A Swing To Emulate

Quincy - thanks for posting that. The thing that sticks out to me in those clips is bat speed - overwhelming bat speed. His bat appears flat through the hitting zone and then explodes on the ball. I rarely post in this forum so I have no idea if I described things correctly. Just trying to describe what I see.

Imagine having a whole team full of guys with that swing and two good legs.

If we teach em young they will have this swing all their lives.

Isn't there just a little bit of god given talent in that swing?

Does anyone else think his right-handed swing looks a lot like Aaron's?

Excellent close-up of Mickey's grip included.

I asked him about that grip while we were sitting in Central Park.

He said that if he ever swung with that grip he would break his wrist. It was just something for the camera.

This is a nice little bio on him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIGm0hYjUSg&NR=1

Looks quite a bit like what many ARE TRYING to teach.There were alot of swings in that video where he was just flat out fooled and made contact.

Talk about bat blurr

Believe it or not,some of us are trying to teach kids to get there but it takes work.






There are a few similarities between Mantle at contact(when he wasn't fooled) with this guy.







BUT,I agree that 2 good legs could turn some of the routine ground outs into base hits.

quote:

Believe it or not,some of us are trying to teach kids to get there but it takes work.

Are you teaching, "how to rotate"?

quote:

Originally posted by BlueDog:

quote:

Believe it or not,some of us are trying to teach kids to get there but it takes work.

Are you teaching, "how to rotate"?

Yes,but you don't agree with the methods.

quote:

Yes.....

Then, it sure could take quite awhile....

he's doing alright as a 9 year old and Ted Williams seemed to have liked the teaching methods so His coach and I will stick with them for a while.


BUT,this thread isn't about my son,I just put his pic up in reference to teching them while they are young.

Watch that slow grounder again. The ump calls him safe.

quote:

Originally posted by Quincy:
Watch that slow grounder again. The ump calls him safe.

I know,that is why I agree with you about 2 good legs.

quote:

Originally posted by tom.guerry:
Excellent close-up of Mickey's grip included.

Tom,

What, in your opinion, is the significance of the raised finger of the Mic's index finger of his bottom hand? I noticed Ruth did the same, but also with his top hand. I'm pretty sure Williams did the same.

When I bat my index finger of my bottom hand is raised too-

It's because you aren't supposed to grip the bat in your hand, but hold it with your fingers..if you read Ted Williams' The Science of Hitting, he talks about it in there.

Good call gda.

After seeing this film as a kid I used that grip. The skin between my thumb and index finger would be pulled and wrinkled during batting practice. Always raw and never could form a callous.

I got better results and less hand damage with the knocker knuckle grip and more bat speed.

Longest Home Runs

Mickey Mantle - 565 feet and, some say, longer

The Mick hit the first taped home run at 565 at Griffth stadium after he hit the roof five times coming within mere feet of hitting it out of Yankee Stadium. "ON ONE LEG"

Micky Mantle FOR THE YANKEES hit a ball 634 feet. the real record Mickey Mantle at Yankee Stadium on 2-3 occasions hit 550-560' and one occasion 570'--620'. Mick has the record.

In an exibition game, Mickey Mantle hit a ball 700 feet. He was also known for hitting home run's over 600 feet on more than one occasion.

quote:

Originally posted by Quincy:
I asked him about that grip while we were sitting in Central Park.

He said that if he ever swung with that grip he would break his wrist. It was just something for the camera.

This is a nice little bio on him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIGm0hYjUSg&NR=1

Quincy,

I am still trying to figure out what you are saying about the grip. What do you say the position of the hands should be at contact? What position at start of swing?

quote:

Originally posted by Quincy:

After seeing this film as a kid I used that grip. The skin between my thumb and index finger would be pulled and wrinkled during batting practice. Always raw and never could form a callous.

I got better results and less hand damage with the knocker knuckle grip and more bat speed.

Just as with Mantle and the other great hitters before the Charlie Lau and George Brett school of hitting became popular, the swing through the zone is palms facing side/side rather that palm up/ palm down a la Lau.

If you can do a side by side of Mantle (or Mays, Aaron, Ruth, Cobb, Musial, Wiliams, among others) and George Brett the differences would be glaring.

