Shoulder bypass? Hands pivot point?

[jbooth]

Where's the big circle around the hands?

Where's the hands bypassing the shoulders?

It's hard to read the angle numbers but, in the top row,
left to right the forearm-to-bat angles in the 4 frames is 90, 93, 121, 166.

Therefore, the bat moves in relation to the hands, 76 degrees from frame 1 to frame 4. That isn't a whole lot, and it doesn't happen until after the hands and shoulders have already moved a ways from the launch position.

The middle row shows the hand movement around the head as the pivot point.

The last row shows that the hands move faster than the shoulders, but they certainly don't "bypass" the shoulders. And, they don't speed up until after the shoulders start to rotate.

The angles of shoulder line to hands in the 4 frames is 117, 107, 93, 76.

A 41 degree acceleration AFTER the shoulders and hands start together.

http://firstpickclub.com/images/frob12a.jpg

http://firstpickclub.com/images/frobsho3.jpg

[Slapper23]

The last row shows that the hands move faster than the shoulders, but they certainly don't "bypass" the shoulders. And, they don't speed up until after the shoulders start to rotate.


Jim,

Your use of "bypass the shoulders" is not the way we define it. Maybe you don't understand what "we" mean when saying the shoulders are bypassed. But I have explained clearly enough in past posts what the term means and it is far different that you seem to be saying in the post above.

My definition of it would be more related to the Al Kaline quote in the Mike Schmidt thread a few weeks back...“My secret was to always keep that front shoulder closed until the last instant. That way my hands had to start.”


and Frank Howard;s quote...
Frank Howard: “Lock up that front side until the hands begin working.”


Those quotes come close to my definition of "bypass shoulders." Not bypassing the shoulders would be a swing with immediate front shoulder/lead arm pulling of the bat...therefore, no shoulders bypassed.

Mike

[jbooth]

Jim,

Your use of "bypass the shoulders" is not the way we define it. Maybe you don't understand what "we" mean when saying the shoulders are bypassed.

OK, I will grant that I don't understand it. How could I, or anyone else? It has got to be the most nonsensical description of anything that you could possibly come up with.

My definition of it would be more related to the Al Kaline quote in the Mike Schmidt thread a few weeks back...

and Frank Howard;s quote...


Those quotes come close to my definition of "bypass shoulders."

Again, I don't think your term is a good description of what you mean, and I don't think the statements of the MLB'ers that you quoted is close to what you describe.

Not bypassing the shoulders would be a swing with immediate front shoulder/lead arm pulling of the bat...therefore, no shoulders bypassed.

And, that would be what actually happens whether you believe it, or not.

There is arm and hand action prior to the front shoulder movement that sets the bat on plane, and moves the hands into the launch spot, but the first force, and primary force to move the bat toward the ball, is the rotation of the shoulders. The kinetic chain would be broken, and the flow of energy coming out of the torso would get "bypassed" and you would be left with arm power only, to move the bat, if you get the hands going ahead of the shoulders. That's what disconnection is. Your definition of "bypass" is a description of "disconnection." How can you bypass the shoulders and have the bat stay connected to torso rotation?

If what you quoted means what you say, then why has the saying "keep the hands back" been around about a 100 years? How do you "get them going" and also "keep them back?"
How do you "bypass" the shoulders and "stay connected" and let the energy flow through the kinetic link? If you bypass the shoulders you destroy the link. Unless I still don't understand what you mean. I guess the question for you is; How do you bypass the shoulders?

Where is Frank "bypassing the shoulders" in this clip? His shoulders are turning while his hands stay back as the bat flattens. The knob moves toward the ball at the same time his shoulders turn. I don't see his hands going forward before the shoulders. His hands are LOCKED back at the rear shoulder, and turning with it.

http://firstpickclub.com/video/robinson1.mpg

Can you find ONE swing in the video below where the hands move toward the ball and the front shoulder is not moving? If the shoulder and hands are both moving, where is the bypass? Or, what is it?

http://wms17.streamhoster.com/firstpick/raresportsfilms.wmv

You mentioned that Kaline said "My secret was to always keep that front shoulder closed until the last instant. That way my hands had to start."
Well, where does he do that in this clip? Is this another case of pros not knowing what they really do? You can see the front shoulder stretch and pull his hands via his front arm. His hands don't move forward before the shoulder opens. I think you misunderstood what he meant. He meant that he kept the shoulder in until the last instant so that his hands had to start when the shoulder turned.

