Dave Hudgens 50/50 Rotational vs Weight Transfer

[rkbenn]

Not sure if any of you seen this.

50 / 50 HITTING
by Dave Hudgens

Weight Transfer

Some hitters may be more weight transfer then rotational. They want to get on top of their front foot and transfer their weight through the ball. You'll see these hitters on top of their front leg more dramatically than others. The hitters who use a greater percentage of weight transfer, generally speaking, hit more singles and doubles. I have racked my brain to try to give you an example of a Major League weight transfer hitter and I can't think of any. Some might argue that George Brett was a pure weight transfer hitter - this is a misconception. If you can get a hold of old footage of George, he is definitely a combination of the two. While editing this section, Jordan thought Frank Thomas was a good example of a hitter who utilizes more weight transfer then rotation. I agree, however, he is not purely weight transfer. If you were to arbitrarily assign percentages to his swing, he would be more of a 60% weight transfer, 40% rotational - he uses both.

Rotation

A total rotational hitter will have more power than the weight transfer hitter simply because he uses his hips and legs more and of course you know that is the core part of the body from which power comes. However hitters who are rotationally dominant will generally have a longer swing, pull off the ball more and be more inconsistent - therefore they will have more holes in their swing. They will not be able to use their hands to react to different locations and types of pitches. Dave Kingman, who played in the 1980's, is a good example of a pure rotational hitter. Dave would hit 40 homeruns a year and hit .200 for average. I can't think of any Major League hitter who hits purely rotationally, although both Barry Bonds and Greg Vaughn utilize more rotation then weight transfer. Now they would be more in the percentages of 60% rotational, 40% weight transfer. They still use both.

Ted Williams - Charlie Lau

I frequently am asked questions about the all time great hitter, Ted Williams and the late Charlie Lau. Williams is thought of as being a pure rotational hitter, while Lau was a pure weight transfer teacher. Both are misconceptions and misrepresenting the swing. Percentage wise, Ted teaches more rotation but if you look at his old videos and still shots, you clearly see his weight going from back to center which is weight transfer. Lau embraced a pure weight shift philosophy and many of his still shots in his book do show hitters on top of their front leg, however, that isn't what happened to those same hitters in real game action swings. If any of you have Ted William's book, The Science of Hitting, turn to the very last page and you will see a perfect swing. However, look closely. Ted has gone to the center position, with his back heel in the air, and his toe - NOT the ball of his foot - on the ground. This clearly shows you the weight has transferred to the center position and therefore, it is not a pure rotational swing. A pure rotational swing would involve no weight transfer and would consist of the weight spinning on the ball of the back foot. It is clear cut - he is definitely not spinning. The swing is definitely a combination of both rotation and weight shift. However, there are varying degrees of this combination. Speaking in mathematical terms, look at it as a matter of the percent used of each. Some hitters will use a greater percentage of rotation, while others will use a greater percentage of weight shift. Ideally the swing should be 50/50. Fifty percent rotational and fifty percent weight transfer. Most great Major League hitters are at 50/50 - A-Rod is a good example.

The effect of having a pure rotational approach is that the hitter will be guaranteed to have a less effective, more inconsistent circular hand path. When taking a circular hand path through the zone, the barrel of the bat stays on the contact plane for a very short time. This leads not only to an improper hand path but also to inconsistent contact. In addition to that, these hitters will have a greater likelihood of rolling over the ball with their top hand which in turn leads to more weak ground balls being hit. Contrast that to a hitter using a strict weight transfer or linear path. Despite the fact that he will stay on the ball longer, he will in fact have more of a chopping type swing. That is why a combination of the two is what leads to the most success. The proper hand path will start out linear or straight to the ball. On the finish or follow through, the swing becomes more circular. In other words, the swing is more linear on the approach to the ball, and more circular on the follow through. Remember to keep it simple because this truly isn't a difficult concept, people make it much harder then what it is.

- Dave Hudgens has been involved with the best of baseball for over 30 years. He is currently the Minor League Hitting Coordinator for the Cleveland Indians. Prior to that he was a longtime hitting coach in the Oakland Athletics' organization.

[callyjr]

Not sure if any of you seen this.