Willie Mays

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euPx_t142PU

Mickey Mantle

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tO_MMVkSsBY

Yogi Berra

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRW6FNjyZOc&feature=related

Joe Dimaggio

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMP5qqacvMk&feature=related

Mel Ott

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUTnTtTZcwo&feature=related

Ted Williams

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cwJAYZEfU4&feature=related

Stan Musial

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2fTNnWXy-0&feature=related

Rogers Hornsby

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBf5vQZO0QY&feature=related

quote:

Originally posted by Quincy:

Micky Mantle FOR THE YANKEES hit a ball 634 feet. the real record Mickey Mantle at Yankee Stadium on 2-3 occasions hit 550-560' and one occasion 570'--620'. Mick has the record.

In an exibition game, Mickey Mantle hit a ball 700 feet. He was also known for hitting home run's over 600 feet on more than one occasion.

Stop spreading urban legends. It is physically impossible for any human being to hit a ball over 600 feet. 700 feet would be the equivalant of throwing a 125 mph fastball, a 2:30 mile, bench pressing over 1,000 pounds, running an 8 second 100-yard dash...it's nearly 20 percent greater than human limit. Mantle was an all-time great and probabaly had some of the best raw power known to man, but he never hit a baseball over 600 feet.

You have to realize that the same studies that you have read claimed at one time that a ball could not be hit over 500 feet.

That is obviously false.

I'm sure the same studies would claim that a player could never hit a ball 500 feet from either side of the plate.

His left handed shot off the right field roof facade is well documented.

1. 734 ft. – 5/22/63, vs. Kansas City, at Yankee Stadium, Pitcher: Bill Fischer

2. 660 ft. – 3/26/51, vs. USC, at Bovard Field, USC, Pitcher: Unknown

3. 650 ft. – 6/11/53, vs. Detroit, at Briggs Stadium, Pitcher: Art Houteman

4. 643 ft. – 9/10/60, vs. Detroit, at Tiger Stadium, Pitcher: Paul Foytack

5. 630 ft. – 9/13/53, vs. Detroit, at Yankee Stadium, Pitcher: Billy Hoeft

6. 620 ft. – 5/30/56, vs. Washington, at Yankee Stadium, Pitcher: Pedro Ramos

7. 565 ft. – 4/17/53, vs. Washington, at Griffith Stadium, Pitcher: Chuck Stobbs

8. 550 ft. – 6/05/55, vs. Chi. White Sox, at Comiskey Park, Pitcher: Billy Pierce

9. 535 ft. – 7/06/53, vs. Philadelphia A's, at Connie Mack Stadium, Pitcher: Frank Fanovich

10. 530 ft. – 4/24/53, vs. St. Louis Browns, at Busch Stadium, Pitcher: Bob Cain

http://www.themick.com/

quote:

Originally posted by Quincy:

quote:

Originally posted by Quincy:

After seeing this film as a kid I used that grip. The skin between my thumb and index finger would be pulled and wrinkled during batting practice. Always raw and never could form a callous.

I got better results and less hand damage with the knocker knuckle grip and more bat speed.

Just as with Mantle and the other great hitters before the Charlie Lau and George Brett school of hitting became popular, the swing through the zone is palms facing side/side rather that palm up/ palm down a la Lau.

If you can do a side by side of Mantle (or Mays, Aaron, Ruth, Cobb, Musial, Wiliams, among others) and George Brett the differences would be glaring.

Willie Mays

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euPx_t142PU

Mickey Mantle

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tO_MMVkSsBY

Yogi Berra

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRW6FNjyZOc&feature=related

Joe Dimaggio

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMP5qqacvMk&feature=related

Mel Ott

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUTnTtTZcwo&feature=related

Ted Williams

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cwJAYZEfU4&feature=related

Stan Musial

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2fTNnWXy-0&feature=related

Rogers Hornsby

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBf5vQZO0QY&feature=related

Quincy,

I asked you about contact position.

For the umpteenth time, palms side/side with the knocker knucles aligned.

Look at the swings in the videos. They do not agree with the Charlie Lau mantra.

Sure looks like Mr Williams's palm is up to me.

quote:

Originally posted by Quincy:
For the umpteenth time, palms side/side with the knocker knucles aligned.

Look at the swings in the videos. They do not agree with the Charlie Lau mantra.