http://firstpickclub.com/video/kaline.wmv

Keeping the front shoulder in, means that it doesn't open when the hips open, nor open as you set the bathead before launch. It DOES make the hands go to the ball. That's what Kaline is doing. He is leaving the shoulder in while he starts the hips and sets the back elbow. Then the shoulders turn and the hands move at the same time, being pulled by the shoulders. The upper arms become active as soon as the shoulder turns. The pulling with the arms is part of what accelerates the hands ahead of the shoulders eventually, but the shoulder starts the hands moving. The arms don't move the knob toward the ball before the shoulder does.

[BoardMember]

Where is Frank "bypassing the shoulders" in this clip? His shoulders are turning while his hands stay back as the bat flattens. The knob moves toward the ball at the same time his shoulders turn. I don't see his hands going forward before the shoulders. His hands are LOCKED back at the rear shoulder, and turning with it.


The shoulders or the hands?..........

Not bypassing the shoulders would be a swing with immediate front shoulder/lead arm pulling of the bat...therefore, no shoulders bypassed

It would appear that the above statement doesn't hold up to video..........The shoulders clearly begin to turn before the hands begin to advance........

http://i25.tinypic.com/2cylf7c.gif

[jbooth]

Not bypassing the shoulders would be a swing with immediate front shoulder/lead arm pulling of the bat...therefore, no shoulders bypassed

It would appear that the above statement doesn't hold up to video..........The shoulders clearly begin to turn before the hands begin to advance........

http://i25.tinypic.com/2cylf7c.gif

Well, you and I both know that NOTHING that H-I leader says about how the upper body works, is even close to reality. No torque, no forearm swivel, no bypass of the shoulders, and no pivoting of the bathead around the hands. He is truly Oh-for.

[RayR]

I've been wondering about the Kaline and Howard quotes and think it might be a postural issue. Video does not support their swing thoughts, but it may be a cue to stay in hitting posture...IMO

[jbooth]

I've been wondering about the Kaline and Howard quotes and think it might be a postural issue. Video does not support their swing thoughts, but it may be a cue to stay in hitting posture...IMO

Yes, and I agree with what you have stated in the past, that the scaps start to move just before, or at the instant that the clavicle (shoulder joint moves). I believe they do use the arms to pull the knob and help the shoulders move the bat, but they do it in synch with the shoulder not before, and not after, shoulder movement.

If you pull the knob early, you disconnect. If you pull it late, the hands are trapped behind and really have to be pulled to catch up with the shoulders.

I don't believe that you just hang on to the bat and let the shoulders do all the work, but you can't get the hand movement out of synch with the shoulder rotation, and THAT is very tricky.

And, when I refer to hand movement, I mean that the upper arms are moving them toward the ball, not that the muscles in the hands are doing much of anything to move the bathead.

[Erik]

Jim,



I don't believe that you just hang on to the bat and let the shoulders do all the work, but you can't get the hand movement out of synch with the shoulder rotation, and THAT is very tricky.



Getting it all working together means everything. This can be learned but feeling it and controlling is the effect from thousands and thousands of swings in many different conditions.





EL,

[MarkL]

teacherman is just as wrong now as he was when he was the leading parrot for pcr and Steve E...Booth-you have done a good job of breaking him down...

[Mark H]

Mark, you have more passion than information where Steve is concerned. Yeah, Paul and Yeager had a slap fest. So what? They both have great things to say. In any case, that was Paul who is not Steve and they are not identical and I don't think Yeager needs your protection. Don't become, behaviorally, that which you criticize. Tom and Richard spend a lot time criticizing Steve. Partially out of ignorance on Tom's part, partly out of never quite getting it even though he seemed to on Richard's part, but mostly out of emotion on both their parts. For whatever reason, they, more often than not, misrepresent Steve. If you wish to criticize Steve, be specific and I'll tell you if you are correctly representing Steve's views. If you correctly represent his views and still wish to criticize them, great! No problem.