50 / 50 HITTING
by Dave Hudgens


- Dave Hudgens has been involved with the best of baseball for over 30 years. He is currently the Minor League Hitting Coordinator for the Cleveland Indians. Prior to that he was a longtime hitting coach in the Oakland Athletics' organization.

how is he doing for the minor league team?

[jbooth]

Not sure if any of you seen this.

50 / 50 HITTING
by Dave Hudgens

Weight Transfer

Some hitters may be more weight transfer then rotational. They want to get on top of their front foot and transfer their weight through the ball. You'll see these hitters on top of their front leg more dramatically than others. The hitters who use a greater percentage of weight transfer, generally speaking, hit more singles and doubles. I have racked my brain to try to give you an example of a Major League weight transfer hitter and I can't think of any. Some might argue that George Brett was a pure weight transfer hitter - this is a misconception. If you can get a hold of old footage of George, he is definitely a combination of the two. While editing this section, Jordan thought Frank Thomas was a good example of a hitter who utilizes more weight transfer then rotation. I agree, however, he is not purely weight transfer. If you were to arbitrarily assign percentages to his swing, he would be more of a 60% weight transfer, 40% rotational - he uses both.

Rotation

A total rotational hitter will have more power than the weight transfer hitter simply because he uses his hips and legs more and of course you know that is the core part of the body from which power comes. However hitters who are rotationally dominant will generally have a longer swing, pull off the ball more and be more inconsistent - therefore they will have more holes in their swing. They will not be able to use their hands to react to different locations and types of pitches. Dave Kingman, who played in the 1980's, is a good example of a pure rotational hitter. Dave would hit 40 homeruns a year and hit .200 for average. I can't think of any Major League hitter who hits purely rotationally, although both Barry Bonds and Greg Vaughn utilize more rotation then weight transfer. Now they would be more in the percentages of 60% rotational, 40% weight transfer. They still use both.

Ted Williams - Charlie Lau

I frequently am asked questions about the all time great hitter, Ted Williams and the late Charlie Lau. Williams is thought of as being a pure rotational hitter, while Lau was a pure weight transfer teacher. Both are misconceptions and misrepresenting the swing. Percentage wise, Ted teaches more rotation but if you look at his old videos and still shots, you clearly see his weight going from back to center which is weight transfer. Lau embraced a pure weight shift philosophy and many of his still shots in his book do show hitters on top of their front leg, however, that isn't what happened to those same hitters in real game action swings. If any of you have Ted William's book, The Science of Hitting, turn to the very last page and you will see a perfect swing. However, look closely. Ted has gone to the center position, with his back heel in the air, and his toe - NOT the ball of his foot - on the ground. This clearly shows you the weight has transferred to the center position and therefore, it is not a pure rotational swing. A pure rotational swing would involve no weight transfer and would consist of the weight spinning on the ball of the back foot. It is clear cut - he is definitely not spinning. The swing is definitely a combination of both rotation and weight shift. However, there are varying degrees of this combination. Speaking in mathematical terms, look at it as a matter of the percent used of each. Some hitters will use a greater percentage of rotation, while others will use a greater percentage of weight shift. Ideally the swing should be 50/50. Fifty percent rotational and fifty percent weight transfer. Most great Major League hitters are at 50/50 - A-Rod is a good example.

The effect of having a pure rotational approach is that the hitter will be guaranteed to have a less effective, more inconsistent circular hand path. When taking a circular hand path through the zone, the barrel of the bat stays on the contact plane for a very short time. This leads not only to an improper hand path but also to inconsistent contact. In addition to that, these hitters will have a greater likelihood of rolling over the ball with their top hand which in turn leads to more weak ground balls being hit. Contrast that to a hitter using a strict weight transfer or linear path. Despite the fact that he will stay on the ball longer, he will in fact have more of a chopping type swing. That is why a combination of the two is what leads to the most success. The proper hand path will start out linear or straight to the ball. On the finish or follow through, the swing becomes more circular. In other words, the swing is more linear on the approach to the ball, and more circular on the follow through. Remember to keep it simple because this truly isn't a difficult concept, people make it much harder then what it is.

- Dave Hudgens has been involved with the best of baseball for over 30 years. He is currently the Minor League Hitting Coordinator for the Cleveland Indians. Prior to that he was a longtime hitting coach in the Oakland Athletics' organization.