None of these hitters are in the position you state at contact. None!

quote:

Originally posted by tfox:
Sure looks like Mr Williams's palm is up to me.

Yep! Also, look at the left bicep at contact. So much for don't use your biceps in the swing, huh?

Funny how Williams' swing in the demo is different and much less fluid than in the game footage.

A fluid follow through is the best proof that a batter is not swinging palm up/palm down.

Not only do you seem unprepared to decipher plain speech in text, you seem to to have a twisted view of optical clues as well.

Go sell your mantra on a thread where you are trying to make a point based on some original thought which you seem incapable.

Here is a game swing(I assume) and the palm is still up,follow through is different but just maybe the pitch location was different.





Here is another.Doesn't look to be a game.

http://www.starpulse.com/Athletes/Williams,_Ted/gallery/836517/

Notice that he is in his follow through.

The wrists cannot turn to this position without excessive wrist roll if the palms were up/down through the zone.

Swing a bat using both styles. Tell me which is more fluid into contact and into follow through.

The picture on the link appears to be a pose rather than a swing. He is contorted.

How does Williams swing compare to Mantle's swing?

Quincy, is this the contact hand position you speak of?

quote:

Originally posted by Quincy:
Notice that he is in his follow through.

The wrists cannot turn to this position without excessive wrist roll if the palms were up/down through the zone.

Swing a bat using both styles. Tell me which is more fluid into contact and into follow through.

The picture on the link appears to be a pose rather than a swing. He is contorted.

How does Williams swing compare to Mantle's swing?

OOPS,misread your response.It may be a pose but he obviously believed in the palm up palm down because in every picture you see of him,he is doing it.

Funny how someone posts video and does not even know what's happening in the swing.

[sarcasm]Guys, Quincy's right. Check out the difference between Brett and Mantle. [/sarcasm]

quote:

Originally posted by powertoallfields:

quote:

Originally posted by tom.guerry:
Excellent close-up of Mickey's grip included.

Tom,

What, in your opinion, is the significance of the raised finger of the Mic's index finger of his bottom hand? I noticed Ruth did the same, but also with his top hand. I'm pretty sure Williams did the same.

Yep,Williams did it too.

Having seen both play, I can assure you that Mantle would use that swing on an inside pitch. The inside pitch has to be hit further in front of the plate.

Brett on the other hand used the same hands forward swing for all locations.

Charlie Lau made it clear that palms up/palms down would cause the batter to release the bat with his top hand in the follow through.

Does Mantle or the pre-Lau batter release his top hand in the follow through?

Look at Williams follow through. With a palms up/palms down grip through contact, his follow through would never have been so fluid. The wrist roll to get the top hand forward would have been obvious.

Brett could never follow through strong. His bat would almost stop after contact unless swinging at a high pitch.

Take it for what it is. Try both styles and compare which is more fluid and offers greater range of motion. Decide which gives you beter bat control and better effect at contact.

The thread exhibits Mantle's swing and the fact that he was a comparable light weight by today's standards.

Take what you want from the post and use it as you see fit. It isn't about comparing me or anyone else's philosophy or teaching practice.

As a side note, I find showing the swings of such batting greats more qualified in teaching youngsters as comapred to some of the things being endorsed today.

quote:

Originally posted by Quincy:
Having seen both play, I can assure you that Mantle would use that swing on an inside pitch. The inside pitch has to be hit further in front of the plate.

Can you download the video in your brain and post it on YouTube? I'd like to see what you saw. You must have great photographic memory.

quote:

Brett on the other hand used the same hands forward swing for all locations.

Hands forward, that's a new one. Whatever that means.

quote:

Charlie Lau made it clear that palms up/palms down would cause the batter to release the bat with his top hand in the follow through.

Does Mantle or the pre-Lau batter release his top hand in the follow through?

Release is a "style" issue, not technique. It usually has to do with dominant handed-ness. Chipper Jones releases from the left side, but holds on to the bat from the right side. Oh my! He must be using two different hitting techniques! Same for Mark Texeira! Beltran and Swisher are the opposite though, release from the right side, but hold on from the left.

quote:

Take it for what it is. Try both styles and compare which is more fluid and offers greater range of motion. Decide which gives you beter bat control and better effect at contact.