[MarkL]

Mark, you have more passion than information where Steve is concerned. Yeah, Paul and Yeager had a slap fest. So what? They both have great things to say. In any case, that was Paul who is not Steve and they are not identical and I don't think Yeager needs your protection. Don't become, behaviorally, that which you criticize. Tom and Richard spend a lot time criticizing Steve. Partially out of ignorance on Tom's part, partly out of never quite getting it even though he seemed to on Richard's part, but mostly out of emotion on both their parts. For whatever reason, they, more often than not, misrepresent Steve. If you wish to criticize Steve, be specific and I'll tell you if you are correctly representing Steve's views. If you correctly represent his views and still wish to criticize them, great! No problem.


I have SteveE's DVDs and see nothing on them that resemble what Yeager teaches on his. Unless there is major revisionism going on, (i.e. Yeager was right Nyman was wrong) I just can't reconcile the two.





I went through this last month with Ssarge:


Ssarge: My POV - AGAIN - is that Yeager has a great description of the MLB swing.

Ssarge:IMO, Yeager does a fine job of identifying and describing the movement pattern and forces of an MLB swing.

Very useful for understanding at the instructional level.


Ssarge:I value my Yeager materials. I've gained real value and insight from them.

Ssarge:Yeager has some great material.



I still tryin' sarge, what were the best MECHANICAL descriptions that you found useful w/ Yeager and how does that correlate with PCR???

I think it is great that a "posse" member appreciates another "guru's" material, but I just can't put the two together on any point.



ssarge-

I have also studied both Yeager and Englishbey and I would be very interested in hearing how you reconcile the two.

Yeager's emphasis is on the legs driving hip rotation by "pushing" "mass" into the front leg which then transfers momentum to front hip---i.e. ground up..Englshbey talks about 'turning from the middle"

Englishbey says to "just hold on to the bat and turn"-----Yeager does not want the batter to ever think "turn".

Yeager also talks about separation constantly, Englishbey PConnectionR wants the shoulders and arms and bat to rotate as a unit...

Yeager spends more time on the stride and its pupose than he does on any other part of the swing...Englishbey prefers that it be eliminated..

elbow slotting vs no-elbow slotting
Ground-up vs middle-out
hands vs no-hands

Ssarge--please show us how you have reconciled Yeager's material with PCR...I just don't see it....



BTW his drills are mainly just workouts with pro players and I don't know how many he has sent out...I am glad that I have one---


For what ever reason, Ssarge was afraid to give specific MECHANICAL descriptions on Yeager's DVDs that he found useful/compatible w/ SE's DVDs.


So I will try w/ you H- what were the best MECHANICAL descriptions that you found useful w/ Yeager and how does that correlate with PCR??? (no directions to the website please)

[Mark H]

I have SteveE's DVDs and see nothing on them that resemble what Yeager teaches on his. Unless there is major revisionism going on, (i.e. Yeager was right Nyman was wrong) I just can't reconcile the two.)

Sounds like a discussion you should have with Steve. He'll wear out your cell phone battery or discuss it longer than your stamina will allow in person with someone trying to understand what he teaches.



For what ever reason, Ssarge was afraid to give specific MECHANICAL descriptions on Yeager's DVDs that he found useful/compatible w/ SE's DVDs. )

I don't know that afraid would be the word I would use. Like me, he's not on here to fight. If someone's looking for help, Scott will bust himself. If someones looking to fight and argue, he's not much interested though it is possible to get him aggravated. Tom and Richard are interested in fighting though. They love it and I recommend them for anyone looking to wrangle. I find it a poor use of my time.


So I will try w/ you H- what were the best MECHANICAL descriptions that you found useful w/ Yeager and how does that correlate with PCR??? (no directions to the website please)

Sounds like a discussion you should have with Steve if you really want to understand what he's thinking as relates to what Yeager said. I'm not on here to fight. I'm on here to point the searchers to what I think is good info. I do my best to remember that though Tom and Richard can sometimes annoy me enough to wrangle a bit.

On Steve, I will tell you if you are correctly following him if you mention something specific. I will leave it to you and him to work out the communication problem.

[MarkL]

same old-same old.....

[Mark H]

Step outside your point of view for a moment and try to see the irony in that post. :)

[Slapper23]

And, that would be what actually happens whether you believe it, or not.


Ah!...and there's the rub.


Mike

[MarkL]

I stress DVDs b/c someone shouldn't need a message board to explain/refine their material. Funny how Yeager's stuff is communicated without a team of people required to explain/refine it...

