http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUICwzVXapw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLnJ_vK3uHc
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Very nice find Quincy.
So what is each doing with their hand/arm?
So what is each doing with their hand/arm?
Both hitting it out of the infield which you claimed was impossible.
Gray batted .259 in over 200 at bats playing in the majors. He did better than guys with two arms then and are doing today.
Gray batted .259 in over 200 at bats playing in the majors. He did better than guys with two arms then and are doing today.
quote:Originally posted by Quincy:
Both hitting it out of the infield which you claimed was impossible.
Gray batted .259 in over 200 at bats playing in the majors. He did better than guys with two arms then and are doing today.
It's impossible USING JUST SHOULDER ROTATION. JJA is the one advocating to just rotate my shoulders and hold on to the bat.
It's possible because one his supinating his top hand and the other is pronating his bottom hand. Once again you post something and don't even know what's going on. Remember when I was talking about using the hands and forearms. Thanks for posting a video demonstrating what I stated before.
You actually think they're just rotating their shoulders and holding on to the bat like JJA? No wait, you said to pull down on the handle of the bat. Are their knocker knuckles aligned?
He did better than guys with two hands because his one hand torqued the bat. Didn't JJA state that was impossible? Woops! The guys with two hands just applied force in the same direction. The guys with two hands pulled on the handle.
You make yourself such an easy target Quincy. You haven't learned your lesson yet. And you said I don't teach.
One hand torque now?
Wasn't handle torque applied with two hands in opposite directions?
You don't teach, you heckle.
Wasn't handle torque applied with two hands in opposite directions?
You don't teach, you heckle.
You actually know what handle torque is now. See you're learning. I've gotten through to you. Handle torque is not "applied". "Force" is applied. "Torque" is a measure/result of the force x lever arm at the pivot point.
I can torque the bat with one hand. You can't?
I can torque the bat with one hand. You can't?
How does a video of a guy hitting with one arm turn into an arguement ?
Internet heckler
Absolutely !
I know a 1 arm ball player and he is amazing to watch. He hit a HR the last time I watched him. It is amazing to see the joy in their eyes when they make a play.
I know a 1 arm ball player and he is amazing to watch. He hit a HR the last time I watched him. It is amazing to see the joy in their eyes when they make a play.
Gives a little insight as to what arm hitters feel is more powerful in the swing. Jim Abbott also swung the bat left handed while only being able to use his left hand.
Is it stone throwing time?
Is it stone throwing time?
I liked how Pete Gray used his would-be top hand to swing, but the Japanese guy was using his would-top top hand to "punch" the ball through the infield...
That is impressive on both accounts. Both represent two different time periods of the game. But still that is really amazing that they can play with only on arm. Very impressive.
Great clips Quincy. I was out of town so I missed this last week.
XV, give me a break. A one-armed guy is applying handle torque? LOL!!!! Mankin defines handle torque as one hand pushing and the other pulling in order to create torque. You can't create handle torque in this way by only one hand pushing or pulling. That's laughable. The only way to create handle torque with a single hand is through differential pressure of the single hand on the bat, i.e., with one side of the palm "pushing" and other side of the palm "pulling". No rationale person can believe a single hand can supply significant torque to the bat. That's just a ridiculous position to take.
Once again, it's rotation that powers the swing, not handle torque. This is a very simple, but very dramatic example that makes it easy for everyone to see and understand.
What more do you handle torque guys need before you punt on that notion that handle torque is a significant contributor to swing speed? The lopsided nature of this "debate" is almost embarrassing.
-JJA
XV, give me a break. A one-armed guy is applying handle torque? LOL!!!! Mankin defines handle torque as one hand pushing and the other pulling in order to create torque. You can't create handle torque in this way by only one hand pushing or pulling. That's laughable. The only way to create handle torque with a single hand is through differential pressure of the single hand on the bat, i.e., with one side of the palm "pushing" and other side of the palm "pulling". No rationale person can believe a single hand can supply significant torque to the bat. That's just a ridiculous position to take.
Once again, it's rotation that powers the swing, not handle torque. This is a very simple, but very dramatic example that makes it easy for everyone to see and understand.
