few hours/videos trying to discredit Yeager as just another crackpot like Mankin.

May have backfired a little, though.

Yeager's critique of Nyman was pretty devastating and dead on.

[FiveFrameSwing]

not Nyman.
He spent quite a few hours/videos trying to discredit Yeager as just another crackpot like Mankin.

May have backfired a little, though.

Yeager's critique of Nyman was pretty devastating and dead on.

I'd be interesting in reading Nyman's analysis of Yeager as well as Yeager's analysis of Nyman. Do you have a link to this, or a summary of each others points?

[Paulypal]

I'd be interesting in reading Nyman's analysis of Yeager as well as Yeager's analysis of Nyman. Do you have a link to this, or a summary of each others points?


I guess I just dont understand all the Us against them stuff on the board. Seems to be Nyman/Setpro/Englishbey against Epstein/and some Yeager..

Every hitting post goes into a post by post battle of who is right, and
to be honest it completely waters down every thread on hitting, and makes it uneducational. The threads get hijacked with personal agenda's. I feel like I am watching TV at the end of October when the political advertisements plague the networks. Never about how good I am going to do, just about how much the other guy $ucks$.

Personally I am just looking for good information. There are enough people here with info but it gets completley lost in the back biting.

[FiveFrameSwing]

Personally I am just looking for good information.



I believe there are many of us here with that same common interest.

My advice to you is to adopt a philosophy of “trust, but verify”.

Trust that the material that is being posted on this message board is done so with good intent, but verify that it is correct.

We have several well-intended members. Despite that, don’t forget the verification stage before employing their recommendations.

In the end, you are accountable for what you teach. The competitive nature of this game gives us all a desire to teach what we believe to be most appropriate.

[Jake Patterson]

I guess I just dont understand all the Us against them stuff on the board. Seems to be Nyman/Setpro/Englishbey against Epstein/and some Yeager..

Every hitting post goes into a post by post battle of who is right, and
to be honest it completely waters down every thread on hitting, and makes it uneducational. The threads get hijacked with personal agenda's. I feel like I am watching TV at the end of October when the political advertisements plague the networks. Never about how good I am going to do, just about how much the other guy $ucks$.

Personally I am just looking for good information. There are enough people here with info but it gets completley lost in the back biting.

I agree. I find it self-serving and it brings little value to the table. I also agree with Five - at the end day you are responsible for what you teach.

[cosmo34]

Personally I am just looking for good information. There are enough people here with info but it gets completley lost in the back biting.


:applaud: :applaud: :applaud: :applaud: :applaud:

[Stealth]

The problem is there are many people here who like Steve E - and that is fine. However what many people don't know is that if you diasagree with him you you get banned from his site even though you paid the $150 for his dvd's. Doesn't anyone see a problem with this? Jake?

[Jake Patterson]

The problem is there are many people here who like Steve E - and that is fine. However what many people don't know is that if you diasagree with him you you get banned from his site even though you paid the $150 for his dvd's. Doesn't anyone see a problem with this? Jake?
People have confused me with something I am not. First I do not participate on Steve's site. I bought his tapes and I feel there is some great stuff, especially when teaching youngsters. I also have Epstein's, William, Lau, Hriniak, Ermansky and others. I take what I can use and shelve the rest. The same thing everyone else here should be doing. I do not have an in on Steve's site what he does there is his business and not something that should be discussed here or occupy my time. Steve has treated me well and he has always gone out of his way to help me. The same way many others here have to include Chris, Dave Weaver, Freddy, Mike Marshall, and many others.

The discussion here should be about techniques and methods not what someone happens to be doing on another site. What amazes me is how much effort people put into this particular discussion, much of it self-serving. This isn't life and death- it's baseball!

I really question how much coaching experience many who post here have. If they had the experience they claim they have they would understand that teaching and learning is a dynamic process that requires different techniques for different players and constant adjustment.

PCR- no PCR -connected - disconnect- who cares? all the book work and discussion here matters not. What matters is whether or not you can effectively teach a young player how to hit the ball.

[Stealth]

People have confused me with something I am not. First I do not participate on Steve's site. I bought his tapes and I feel there is some great stuff, especially when teaching youngsters. I also have Epstein's, William, Lau, Hriniak, Ermansky and others. I take what I can use and shelve the rest. The same thing everyone else here should be doing. I do not have an in on Steve's site what he does there is his business and not something that should be discussed here or occupy my time. Steve has treated me well and he has always gone out of his way to help me. The same way many others here have to include Chris, Dave Weaver, Freddy, Mike Marshall, and many others.

The discussion here should be about techniques and methods not what someone happens to be doing on another site. What amazes me is how much effort people put into this particular discussion, much of it self-serving. This isn't life and death- it's baseball!

I really question how much coaching experience many who post here have. If they had the experience they claim they have they would understand that teaching and learning is a dynamic process that requires different techniques for different players and constant adjustment.

PCR- no PCR -connected - disconnect- who cares? all the book work and discussion here matters not. What matters is whether or not you can effectively teach a young player how to hit the ball.

Jake - all I am saying is that many people on this site (which you are the moderator of) steer people toward Steve (you included) and he often bans people who disagree with him.

The question wasn't just for you - does anyone else have a problem with it? The people who might buy his material need to know this information IMHO.

I really question how much coaching experience many who post here have.

If you are interested in my experience send me a PM.

[chesspirate]

and i'm sure i can construct my own HBH from pvc pipe and some rope...

[swingbuilder]

Might as well when your swinging PVC!

[Jake Patterson]

The question wasn't just for you - does anyone else have a problem with it? The people who might buy his material need to know this information IMHO.
BBF is not the site that discusses the effectiveness and rules of other sites. Bring that somewhere else. Maybe what happened is what's happening here. Each site has a set of rules. For the sake of learning I try to be as loose with those rules as I can, but at some point I have to edit posts, clean up threads or ban forumers when those rules are constantly broken. I don't know what the problem is, nor do I care. Again, you should bring that up with Steve.

Stealth,
If you feel a need to discuss further PM me.
Jake

[Go Cardinals]

BBF is not the site that discusses the effectiveness and rules of other sites. Bring that somewhere else. Maybe what happened is what's happening here. Each site has a set of rules. For the sake of learning I try to be as loose with those rules as I can, but at some point I have to edit posts, clean up threads or ban forumers when those rules are constantly broken. I don't know what the problem is, nor do I care. Again, you should bring that up with Steve.

Stealth,
If you feel a need to discuss further PM me.
Jake

I think steve listens more to people than some people think. I'm sure stealth that steve has pmed you....

[Steve Englishbey]

Quote from "Stealth ":

"The problem is there are many people here who like Steve E - and that is fine. However what many people don't know is that if you diasagree with him you you get banned from his site even though you paid the $150 for his dvd's. Doesn't anyone see a problem with this? Jake?"

Yes indeed I see a problem with the above statement.

What I see is a very willful and deliberate attemptby you ****** to distort the actual facts of the situation .

Point one : I do have the right to either allow onto my site ,or remove from my site anyone that I want to .

And there have been numerous people who I have let on my website without having bought anything from me [And "swingbuilder" would be one of these people.]


And there have been approximately 10 people who I have removed from my website .

And those 10 people share a common "characteristic" .

They are all on a particular website who's "owner" has gone about doing as much as he possibly can do to thoroughly and intentionally "pervert" the information that comes from me or my website .Or from Paul Nyman and Setpro .

And by thoroughly and intentionally I mean that there are wellover 1000 posts from this single individual with content that ranges from "Pcr is all about pulling with front shoulder " [which is utter nonsense] to comments on apublic board in which he stated that he would "orgasm " if one of the daughters of a member on my website ,fails to hit well in college .

A guy who in the "steve vrsBonds "comparison uses my swing there to allege that "this is what Pcr teaches ."

When infact ---and as stated on this website ----- that swing was within a teaching context .That swing ---as stated onthis website has absolutely nothing to do with what I teach .

Does this individual know the actual context of the "steve vrs Bonds "comparison ?

Of course he does .

I could go on .And on .And on .As regards to what amounts to --by any rational and reasonable behavior ---as pathological behavior as regards this individual .

His nearly every utterance as regards "what is pcr" ,or about PaulNyman ,or about me ,I look at and say "what inthe hell are you talking about ?"

Meaning that his 1000 or so posts I see as some combination of sheer ignorance about the content at setpro and my site .That combined with a real intent of malice as regards intentionally "perverting "the information at setpro or my website .


From my perspective as a teacher of my information ------which IS the MAIN purpose of my website ,ie the website exists so as to promote and convey "what ,why and how I teach "----------from this perspective those who are on this individuals website ,have absolutley no hope of understanding my information .

How inthe hell could they ?

And from my perspective ,based on the above ---just a tiny glimpse into the pathology of this individual [an individual who has been banned no less than 15 times from various websites ]------the question becomes :

"Why in the hell would I want guys on my website who are on his website ."

Or my question would be "why inthe hell do you want to be on my website ,when infact you are on a website who owners MAIN focus in life it appears is to find ways to "pervert "the information that comes from myself or PaulNyman?"

Or the question would be "if you "stealth[for ex.] cannot see and understand this" perversion " and this pathology ,then how in the world do you think you can "get "my information ?

Does Stealth NOT know my sentiments on this matter?

Of course he does .

Because I talked to him about this numerous times about this .

And I did eventually totally remove him from my website.

And I TOLD HIM TO SEND ME THE DVDS BACK AND I WOULD SENT HIM HIS MONEY BACK .

And I also told him if he stayed off this particular website that I would meet him in northern Ca.[I was in his are to hit with the Nor Cal baseballgroup ]and hit with his son.

Is this to be considered some kind of imposed and authoritarian "quid pro quo?"

Well I hardly think so .From my perspective its simple ---show me some indication that you are REALLY interested in my stuff.

Hanging at this other website would not be indicative of being really interested in my stuff .Seeing that the owner does nothing but "pervert " my material ,how inthe world do you think that this website helps you understand my stuff?

And this particular situation is vastly different than being at ,for example epsteins site ,or Jack Mankin,or Dave Hudgens ,etc etal.

These guys and these sites do not spend most of their waking hours thinking of "orgasms " over Pcr hitters failing .

I would certainly advocate being on my site more than others----if you really want to understand my stuff .

However ,there has been no one removed from my site ,who is also at these "legitimate " hitting sites.

Finally ,as far as me banning people for "disagreeing " with me on my website ,this is the kind of statement that I look at .............in a kind of bemused manner.

There is absolutely no evidence on my website to suggest that this is an accurate statement.

There is a requirement that you atleast have the semblance of an an argument or thoughts that have some rational basis to them .