I'll take the one that allows for adjustability.

quote:

As a side note, I find showing the swings of such batting greats more qualified in teaching youngsters as comapred to some of the things being endorsed today.

"Here kid, look at this video of Mantle. That's how you should swing. Now, I have no idea what Mantle is doing, but just swing like him and you'll get there some day."

You make my point that you aren't about teaching.

You are about going after what people post.

I'll stick with the swing that offers greater range of movement and bat speed and power to all fields as compared to only pull power.

You do as you think is right.

It is easy to sit back and snipe at others postings.

Try starting a thread with what you support or endorse.

quote:

Originally posted by Quincy:
You make my point that you aren't about teaching.

You are about going after what people post.

You must have missed my lesson above. I just "taught" you that Brett and Mantle have the same grip. I'm about correcting wrong info.

quote:

I'll stick with the swing that offers greater range of movement and bat speed and power to all fields as compared to only pull power.

And how many MLB players actually use the whole field? I hate to tell you this, but nearly everyone is "only pull power". The ones that have opposite field power know how to use the hands/forearms. 'Tis better to be early on a pitch than late, unless your name is Derek Jeter.

quote:

You do as you think is right.

I correct what I think is wrong.

quote:

It is easy to sit back and snipe at others postings.

Try starting a thread with what you support or endorse.

No need to start a thread. The more I post, the more I might show what I don't know.

And why would Mantle use a "different" swing for a different pitch location? What is the difference between his "inside pitch" swing and his swing for any other location?

Contact points for different locations is nothing new. A swing for an inside pitch would appear different than a swing on a high outside pitch. The more outside the deeper contact should be made.

You would have a long way to go before you could teach me anything about hitting a baseball.

Answer the basic point

Why aren't players under 200 pounds hitting more home runs?

quote:

Originally posted by Quincy:
Why aren't players under 200 pounds hitting more home runs?

How many players under 200 were there back then compared to now? You think if Mantle was born in this era he'd still grow up to be 5'11" and 175?

Check out this page.

quote:

While there's plenty of discussion concerning the ballooning average weight of NFL players since the 70's and 80's (the average offensive lineman is 62 lbs heavier today than he was in 1970), there isn't much talk about weight gain in baseball. But, not surprisingly, it's increased at almost the same rate.

1972 817 players, 185.5 lbs
1977 895 players, 186.3 lbs
1982 923 players, 189.0 lbs
1987 968 players, 193.9 lbs
1992 1001 players, 201.3 lbs
1997 1121 players, 205.9 lbs
2002 1216 players, 208.3 lbs
2007 1146 players, 207.2 lbs

Interestingly enough, it was after the 2002 season that baseball implemented its mandatory drug testing program.

Your logic is flawed.

quote:

Originally posted by Quincy:
Notice that he is in his follow through.

The wrists cannot turn to this position without excessive wrist roll if the palms were up/down through the zone.

Swing a bat using both styles. Tell me which is more fluid into contact and into follow through.

The picture on the link appears to be a pose rather than a swing. He is contorted.

How does Williams swing compare to Mantle's swing?

Quincy,

What are you talking about? His wrists haven't even started to roll yet in the still photo. Again, show me a still of someone with their wrists in the position you talk about at contact and you may have some credibility, but until then......

Mantle's is a good old farm boy with great hands Eye and extreamly strong forarms. Wow was he fast. Staying in there without a helmet is just sometimes crazy when you look back in the past. What a wonderful player.

quote:

Originally posted by Quincy:
Longest Home Runs

Mickey Mantle - 565 feet and, some say, longer

The Mick hit the first taped home run at 565 at Griffth stadium after he hit the roof five times coming within mere feet of hitting it out of Yankee Stadium. "ON ONE LEG"

Micky Mantle FOR THE YANKEES hit a ball 634 feet. the real record Mickey Mantle at Yankee Stadium on 2-3 occasions hit 550-560' and one occasion 570'--620'. Mick has the record.

In an exibition game, Mickey Mantle hit a ball 700 feet. He was also known for hitting home run's over 600 feet on more than one occasion.

he was very strong. he could bench 300, curl 90 lbs dumbells with ease, and squat a ton (can't remember the #). He was gifted naturally to allow the swing of the bat with fluidity and without friction science would later say. The path of the bat was not restricted by what would be normal kinetics by either his left or right-handed swings. But his core strength came from his obsessive work-habit of swinging the bat a "million" times a week.