What more do you handle torque guys need before you punt on that notion that handle torque is a significant contributor to swing speed? The lopsided nature of this "debate" is almost embarrassing.
-JJA
quote:Originally posted by jja:
Great clips Quincy. I was out of town so I missed this last week.
XV, give me a break. A one-armed guy is applying handle torque? LOL!!!! Mankin defines handle torque as one hand pushing and the other pulling in order to create torque. You can't create handle torque in this way by only one hand pushing or pulling. That's laughable. The only way to create handle torque with a single hand is through differential pressure of the single hand on the bat, i.e., with one side of the palm "pushing" and other side of the palm "pulling". No rationale person can believe a single hand can supply significant torque to the bat. That's just a ridiculous position to take.
Once again, it's rotation that powers the swing, not handle torque. This is a very simple, but very dramatic example that makes it easy for everyone to see and understand.
What more do you handle torque guys need before you punt on that notion that handle torque is a significant contributor to swing speed? The lopsided nature of this "debate" is almost embarrassing.
-JJA
So you weren't born with the ability to rotate/twist your wrist/forearm?
weird...
Once again, JJA shows himself as a pseudoscientist mischaracterizing the position of others to support his own agenda rather than try to clarify.
JJA knows Mankin's theories and yet continues to have to misrepresent them as his only defense. We have been down this road many times, the first time was when he flamed out at Batspeed.com:
http://www.batspeed.com/messageboard/18768.html
Mankin wrote(fed up with JJA's obfuscating):
Hi All
JJA has made statements on this board that not only misrepresent my work, he also distorts Adair’s principles governing bat speed development as defined in his book.
In an earlier post you (JJA) claimed that I believed that a CHP could only be created by applying THT and BHT. That was a complete falsehood. A CHP is generated from keeping the hands back and allowing body rotation to fling them into a circular path. Applying torque is in addition to developing a CHP.
Now you state “However, I believe the major difference between the two is Jack’s insistence that top hand torque and bottom hand torque are PRIMARY contributors to batspeed, even more so than circular hand path.” – That is equally false. I have never stated that THT and BHT are more important or produce more bat speed than from the CHP. I have always maintained that the basis for rotational mechanics is the CHP. It must be developed first then the batters must learn to apply torque without altering the production of the CHP. The CHP accounts for 50+% of bat speed generated from rotational mechanics.
Many of your statements regarding Adair’s swing model is at odds with what he actually states in his books (first and second edition). We need to clarify if you agree with the actual principles defined by his book.
I need a short concise answer (a simple “yes” or “no) to the following Adair positions. – (1) He states in his book that the body moves forward about 18 inches at 7 mph during the swing. (not before rotation, but during the swing).
JJA, do you agree that the body moves forward 18 inches at about 7 mph during the swing? Yes or no. You can explain the reason for your answer later.
We can move to another of his positions once you give a clear answer to the above question.
Jack Mankin
JJA knows Mankin's theories and yet continues to have to misrepresent them as his only defense. We have been down this road many times, the first time was when he flamed out at Batspeed.com:
http://www.batspeed.com/messageboard/18768.html
Mankin wrote(fed up with JJA's obfuscating):
Hi All
JJA has made statements on this board that not only misrepresent my work, he also distorts Adair’s principles governing bat speed development as defined in his book.
In an earlier post you (JJA) claimed that I believed that a CHP could only be created by applying THT and BHT. That was a complete falsehood. A CHP is generated from keeping the hands back and allowing body rotation to fling them into a circular path. Applying torque is in addition to developing a CHP.
Now you state “However, I believe the major difference between the two is Jack’s insistence that top hand torque and bottom hand torque are PRIMARY contributors to batspeed, even more so than circular hand path.” – That is equally false. I have never stated that THT and BHT are more important or produce more bat speed than from the CHP. I have always maintained that the basis for rotational mechanics is the CHP. It must be developed first then the batters must learn to apply torque without altering the production of the CHP. The CHP accounts for 50+% of bat speed generated from rotational mechanics.
Many of your statements regarding Adair’s swing model is at odds with what he actually states in his books (first and second edition). We need to clarify if you agree with the actual principles defined by his book.