The above nonsense is why, after purchasing all of Hudgen's material 12 years ago, I threw it in the garbage after watching it and trying it. He has no understanding at all, as to how the body moves the bat.

[jbooth]

how is he doing for the minor league team?

Probably ruining the chances of ever making MLB, for any player naive enough to listen to what he says.

[rkbenn]

how does this guy stayed employeed?

[Swing Coach]

All of the elite mlb swings I have looked closely at are linear to heel plant, then rotational. IN other words, there are 2 parts to an elite swing:
1. Positive move toward the pitcher
2. Rotation of the body (with no more movement foreward)

See...it's not so complicated:dance

[mudvnine]

The above nonsense is why, after purchasing all of Hudgen's material 12 years ago, I threw it in the garbage after watching it and trying it. He has no understanding at all, as to how the body moves the bat.

Ok JB, I'll bite, what is it about Hudgens' description of a rotational and linear combination of hitting (other then probably the hand path) do you find to be so much "garbage"?

We’ve had great success with most of his stuff, but continue to learn more now, thanks to help of Dr. Yeager.

how does this guy stayed employeed?

I'm trying to figure out the same thing if his stuff is sooooooo bad, as you seem to think; you'd figure the MLB guys would have run him out years ago. Same question to you, what specifically do you disagree with in the article?

[jbooth]

Ok JB, I'll bite, what is it about Hudgens' description of a rotational and linear combination of hitting (other then probably the hand path) do you find to be so much "garbage"?

We’ve had great success with most of his stuff, but continue to learn more now, thanks to help of Dr. Yeager.



I'm trying to figure out the same thing if his stuff is sooooooo bad, as you seem to think; you'd figure the MLB guys would have run him out years ago. Same question to you, what specifically do you disagree with in the article?

It's too much to detail. He essentially just does not understand the physics, geometry and physiology of the swing. Basically very little, if anything, that he stated in that article, is accurate.

A lot of minor league hitting instructors are clueless. The star players who have MLB talent will not change their swing, and get to MLB regardless of the coach. The ones who suffer are guys on the borderline, needing some help to get to MLB and if they listen to guys like Hudgens their career ends.

When Hudgens was with the A's MLB team, management strongly voiced to the players that they wanted them to listen to Hudgens. They did, and I could tell by the changes in their swings from the previous season. They team was hitting .232 as a team and Chavez and Byrnes and others were having the worst years of their career. They fired Hudgens in June, and by September the team average was up to .268 and the stars were hitting again. And, in looking at video you could see that they went back to their original swings.

A member of the team told me that he had them doing drills where the goal was to swing down and hit the ball on the ground 30 feet out from the plate.

[FiveFrameSwing]

All of the elite mlb swings I have looked closely at are linear to heel plant, then rotational. IN other words, there are 2 parts to an elite swing:
1. Positive move toward the pitcher
2. Rotation of the body (with no more movement foreward)

See...it's not so complicated:dance

If you view Jim's video it will explain why rotation begins with the final push of back leg into what you refer to as heel plant.

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

[mudvnine]

It's too much to detail. He essentially just does not understand the physics, geometry and physiology of the swing. Basically very little, if anything, that he stated in that article, is accurate. Ok, I understand the article is long, but unless you site a couple specific examples I can't respond with what he taught in his instructors' classes. By making the statement, "Basically very little, if anything, that he stated in that article, is accurate", it's too vague to elicit a response.


When Hudgens was with the A's MLB team, management strongly voiced to the players that they wanted them to listen to Hudgens. They did, and I could tell by the changes in their swings from the previous season. They team was hitting .232 as a team and Chavez and Byrnes and others were having the worst years of their career. They fired Hudgens in June, and by September the team average was up to .268 and the stars were hitting again. And, in looking at video you could see that they went back to their original swings.

Not sure where you got your info and stats from but here's the real ones.

In 1999, Dave's first stint as Oakland's hitting instructor, the A's set two team records (893 runs scored and 773 base on balls) and led the AL in walks, were second in the AL in HRs (235), fourth in the AL in OBP (355), had five players with 20+ homeruns, three players with 30+ homeruns, and three players with over 100 RBI's.