For example if you want to talk about the "hands "in the swing ,one cannot continue to argue in ways that is TOTALLY at oods with basic functional anatomy .

Meaning that the hands ---by themselves cannot move a bat thru space ----it will take some combination of the muscles of the wrist, elbow ,shoulder ,scapula [some potential 27 muscles and 5 joints --of one arm ] to move thearm and bat .

This example is one that applies to stealth ---and his insistence that the "hands " play a big role in the swing .

Indeed they do .Without the hands you could not hold onto the bat.

Beyond that any movement ,of the bat will be the result of other body parts creating the energy and movement .

To this day ,it appears that "stealth "does not undersand this basic fact as to" how the body works."

And to this day it appears that he is mad at me for not allowing on my website his ascribing to the "hands" ,functions it is physically impossible for them to perform .

It can hardly be argued that this is my rule that I am imposing on the audience at my website .

No ,its just basic functional anatomy .

Any doubts to this ,simply try --the next time you reach for a cup of coffee ---do not move ANYTHING BUT THE HAND.

See how far you can reach Stealth .

And be sure to PM the results to "those interested ."

steve

[Stealth]

Steve - We disagree who cares? My point I wanted to make is that if you spend $150 for your dvd's it is POSSIBLE you will be banned from your website if you end up disagreeing with your viewpoint. You have that right. BUT - people need to know this before they shell out $150. End of story.

[FiveFrameSwing]

Point one : I do have the right to either allow onto my site ,or remove from my site anyone that I want to .

And there have been numerous people who I have let on my website without having bought anything from me [And "swingbuilder" would be one of these people.]


And there have been approximately 10 people who I have removed from my website .

And those 10 people share a common "characteristic" .

They are all on a particular website who's "owner" has gone about doing as much as he possibly can do to thoroughly and intentionally "pervert" the information that comes from me or my website .Or from Paul Nyman and Setpro .




If I understand this correctly, access to your web site has the criteria that participants are not allowed to visit another particular web site.

I hope I have that wrong. Because that would be truly sad.

For starters, few actually care about your beef with someone else. They are interested in advancing their knowledge on the topic of hitting. They wade through the nonsense. Should they learn something useful and verify it to be correct, then they will use that information. They could care less about a particular feud.

I can understand you banning individuals from your web site for posting ill of you on your particular web site. That would of course be wrong. But for you to monitor their involvement on other forums, and ban them participating in other forums, is a bit over the top.

I certainly hope I have that incorrect.

[FiveFrameSwing]

Hanging at this other website would not be indicative of being really interested in my stuff .Seeing that the owner does nothing but "pervert " my material ,how inthe world do you think that this website helps you understand my stuff?


People don't care about a particular feud. It's nothing but a distraction to them, and perhaps to some it may be an amusement factor, but certainly not something that consumes their interest.

Look at it this way.

Someone looking at some else's site for hitting information could return to your site with more questions. Since you believe you have the best information, you could help them gain further insight. In the end, they end up understanding your material even better. I sincerely believe that's what you want.

I certainly mean no disrespect, but I think you should reconsider your banning of people. A good hitter works on what they can control. You certainly can control your web site. However, you can not control other people visiting other web sites. Neither should that be of interest to you. It would be a diversion of your time.

[tominct]

Jake - all I am saying is that many people on this site (which you are the moderator of) steer people toward Steve (you included) and he often bans people who disagree with him.


What, exactly, is it that people disagree with? I think Epstein talks about torque and that, and Steve doesn't, but other than that, what does one have to disagree with Steve about?

[tominct]

If I understand this correctly, access to your web site has the criteria that participants are not allowed to visit another particular web site.

I hope I have that wrong. Because that would be truly sad.



Let me get this straight, the President of the United States can require LOYALTY OATHS from people who attend rallies on public property and the American people are NOT taking to the streets, pitchforks and torches in hand, but some guy goes on a website and gets banned for constantly arguing with the guy who owns the site and we are all in a tizzy about it? Hmmm, perhaps we need a reality check here.

[tominct]

Steve - We disagree who cares?

Well, do you disagree because you THINK you are right, or because you have measurable data that supports your view. Sounds like "truthiness" to me.

You can disagree with me about some things, lets say, the moon landings for instance, some folks don't think they happened. Now if you were one of these enlightened folks, I would ask for your evidence, that would of course have to outweigh my evidence (moonrocks, etc). And you would have none. Bingo, I win.

Just becasue you BELIEVE you are right, you have that GUT feeling of truth (See Steve Cobert and "truthiness"), doesn't mean diddly.

Show me the money!

[Paulypal]

I guess I just dont understand all the Us against them stuff on the board. Seems to be Nyman/Setpro/Englishbey against Epstein/and some Yeager..

Every hitting post goes into a post by post battle of who is right, and
to be honest it completely waters down every thread on hitting, and makes it uneducational. The threads get hijacked with personal agenda's. I feel like I am watching TV at the end of October when the political advertisements plague the networks. Never about how good I am going to do, just about how much the other guy $ucks$.

Personally I am just looking for good information. There are enough people here with info but it gets completley lost in the back biting.

Fairly narcisstic quoting yourself, but this thread proves my original point.

[Encinitas]

What, exactly, is it that people disagree with? I think Epstein talks about torque and that, and Steve doesn't, but other than that, what does one have to disagree with Steve about?

Tom you merely need to scroll through BBF threads and see where the post count goes over 100 and you are likely to see all the arguments. There are serious and substantial disagreements that have been covered over and over.

[Paulypal]

Let me get this straight, the President of the United States can require LOYALTY OATHS from people who attend rallies on public property and the American people are NOT taking to the streets, pitchforks and torches in hand, but some guy goes on a website and gets banned for constantly arguing with the guy who owns the site and we are all in a tizzy about it? Hmmm, perhaps we need a reality check here.

Be careful Tom. Some were booted just for posting on HittingIllustrated. With no beef against anyone. Just for showing up.

I still dont have a beef with anyone.

Hitting is a lot easier than dealing with the ******* from the supposed experts thats for damn sure.

[Jake Patterson]

My point I wanted to make is that if you spend $150 for your dvd's it is POSSIBLE you will be banned from your website if you end up disagreeing with your viewpoint. You have that right.
Stealth - this is no different than any moderated site, especially those that charge. To assume it otherwise is just foolish.

[Paulypal]

Stealth - this is no different than any moderated site, especially those that charge. To assume it otherwise is just foolish.

I have no problem with someone getting banned from a site no matter what they spend...as long as he/she is really being a pain.

With the way the stuff goes back and forth here I can see bannings taking place.

[swingbuilder]

the next time you reach for a cup of coffee ---do not move ANYTHING BUT THE HAND.

See how far you can reach Stealth

Key word here is "Reach" again an arm issue and not a hand issue.

True, Steve sent me his DVD set. He asked that I not let anyone know that he gave them to me (which I haven't done) and he also asked that I not forward them along to anyone else (which I haven't done).

I will add here that I have watched his DVD"s over 100 times. Its the only DVD I watch when I travel on a plane. Something I have done 5 days a week since Feb. 1.

He also allowed me on his site where I got involved in a few discussions about the Hands among other topics. He removed me from his site then warned me to not bring up any issue with the Hands again. "which I said to him that I would honor his request" He then told me that I was removed because of my association with Teacherman.

He later said he would allow me to return to his site. I declinded because of the very reason he mentions above. While I like Steve and I also like his passion for hitting and teaching it. I do believe the hands to have more than a passive fancy when it comes to the swing. So there really is no need for me to be there when he, in my opinion, has left out an important "Driver" of the swing.

I do not agree with "hold the Hinge to Unhinge". Thats my choice, just like it is his choice to believe it.

I do not agree that a large % of hitters can "efficently" TURN THE BARREL, by just turning the body. Sure they can become more efficient at turning the body which aids in the swing. Its just not the end to the means. You can throw all the anatomy and kinsiology and any other engineered scientific mumbo jumbo my way all you want. The hands have more value than hold onto the bat. Some of the greatest hitters of all time did not and or do not stay connected on all swings. As I have said and I believe "The HANDS and the HIPS DRIVE (Chauffer) the swing. Being a good hitter is much much more than just being an efficient turner of the body. Bat control and hitability are more closely related to adjustability and that adjsutability is much easier to attain with the proper use of the two ends of the spectrum. That being the Hands and The Hips and not solely the Hips.

Steve has done a tremendous amount of research. Most of it physically (swing the bat) and a large amount of reading research. Its his website so he can do as he pleases. He just looses site that Teacherman is not the only one who spends all their time trying to discredit beliefs. Steve's group of Soliders(his backbone supporters on his website DO SPEND A GREAT DEAL OF THEIR TIME TRYING TO DISCREDIT OTHER BELIEFS.

[Jake Patterson]

Steve has done a tremendous amount of research. Most of it physically (swing the bat) and a large amount of reading research. Its his website so he can do as he pleases. He just looses site that Teacherman is not the only one who spends all their time trying to discredit beliefs. Steve's group of Soliders(his backbone supporters on his website DO SPEND A GREAT DEAL OF THEIR TIME TRYING TO DISCREDIT OTHER BELIEFS.
Is this not childish for anyone who does this? Swing- we know when this all started. And frankly I thought it would die a natural death- apparently not. Are people's lives so boring that this is all they have?? I can understand those that do this for a living, but some of the others is just sad. Take half the time you (I mean anyone who engages in this either here or elsewhere on a daily basis) and go teach a kid. Donate you time to your local LL or Legion program. You would be better serving young players than bantering about all the nit-noid things that go into a swing. On the scale of things it brings no value to furthering the game, especially when young players are involved.

[LClifton]

For example if you want to talk about the "hands "in the swing ,one cannot continue to argue in ways that is TOTALLY at oods with basic functional anatomy .
Totally at odds with functional anatomy. True.

The hands are controlled by other muscles and joints, was stated, but not true, from a neurological standpoint, they are controlled by the brain first, so you can not, "rationally" argue that the hands are controlled by 27 muscles and 5 joints, even though one may state that, something "upstream" happens first. So, if / since there is a "need to be right" one must start with the function that takes place first.

The point I'm making is that you can make the process much, much, more difficult than is necessary.
Have AN understanding of movement, then communicate with your hitters.
Trial and error as you move closer to "good", monitoring success along the way.
IMO, no trial and error should be exclusive of "Yes, that's right" moments.

Meaning that the hands ---by themselves cannot move a bat thru space ----it will take some combination of the muscles of the wrist, elbow ,shoulder ,scapula [some potential 27 muscles and 5 joints --of one arm ] to move thearm and bat .
One main reason that the hands are referenced is because of the feel, the sense, in the hands.