Mickey also developed tremendous strength working at the lead mines during the summers. One job in particular, that of "screen ape," was responsible for Mickey's incredibly strong wrists, shoulders, arms and forearms. A "screen ape" smashed large rocks into small stones with a sledgehammer. There were two "screen apes," one of whom smashed rocks until he couldn't hold the hammer any longer, and then rested while the other took his turn. The strength Mickey developed from this work and other farm chores later helped him to hit some of the longest home runs in the history of the game.

He was a gifted athlete, playing not only baseball but also football and basketball. It was during practice for a high school football game that tragedy befell Mickey. He was accidentally kicked on the left shin, and the wound developed into the bone disease osteomyelitis. It became so serious doctors wanted to amputate Mickey's leg. Mickey's mother wouldn't hear of it, and Mutt drove Mickey 175 miles to the Crippled Children's Hospital in Oklahoma City. There Mickey was treated with a new wonder drug, receiving doses every three hours around the clock. Miraculously he responded, and Mickey's leg was saved. The drug: penicillin. Unfortunately, the injury was just the first among many that were to hinder Mickey for the rest of his life. However, this bout with osteomyelitis rendered Mickey unfit for military service for life, another issue that arose later in life.

"If that guy were healthy he'd hit 80 home runs."
Carl Yastrzemski on Mickey Mantle

quote:

Originally posted by Quincy:
You have to realize that the same studies that you have read claimed at one time that a ball could not be hit over 500 feet.

That is obviously false.

I'm sure the same studies would claim that a player could never hit a ball 500 feet from either side of the plate.

His left handed shot off the right field roof facade is well documented.

1. 734 ft. – 5/22/63, vs. Kansas City, at Yankee Stadium, Pitcher: Bill Fischer

2. 660 ft. – 3/26/51, vs. USC, at Bovard Field, USC, Pitcher: Unknown

3. 650 ft. – 6/11/53, vs. Detroit, at Briggs Stadium, Pitcher: Art Houteman

4. 643 ft. – 9/10/60, vs. Detroit, at Tiger Stadium, Pitcher: Paul Foytack

5. 630 ft. – 9/13/53, vs. Detroit, at Yankee Stadium, Pitcher: Billy Hoeft

6. 620 ft. – 5/30/56, vs. Washington, at Yankee Stadium, Pitcher: Pedro Ramos

7. 565 ft. – 4/17/53, vs. Washington, at Griffith Stadium, Pitcher: Chuck Stobbs

8. 550 ft. – 6/05/55, vs. Chi. White Sox, at Comiskey Park, Pitcher: Billy Pierce

9. 535 ft. – 7/06/53, vs. Philadelphia A's, at Connie Mack Stadium, Pitcher: Frank Fanovich

10. 530 ft. – 4/24/53, vs. St. Louis Browns, at Busch Stadium, Pitcher: Bob Cain

Uh, you have to realize that these numbers are as accurate as believeing the guy who claims he caught a fish THIIIIIS BIIIG. 734? You lose all credibilty. The numbers you are reporting are from a Mantle fan page.

A ball would have to come off the bat at 180 mph to travel 734 feet. The fastest measured is around 125-130.

Plus, the distance is estimated because it hit the facade 370 feet away and "witnesses" claimed that it was rising. Therefore it was only halfway from landing. Gee, there's some exact science there.


They actually measure home runs nowadays, rather than relying on exaggerations...I mean guesses. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/mlb/homeruntracker/
The longest home run last year was 507, but Mantle somehow could hit a ball 50% farther?

I guess you had to be there.