I need a short concise answer (a simple “yes” or “no) to the following Adair positions. – (1) He states in his book that the body moves forward about 18 inches at 7 mph during the swing. (not before rotation, but during the swing).
JJA, do you agree that the body moves forward 18 inches at about 7 mph during the swing? Yes or no. You can explain the reason for your answer later.
We can move to another of his positions once you give a clear answer to the above question.
Jack Mankin
tom guerry -
JJA can speak for himself, but where did Mankin get this idea? During the swing the body is rotating, not moving forward. If anything, it moves back a little due to momentum of the swing. Perhaps he's confusing the stride with the swing.
quote:JJA, do you agree that the body moves forward 18 inches at about 7 mph during the swing? Yes or no. You can explain the reason for your answer later.
JJA can speak for himself, but where did Mankin get this idea? During the swing the body is rotating, not moving forward. If anything, it moves back a little due to momentum of the swing. Perhaps he's confusing the stride with the swing.
quote:Originally posted by bbdoug:
tom guerry -quote:JJA, do you agree that the body moves forward 18 inches at about 7 mph during the swing? Yes or no. You can explain the reason for your answer later.
JJA can speak for himself, but where did Mankin get this idea? During the swing the body is rotating, not moving forward. If anything, it moves back a little due to momentum of the swing. Perhaps he's confusing the stride with the swing.
Read above a little more.
quote:I need a short concise answer (a simple “yes” or “no) to the following Adair positions. – (1) He (Adair)states in his book that the body moves forward about 18 inches at 7 mph during the swing. (not before rotation, but during the swing).
Adair actually states this and Mankin is asking if JJA agrees with this or not...as it seems as though JJA takes Adair's words as gospel.
Geez, louise, go on a trip and look what you find when you get back?
Lots of words, Tom, no content. The posts accurately depict what I wrote. Adair's physics is correct, his swing model is basically correct but his model (as your correctly copied above) has much more forward movement during the swing than most pros have (though some swings of Aaron, Mays, and Ruth have shown that type of forward movement).
So what does this have to do with handle torque for a one-armed guy? I hope everyone sees through this transparent attempt to deflect attention from the issue at hand. The one-armed swing destroys that notion that handle torque is a significant contributor to a swing since you can't apply handle torque as Mankin says with a one-armed swing.
Write all you want, Tom, it doesn't change the facts no matter how many pages you fill. Is this all you have? A bunch of posts on off-topic items? How can you explain the fact that Pete Gray hit 5 minor league home runs with a 1 armed swing?
Lots of words, Tom, no content. The posts accurately depict what I wrote. Adair's physics is correct, his swing model is basically correct but his model (as your correctly copied above) has much more forward movement during the swing than most pros have (though some swings of Aaron, Mays, and Ruth have shown that type of forward movement).
So what does this have to do with handle torque for a one-armed guy? I hope everyone sees through this transparent attempt to deflect attention from the issue at hand. The one-armed swing destroys that notion that handle torque is a significant contributor to a swing since you can't apply handle torque as Mankin says with a one-armed swing.
Write all you want, Tom, it doesn't change the facts no matter how many pages you fill. Is this all you have? A bunch of posts on off-topic items? How can you explain the fact that Pete Gray hit 5 minor league home runs with a 1 armed swing?
No JJA, you are a pseudoscientist misrepresenting both Adair and Mankin.
As Jack points out, this model is wrong:
"In his model, he contends that during the swing, kinetic energy is developed from the body moving forward about 18 inches at 7 mph. He concludes that the final 30 mph bat speed is generated from the transfer of that kinetic energy as the hand-path straightens and slowed to a near stop in a "crack of the whip" type action."
As even ***** admits, Jacks circular handpath model is better.
Let me know if you want to revisit the torque/misrepresentation of Jack's model too.
As Jack points out, this model is wrong:
"In his model, he contends that during the swing, kinetic energy is developed from the body moving forward about 18 inches at 7 mph. He concludes that the final 30 mph bat speed is generated from the transfer of that kinetic energy as the hand-path straightens and slowed to a near stop in a "crack of the whip" type action."
As even ***** admits, Jacks circular handpath model is better.