In 2000 they were second in HRs (239), third in OBP (.360), second in walks (750), and third in runs scored (947) from a team with only 40 SB for the season, sounds like pretty good situational hitting to me. I could go on, but I think you get my point.

During the 2003 season he replaced Thad Bosley and the team finished with a .254 BA for the season after hitting .236 under Bosley. During the 2004 season under Dave, the A's had a team BA of .270 with a slg% of .433, he was released after the 2005 season when the team hit .262 . . . the following season they hit .260 and dropped to .256 last year, so maybe the term "scapegoat" might apply here . . . I'm just saying.

All of this is on "baseball-reference.com" if you care to confirm it.

A member of the team told me that he had them doing drills where the goal was to swing down and hit the ball on the ground 30 feet out from the plate

Care to name the player because Dave has never communicated those "drills" to any of us during our training sessions or in his written material to coaches. I just love these second-hand, "hearsay" qoutes that always show up here as definitive "proof" of something, when nothing substantial can be found.

[mudvnine]

If you view Jim's video it will explain why rotation begins with the final push of back leg into what you refer to as heel plant.

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

That video was awesome . . . kudos to you JB, great job. :applaud::applaud:

[Dirtberry]

The problem is it all works and until you guys figure that out you will all be to old to correct your grillings of the way someone approaches batting.

Would you teach this swing? Yet he’s one of the best of all time.
http://web.baseballhalloffame.org/media/player/mp_tpl.jsp?w=http%3A//mfile.akamai.com/31386/wmv/mlb.download.akamai.com/31386/open/members/clemente_r/clemente_roberto_hr_71asg_400.wmv&type=v_free&_mp=1
Is he 30% rotational and 70% Linear? Watch the ball travel 460 ft. Yet you will all contend that you cannot attain power from this position? Is his bat traveling
level or up?

[Ifubuildit]

The link is dead my man.

Elliott.

[virg]

The problem is it all works and until you guys figure that out you will all be to old to correct your grillings of the way someone approaches batting.
Would you teach this swing? Yet he’s one of the best of all time.
http://web.baseballhalloffame.org/media/player/mp_tpl.j...mv&type=v_free&_mp=1

No pic, Dirt. Who was it?

[jbooth]

Ok, I understand the article is long, but unless you site a couple specific examples I can't respond with what he taught in his instructors' classes. By making the statement, "Basically very little, if anything, that he stated in that article, is accurate", it's too vague to elicit a response.



I really don't want to get into a point-by-point debate, I'm tired of doing that with many people. If you're having success with his method then stick with it. His method caused me to not be able to hit worth a darn. And, just watching him and his son demonstrate, I don't see any MLB hitter swinging even close to that way.

[mudvnine]

I really don't want to get into a point-by-point debate, I'm tired of doing that with many people. If you're having success with his method then stick with it. His method caused me to not be able to hit worth a darn. And, just watching him and his son demonstrate, I don't see any MLB hitter swinging even close to that way.

Fair enough JB, if it didn't work for you, then yes, you should get rid of it, fortunately it clicked for me and my boys who have been very successful with it. I think a key word in your post regarding the MLB swing is "demonstrate", as in drills, because I've never seen Dave or Jordon take their game swings, but I have seen the finished product from their teaching.

As can be expected, I don't always agree 100% with what you post, as with this time regarding Hudgens, but I do think that the majority of the stuff you post on this forum is excellent and I respect your opinion.

Please don't take offense at this, but you and Dave have similar teaching styles, in that you both (my opinion) understand the swing and have the ability to communicate how to teach it in a usable format. I'm sure that you know all of the scientific biomechanics that go into it, but you present usable material that I can take to the cage, not stuff that I need to teach in and A&P lab.


Thanks for your response,
Mud

[rkbenn]

I'm trying to figure out the same thing if his stuff is sooooooo bad, as you seem to think; you'd figure the MLB guys would have run him out years ago. Same question to you, what specifically do you disagree with in the article?[/QUOTE]

hold on cowboy, i feel the same way. if he was so bad why is he still in MLB? seems everyone on here is on edge...:mad:

[mudvnine]

hold on cowboy, i feel the same way. if he was so bad why is he still in MLB? seems everyone on here is on edge...:mad:

Sorry RK, from seeing how many of the guys treat the working MLB professionals here , I just kind of thought . . . . please accept my apologies.