"That kid can hit balls over buildings."
Casey Stengel on Mickey in 1951

"I'm sure glad this isn't my home ball park."
Hank Aaron to Mickey on Yankee Stadium

"How the hell can you play here?"
Harmon Killebrew to Mickey after he caught three 450-foot fly balls for outs off Killebrew in Yankee Stadium

"Power is a big thing in baseball. It can't be cheapened. That is, a fellow has it or hasn't. It isn't a fluke or great accomplishment, like a perfect game. When Mantle connects, it's a tape-measure job. Nobody who ever lived has more power than Mantle."
Baseball expert Gabe Paul

"Mickey's was the longest ball ever whacked into the valley behind Forbes Field."
Sportswriter Chester Smith of the Pittsburgh Press on Mickey's homer when MacDonald threw Mickey the same pitch again

"It was like a golf ball going into orbit. It was hit so far it was like it wasn't real. It was a super-human feat."
Legendary USC Coach Rod Dedeaux on Mickey's 656-foot home run hit in an exhibition game at Bovard Field, USC on March 26, 1951

"It would've been hit out of an airport."
Art Fowler after pitcher Ryne Duren said he and his teammates didn't think a Mantle home run was going out

"That would bring tears to the eyes of a rocking chair."
Tigers manager Bucky Harris on Mickey's 643-foot homer out of Tiger Stadium off Paul Foytack, September 10, 1960

"I just wouldn't have believed a ball could be hit that hard. I've never seen anything like it."
Bucky Harris, the Manager of the Washington Senators, on Mickey's 565-foot homer hit at Griffith Stadium, Washington

There is a red seat in Fenway Park where Ted Williams hit a shot that traveled 502 feet.

Yeah. I get it. He had power. But do you know how ridiculous it sounds to claim that he could hit a ball 230 feet farther than the farthest home run of 2007. Nearly 1.5 times the distance?

Whcih is roughly the equvalant of another human being able to:
throw a 150 mph fastball
hit a 600 yard golf drive
clear a 30-foot pole vault
run a 2:30 minute mile
have an 80" vertical leap

People exaggerate. 500 feet becomes 600 feet, 50 years later.

yes, some people exaggerate, others miscalculate, and others still couldn't believe their eyes.

Unless you were there to disprove the reporters and baseball players, I'll have to point out how ridiculous you are making yourself appear.

I don't have to be there to understand that a human being is not capable of hitting a ball 600 feet, yet alone 700. Barry Bonds has never hit a home run measured at 500 feet, if that gives you any indication of true home run distance.

Therein lies the flaw in your thinking.

You have set Barry Bonds as the ideal for home run hitters.

Your ideal falls short of Mantle and many others.

You have to forgive Quincy, he's apparently from another planet. Either that or he doesn't know physics or how the human body works.

quote:

Originally posted by Quincy:
Therein lies the flaw in your thinking.

You have set Barry Bonds as the ideal for home run hitters.

Your ideal falls short of Mantle and many others.

Uh, I never claimed Bonds to be the ideal, although statisically he is far superior to Mantle as a home run hitter. Mantle averaged 6.6 home runs per 100 at bats, compared to Bonds 7.7. And from 2001-2004 Bonds averaged 12.6 per 100 at bats!

My point was that Bonds did so much juice that he cheated to become, statistically, the greatest home run hitter of all time, yet during that time period where he was one of the strongest athletes in the world and probably one of the strongest ballplayers ever, he never hit a ball over 500 feet.

And let's assume that Mantle was capable of hitting balls 700 feet. So, he had 50% more strength and batspeed than anyone else. Why didn't his line drives kill people, because they were coming off the bat at 150 MPH instead of 100? Why weren't his pop-up constatly dropped because they were traveling 300 feet in the air instead of 200? Why didn't nearly every ground ball get through the infield because they were hit 50% harder than the average player?

I personally recall at least two infield pop ups that were dropped because they were in the air so long. I attribute this to the fielder becoming disoriented from looking up so long as compared to the accumulated force of the falling ball.

You are using theoretical means to establish reality rather than using science to explain reality.

Gravity existed before science.

Science also finds that it has to adjust itself as different realities become known.

I recall two players hitting balls over the right field roof at Tiger stadium. Until it was done, it was considered impossible. Science adjusted.

Curve balls curve. Theories could not prove that curve balls curved so science claimed that curve balls were optical illusions.

You are trusting science and disclaiming reality.

I guess you had to be there.

quote:

Originally posted by Quincy:
I personally recall at least two infield pop ups that were dropped because they were in the air so long. I attribute this to the fielder becoming disoriented from looking up so long as compared to the accumulated force of the falling ball.

You are using theoretical means to establish reality rather than using science to explain reality.

Gravity existed before science.