Let me know if you want to revisit the torque/misrepresentation of Jack's model too.
quote:Adair's physics is correct, his swing model is basically correct but his model (as your correctly copied above) has much more forward movement during the swing than most pros have (though some swings of Aaron, Mays, and Ruth have shown that type of forward movement).
Tom is correct about alot more than what you give him credit for, JJA....
Tom,
What does any of this have to do with the thread of the "One Armed Swing"? I'm happy to revisit this stuff any time, any place, but please start an appropriate thread.
I guess this means that once again, you can't make a single substantive argument against the obvious repudiation of handle torque the one armed swing example provides. If all you can produce are 2 year old posts from a different website on unrelated subjects, that's surely not a convincing argument against Quincy's example. Care to try again?
BlueDog,
Not on handle torque he isn't. He and Mankin are wrong. It's really simple, the evidence overwhelming. I don't understand his relucatance to hold onto these obviously fallacious beliefs.
-JJA
What does any of this have to do with the thread of the "One Armed Swing"? I'm happy to revisit this stuff any time, any place, but please start an appropriate thread.
I guess this means that once again, you can't make a single substantive argument against the obvious repudiation of handle torque the one armed swing example provides. If all you can produce are 2 year old posts from a different website on unrelated subjects, that's surely not a convincing argument against Quincy's example. Care to try again?
BlueDog,
Not on handle torque he isn't. He and Mankin are wrong. It's really simple, the evidence overwhelming. I don't understand his relucatance to hold onto these obviously fallacious beliefs.
-JJA
jja-
You continue to misrepresent Jack over and over. Including earlier in this thread where you state that only rotation is powering the swing and that a one armed swing does not involve torque.
After you refused to answer Jack's question about whether you agreed with Adair's description:
http://www.batspeed.com/messageboard/18768.html
You had to stop posting at batspeed for a while.Jack went on to present a good deal of one-armed data and described how some torque can be applied even with one hand.
You have s admitted that Jack's criticism of Adair's model is accurate.
You have admitted that *****'s descriptions of the swing were inconsistent, yet you continue to be a n$ man enabler:
http://z6.invisionfree.com/Hitting/index.php?showtopic=438&st=0
and you continue to support ny$an 's flawed interpretation of his own models:
http://www.batspeed.com/messageboard/42451.html
Here is more recent criticism from Mankin:
http://www.batspeed.com/messageboard/42451.html
You have also been in error by stating that applying torque means that the lead wrist hinge angle must open prematurely. Once again this shows you have not taken the time to understand what Jack has said in carefully describing how torque is applied while there is also a CHP and no early unhinging of the lead wrist.
You are a pseudoscientific piece of work.
You continue to misrepresent Jack over and over. Including earlier in this thread where you state that only rotation is powering the swing and that a one armed swing does not involve torque.
After you refused to answer Jack's question about whether you agreed with Adair's description:
http://www.batspeed.com/messageboard/18768.html
You had to stop posting at batspeed for a while.Jack went on to present a good deal of one-armed data and described how some torque can be applied even with one hand.
You have s admitted that Jack's criticism of Adair's model is accurate.
You have admitted that *****'s descriptions of the swing were inconsistent, yet you continue to be a n$ man enabler:
http://z6.invisionfree.com/Hitting/index.php?showtopic=438&st=0
and you continue to support ny$an 's flawed interpretation of his own models:
http://www.batspeed.com/messageboard/42451.html
Here is more recent criticism from Mankin:
http://www.batspeed.com/messageboard/42451.html
You have also been in error by stating that applying torque means that the lead wrist hinge angle must open prematurely. Once again this shows you have not taken the time to understand what Jack has said in carefully describing how torque is applied while there is also a CHP and no early unhinging of the lead wrist.
You are a pseudoscientific piece of work.
quote:......some torque can be applied even with one hand.
quote:You have also been in error by stating that applying torque means that the lead wrist hinge angle must open prematurely.
IMO, both of these statements are true!
Tom,
As you very well know, I couldn't respond to Mankin's questions because he deleted my response to them. That's what he always does when the questions get tough. It's fine, it's his site, he can do whatever he wants, but that doesn't mean he's right.