The hands have some of the densest nerve endings found in the entire body. The part of the brain that controls all body movement has 1/4 of its "hard drive" dedicated to the movements / articulations of the hand.
The muscles and joints "upstream" (if you will) of the hands are a distraction, by some, to "pervert", or deem nil, or make more complicated, the way the hands DO ultimately move / are moved.

In a general sense,
It may be easier to say "move the hands" as opposed to be consumed with exactly how they move. Not many are interested in that shinola. But, according to some, should be.
In a logical sense, if you asked someone to hand you something, they would reach over, pick it up, and hand it to you. (no thought as to what engages first to "reach out" and pick something up)
Form following unconscious function.
If, however I ask them to pick that same object up differently, (changing the form) they would be more focused on the form ---attempting to do it the way I asked.
The function will always be first but in this case --the form would be the focus while the 'learning by the body'-- to function that way-- is ingrained..

Working thru change can be form related, in which the body learns to function to carry out the form ----"better". While the body learns to function differently the form is not so whippy.
Once the body ingrains the form the function becomes more "stable",,,
In a hitting sense it is more powerful, quicker, etc.
This is one of the ways humans learn.

The "contibutors" to hand movement are, in fact, dictated by things other than the hands, but because of the hands "sensors", it is most assuredly "felt" in these two "things" that "only grip the bat".

The wrist is included as part of the hand (in definitions of the hand) and it most certainly is not void of movement.

Which by the way, in the technical sense as illustrated above by Mr. Englishbey, the hands really can't just grip (just hold onto the bat)---without the assist, engagement, from other muscles, so to say they just grip the bat is wrong. Technically, the hands can't grip, they are put into a 'gripping' state. So they really can't "just grip the bat" anymore than they can move a bat thru space.

See how silly it gets?

Try to pick up that object off your desk.
Did anyone know that your brain kicked in the supporting functions necessary to move your shoulder / arm / hand to that object? Of course you did.
So saying that their only function is to grip the bat is misleading because the move starts neurologically. Technically speaking.

See how silly it gets?

Not an attempt to look smart (I'm not), and I have no agenda, no website, no product, no DVD (no one would by it anyway)...just an attempt to put the record straight that no matter what you say, how you say it, depending on what camp you're from ---the "other side" will find fault. This is accurate.
And not many care.

That said ---you could ignore the hands.

If / since they are capable (by their sensory capacity, to name one) of feeling movements AND ARE MOVED to assist in the squaring of bat to ball----then allow the body to "listen" to them. (one approach)
OR.....
Hold with them, and turn.
They will do what they need to do? (That is an approach too)

Either way, it is not worth the heartache as to who is "MORE" right.

Suffice to say that it is not the hands that cause much grief,
it is the left pinky toe and the way it moves. :) :) :)...
.Always a concern :).
Get that toe right and much good will happen. :)
More Silliness.

Stay with what you do Steve. You provide goods and services.
Keep certain things private,
It may just turn out to be the best way after seeing all this ----
dare I say----hatred.
No time for it personally, no benefit in arguing / debating.

Continued success to all ---

[swingbuilder]

Jake...Don't forget that they once were all in the same Army.

[tominct]

Tom you merely need to scroll through BBF threads and see where the post count goes over 100 and you are likely to see all the arguments. There are serious and substantial disagreements that have been covered over and over.

I have read just about every post on this board, and have dismissed most. I'm firmly in Steve's camp, the science and the math add up, and I think what he teaches is well substantiated when looking at high level swings. I coach young folks generally, 6-10 and 14-15, and nearly all of them have such diffiencies in their swings that to haggle over BHT or such things, I think is silly, at my level. Posture alone is a challenge for many of them, even the older ones.

Therefore, perhaps I am not "there yet," and perhaps I won't ever be in terms of hitting.

Anyway, my kid wants to pitch. :dismay: HIs little brother on the other hand, couldn't care less if he ever plays defense..."I just want to hit Daddy!":cool:

[tominct]

He later said he would allow me to return to his site. I declinded because of the very reason he mentions above. While I like Steve and I also like his passion for hitting and teaching it. I do believe the hands to have more than a passive fancy when it comes to the swing. So there really is no need for me to be there when he, in my opinion, has left out an important "Driver" of the swing.

I do not agree with "hold the Hinge to Unhinge". Thats my choice, just like it is his choice to believe it.

I do not agree that a large % of hitters can "efficently" TURN THE BARREL, by just turning the body. Sure they can become more efficient at turning the body which aids in the swing. Its just not the end to the means. You can throw all the anatomy and kinsiology and any other engineered scientific mumbo jumbo my way all you want. The hands have more value than hold onto the bat. Some of the greatest hitters of all time did not and or do not stay connected on all swings. As I have said and I believe "The HANDS and the HIPS DRIVE (Chauffer) the swing. Being a good hitter is much much more than just being an efficient turner of the body. Bat control and hitability are more closely related to adjustability and that adjsutability is much easier to attain with the proper use of the two ends of the spectrum. That being the Hands and The Hips and not solely the Hips.



OK! someone finally has brought up the essence of what I have always thought was the real issue here, in this regard to hands, hips etc.

It may be true that a large percentage of hitters can't turn the body effectively, but this is no reason not to teach it. So they can't do it, they will get left behind at some point in their careers like all of us have.

Now, if they can effectively turn the bat with the body, AND make adjustments with the hands on given pitches they will progress higher up the ladder. For instance, in basketball you teach a kid a jump shot, however a given situation in a game may require improvisation, and the best players can effectively do it, but no one teaches the improvisation, that is the domain of the athlete.

The fact is that Steve has a great prescription for a kid to learn how to swing the bat correctly. However, that will not make the kid a hitter, ultimately. It will be the foundation upon which he can build is career as a hitter, but the God-given ability to see and swing, and make adjustments in the matter of milliseconds, perhaps even with the hands, is what will get a player to high levels.

However, build a flawed foundation, and the kid has no chance.

[Stealth]

Now, if they can effectively turn the bat with the body, AND make adjustments with the hands on given pitches they will progress higher up the ladder

This is one of the issues that's been discussed 1000 times. No one seems to be able to agree with the above on how the hands are involved to make these types of adjustments. The one thing I believe is if the hands are in the correct spot during the swing they are in a position that allows them to make changes. Make sense? I can't tell you how the body/mind does this, but I can watch a clip of a MLB swing and see what needs to be duplicated.

[Encinitas]

I have read just about every post on this board, and have dismissed most. I'm firmly in Steve's camp, the science and the math add up, and I think what he teaches is well substantiated when looking at high level swings. I coach young folks generally, 6-10 and 14-15, and nearly all of them have such diffiencies in their swings that to haggle over BHT or such things, I think is silly, at my level. Posture alone is a challenge for many of them, even the older ones.

Therefore, perhaps I am not "there yet," and perhaps I won't ever be in terms of hitting.

Anyway, my kid wants to pitch. :dismay: HIs little brother on the other hand, couldn't care less if he ever plays defense..."I just want to hit Daddy!":cool:

That's fine and I hope you do well. Many of us were firmly in that camp and and have found some things that work better for us, i.e. using the hands once again. It's not like I don't know the drills. If someone said "he never really got it" I'd laugh that off as almost cult-like. Damn right I "got it", just because I chose another path, don't insult my intelligence.

My 10 year old can now jack a homer (in practice) on the majors field. When he was doing the drills, he was spinning and turning in one piece and not getting any air under the ball.

Loren's points about picking up an object are spot on.

[Steve Englishbey]

Quote from Paulypal:

"Be careful Tom. Some were booted just for posting on HittingIllustrated. With no beef against anyone. Just for showing up. "

And I will now finish this statement.

............."Just for showing up".............at the website in question and alleging that I had "bashed "him and Mike Epstein on my website .

I could reprint here both the comments that I made on my website ---comments that went about simply explaining some of the basic differences between myself and "what ,why ,how I teach ." .And I simply tried to explain as to why understanding some of the distinctions are very important to understand ------IF one is to understand "my stuff."

I could then "match up " my comments --------with Paulypal's words at the other website as to me "bashing "him and Mike Epstein.

Simply put ,there was no "bashing,"

And further explained that from my perspective ,the mature thing to do would be to come to MY website to aske ME direct questions about any CONTENT that comes from my website. I do not think that this is something unfair of me to ask of an individual.

That there was no "bashing" is a point was conceeded by Pauly pal in PHONE CONVERSATION BETWEEN HE AND I just a few days ago.

A phone call wherein I took the time to explain to this individual "where I am coming from" as regards this particular website and this particular owner ,And his intent as regards setpro information and my information.



And inwhich I told him that "had I known that you were a 43 year old player whio had spent five years mainly using Mike Epsteins stuff ,I would have told you NOT to buy my material."

And a phone conversation in which I tried to explain the context of the situation --------and inwhich I told him to "send me a video clip of your swing " and I will try to point out whatever flaws you have in your swing .You do that and we willgo from there. "

The phone call lasted an hour .

If after this Pauly pal still does not understand as to "where I am coming from" as regards my irritation with his "bashing "comments --and where he chose to put those comments ,so be it .

However ,for him to" conveniantly " leave out "the rest of the story " so to speak ,is at best "clever by half."

And I would add that I am not here to "debate " the facts of the situation .

I am merely responding to the individuals inthis thread who have seen fit ---for whatever reasons ---to leave some relevent facts and context out of their words here.

steve

[tom.guerry]

tominct -

Learning to throw is very much like leraning to hit.

DIxon spent a lot of time describing that in both skills, you go through a progression of paterns as you learn, arm to upper body and arm to total body.

he called them pull, spin, whip.

PCR is a spin. PCR forces the bat to drag. The only ways to minimize drag are:

1- spin more quickly ,or

2- learn a different quicker pattern, the whip.

MLB hitters use a different pattern, whip.

If you teach throwing, you do not teach a youngster to pull really well then spin really well, then whip really well.

You keep teaching them the high level whip. They bounce back and forth between patetrns, pulling most of the time, then spinning most of the time then gradually master the whip pattern which they then use consitently.

Same for hitting.

Steve has the same inborm tendency for these patterns to be realized.

Unfortunately, he has misinterpreted how things work and has "rebuilt his swing" (sarge description) to optimize spinning quickly as the solution for drag rather than teaching/learning the entirely different type swing swingbuilder is describing ( or Richard or Epstein or Lau or Mankin, all of whom are describing the mlb whip pattern).