Science also finds that it has to adjust itself as different realities become known.

I recall two players hitting balls over the right field roof at Tiger stadium. Until it was done, it was considered impossible. Science adjusted.

Curve balls curve. Theories could not prove that curve balls curved so science claimed that curve balls were optical illusions.

You are trusting science and disclaiming reality.

I guess you had to be there.

Just realized I'm arguing with a moron. I apologize to all that had to read this thread.

You must have a mirror in front of your keyboard.

You have no argument because all you are quoting is theory.

Reality trumps theory every day of the week.

I will admit that there is a person of lower inteligence in the discussion, but it sure isn't me.

Hey, I heard Sidd Finch holds the record for fastest pitch at 168 mph. Imagine if the Mick connected off 168 MPH? It would go 900 feet!

quote:

Originally posted by tfox:
Quincy, is this the contact hand position you speak of?

Great pic tfox. I see what you are saying about the top hand being palm up. At the same time the bottomhand is still maintaining the palm sidewards.

My contention is that to reach this point, one has to start their swing with a palm facing palm sideways grip.

I remember hearing about mantle's homer in detroit. That number is so off. They said that it *would* have traveled that far if it didn't hit the wall...

Probably the great irony is that the scientists and mathematicians arrived at this number.

There is no doubt that it only traveled to the facade before caroming back to second base on the fly.

(1) 734 feet (5/22/63, Yankee Stadium Façade* – Pitcher: Bill Fischer, Kansas City Athletics – Left-handed)

Mickey said that the "hardest ball I ever hit" came in the 11th inning on May 22, 1963 at Yankee Stadium. Leading off in the bottom of the 11th, with the score tied 7-7, A's pitcher Bill Fischer tried to blow a fastball past Mickey.

Bad idea. Mickey stepped into it and, with perfect timing, met the ball with the sweet spot of his bat, walloping it with everything he had. The sound of the bat colliding with the ball was likened to a cannon shot. The players on both benches jumped to their feet. Yogi Berra shouted, "That's it!" The ball rose in a majestic laser-like drive, rocketing into the night toward the farthest confines of Yankee Stadium. The question was never whether it was a home run or not. The question was whether this was going to be the first ball to be hit out of Yankee Stadium.

That it had the height and distance was obvious. But would it clear the façade, the decoration on the front side of the roof above the third deck in rightfield? "I usually didn't care how far the ball went so long as it was a home run. But this time I thought, 'This ball could go out of Yankee Stadium!'"

Just as the ball was about to leave the park, it struck the façade mere inches from the top with such ferocity that it bounced all the way back to the infield. That it won the game was an afterthought. Mickey just missed making history. It was the closest a ball has ever come to going out of Yankee Stadium in a regular season game.**

The question then became "How far would the ball have gone had the façade not prevented it from leaving the park?" Using geometry, it is possible to calculate the distance with some accuracy. The principle variable is how high the ball would have gone. If we assume the ball was at its apex at the point where it struck the façade, using the Pythagorean Theorem ("In a right triangle, the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides") we can determine the distance from home plate to the point where the ball struck the façade. Then we can use calculus to calculate that the distance the ball would have traveled would have been 636 feet. However, there are a number of undetermined factors: wind velocity, spin on the ball, the speed of the pitch Mickey hit, and others. (For a more complete explanation of the calculations and complete description of this and other Mantle homers, see Explosion! by Mark Gallagher. This book is the definitive book on Mantle's homers. Unfortunately, it is out of print. It may be available at your local library.)

So how do we get 734 feet? In the example above, we assumed that the ball was at its apex when it struck the façade. However, observers were unanimous in their opinion that the ball was still rising when it hit the façade. How do we determine how high the ball would have gone? In fact, we cannot. From this point forward all numbers become guesses, estimates of how high we think the ball might have gone. A conservative estimate would be 20 feet. Those 20 feet make a major difference. They cause our calculation to go up almost 100 feet, to the 734 foot number listed above. Is 20 feet a fair estimate? Those present when the ball was hit feel that it would have gone at least that much higher, and many feel that the 20 foot number is far too low. It is all just a guess.