By the way, the answer to his "yes" or "no" question is that Adair never wrote what Mankin said he did. Please provide a page number that states the body moves 18" at 7 mph. Good luck finding it because it isn't there.
Mankin has stated repeatedly that torque supplies 50% of the batspeed. That is an indisputable canon of Mankin. It's absolute rubbish based on all of the data, the one armed swing being one, the lead wrist angle, "N"'s simulation, all of the golf literature, and on and on. "N"'s correct and compelling simulations are just one piece of this puzzle all of which shows that torque does not contribute significantly to swing speed.
In response to that last "response" of Mankin, once again my response was deleted. I will point out that f=ma is correct, but there is no textbook that states f = mvv because it isn't right. There is NO formula in any physics textbook anywhere that states that. The units aren't even right! That whole paragraph he wrote is an absolute embarrassment of physics. It's clear he didn't take any physics, yet he's trying to invoke it to win his arguments. It's pathetic.
Dr. Adair has looked at Mankin's data as your own posts prove. He thought it was all nonsense. Anyone with any math and physics background finds Adair's basic physics arguments irrefutable.
If you want to say that Adair does "pseudo-science" based on Jack Mankin, a guy who never took physics past high school, doesn't have any technical background at all, and Richard, who owns a bar, then that's your right.
Tom, you're really embarrassing yourself here. It's OK to admit that Adair is right and Mankin is wrong. Continuing to defend a position with zero data to support the conclusion is beneath you.
You still haven't answered the question I posed earlier. How do you explain Quincy's example?
-JJA
As you very well know, I couldn't respond to Mankin's questions because he deleted my response to them. That's what he always does when the questions get tough. It's fine, it's his site, he can do whatever he wants, but that doesn't mean he's right.
By the way, the answer to his "yes" or "no" question is that Adair never wrote what Mankin said he did. Please provide a page number that states the body moves 18" at 7 mph. Good luck finding it because it isn't there.
Mankin has stated repeatedly that torque supplies 50% of the batspeed. That is an indisputable canon of Mankin. It's absolute rubbish based on all of the data, the one armed swing being one, the lead wrist angle, "N"'s simulation, all of the golf literature, and on and on. "N"'s correct and compelling simulations are just one piece of this puzzle all of which shows that torque does not contribute significantly to swing speed.
In response to that last "response" of Mankin, once again my response was deleted. I will point out that f=ma is correct, but there is no textbook that states f = mvv because it isn't right. There is NO formula in any physics textbook anywhere that states that. The units aren't even right! That whole paragraph he wrote is an absolute embarrassment of physics. It's clear he didn't take any physics, yet he's trying to invoke it to win his arguments. It's pathetic.
Dr. Adair has looked at Mankin's data as your own posts prove. He thought it was all nonsense. Anyone with any math and physics background finds Adair's basic physics arguments irrefutable.
If you want to say that Adair does "pseudo-science" based on Jack Mankin, a guy who never took physics past high school, doesn't have any technical background at all, and Richard, who owns a bar, then that's your right.
Tom, you're really embarrassing yourself here. It's OK to admit that Adair is right and Mankin is wrong. Continuing to defend a position with zero data to support the conclusion is beneath you.
You still haven't answered the question I posed earlier. How do you explain Quincy's example?
-JJA
jja-
He deleted your response back then because you repeatedly misrepresented him and then would not stay on point when given another chance. You have posted again with no problem repeatedly since. Jack even agreed with your last post. He also corrected himself when in error early in the original argument (about velocity change not being exponential).
http://www.batspeed.com/messageboard/108335.html
You are a coward to not go on batspeed now while continuing to misrepresent him.
Get over your ego and stop enabling n&man and you could learn a lot.
He deleted your response back then because you repeatedly misrepresented him and then would not stay on point when given another chance. You have posted again with no problem repeatedly since. Jack even agreed with your last post. He also corrected himself when in error early in the original argument (about velocity change not being exponential).
http://www.batspeed.com/messageboard/108335.html
You are a coward to not go on batspeed now while continuing to misrepresent him.
Get over your ego and stop enabling n&man and you could learn a lot.