I would recommend for learning baseball skills that rather than adopting the Nyman spinhook with late batspeed and early adjustment that you learn the entirely difefrent way most successful mlb players actually swing which gives you early batsped and late adjustability. This is an entirely difefrent way of preparing and executing a swing which is about the adjustment you can make on the fly that is nothing like what PCR describes.

Only Nyman and Englishbey are decribing/teaching PCR and only Steve is teaching PCR as the preferred destination.

Nyman realizes from Englishbey's experience that his PCRW "blueprint" leads to spin and it is not what high level mlb players do, but Nyman has not figured out how to get from PCRW to what mlb hitters actually do.

Just listen to what Steve says about the hands and take some hacks and you will know that this is not what mlb hitters do.

Nor does PCR type rotation prepare you to rotate the way mlb hitters do.


What does get you prepared ?

A good overhand throw.

A good old fashioned 2 Plane golf swing.

A good coach.

[Steve Englishbey]

quote from L.Clifton:

"The wrist is included as part of the hand (in definitions of the hand) and it most certainly is not void of movement."


Which by the way, in the technical sense as illustrated above by Mr. Englishbey, the hands really can't just grip (just hold onto the bat)---without the assist, engagement, from other muscles, so to say they just grip the bat is wrong. Technically, the hands can't grip, they are put into a 'gripping' state. So they really can't "just grip the bat" anymore than they can move a bat thru space."

I have no idea here as to why Lclifton would seek to place these comments in this thread as regards my above statements as regards the "hands."

My brief explanation was not meant to be "definitive " .

My comments were confined to those individuals who ascribe functions to the hands that they cannot do do ,ie confined to function ,inthe context of creating or facilitating movement of the bat .

My comments as to function inthis context ,has little to do with causation ,ie how the "system" [brain ,nevous system,muscle system ] operates to create goal directed movement.

In the larger context , I do very much believe similar to Paul Nymans notion that "hitting is a systems problem with a systems soloution ."

And have variously stated many many times ,eg hitting is really about the "system "engaged in doing one thing."Or my concept of loading /unloading as "one move. "Or my understanding that movement and muscle action cannot be seen /understood "in isolation " ---as Mel Siff has stated athletic movement is a "a symphony of muscle action" ,etc etc.

However my above comments were confined to basic functional anatomy .

And had little if anything to do with neural or sensory mechanisms that are most certainly involved .
[Subject matter that a do spend a great deal of time researching as part of the process of better understanding "how the mind/ body works inthe context of ballistic goal directed movement like swinging a bat . And inthe context of how humans learn how to create /control such movement.]

And having swung the bat in all kinds of settings ,one does not have to apprise me as to the question of "feel " as regards the hands and the bat .

Simply put ,I have "felt "lots of things as regards the holding of the bat .

As far as the wrist being part of the hand ,well certainly to the extent that the entire body is connected in allkinds of ways ,the answer is yes the hands are connected to the wrists.

But ,interms of basic functional anatomy and descriptons of functional anatomy ,you are incorrect .See forex.A Karpandis "The Physiolgy of the Joints."

And most of the anatomy books I have ,do infact ,separate the hand [fingers/palm] from the wrist interms of explaining function.

And inthe context of swinging a bat the wrists --acting as a hinge ---are serving as a distinct function . See for example carini's "the anatomy of the swing ."


steve

[swingbuilder]

the foundation upon which he can build his career as a hitter, but the God-given ability to see and swing, and make adjustments in the matter of milliseconds, perhaps even with the hands, is what will get a player to high levels.

However, build a flawed foundation, and the kid has no chance.

EVEN MORE SO.....put a cheap roof over the foundation and ALL YOU WILL HAVE IS A FOUNDATION....and the kid has even less chance!

[tominct]

This is one of the issues that's been discussed 1000 times. No one seems to be able to agree with the above on how the hands are involved to make these types of adjustments. The one thing I believe is if the hands are in the correct spot during the swing they are in a position that allows them to make changes. Make sense? I can't tell you how the body/mind does this, but I can watch a clip of a MLB swing and see what needs to be duplicated.

The idea is that it may need to be duplicated, but you can teach it about as well as catching foul tips. Good Luck
:applaud:

[tominct]

EVEN MORE SO.....put a cheap roof over the foundation and ALL YOU WILL HAVE IS A FOUNDATION....and the kid has even less chance!

swingbuilder....come on....how can one have EVEN LESS than NO CHANCE?? :grouchy

Geez, I thought that one was air tight!

[TDS]

Stealth ,Tom, Swingbuilder

Have any of You attempted the hand cue THT or whatever You call it with a ball being pitched to you at 80 plus with a 30oz bat?

If You have then please explain to me how your able to control the barrel with your hands.

[LClifton]

But ,in terms of basic functional anatomy and descriptons of functional anatomy ,you are incorrect .See forex.A Karpandis "The Physiolgy of the Joints."

In a description of the hand this definition is given.

The human hand has 27 bones: the carpus or wrist account for 8; the metacarpus or palm contains 5; the remaining 14 are digital bones.

Here is another that lists the parts of the hand:

fist
fore finger
knuckle
little finger
middle finger
nail
palm
wrist
third finger
thumb


Carpal Tunnel Syndrome
(referred to as a hand disorder, ailment is in the wrist)

The wrist is a joint that attaches the hand to the forearm. Many times referred to as part of the hand.

http://lclifton.hittingillustrated.com/160-alibaba-Advanced_Hands_Tutorial-8~1-500x400.jpg
The text accompanying:

The upper left drawing demonstrates the limits of the hand movement into the sides. It can't bend very far this way...
However, the hand can bend much farther forward and backward, like you can see on the upper right and lower right pics.
The lower left pic shows that the thumb also can bend in about 90 degrees, but remember the curvy shape the thumb takes when it bends, due to the stretch of the skin between the palm and thumb!



Steve, I wouldn't expect for you to say I was correct.
The point is, I get your point (wrist / hand / separation), my point is there are references that the wrist joint joins the hand to the forearm and it can do many things, even swivel. Get it?


And most of the anatomy books I have ,do infact ,separate the hand [fingers/palm] from the wrist interms of explaining function.
Agree. And I have read the above and interpreted it that the wrist was part of the hand. This is part of the silliness I referred to. You could have just left it alone and bathed in the fact that you "know".
Separating their function (which was added by you) has no bearing on the fact that the wrist is considered part of the hand.

Which brings me to this:
I have no idea here as to why Lclifton would seek to place these comments in this thread as regards my above statements as regards the "hands."

My brief explanation was not meant to be "definitive " .

In the context of the thread which was about "hitting arguments", there are almost always statements made about a better, more thorough, more correct description, (of a function, ie. weight shift, mass movement) and my point was that it becomes silly to take what one said and be "overly particular" about the details. That is what I did, because many times people are always wanting to talk about the more correct version of things. In other words, don't get caught giving anything less than a full explanation.
I went on to say those kind of arguments just become silly.
That was the context. So sorry you find it doesn't fit, but who cares, really?

And inthe context of swinging a bat the wrists --acting as a hinge ---are serving as a distinct function . See for example carini's "the anatomy of the swing ."
I, in fact, have read this.
The wrist is part of the hand.
The fingers are part of the hand, have distinct functions, doesn't make them any less a part of the hand.
See the silliness?


And having swung the bat in all kinds of settings ,one does not have to apprise me as to the question of "feel " as regards the hands and the bat .
You took my comment about the feel in the hands (a general statement) too personal-- as evidenced here; (the intent of it was not to apprise you, because I doubt, as seen here, that I could share much that you would agree with.)

I wasn't saying anything directly to you in regards to the "feel" in the hands it was a general comment, dissemenating information. I found it informative to know how much of the cortex is used to control the movements of the hands.

Gotta move on. Happy hitting.

[LClifton]

Stealth ,Tom, Swingbuilder

Have any of You attempted the hand cue THT or whatever You call it with a ball being pitched to you at 80 plus with a 30oz bat?

If You have then please explain to me how your able to control the barrel with your hands.

How would you do it?

[Paulypal]

Quote from Paulypal:

"Be careful Tom. Some were booted just for posting on HittingIllustrated. With no beef against anyone. Just for showing up. "

And I will now finish this statement.

............."Just for showing up".............at the website in question and alleging that I had "bashed "him and Mike Epstein on my website .

I could reprint here both the comments that I made on my website ---comments that went about simply explaining some of the basic differences between myself and "what ,why ,how I teach ." .And I simply tried to explain as to why understanding some of the distinctions are very important to understand ------IF one is to understand "my stuff."

I could then "match up " my comments --------with Paulypal's words at the other website as to me "bashing "him and Mike Epstein.

Simply put ,there was no "bashing,"

And further explained that from my perspective ,the mature thing to do would be to come to MY website to aske ME direct questions about any CONTENT that comes from my website. I do not think that this is something unfair of me to ask of an individual.

That there was no "bashing" is a point was conceeded by Pauly pal in PHONE CONVERSATION BETWEEN HE AND I just a few days ago.

A phone call wherein I took the time to explain to this individual "where I am coming from" as regards this particular website and this particular owner ,And his intent as regards setpro information and my information.



And inwhich I told him that "had I known that you were a 43 year old player whio had spent five years mainly using Mike Epsteins stuff ,I would have told you NOT to buy my material."

And a phone conversation in which I tried to explain the context of the situation --------and inwhich I told him to "send me a video clip of your swing " and I will try to point out whatever flaws you have in your swing .You do that and we willgo from there. "

The phone call lasted an hour .

If after this Pauly pal still does not understand as to "where I am coming from" as regards my irritation with his "bashing "comments --and where he chose to put those comments ,so be it .

However ,for him to" conveniantly " leave out "the rest of the story " so to speak ,is at best "clever by half."

And I would add that I am not here to "debate " the facts of the situation .

I am merely responding to the individuals inthis thread who have seen fit ---for whatever reasons ---to leave some relevent facts and context out of their words here.

steve

Steve -- I appreciated the phone call and thought we had a good conversation.... I did concede the bashing comment. I dont have a problem with you or your teachings to be honest. BUT............

.....the fact remains that I was kicked off your site for posting on Teachermans despite I have not having a beef with you or anyone else. Honestly I dont need either one of you. I am newbie on these sites but not a newbie as far as swing training or working out at all. I just was looking for a few new things to work on this winter. I didnt realize I was walking into a web of baseball swinging espionage:rolleyes:

Yes maybe I overstated the "bashing"...maybe.... but you used the term "didnt get it" a few times if I am not mistaken. I will check..oh wait I cant check the post....I am not allowed.