This is a good example of what can happen with estimates, especially computer estimates that determine the length of home runs now. Most of the home run distance numbers used today are the result of computer estimates of how far the ball would have traveled without obstruction. (One of these programs gave the 734 foot number listed.) Whether or not this is a fair number is a matter of opinion. However, if the distance of this home run is disputed, then the distance of many of the home runs hit by today's players must be questioned. While the software used for home run distances has greatly improved, there remain questions as to its accuracy. It is important to note that many of Mickey's home runs were measured to the point they actually landed, leaving no question about the accuracy of the distance reported.

* The façade was the decorative facing along the roof of the old Yankee Stadium. Mickey hit the façade in regular-season games at least three times during his career: May 5, 1956 off Moe Burtschy, May 20, 1956 off Pedro Ramos, and May 22, 1963 off Bill Fischer.

** Legend has it that Mickey hit balls completely out of Yankee Stadium up to three times during batting practices. Supposedly Mickey did it twice left-handed and once right-handed. Witnesses of these incredible feats include fans, stadium vendors, teammates and opposing players.

Formulas are only as accurate as the numbers fed into them(as this article shows)

I am of the opinion that the numbers fed into the formulas today are much more accurate than the numbers used back then.

Interestingly that ball traveled about 650 feet in the air.

It traveled 370 feet to hit the facade and aproximately 280 feet to reach the infield on the rebound off the facade.

I have never seen anyone match that shot.

The 'gi-go' principle will always remain true. This measurement enters the 'gi-go' phase when estimates of how high it would have traveled were brought into play.

quote:

Originally posted by Quincy:


There is no doubt that it only traveled to the facade before caroming back to second base on the fly.

Moron. What was it, a superball? MLB Baseballs currently have a coeffiency of restitution of .58. back then it was around .50 Coeffiency of restitution (COR) is the amount of "spring" in a ball. A COR of .58 means if a ball strikes a wall at 100 mph, it comes off the wall at 58. It retains 58 percent of it's energy. So, for a ball to strike a wall and then travel 280 feet, it must be propelled off that wallat around 80 mph. Which means it must have struck the wall at around 160 mp with a ball from the 1950s. Now if anyone has ever been to a PGA event, they can attest that the Tiger Woods drive that comes off the driver at 180 mph falls harmlessly to the ground at around 40 mph. Hell, a fastball loses about 12% velocity over only 60 feet. So, assume Mantle drive came off the bat at 125 mph, it would have harmlessly hit the wall at no more than 40 mph, caromed off at around 20 mph, and probably hit the bleachers, bounced back on the field, and 50 years later all the drunks at the game make ridiculous claims. So if you're claiming that you witnessed this...lay off the booze.

The notion of the ball "still rising" as it hit the facade is even more laughable...One, no home run has ever crossed the outfeild fence on the rise, and two, the pinncale of a fly ball is at about 70% of the overall flight, not 50%.

Again you attempt to paint me with a brush more befitting yourself.

You are disputing eye witness testimony. Even someone with such limited inteligence as yourself has to realize that since you weren't there, you have no reasonable grounds to dispute what has been stated.

You dispute the fact that the ball was still rising as it struck the facade and then you further dispute that the ball rebounded to the infield on the fly.

You are disputing eyewitness testimony. Wake up and smell the coffee.

You are talking theory as compared to verifiable fact.

As Joe Namath stated to the oddsmakers after the Super Bowl, "Take your pens and pencils and stick em where the sun don't shine."

Quincy, please download the video of the home run in question from your brain onto YouTube.

quote:

Originally posted by Quincy:

You are disputing eye witness testimony. Even someone with such limited inteligence as yourself has to realize that since you weren't there, you have no reasonable grounds to dispute what has been stated.

You dispute the fact that the ball was still rising as it struck the facade and then you further dispute that the ball rebounded to the infield on the fly.

You are disputing eyewitness testimony. Wake up and smell the coffee.

I'd say that the laws of physics are slightly more reliable than the foggy recollections of some drunk Yankee fans.

I'd say a good physic would clear your thinking.

Adair and Patterson set out to establish that home runs did not travel over 500 feet.

Just like global warming, if your basic premise is flawed so too will your results be.

Does anyone swing like this today?

It's funny you brought this post back up Quincy because I was watching the Dodgers-Mets game on Fox and they talked about Mantle's homerun. Just thought I'd mention it.