Tom,
You're the guy who is bringing up 4 year old posts from another web site on a different topic, not me. So please try to stay on topic in this thread, the one-armed swing and explain it please. This is my third request for you to explain the one-armed swing, and you have yet to explain it. What are you trying to hide?
This isn't an argument of Mankin vs. me. Fundamentally it's Adair vs Mankin. If you believe a guy who never took physics past high school knows more about physics than one of the foremost physicists in the country at Yale, more power to you. Or that Richard knows more than Adair about torque from his years of experience running a pool hall, you're entitled to your opinion. But when Adair says in his book that torque is small contributor to swing speed (using his rope analogy), rationale people believe him.
Why would I go to batspeed any more? He's wrong. There is nothing to argue. The evidence is overwhelming. On top of it, he deletes posts and he defends his positions unethically. As an example, don't forget the letter that he posts on "batspeed research":
http://www.batspeed.com/research03.html
As you very well know, after he posted that letter, I contacted Dr. Leff and asked him point blank whether he endorsed Mankin's theories or not. Here was Dr. Leff's response:
Dear Mr. Anagnost and Mr. "N",
Thank you both for your email messages informing me that Jack Mankin has posted a copy of my 1991 letter on the internet. I was shocked to learn of this, because that letter was written 13 years ago for a specific, limited purpose.
I was impressed with Jack's detailed studies, but did not endorse his theory. And I never gave permission for him to post my letter publicly for the entire world to see.
Tonight, I wrote to Jack and requested that the letter be removed from his website. Please be assured that I did not mention either of your names.
I have long forgotten the details of his theory during the 13 year interlude and am not interested in reviewing this topic at the present time. Again, I thank you for notifying me of Jack's use of my letter as a promotional tool. That was never my intention.
Sincerely,
Harvey Leff
And of course Mankin never removed the material from his web site as Dr. Leff requested. This is the type of individual you endorse? He can't get a single physicist anywhere to endorse his stuff, and so he resorts to this type of behavior.
To each his own I guess.
-JJA
You're the guy who is bringing up 4 year old posts from another web site on a different topic, not me. So please try to stay on topic in this thread, the one-armed swing and explain it please. This is my third request for you to explain the one-armed swing, and you have yet to explain it. What are you trying to hide?
This isn't an argument of Mankin vs. me. Fundamentally it's Adair vs Mankin. If you believe a guy who never took physics past high school knows more about physics than one of the foremost physicists in the country at Yale, more power to you. Or that Richard knows more than Adair about torque from his years of experience running a pool hall, you're entitled to your opinion. But when Adair says in his book that torque is small contributor to swing speed (using his rope analogy), rationale people believe him.
Why would I go to batspeed any more? He's wrong. There is nothing to argue. The evidence is overwhelming. On top of it, he deletes posts and he defends his positions unethically. As an example, don't forget the letter that he posts on "batspeed research":
http://www.batspeed.com/research03.html
As you very well know, after he posted that letter, I contacted Dr. Leff and asked him point blank whether he endorsed Mankin's theories or not. Here was Dr. Leff's response:
Dear Mr. Anagnost and Mr. "N",
Thank you both for your email messages informing me that Jack Mankin has posted a copy of my 1991 letter on the internet. I was shocked to learn of this, because that letter was written 13 years ago for a specific, limited purpose.
I was impressed with Jack's detailed studies, but did not endorse his theory. And I never gave permission for him to post my letter publicly for the entire world to see.
Tonight, I wrote to Jack and requested that the letter be removed from his website. Please be assured that I did not mention either of your names.
I have long forgotten the details of his theory during the 13 year interlude and am not interested in reviewing this topic at the present time. Again, I thank you for notifying me of Jack's use of my letter as a promotional tool. That was never my intention.
Sincerely,
Harvey Leff
And of course Mankin never removed the material from his web site as Dr. Leff requested. This is the type of individual you endorse? He can't get a single physicist anywhere to endorse his stuff, and so he resorts to this type of behavior.
To each his own I guess.
-JJA
quote:Or that Richard knows more than Adair about torque from his years of experience running a pool hall,.....
JJA, I know Richard swings a bat against pitching.....Not so sure about Adair........Does he?