Steve then you tell me that you will let me back on the site if and ONLY if I send you a video. Now you might think that is great.....and I didnt think much of it at the time, but you will let me back on the site only I do what you asked me to. Despite our hour conversation you couldnt see that I was a guy without an agenda or beef with anyone. I will say again I was just looking for some new stuff.

If your that sensitive that me going on the "other" website and saying I was bashed...then maybe I am not the one thats clever by half. According to you all one would need to do to get kicked off your site.....is show up at the "other" website.

You help people swing a bat...your not curing cancer, you didnt figure out quantum physics, nor are you working with the poor...you are freaking swinging a bat...lighten up dude. World peace is not hanging in the balance of your scapula load.

[TDS]

Originally Posted by TDS
Stealth ,Tom, Swingbuilder

Have any of You attempted the hand cue THT or whatever You call it with a ball being pitched to you at 80 plus with a 30oz bat?

If You have then please explain to me how your able to control the barrel with your hands.

How would you do it?

I would like You guys to try this and report your personal results.
Please focus Your attention on hands.

[Stealth]

Stealth ,Tom, Swingbuilder

Have any of You attempted the hand cue THT or whatever You call it with a ball being pitched to you at 80 plus with a 30oz bat?

If You have then please explain to me how your able to control the barrel with your hands.

Yes with pretty good results. How else would I or anyone else control the barrel?

[TDS]

Originally Posted by TDS
Stealth ,Tom, Swingbuilder

Have any of You attempted the hand cue THT or whatever You call it with a ball being pitched to you at 80 plus with a 30oz bat?

If You have then please explain to me how your able to control the barrel with your hands.

Yes with pretty good results. How else would I or anyone else control the barrel?

Would You please share Your video results ?

[FiveFrameSwing]

.....the fact remains that I was kicked off your site for posting on Teachermans despite I have not having a beef with you or anyone else.


Steve appears to have taken it personal that you felt the itch to look for information outside of his circle.




Honestly I dont need either one of you.


Unfortunately that's what it comes down to. Few people are willing to sacrifice their freedom for some hitting information. I bet you didn't know that you were going to be followed as you surfed the Internet. Surprise! It happened.



I am newbie on these sites but not a newbie as far as swing training or working out at all.


From this I take it you were treated so as to be considered inferior. I'm scratching my head and wondering why someone would do that to a paying customer.



Steve then you tell me that you will let me back on the site if and ONLY if I send you a video. Now you might think that is great.....and I didnt think much of it at the time, but you will let me back on the site only I do what you asked me to. Despite our hour conversation you couldnt see that I was a guy without an agenda or beef with anyone. I will say again I was just looking for some new stuff.


Some people just seem to like being on top. You on the other hand appear to have come to your senses and have decided that your freedom wasn't worth the price of admission. Good for you!



According to you all one would need to do to get kicked off your site.....is show up at the "other" website.
[/B]

Seems that someone is a bit sensitive.

Here's the thing. Steve has a lot to offer, but to be valuable to people such as yourself he needs to be less controlling.

To Steve's credit, his parnoid behavior may be somewhat justified. He likely considers this to be a competitive business, and from that perspective he has adopted the Andy Grove mentality of "Only the Paranoid Survive". It's understandable, even though it is unacceptable to folks like you.

[Paulypal]

Here is my post on Teachermans website that got me kicked off of SE's
Three times in two days.

I am not bashing anyone, I am sure the system makes sense. Just not to me. It seems he went through 1000 drills without letting his audience know they were drills. I just wasnt catching on.

I did like the drill that you started on the pilates ball. I think that is a good core exercise combining it with a swing. Some of the other ones I just dont get..like stepping down off of a small trampoline and taking a cut. It just wasnt an organized effort to put things in order. Plus it seemed to be very repetitive. Probably could have been done in one DVD.

I mentioned on the SE site that he and Epstein are both teaching rotational mechanics but get there differently. Man was I bashed by Steve himself. That "I didnt get it". I cant argue with him there...I didnt get it.

With that said:

I have been a student of the Epstein system for the past 5 years. No I dont think its perfect, but I do think its close and it fits my style better than any of the others. That doesnt mean I am not open to suggestions.

That was after his post that some of us dont get it. Well how about lending out a hand and trying to explain it instead of just defending your position and your theories. That was a terrible post wasnt it? How dare I!!

[Lady_Knights]

I know its only one frame of the swing, and after contact, but give me some feedback on what you can see. Thanks

http://www.leaguelineup.com/ladybullets/photos/ViperFallFling07%20013.jpg

[Lady_Knights]

Hows this swing look?

http://www.leaguelineup.com/nhsladyknights/photos/tn/tn_CT10.jpg

[FiveFrameSwing]

Some of the other ones I just dont get..like stepping down off of a small trampoline and taking a cut.


This may be one of Steve's better drills.

I use a modified version of this drill to help students that have a tendancy to keep their weight back when they stride. By stepping down off of the trampoline with the front foot the students get the feeling of having their weight balanced between their feet while having their center of pressure on their front foot.

Give that drill some more thought. It's actually not that bad.

[Paulypal]

This may be one of Steve's better drills.

I use a modified version of this drill to help students that have a tendancy to keep their weight back when they stride. By stepping down off of the trampoline with the front foot the students get the feeling of having their weight balanced between their feet while having their center of pressure on their front foot.

Give that drill some more thought. It's actually not that bad.

I didnt say it wasnt good. I never said anything about what was on his DVD's wasnt good. I just said I didnt get it.

[FiveFrameSwing]

[B]I mentioned on the SE site that he and Epstein are both teaching rotational mechanics but get there differently. Man was I bashed by Steve himself. That "I didnt get it". I cant argue with him there...I didnt get it.


It sounds like Steve was correct. You didn't get it. You see, there is a big difference in how they get there. Epstein, much like Yeager, believes that separation is a key element when developing a powerful swing. Review the "Basics" DVD and observe the tilt and rotate as a unit. Note the lack of separation.

Now, go back to Steve's web site and view the video of his one-arm swing. Notice that there he demonstrates separation.

It may have been an accident that he left out such a critical aspect of the swing on his DVD.

In any event, you are correct. You didn't get it.

[FiveFrameSwing]

I didnt say it wasnt good. I never said anything about what was on his DVD's wasnt good. I just said I didnt get it.

I know what you mean.

We have a local hitting instructor in our area that uses some very good drills. The problem with his teachings is that his students don't have a clue of why they are performing the drills. Personally I believe a student doing a drill without the understanding of the drill isn't getting a whole lot out of the session. Most drills are meant to emulate a certain portion of the swing mechanic. If you don't emphasize the purpose of the drill, then it's possible that the student walks away and attempts to place an emphasis on a potential side effect of the drill, rather than on the drills intent.

[Paulypal]

It sounds like Steve was correct. You didn't get it. You see, there is a big difference in how they get there. Epstein, much like Yeager, believes that separation is a key element when developing a powerful swing. Review the "Basics" DVD and observe the tilt and rotate as a unit. Note the lack of separation.

Now, go back to Steve's web site and view the video of his one-arm swing. Notice that there he demonstrates separation.

It may have been an accident that he left out such a critical aspect of the swing on his DVD.

In any event, you are correct. You didn't get it.

One - maybe you didnt get it, but I cant go on the website. LOL

[FiveFrameSwing]

I have been a student of the Epstein system for the past 5 years. No I dont think its perfect, but I do think its close and it fits my style better than any of the others. That doesnt mean I am not open to suggestions.


Just out of curiousity, which system do you feel better represents the MLB swing?

I believe Epstein pretty much has it down, with the exception of his backwards lean of the upper body and his weight transfer into the back thigh. Nix those two particular teachings and I like a lot of what he teaches.

[Paulypal]

Just out of curiousity, which system do you feel better represents the MLB swing?

I believe Epstein pretty much has it down, with the exception of his backwards lean of the upper body and his weight transfer into the back thigh. Nix those two particular teachings and I like a lot of what he teaches.

Epstein for me. I think he over emphasizes the backward tilt because if you remember early on he was trying to get away from lunging. Possibly he over compensated by the big backwards tilt.

[Erik]

Paulypal,

I just said I didnt get it.


What don't you get?


EL,

[Erik]

I have to ask something about what Mike Epstein teaches with the front arm. I got lost with mikes stuff in regards to the front arm. I have seen his stuff and feel the swing isn't adjustable from the drills. I can't say I like the swings I see on Mikes stuff. If what Mike has on his drills in regards to the front arm is ok please explain why. The swings I have seen are dead pull. I ask Mike about this and he replied this swing is for pulling.


EL,

[Jake Patterson]

Jake...Don't forget that they once were all in the same Army.
Teaching Baseball is a dynamic process that requires change and evolution. I would not expect those who begin their journey together to travel through the process together every step of the way. Hell, just the philosophical differences (from a geographical perspective) that exist between us make what we do, what we understand, and how we teach different.

[FiveFrameSwing]

Looks like Yeager blasted a hole in Nyman's boat.

[Jake Patterson]

Hows this swing look?

http://www.leaguelineup.com/nhsladyknights/photos/tn/tn_CT10.jpg

I only see a clip that shows little. Is it here for opinions?? If so we will need a clip.
Jake

[Paulypal]

Paulypal,

I just said I didnt get it.


What don't you get?


EL,

Watching his dvd's he was talking and talking and talking...he used the word posture about 400000 times. I wasnt sure what was a drill or what was actually a way of making a certain point. I got the whole posture thing, but it just wasnt as clear as I would have liked it.

After watching Epstein tell us ok this is the drill and this is why you do it....ahhhh that makes sense.

[Paulypal]

I have to ask something about what Mike Epstein teaches with the front arm. I got lost with mikes stuff in regards to the front arm. I have seen his stuff and feel the swing isn't adjustable from the drills. I can't say I like the swings I see on Mikes stuff. If what Mike has on his drills in regards to the front arm is ok please explain why. The swings I have seen are dead pull. I ask Mike about this and he replied this swing is for pulling.


EL,

Epstein is not without his question marks in my opinion. Two things that I question are his backward tilt and the weathervaning of the front arm. I think you get your basic solid starting point and react to the pitch. Not sure about the weathervaning. The exaggerated back tilt is to obliterate the lunging problem that Epstein goes into detail about.

As far as all "pull". Nah. I think ---- no I dont think I know from playing,,you get quicker inside with Epstein. So you will pull, but what I will say about Epstein is he absolutley admits you need to be more linear on certain pitch locations. You dont do this as a plan you do it as a reaction to the pitch. You start with your basic movements but you react to location. High pitch much more linear, but on the outside part of the plate you are not lost under Epstein you have to come a bit more off yoru backside to go the other way. That is with any system, its not unique to Epstein.