With Dave's help we have been able to take kids that didn't have "it" out of the womb (as was noted on another post) and so far, get them to the collegiate level . . . we'll just have to wait is see what happens as far as the "next level" goes. :) :cap:

[crazyhawk]

I have thought it quite humorous that over the span of one week, we have had multiple posters explain that Don Mattingly, Rudy Jaramillo and Dave Hudgens all have absolutely no idea what they are teaching. All 3 have been or are major league hitting instructors. Man, MLB just doesn't have their act together at all. I have also heard from multiple posters that many minor league hitting coaches have no clue how to teach any hitting concepts. If this is the case....then some of you "hitting guru's" really are bad at marketing yourself and need to get your resume dusted off and get one of these jobs, because MLB seems to have morons doing the job currently.

[rkbenn]

Sorry RK, from seeing how many of the guys treat the working MLB professionals here , I just kind of thought . . . . please accept my apologies.

With Dave's help we have been able to take kids that didn't have "it" out of the womb (as was noted on another post) and so far, get them to the collegiate level . . . we'll just have to wait is see what happens as far as the "next level" goes. :) :cap:

no problem...a guy doesn't stay in MLB as long as he has and has nothing to offer. MLB owes him nothing. :)

[PhilliesPhan22]

Great video, it really helped to explain a few things to me. I still say hit however you are most successful and most comfortable; no matter whose method you subscribe to.

[virg]

All of the elite mlb swings I have looked closely at are linear to heel plant, then rotational. IN other words, there are 2 parts to an elite swing:
1. Positive move toward the pitcher
2. Rotation of the body (with no more movement foreward)

See...it's not so complicated:dance

Do heel plant, Decision, Launch coincide? And do they happen with the pitch about halfway home? And you say it's linear til then, then circular? I'm sold, but the mankin-nyman- slowpitch swing gang doesn't buy it. They're gonna jump you.

[thehogans]

If you view Jim's video it will explain why rotation begins with the final push of back leg into what you refer to as heel plant.

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

I just jumped into this thread so I'm catching up, but I just wanted to say that this video really got me thinking. Anyone who knows me from this forum, knows that scientific evidence really goes a long way with me, and the demo with the skeleton really made me think!

Generally, I don't like a lot of different instruction, messes with your head too much, so I think out of general curiosity I watched this video. However, I have never seen that first movement of the hips explained as a function of the movement of the back foot. I'm hitting the cages to workout tonight, and honestly, I'm gonna give this theory a shot. It seemed the most plausible of any I have heard, and much of the instruction I have had NEVER focused on WHY the hips move, it just focused on the fact that they HAD to move...and to be fair to my current and former instructors, it's been some top level teaching. I'm also going to bring this up with my hitting coach who has some sort of anatomy or kinesiology degree, and see what he thinks about it...I'll bet he'll find it very interesting. He's a science/biology type guy like me, so I'm sure we'll be able to discuss it ad nauseum...:ughh

[jbooth]

I just jumped into this thread so I'm catching up, but I just wanted to say that this video really got me thinking. Anyone who knows me from this forum, knows that scientific evidence really goes a long way with me, and the demo with the skeleton really made me think!

Generally, I don't like a lot of different instruction, messes with your head too much, so I think out of general curiosity I watched this video. However, I have never seen that first movement of the hips explained as a function of the movement of the back foot. I'm hitting the cages to workout tonight, and honestly, I'm gonna give this theory a shot. It seemed the most plausible of any I have heard, and much of the instruction I have had NEVER focused on WHY the hips move, it just focused on the fact that they HAD to move...and to be fair to my current and former instructors, it's been some top level teaching. I'm also going to bring this up with my hitting coach who has some sort of anatomy or kinesiology degree, and see what he thinks about it...I'll bet he'll find it very interesting. He's a science/biology type guy like me, so I'm sure we'll be able to discuss it ad nauseum...:ughh

Be careful here. It's NOT the FOOT that you think of pushing with. You will feel pressure there, but the action is from abducting the leg from the hip. Several people fail to note that in the video I SPECIFICALLY state that the muscles that cause the action are in the upper leg hip area. I twisted the skeleton from the foot to show that the force at the hip makes the hip start to turn and the angles of the bones are what cause rotation from the straight line push.