[Mark H]

So...having access to a support group is a BAD thing? ;)

[MarkL]

uh when it is REQUIRED to explain/REFINE your DVDs it is REAL BAD!!!!!!

[jbooth]

Ah!...and there's the rub.


Mike


Well, if you want to believe the world is flat, you have the right, but just don't try to tell those of us who know the truth, that we're wrong. You seem to have a difficult time discerning the difference between fact and opinion.

[Mark H]

uh when it is REQUIRED to explain/REFINE your DVDs it is REAL BAD!!!!!!

Maybe you don't? Maybe it's just a fun bonus? Ah well, I knew the glass was half empty some way or another. ;)

[Mark H]

Just read through this. http://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/20030116carroll.shtml Nothing earth shattering or new there except I did think it was odd he would accept an equivalency between himself and Marshall. The 100 mph body movement thing is odd and goofy but overall, no big deal.

[Slapper23]

but just don't try to tell those of us who know the truth, that we're wrong. You seem to have a difficult time discerning the difference between fact and opinion.


In regard to the "truth" part of your statement, no Jim, it is not difficult to see you are, in fact, expressing your opinion.


Mike

[jbooth]

In regard to the "truth" part of your statement, no Jim, it is not difficult to see you are, in fact, expressing your opinion.


Mike

Yes, I started with an opinion and then, through detailed analysis, proved it to be the truth. You have an opinion that cannot be supported to be true after thorough analysis.

Apparently you can't understand analytical processes, and how to logically separate fact from fallacy.

You cannot prove that your opinion is the truth. I can. Anyone can start with an opinion, and then using logical analysis, determine if the opinion is true or false. I have lots of evidence that has been discovered through detailed analysis to support that my opinion is the truth. You still just have an opinion, and your opinion has many elements that can be shown to be false after thorough logical analysis.

So, yes we both have opinions, but mine has facts and evidence to back it up. Your opinion doesn't stand up to analysis.

Conclusions that one reaches after analysis aren't always the final proof. Further analysis can sometimes point out faulty logic or something that was overlooked which leads to the wrong conclusion. But, so far you nor anyone else has given evidence that I've reached the wrong conclusion. I still hear differing opinions, but nobody backs up their opinion with analytical evidence, or can point out flaws in my analysis. So, you can keep saying what you think happens, but until you can back it up with evidence that can be concluded as fact, then your ideas are useless.

[Slapper23]

Jim, you need to cut back on the caffeine, man. Wow! Facts is facts, but your detailed analysis surely supports your theory of things, but does not represent what is happening in the swing...in my opinion. Your logic is indeed faulty, IMO. See, unless you're talking about Newtonian laws, for instance, you are only talking opinion. Well, other than things like yes, the ball and bat make contact....the bat is held in the hands... I would say those are facts.

It's ok to disagree. The great thing is we are both studying the swing, wanting to become better teachers, wanting to help kids become better hitters. For all of that, I can overlook your biting sarcasm. :)

Mike

[Mark H]

Anyone can start with an opinion, and then using logical analysis, determine if the opinion is true or false.

Anyone? Who knew gruff old Jim was a pollyanna optimist. :)

[jbooth]

Jim, you need to cut back on the caffeine, man. Wow! Facts is facts, but your detailed analysis surely supports your theory of things, but does not represent what is happening in the swing...in my opinion. Your logic is indeed faulty, IMO.

There you go again, stating that you have an OPINION that my logic is faulty, but you don't point out where my logic is faulty and refute it with your own supporting evidence.

See, unless you're talking about Newtonian laws, for instance, you are only talking opinion.

I DO talk about Newtonian laws and I have shown many times that you and Richard defy those laws all the time.

And, I describe bone movements with facts about how the body is put together and how it moves, and you say stuff that doesn't happen or can't happen.

Well, other than things like yes, the ball and bat make contact....the bat is held in the hands... I would say those are facts.

Well, duh, yeah it is a fact that the bat is held in the hands, and that's about as much as you know about.

It's ok to disagree. The great thing is we are both studying the swing, wanting to become better teachers, wanting to help kids become better hitters. For all of that, I can overlook your biting sarcasm. :)

Sure, it's OK to disagree, but you look foolish when you simply disagree because you THINK it works different from how I say, when the evidence I have presented is overwhelming in the fact that I'm closer to correct than you are. You have NOTHING to back up your OPINION. I have lots of stuff that backs up mine. You either can't understand this concept, or you refuse to acknowledge that you have nothing to support your ideas.