[TG Coach]

I usually bow out of the hitting threads early or not look in at all. They tend to turn into the typical, redundant pissing matches. I'm glad I eventually peeked in on this one. This is an all-star caliber pissing match. Way to go guys! There are varoius methodologies that all arrive at the same result, hitting successfully. If there are plenty of cases of each methodology with successes, how can any of them be wrong? They can only be different.

[DanC]

This may be one of Steve's better drills.

I use a modified version of this drill to help students that have a tendancy to keep their weight back when they stride. By stepping down off of the trampoline with the front foot the students get the feeling of having their weight balanced between their feet while having their center of pressure on their front foot.

Give that drill some more thought. It's actually not that bad.

And you got this drill from just watching the basic DVD with a friend on Oct 19? That drill is not on the basic DVD.


Your quote on Oct 19th
"I viewed the Englishbey's Swing Training Basics DVD with a friend tonight.
I'm scratching my head and wondering why this guy is getting so much press on here. "

[tominct]

Alright, let's try this then....

Why don't each of us just name the person in whom we have the most faith, as it pertains to teaching the baseball swing. I'll start...

Steve E.
next?

[fungo22]

The hands are controlled by other muscles and joints, was stated, but not true, from a neurological standpoint, they are controlled by the brain first, so you can not, "rationally" argue that the hands are controlled by 27 muscles and 5 joints, even though one may state that, something "upstream" happens first.

I really should stay out of this because I have better things to do. But the words "cannot rationally argue" from the "pen" of someone with a track record which demonstates so little aptitude in understanding and constructing rational arguments was too much for me. And the statements quoted above are an example of this ongoing ineptitude.

Steve's argument(s) about the use of the hands was in the context of the role of the hands in the swing, and more specifically whether talking about what the hands do is helpful.

Steve of course does not dispute that the hands are a vital link in swinging a bat. The hands move and they are hanging onto the bat. The big question is how do the best hitters move their hands (with what muscles and with joints at what angles, etc), which is what Steve primarily concerns himself with.

Because if a hitter moves his hands with the wrong muscles with joints and limbs at inefficient angles (which approximately 95% of hiiters do), then talking about what the hands do is pretty obviously not very helpful. What needs to be addressed is the muscular and mechanical inefficiencies by which that hitter moves his/her hands (again this is what Steve is a fanatic about understanding). Simply talking about the role of the hands or the importance of the hands misses the point. Those who talk about the importance of the hands either (1) already move them efficiently with the right muscles (probably doing so without any awareness of how they are moving them) or (2) are ignorant of the muscular physiology and biomechanics involved in hand movement.

So in this context, Steve pointed out the various muscles and joints involved in hand movement. His point was that hand talk was somewhat meaningless in terms of how to move them like the best hitters. I had no trouble understanding his point and it seemed perfectly rational to me. Again, his point was that focusing on the hands ignores the most important issue, which was one of functional anatomy. This can hardly be considered an irrational argument in that context.

No, the irrational argument is bringing neurology into the equation and arguing that Steve ommitted the brain in his calculations and is therefore wrong in his conclusions. It is irrational because it ignored the context of Steve's remarks and introduced a new context (neurological). And it is irrational because it adds nothing to the discussion of how the body most efficiently and powerfully moves the hands.

I won't speculate as to the writer's motives for his priggish nitpicking of what Steve wrote. And I don't care if he wants to disgree with Steve on any substantial issue. But I think he should leave criticisms like "cannot rationally argue" to those who really care about rational arguments and who know one when they see one.

[jbooth]

I really should stay out of this because I have better things to do. But the words "cannot rationally argue" from the "pen" of someone with a track record which demonstates so little aptitude in understanding and constructing rational arguments was too much for me. And the statements quoted above are an example of this ongoing ineptitude.

Steve's argument(s) about the use of the hands was in the context of the role of the hands in the swing, and more specifically whether talking about what the hands do is helpful.

Steve of course does not dispute that the hands are a vital link in swinging a bat. The hands move and they are hanging onto the bat. The big question is how do the best hitters move their hands (with what muscles and with joints at what angles, etc), which is what Steve primarily concerns himself with.

Because if a hitter moves his hands with the wrong muscles with joints and limbs at inefficient angles (which approximately 95% of hiiters do), then talking about what the hands do is pretty obviously not very helpful. What needs to be addressed is the muscular and mechanical inefficiencies by which that hitter moves his/her hands (again this is what Steve is a fanatic about understanding). Simply talking about the role of the hands or the importance of the hands misses the point. Those who talk about the importance of the hands either (1) already move them efficiently with the right muscles (probably doing so without any awareness of how they are moving them) or (2) are ignorant of the muscular physiology and biomechanics involved in hand movement.

So in this context, Steve pointed out the various muscles and joints involved in hand movement. His point was that hand talk was somewhat meaningless in terms of how to move them like the best hitters. I had no trouble understanding his point and it seemed perfectly rational to me. Again, his point was that focusing on the hands ignores the most important issue, which was one of functional anatomy. This can hardly be considered an irrational argument in that context.

No, the irrational argument is bringing neurology into the equation and arguing that Steve ommitted the brain in his calculations and is therefore wrong in his conclusions. It is irrational because it ignored the context of Steve's remarks and introduced a new context (neurological). And it is irrational because it adds nothing to the discussion of how the body most efficiently and powerfully moves the hands.

I won't speculate as to the writer's motives for his priggish nitpicking of what Steve wrote. And I don't care if he wants to disgree with Steve on any substantial issue. But I think he should leave criticisms like "cannot rationally argue" to those who really care about rational arguments and who know one when they see one.

You and Steve both missed the main jist of LClifton's post.

You seem to have ignored or overlooked his very first sentence where he agrees with Steve.

He said, "Totally at odds with functional anatomy. True."

He then goes on to make the point that getting hung up on all the details of the anatomical movements can often be silly. He was just saying that the brain wants the hands to move and can figure out how to move the arms to do it. He wasn't debating the correctness of Steve's details.

And, yes the brain may move the arms incorrectly to move the hands in a swing, so then you correct that.

He was pointing out that your brain is well aware of the hands because they are holding the bat and the brain senses what is in the hands, more than anything else. So, the conscious thought is the hands, but the brain unconsciously fires the muscles to move the bones that will get the hands where the brain consciously wants them to go.

[wogdoggy]

Key word here is "Reach" again an arm issue and not a hand issue.

True, Steve sent me his DVD set. He asked that I not let anyone know that he gave them to me (which I haven't done) and he also asked that I not forward them along to anyone else (which I haven't done).

I will add here that I have watched his DVD"s over 100 times. Its the only DVD I watch when I travel on a plane. Something I have done 5 days a week since Feb. 1.

He also allowed me on his site where I got involved in a few discussions about the Hands among other topics. He removed me from his site then warned me to not bring up any issue with the Hands again. "which I said to him that I would honor his request" He then told me that I was removed because of my association with Teacherman.

He later said he would allow me to return to his site. I declinded because of the very reason he mentions above. While I like Steve and I also like his passion for hitting and teaching it. I do believe the hands to have more than a passive fancy when it comes to the swing. So there really is no need for me to be there when he, in my opinion, has left out an important "Driver" of the swing.

I do not agree with "hold the Hinge to Unhinge". Thats my choice, just like it is his choice to believe it.

I do not agree that a large % of hitters can "efficently" TURN THE BARREL, by just turning the body. Sure they can become more efficient at turning the body which aids in the swing. Its just not the end to the means. You can throw all the anatomy and kinsiology and any other engineered scientific mumbo jumbo my way all you want. The hands have more value than hold onto the bat. Some of the greatest hitters of all time did not and or do not stay connected on all swings. As I have said and I believe "The HANDS and the HIPS DRIVE (Chauffer) the swing. Being a good hitter is much much more than just being an efficient turner of the body. Bat control and hitability are more closely related to adjustability and that adjsutability is much easier to attain with the proper use of the two ends of the spectrum. That being the Hands and The Hips and not solely the Hips.

Steve has done a tremendous amount of research. Most of it physically (swing the bat) and a large amount of reading research. Its his website so he can do as he pleases. He just looses site that Teacherman is not the only one who spends all their time trying to discredit beliefs. Steve's group of Soliders(his backbone supporters on his website DO SPEND A GREAT DEAL OF THEIR TIME TRYING TO DISCREDIT OTHER BELIEFS.

He also allowed me on his site where I got involved in a few discussions about the Hands among other topics. He removed me from his site then warned me to not bring up any issue with the Hands again. "which I said to him that I would honor his request" He then told me that I was removed because of my association with Teacherman.


SOUNDS FAMILIAR..lol...:think:

[swingbuilder]

Coach Booth, outstanding post. Thank You.

FungoThe big question is how do the best hitters move their hands (with what muscles and with joints at what angles, etc

thats what your missing. Its not a muscle issue. Its a reactive issue LED by the HANDS. The hands positioned and used correctly will lead and make the muscles and joints conform. Done the other way around is useless.

The swing and being a good hitter is not a EFFORT or STRENGTH move controlled by the big muscles of the body. Its a reactive move based on timing and rhythm and effortlessness moves where the small muscles control the larger muscles. Again, getting the Hands right and the Hips right is what drives the swing. NOT the bigger muscles along the back of the body.

[UGDodgersSS#13]

I know its only one frame of the swing, and after contact, but give me some feedback on what you can see. Thanks

http://www.leaguelineup.com/ladybullets/photos/ViperFallFling07%20013.jpg

Where was the location of the pitch?
What contact was made? bottom of bat? top of bat? squarely? were you jammed?
what was the result of the "hit"? grounder to 3rd? flyball to rf? line drive?

[LClifton]

Jim Booth, you are correct.

Fungo you are so smart that you missed the point. In your anxious state to point out someone's "ineptness" you failed to comprehend.

The thread was about one constant in hitting arguments,

Priggish describes it, I called it silliness.

Go back and read.

[justthefacts]

We will now consider how a unidirectional movement of a limb from a certain initial to a certain final position is control. Such movements may be considered basic components of virtually the entire human everyday motor repertoire. Pointing at an object, taking up a cup of coffee, hitting a nail with a hammer-all involved components that may be considered single, unidirectional reaching movements.

First it is necessary to introduce the notion of the working point, that is, a point whose trajectory is most directly related to successful execution of a motor task. During pointing at objects or picking up or manipulating objects, this point may be located on the fingertip(s) or somewhere on the palm. During kicking a football the working point is somewhere on the tip of the shoe. This point does not even need to be in permanent direct contact with the body. When Michael Jordan of the Chicago Bulls shot the basketball, the task is to get the working point (the basketball) into the basket. In this example, the working point is in direct contact with the player's hand only during initial segment of its trajectory. In most computer games the working point is an image of a fighter plane or Superman on the screen, and the player commands it by moving the joystick, without any direct mechanical contact with the working point.