I don't have 3 or 4 arms, I could only hold the skeleton's head and the foot, but the force doesn't start at the foot, it starts at the hip and the ground reaction at the foot sends force back up the leg and pushes the hip, and the bone angles cause rotation rather than a slide.

I demonstrated how it works when I demonstrated leg abduction myself, and then stated that when you used that same muscle action while weight was on the foot, the torso moved. You're abducting the back leg, but the foot can't move because it's planted on the ground, therefore, the torso moves, and because of the posture/leg angles, it creates a turn, with the push. If you do it while standing straight up with a straight leg, then the abduction moves the torso without causing rotation. It's all in the posture/leg bend.

[thehogans]

Be careful here. It's NOT the FOOT that you think of pushing with. You will feel pressure there, but the action is from abducting the leg from the hip. Several people fail to note that in the video I SPECIFICALLY state that the muscles that cause the action are in the upper leg hip area. I twisted the skeleton from the foot to show that the force at the hip makes the hip start to turn and the angles of the bones are what cause rotation from the straight line push.

I don't have 3 or 4 arms, I could only hold the skeleton's head and the foot, but the force doesn't start at the foot, it starts at the hip and the ground reaction at the foot sends force back up the leg and pushes the hip, and the bone angles cause rotation rather than a slide.

I demonstrated how it works when I demonstrated leg abduction myself, and then stated that when you used that same muscle action while weight was on the foot, the torso moved. You're abducting the back leg, but the foot can't move because it's planted on the ground, therefore, the torso moves, and because of the posture/leg angles, it creates a turn, with the push. If you do it while standing straight up with a straight leg, then the abduction moves the torso without causing rotation. It's all in the posture/leg bend.

Awww come on...you didn't have some string so you could dance that skeleton around like a marionette?? :rofl: Just kidding...I think I wasn't listening as closely as I needed to...last thing I need to do is try some new mechanic or cue, and do it wrong! And if you'd like, I'll let you know what happens, how it feels, etc.

So going back to the movement of the back foot through the rest of the swing...once the outside part of the back foot lifts off the ground, and the hips are nearing the end of the rotation, does the inside part of the back foot generally stay planted, drag a bit forward (toward the pitcher), or does your foot "roll" up onto the toe? Or does it really matter as long as you get good hip rotation?

[jbooth]

Awww come on...you didn't have some string so you could dance that skeleton around like a marionette?? :rofl: Just kidding...I think I wasn't listening as closely as I needed to...last thing I need to do is try some new mechanic or cue, and do it wrong! And if you'd like, I'll let you know what happens, how it feels, etc.

So going back to the movement of the back foot through the rest of the swing...once the outside part of the back foot lifts off the ground, and the hips are nearing the end of the rotation, does the inside part of the back foot generally stay planted, drag a bit forward (toward the pitcher), or does your foot "roll" up onto the toe? Or does it really matter as long as you get good hip rotation?

Usually, if you shift off of it, and rotate, it will raise up on the toe and drag forward. How much, varies from hitter to hitter and sometimes swing to swing.

[thehogans]

Usually, if you shift off of it, and rotate, it will raise up on the toe and drag forward. How much, varies from hitter to hitter and sometimes swing to swing.

OK, so I worked on the cues from the video yesterday, especially the abduction of the back leg from the hip, and here are the things that stuck out to me the most:

1: My hips were able to start rotation and keep rotating MUCH quicker than previously, and with much less effort and thought...like it was automatic. And much like you said in the video that the body HAS to move that way based on the physiology of the hip joint. It made sense.

2: I didn't have to think about my front leg straightening...it felt like you almost HAD to straighten the front leg to keep your balance and not fall over! And again, it happened with much less effort and thought.

3: As a result of the quicker hip rotation, I had to really focus in on letting the ball get deep...the first few swings I was so fast and was so far in front, it was like our BP guy was throwing me changeups! It caught me WAY off guard, but I made the adjustment, and once I did, I actually felt like I hit the ball harder to the opposite field too.

4: My back foot didn't get all the way up onto the toe, but got close, to the inside part of the big toe as best as I could feel, and did drag forward on its own.