And, "studying" means to look for evidence that can back up what you think you see is happening. You have simply formed an opinion from a simplistic look at a swing, and haven't dug deeper to find out what causes the moves that you appear to see when you look at a swing.

[Slapper23]

Jim,

Your analysis of me is also faulty. You're getting too crotchety in your old age...me too.

Mike

[jbooth]

Jim,

Your analysis of me is also faulty. You're getting too crotchety in your old age...me too.

Mike

Yeah, I can be crotchety when I get frustrated with someone, or some thing. I get frustrated when someone expresses an opinion, and then doesn't back it up with evidence. Or, expresses their OPINION that my facts are wrong, and then don't refute my statements with countering evidence, but rather with, "my opinion is different, and I think you are wrong."

At least, even Richard tried to back up his opinion with evidence. The problem is; his only evidence is what he thinks happens by what to him; appears to be happening when he looks at video. You and he never got beyond "appearances" to validate your belief. To get to the truth you have to analyze the bone movements, and apply the move to the laws of physics. If what appears to be true can be validated by bone structure and movement, and the movement can be traced to the laws of physics in regard to where the force is derived, then you can know the truth. I've refuted ALL of what your OPINION states, with facts and evidence, yet you choose to keep to your opinion. Is that smart?

Show me where I'm in error. Don't just keep repeating that your opinion is that I'm wrong. That doesn't cut it. Prove to me where, or stop saying I'm wrong. My analysis and "study" of the swing comes up with the same results as Dr. DeRenne, and Dr. Yeager who know this stuff better than me. NOBODY, not geek or player, corroborates your OPINION. So, you can disagree with our opinions all you wish, and just look foolish.

[LClifton]

I get frustrated when someone expresses an opinion, and then doesn't back it up with evidence.

Really? It hardly shows.

[jbooth]

Really? It hardly shows.

Wise guy! :dance:laugh

[jima]

slapper's responses = "rope-a-dope"...old expression, but appropriate in context.

[Slapper23]

If what appears to be true can be validated by bone structure and movement, and the movement can be traced to the laws of physics in regard to where the force is derived, then you can know the truth.

Jim, you're not getting off that easy with your indignant, how dare you response. You did show the movement you believed to be true of how the bat gets from pre-launch-to lauch-to lag. I will not disagree with you about your physics, because what you show in executing the movement may be true as you describe it. The problem is, that is not how ML hitters move the bat.....IMO. I've covered how I believe it works several times in the past. And what you actually are showing as your truth is also just your opinion of how the swing works. And that's ok. Through your time and study involved in looking at the swing, you have come to your conclusion.

And I also have a lot of respect for Dr. Chris Yeager's work. IMO (sorry about that), he is closer to the truth than some other well known instructors.

Now take a deep breath, hold, breathe out slowly and compose yourself. :)

Mike

P.S. Jim, sorry I take so long in responding but I'm coaching right now. We're just in the start of our season. Last night we worked on hitting only. It was a nice night, good practice, with a couple of balls going over the fence. That always gets the juices flowing.

[jbooth]

Jim, you're not getting off that easy with your indignant, how dare you response. You did show the movement you believed to be true of how the bat gets from pre-launch-to lauch-to lag. I will not disagree with you about your physics, because what you show in executing the movement may be true as you describe it. The problem is, that is not how ML hitters move the bat.....IMO. I've covered how I believe it works several times in the past. And what you actually are showing as your truth is also just your opinion of how the swing works. And that's ok. Through your time and study involved in looking at the swing, you have come to your conclusion.

And I also have a lot of respect for Dr. Chris Yeager's work. IMO (sorry about that), he is closer to the truth than some other well known instructors.

Now take a deep breath, hold, breathe out slowly and compose yourself. :)

Mike

P.S. Jim, sorry I take so long in responding but I'm coaching right now. We're just in the start of our season. Last night we worked on hitting only. It was a nice night, good practice, with a couple of balls going over the fence. That always gets the juices flowing.

Well, I've detailed how it works and provided evidence, you have stated how you think it works. I think at this point, enough has been said. People who read the forum can decide for themselves.