With respect to our hands (and other body parts) they are with us from birth to death (unless we lose a limb). Over the course of our lifetime they are subjected to an infinite variety of movements and movement patterns. And through the process of trial and error, the most efficient movement pattern for reaching grasping is developed. Ask a young child who is just learning how to use his hands to reach and grasp to hand you something and it is a very laborious process in terms of time, space as well as cognitive demands. Two or three years later that movement is very refined. So were talking about two or three years later. And only after many drops and spills (much trial and error). Highly skilled athletes are those who exhibit high degrees of coordination i.e. their body parts move in perfect harmony. Achievement of this harmony only comes through countless hours of practice and training.

The working point for hitting a baseball is the sweet spot of the bat. Ever watch a baseball game when the camera pans to the dugout and you see hitters continually gripping, holding and moving a bat while they sit on the bench? Is quite possible that what they are doing is engaging in the process of making the bat part of the human body i.e. creating such intimacy with the bat that the working point (sweet spot of the bat) becomes "one" with the physical body of the batter i.e. the bat becomes a natural extension of the body structure. That is much as players may talk about the hands, in reality what they're talking about is their intimacy (or possible lack of) with the sweet spot of the bat.

For a pitcher the working point is somewhere around home plate (strike zone). For a fielder the working point in vary depending upon where the throw needs to be made.

Reaching and grasping are no different than swing a bat other than the difference in working point. The difference being that reaching and grasping are done countless times from birth to death i.e. he gets a lot of practice. One of the theories of motor pattern development is that activity such as reaching grasping are determined by efficiency i.e. the final result of learning to reach and grasp is determined by not only the achievement of the goal i.e. picking something up and moving it but also by how efficient the reaching grasping movement is in terms of time and efforts..

What so many here appear to confuse or to place different values on is the difference between understanding movement patterns necessary to achieve high levels of swing (hitting) and throwing (pitching) performance as opposed to how to develop them (teaching and instruction). Form versus function. Form being what high-level movement patterns look like a function how to achieve them.

For those who slam PCRW, I first suggest you understand what it is. It is NOT and instructional process. It IS a description, specification if you will, of what elements constitute a high level swing ( http://www.setpro.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8587&highlight=PCRW ). How PCRW is achieved can be very individualistic. To the extent that what might be considered linear instruction has somehow achieved PCRW for many players in spite of the potential linear instructional pitfalls. I will repeat again PCRW is nothing more than a description/presentation of what constitutes a high level swing. It has never been anything more or less. How one attempts to create a PCRW swing is totally dependent upon not only their understanding of what PCRW is, but also the sum total of their life experience, not the least of which has to do with coaching and instructing experience.

And the hard facts of life are that the only way that you will truly understand where PCRW "came from" is understand something about the physics, biomechanics, physiology and how the body effects skilled movement specific to swinging a bat consistent with producing a swing, that for lack of a better description/standard, emulates that of successful major-league players. To criticize the technique of PCRW without having demonstrated a working knowledge and more importantly the synthesis and application of these disciplines into actual instruction, is in my opinion simply an exercise in ego satisfaction and gratification.

The same can be said for those who criticize those who instruct and coach without having intimate knowledge of exactly what it is these instructors and coaches do. At the current time there is no major-league player who was ever instructed using the term "PCRW". Yet just about every major-league player exhibits a reasonably high level of PCRW technique. Instruction and coaching is simply a process whereby one hopes to create a final result. And whether the coach are instructor subscribes/believes in linear, rotational, PCRW, second engine, Mankin, Epstein, Williams, Lau, Yeager, Peavy, or who ever or what ever, really doesn't matter as long as the desired results are achieved. The only real question is what are the desired results? Are they becoming a successful Little League player? A successful high school player? A successful college player? Being drafted by major-league team? Or becoming a major-league player?

From my perspective, ALL of the discussion regarding what the hands do or don't do is largely driven by perceptions as to how the bat should be move through time and space. And in reality if one subscribes to the working point theory then what we really are talking about is how the sweet spot of the bat should be move through time and space. And just as the theory that reaching movements are driven by creating the most efficient movements possible to achieve the final goal so it should be with swinging the bat. What high-level hitters are able to achieve is movement of the sweet spot of the bat that requires the minimal amount of effort knowing terms of muscular effort but also in terms of nervous system demands.

But were confusion reigns is the difference between recognizing what constitutes effective/efficient swing movement patterns and the ability to teach effective and efficient movement patterns. The classic Form versus function. Cues versus reality. Action versus perception. Explicit versus implicit. Etc., etc., etc.. The real question (for me anyways) is why? I suspect that the answer this question is the same answer as to why one worships the way they do and votes the way they do.... i.e. it is what we "choose to believe"......

[fungo22]

You and Steve both missed the main jist of LClifton's post.

You seem to have ignored or overlooked his very first sentence where he agrees with Steve.

He said, "Totally at odds with functional anatomy. True."

No, I didn't overlook it. But apparently he did. Because he went on to assert that Steve's argument in the context of functional anatomy was irrational. There was nothing irrational about it, and Clifton's assertion that it was irrational was inane, as is your attempt to defend him.


He then goes on to make the point that getting hung up on all the details of the anatomical movements can often be silly.

Actually, he came right out and called several points that Steve focuses on "silly." But I was not addressing the points Clifton went on to make.

But now that you mention it . . .


He was just saying that the brain wants the hands to move and can figure out how to move the arms to do it. He wasn't debating the correctness of Steve's details.


If that is what he said, then he is wrong in 95% of the cases in which the brain "figures out how to move the arms to do it," because a vast majority of hitters' brains and arms never figure it out.


And, yes the brain may move the arms incorrectly to move the hands in a swing, so then you correct that.


(1) First, simply admitting that the "brain may move the arms incorrectly to move the hands" is an understatement that misrepresents the extent of the problem.

(2) It also ignores how one goes about about correcting it, which of course is what Steve's program is expressly designed to do. And it does so informed by hundreds of hours of laborious research in the literature and on-the-field experimentation. Clifton's meager instructional experience and amateurish dabbling in book or two on the subject and then pretending that he understands something is laughable, in my opinion. Why don't you dazzle us with your dabbling as well?


He was pointing out that your brain is well aware of the hands because they are holding the bat and the brain senses what is in the hands, more than anything else.


In which he was correct. But so what? Does he or do you think that Steve doesn't know that? And you state it as if it is a solution. It is not a solution; it is the problem, one which must be overcome by reprogramming the mind/body system (unlearning the old motor program and learning a new one).



So, the conscious thought is the hands, but the brain unconsciously fires the muscles to move the bones that will get the hands where the brain consciously wants them to go.


So what? In the vast majority of hitters, the brain fires the wrong muscles which move the bones in inefficient ways and they end up getting the hands to the wrong place too late with too little momentum.

You haven't solved a thing. You have only succeeded in ignoring the problem while pretending it is some profound solution that Steve has overlooked.

You guys need to stop pretending you know something, and you definitely need to get your ducks in a straighter row before you come out slinging charges of irrational and silly arguments.

[Jake Patterson]

Come on guys... I am doing my level best not to nuke the whole thread. The exchange now taking place brings no learning to the table.

We know there are different opinions about hitting - We get it! Move on to discussing technique or methods or don't post.
Jake

[CoachB25]

After reading some of the posts on what directs the body to move, that muscles aren't the issue, that we essentially don't need the core, ... at least I know now why I failed my basic Anatomy and Physiology Class. Example of the only thing capable of movement without the core muscles = http://bestsmileys.com/silly/14.gif

[wogdoggy]

After reading some of the posts on what directs the body to move, that muscles aren't the issue, that we essentially don't need the core, ... at least I know now why I failed my basic Anatomy and Physiology Class. Example of the only thing capable of movement without the core muscles = http://bestsmileys.com/silly/14.gif

nice extension too

[fungo22]

nice extension too

What I find impressive is his willingness to keep practicing until he gets it right.

[CoachB25]

What I find impressive is his willingness to keep practicing until he gets it right.

Fungo, unfortunately, that is very close to what I looked like each and every time I walked out of my anatomy and Physiology Class!!!

[LClifton]

Clifton's meager instructional experience

Well Greg, I am happy to report very good results at the highest level of girls fastpitch softball.

Meager includes quantity and quality. While the quantity, the overall time teaching hitting, is short, the quality is evident in the progress of the kids.

While I appreciate your attempt to show YOUR superiority, it is superficial, at best. I have posted several of my kids here-- showing where we started and their progress.

You? Not a one.

One student, 10 homeruns, over 3 tournaments, 47 at bats.

I'll take meager, means I have a long way to go. :)

Nice try Greggy.

[fungo22]

Well Greg, I am happy to report very good results at the highest level of girls fastpitch softball.

Meager includes quantity and quality. While the quantity, the overall time teaching hitting, is short, the quality is evident in the progress of the kids.

While I appreciate your attempt to show YOUR superiority, it is superficial, at best. I have posted several of my kids here-- showing where we started and their progress.

You? Not a one.

One student, 10 homeruns, over 3 tournaments, 47 at bats.

I'll take meager, means I have a long way to go. :)

Nice try Greggy.

Loren, out of respect for Jake and his warning above (for which you apparently have contempt), I won't give this post the reply it deserves.

Nor will I point out where you learned the important things you know about swinging a bat, because anybody who's been paying attention over the past couple of years knows how much you knew before you came to Paul Nyman's site and met up with Steve and the posse. I bet I can post some clips of Jenna's swings before that time. And although I don't have any clips, I can pretty well describe with honesty what you where having your students do the first time we met.

And how much the 10 HR in 47 AB phenom owes her prowess to your instruction and just how much of what you teach can be called "your instruction" is something yet to be established in minds other than your own.

Nor will I go into my hitting instruction resume. Not because it can't compare with yours but because it is irrelevant. Go back and read my post. There is neither claim nor implication of my superiority compared to you. I was comparing your knowledge and experience to Steve's. And it is meager in comparison.

I'm glad you're having success. And I wish Jenna the best.

[LClifton]

Go back and read my post.
When I asked you to do the same you replied you didn't need to.
Why?
Then you turn to personal. That is expected.

Jim Booth said:
He was pointing out that your brain is well aware of the hands because they are holding the bat and the brain senses what is in the hands, more than anything else.