5: I noticed that my hand path changed a bit and I was on more of an uppercut plane than before. As a result, I was getting too far underneath some pitches, dropping the back shoulder, and popping them up. But a little more concentration on my hand path, focusing on being more direct to and through the ball, fixed that right away.

All in all, a very interesting and initially successful mechanical cue that I will continue to work on. Thanks for posting the video! Good stuff!

[FiveFrameSwing]

5: I noticed that my hand path changed a bit and I was on more of an uppercut plane than before. As a result, I was getting too far underneath some pitches, dropping the back shoulder, and popping them up. But a little more concentration on my hand path, focusing on being more direct to and through the ball, fixed that right away.

Here's the one thing I've seen different with the kids I've been instructing to do this.

Yes, their hand-path changed, but the change was different. The kids would end up obtaining full extension of the bat barrel after contact as a result (as opposed to trying to force extension or not achieving full extension). The result for these kids was a greater percentage of line drives, and IMO, the path of the bat barrel after contact followed the path of the incoming ball longer than normal.

[jbooth]

2: I didn't have to think about my front leg straightening...it felt like you almost HAD to straighten the front leg to keep your balance and not fall over! And again, it happened with much less effort and thought.

That's right, IMO you don't have to think about the front block and push, it just happens. You DO have to be sure not to block with an already straight front leg though. It should land bent and then naturally straighten.

3: As a result of the quicker hip rotation, I had to really focus in on letting the ball get deep...the first few swings I was so fast and was so far in front, it was like our BP guy was throwing me changeups! It caught me WAY off guard, but I made the adjustment, and once I did, I actually felt like I hit the ball harder to the opposite field too.

I'm not surprised by this at all. When you get the lower body working properly it's amazing how quick the bat gets around. My students (and I), experience the same thing as you did. You can wait longer because the bat gets around quicker from the hips leading the way.

4: My back foot didn't get all the way up onto the toe, but got close, to the inside part of the big toe as best as I could feel, and did drag forward on its own.

Unless you take video and look at it, you can't really tell what the back foot is doing. It goes up, forward and back down too quickly for you to consciously know what it did.

5: I noticed that my hand path changed a bit and I was on more of an uppercut plane than before. As a result, I was getting too far underneath some pitches, dropping the back shoulder, and popping them up. But a little more concentration on my hand path, focusing on being more direct to and through the ball, fixed that right away.

I don't know why this would happen, other than the fact that your mind was so focused on your lower half, that you just lost the top.

All in all, a very interesting and initially successful mechanical cue that I will continue to work on. Thanks for posting the video! Good stuff!

You're welcome.

[thehogans]

I don't know why this would happen, other than the fact that your mind was so focused on your lower half, that you just lost the top.

I think that's exactly what happened. It wasn't the mechanic, it was definitely my focus...

[Dirtberry]

http://web.baseballhalloffame.org/media/player/mp_tpl.jsp?w=http%3A//mfile.akamai.com/31386/wmv/mlb.download.akamai.com/31386/open/members/clemente_r/clemente_roberto_hr_71asg_400.wmv&type=v_free&_mp=1

Hope this one works?

[caseyd123]

the hogans...make sure you see your top hand at the right elevation. i was working on my swing yesterday and had the same success and this minor problem until I remember a cue Yeager gave in a video about the path of the top hand. He was telling a ULL girl to keep it at chest level as you bring it through the swinging plane. Once I focused on that, i was hitting liners instead of some weird abomination off my Swing-Away :)

[thehogans]

the hogans...make sure you see your top hand at the right elevation. i was working on my swing yesterday and had the same success and this minor problem until I remember a cue Yeager gave in a video about the path of the top hand. He was telling a ULL girl to keep it at chest level as you bring it through the swinging plane. Once I focused on that, i was hitting liners instead of some weird abomination off my Swing-Away :)

Yeah, you are absolutely right. Every hitting coach I have ever had advocated keeping the same hand path for every swing...not necessarily chest level, but whatever is comfortable. Keeping it at chest level and focusing on that cue helps keep the barrel of the bat from dipping down underneath the ball...when you're hitting too many fly balls and pop-ups, it's a really good and easy cue to use to get back on top of the ball...