Then you said:
In which he was correct. But so what? Does he or do you think that Steve doesn't know that? And you state it as if it is a solution. It is not a solution; it is the problem, one which must be overcome by reprogramming the mind/body system (unlearning the old motor program and learning a new one).
It is probably a sore spot for anyone that has studied things as long as you and then find that there are folks have success in teaching kids outside of "your ways."
This is an ego driven scenario and has the posturing of someone needing to be the "man"...I've admitted my short comings, I also know how far many of the kids I had the priviledge of working with, have come.
And you are right again, Greg, it is next to impossible to know how much is the student and how much is the "meager instruction"...:)

This will probably make you feel better Greg, Steve does know. He knows that he knows. Dmac said, there is a flaw in the teaching and they won't admit it. The use of the hands.

My statement in the original post referring to the "sense" in the hands was a general statement of fact not directed at Steve and I stated that- when he got all but*-hurt because he took it as being directed at him.
You come back with "It is boorish, trite, etc. and assume that I meant it as something earth shattering or profound. It was neither. It was a statement about the hands that I found, and perhaps others, would find interesting.

one which must be overcome by reprogramming the mind/body system
I would like to know how you propose the above (in bold) without some "re-wiring" of the brain.
This reveals my introduction of the brain into the thread as relevant, regardless of the number of times you state it wasn't. I guess it's o.k. for you to insert it though.
We agree that is the fix--- a "re-programming" (if you will.)

I would also point out that the brain can be "re-programmed" to the point that the better movements are not "fought".

Ever try to do something physical-- a little different?
Let's just take shooting a basketball, because you were a very good player, you might relate to this:

Player has a problem where his right elbow (right handed shooter) gets, let's just say, way out of whack.

To make the shot more consistent the coach has him bring his right elbow in more, (more under the ball).

During these changes the player is unsure, the coach believes in him and his ability to implement them. Encourages him daily and the transistion becomes more complete

Player starts to make progress. Soon the mind is no longer "fighting" the new pattern. Player starts to get even better and as his confidence (his mind set) spirals he gets better still.
This is a vicious (in a good way) cycle.

The point you make is valid (reprogramming mind / body).
So was mine when I introduced it, regardless of your clamor about it being irrelevant. It is not. It matters plenty.

Greg, the initial post disputing Steve was to prove a point about the silliness that many threads turn in to. I tried to get you to understand that, but instead you, yet again, have to get personal.

It's o.k....I forgive you, just like the last time you did this.:think:

Bye.

[fungo22]

Player starts to make progress. Soon the mind is no longer "fighting" the new pattern. Player starts to get even better and as his confidence (his mind set) spirals he gets better still.
This is a vicious (in a good way) cycle.

The point you make is valid (reprogramming mind / body).
So was mine when I introduced it, regardless of your clamor about it being irrelevant. It is not. It matters plenty.



It is not clamor. It is logic. The issue under discussion and for which you were trying to criticize Steve was whether talking about the hands is useful in the reprogramming task. Your pontificating about neurology and feeling in the hands is irrelevant to the reprogramming task. You have to get the right muscle systems involved and you can't do that by talking about the hands. Your illustration about changing how you shoot a basketball proves my point and Steve's: Don't talk about the freakin' hands. Move his freakin' elbow in under the ball and train the muscles system to shoot that way.



Greg, the initial post disputing Steve was to prove a point about the silliness that many threads turn in to. I tried to get you to understand that, but instead you, yet again, have to get personal.



Rationalize all you want. The point of your post was to try to prove Steve wrong on the use of the hands and make him look "silly." Otherwise you would not have started out by trying to prove that what he said was irratiional. This is another one of your efforts:


So saying that their only function is to grip the bat is misleading because the move starts neurologically. Technically speaking.

See how silly it gets?


You were trying to show that his statement about the limited role of the hands (gripping the bat) is misleading and then trying to make him look silly. But your points were trite and irrelevant.

[fungo22]

one which must be overcome by reprogramming the mind/body system
I would like to know how you propose the above (in bold) without some "re-wiring" of the brain.
This reveals my introduction of the brain into the thread as relevant, regardless of the number of times you state it wasn't. I guess it's o.k. for you to insert it though.
We agree that is the fix--- a "re-programming" (if you will.)

I would also point out that the brain can be "re-programmed" to the point that the better movements are not "fought".


I overlooked this bit my first time through Lauren's post.

Issue under discussion: the role of the hands. Steve says their role is to hang onto the bat. Loren thinks this is silly and that their role is central, or at least more central than Steve admits.

Loren's argument (the best I can make it out): He introduces the brain into the fray, pointing out that the hands and brain are intimately connected. Since brain must be reprogrammed, then hands must play an important role.

As I've already pointed out in my reply to Jim Booth, introducing the brain is irrelevant to the role of the hands issue. This is apparently something Lauren doesn't understand, since he keeps complaining that the brain is relevant to the discussion. Yes, it is relevant to the discussion of motor program, but no, it is not relevant to proving a central role for the hands. (Which was the original context into which Lauren introduced the brain and the context in which I pronounced it irrelevant).

The "reprogramming" that needs to take place, or (better stated) the "new program" that needs to installed is a mind/body program. In the vast majority of hitters, the mind/body already has a program to move the hands and bat, and it is a suboptimal program (Lauren seems to agree). To state it simply, it is hand-dominated.

You cannot create and install a new program for mind/body for moving the hands and bat by focusing on the hands because the mind/body already has a program for moving them. If you want to unlearn the present way the mind/body conspires to move the hands, you have to "reprogram" the mind/body. Because (as Lauren points out) the hands and brain are so intimate (the hands dominate the old, inefficient program), then the most effective means of teaching the mind/body a new program is to take the hands out of the equation.

So as I pointed out to Jim Booth, simply introducing the brain into the discussion because it has intimate relations with the hands is not only irrelevant, it completely ignores the problem. The intimate relationship between hands and brain is not the solution. It is the problem, or at least a big part of it.

Loren says he would like to know how I would propose to reprogram the mind/body without "rewiring the brain." As a matter of fact, I would make no such proposal. But I would propose that this complex and complicated task is almost certainly not a hand job. I would further propose that one might go about it in a way very similar to the way Steve Englishbey goes about it: By forcing the body to move in more efficient ways. As Lauren points out, the mind/body duo will protest at first, but eventually it will accept and begin to thrive and prosper with the new program.

And by the way: I don't care what DMac said about Steve's instruction or the role of the hands. DMac also said that hitting fungos was a good way to learn to hit.

[wrstdude]

I overlooked this bit my first time through Loren's post.

Issue under discussion: the role of the hands. Steve says their role is to hang onto the bat. Loren thinks this is silly and that their role is central, or at least more central than Steve admits.

Loren's argument (the best I can make it out): He introduces the brain into the fray, pointing out that the hands and brain are intimately connected. Since brain must be reprogrammed, then hands must play an important role.

As I've already pointed out in my reply to Jim Booth, introducing the brain is irrelevant to the role of the hands issue. This is apparently something Lauren doesn't understand, since he keeps complaining that the brain is relevant to the discussion. Yes, it is relevant to the discussion of motor program, but no, it is not relevant to proving a central role for the hands. (Which was the original context into which Lauren introduced the brain and the context in which I pronounced it irrelevant).

The "reprogramming" that needs to take place, or (better stated) the "new program" that needs to installed is a mind/body program. In the vast majority of hitters, the mind/body already has a program to move the hands and bat, and it is a suboptimal program (Loren seems to agree). To state it simply, it is hand-dominated.

You cannot create and install a new program for mind/body for moving the hands and bat by focusing on the hands because the mind/body already has a program for moving them. If you want to unlearn the present way the mind/body conspires to move the hands, you have to "reprogram" the mind/body. Because (as Lauren points out) the hands and brain are so intimate (the hands dominate the old, inefficient program), then the most effective means of teaching the mind/body a new program is to take the hands out of the equation.

So as I pointed out to Jim Booth, simply introducing the brain into the discussion because it has intimate relations with the hands is not only irrelevant, it completely ignores the problem. The intimate relationship between hands and brain is not the solution. It is the problem, or at least a big part of it.

Loren says he would like to know how I would propose to reprogram the mind/body without "rewiring the brain." As a matter of fact, I would make no such proposal. But I would propose that this complex and complicated task is almost certainly not a hand job. I would further propose that one might go about it in a way very similar to the way Steve Englishbey goes about it: By forcing the body to move in more efficient ways. As Lauren points out, the mind/body duo will protest at first, but eventually it will accept and begin to thrive and prosper with the new program.

And by the way: I don't care what DMac said about Steve's instruction or the role of the hands. DMac also said that hitting fungos was a good way to learn to hit.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v348/wrstdude/warfgif.gif

[swingbuilder]

Hitting Fungo's is a good way to become a better hitter. You have proof otherwise?

Efficiently turning the body by force does not make a hitter. Efficiently turning the body without force does not make a hitter. Making hard consitent contact in the center of the bat would be an efficient hitter and not an efficient turner or swinger. There is purpose beyond holding the bat for the hands. Steve shows it on every video he has produced. He is not merely holding the bat and turning. He is assisting the unhinging and there is no doubt about that.

[jbooth]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v348/wrstdude/warfgif.gif

Now THAT'S funny, I don't care who you are! :laugh :clapping

[jima]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v348/wrstdude/warfgif.gif

Thanks for the smile.

[Jake Patterson]

Thanks for the smile.
Our first Klingon (lol)

[fungo22]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v348/wrstdude/warfgif.gif

Hey. I'm in India (Surat) for my second week, and I was bored.

Was there something you specifically disagreed with?

[virg]

Hitting Fungo's is a good way to become a better hitter. You have proof otherwise?
.

"proof otherwise" is abundant on playgrounds anywhere, where good fungo hitters often don't even hit slowpitch well: some good fungohitters can't touch it at all.

Hitting fungos is great practice for hitting fungos.

[wrstdude]

Hey. I'm in India (Surat) for my second week, and I was bored.

Was there something you specifically disagreed with?

Not really. Your post just happened to be my breaking point. I can't read anymore of it. The discussion has stopped. It just seems to be arguing for the sake of arguing....which is really tiresome to me. Our Klingon friend best expressed how I felt at that moment. :laugh

[wogdoggy]

I laugh every time i see it..:clapping

[fungo22]

Not really. Your post just happened to be my breaking point. I can't read anymore of it. The discussion has stopped. It just seems to be arguing for the sake of arguing....which is really tiresome to me. Our Klingon friend best expressed how I felt at that moment. :laugh

When you're right, you're right. I should have left well enough alone.