Bluedog,
I'm trying to distinguish between cues and physics. I don't care what cues guys use. If "swiveling the forearms", "torquing the handle", whatever help people swing the bat better, then great. But saying these same cues are good physics, well that's where I definitely draw the line. Mankin and Richard are going further than saying that their cues are good, they're saying they have the physics right as well. Frankly neither is qualified to talk physics. So as soon as they get off saying they're scientifically correct, then I'll have nothing else to say.
Finally "Richard swings a bat against pitching" is quite a stretch considering the brutal hacks I have seen him film of himself. I hope he's gotten better since he started his site. Those awful swings are probably the main reason why someone shouldn't want to go to HI. Do what I say and then you will look like this? Not exactly Manny Ramirez or Robert Stock, that's for sure.
-JJA
I'm trying to distinguish between cues and physics. I don't care what cues guys use. If "swiveling the forearms", "torquing the handle", whatever help people swing the bat better, then great. But saying these same cues are good physics, well that's where I definitely draw the line. Mankin and Richard are going further than saying that their cues are good, they're saying they have the physics right as well. Frankly neither is qualified to talk physics. So as soon as they get off saying they're scientifically correct, then I'll have nothing else to say.
Finally "Richard swings a bat against pitching" is quite a stretch considering the brutal hacks I have seen him film of himself. I hope he's gotten better since he started his site. Those awful swings are probably the main reason why someone shouldn't want to go to HI. Do what I say and then you will look like this? Not exactly Manny Ramirez or Robert Stock, that's for sure.
-JJA
JJA, try making your body very mechanical. I bet you won't have good results.
quote:Originally posted by jja:
Geez, louise, go on a trip and look what you find when you get back?
Lots of words, Tom, no content. The posts accurately depict what I wrote. Adair's physics is correct, his swing model is basically correct but his model (as your correctly copied above) has much more forward movement during the swing than most pros have (though some swings of Aaron, Mays, and Ruth have shown that type of forward movement).
So what does this have to do with handle torque for a one-armed guy? I hope everyone sees through this transparent attempt to deflect attention from the issue at hand. The one-armed swing destroys that notion that handle torque is a significant contributor to a swing since you can't apply handle torque as Mankin says with a one-armed swing.
Write all you want, Tom, it doesn't change the facts no matter how many pages you fill. Is this all you have? A bunch of posts on off-topic items? How can you explain the fact that Pete Gray hit 5 minor league home runs with a 1 armed swing?
When adair came up with these claims, did he ever even swing a bat himself?
quote:Originally posted by Rays Fan:
When adair came up with these claims, did he ever even swing a bat himself?
Rays Fan, I find these comments stale. Not unlike comments to the like concering researchers hired to study professional baseball and of which I cited their current research when discussing the concept of "seperation." In reading such, it is hard for one to not assert other obvious observations. Perhaps they might not have swung a bat. However, I'd say that Adair's research and incuding those I cited in another thread have more validity than say those of, say someone working a common occupation such as bartender or as myself a common coach. These various researchers including Adair have submitted their research for all to see.
quote:Originally posted by CoachB25:quote:Originally posted by Rays Fan:
When adair came up with these claims, did he ever even swing a bat himself?
Rays Fan, I find these comments stale. Not unlike comments to the like concering researchers hired to study professional baseball and of which I cited their current research when discussing the concept of "seperation." In reading such, it is hard for one to not assert other obvious observations. Perhaps they might not have swung a bat. However, I'd say that Adair's research and incuding those I cited in another thread have more validity than say those of, say someone working a common occupation such as bartender or as myself a common coach. These various researchers including Adair have submitted their research for all to see.
And yet people still see things differently. I would really like to know though, did he swing a bat in his research?
I'm not familiar with his research. I am curious.
Adair played baseball, probably poorly by looking at him. But once again, that has nothing to do with whether his physics are right.
quote:Originally posted by jja:
Adair played baseball, probably poorly by looking at him. But once again, that has nothing to do with whether his physics are right.
I'm not denying physics... all I am saying is that you need to understand the body and actually physically state what you are doing. All of this PCR nonsense is amazing off a tee. It is actually a great way to hit the ball far. However, once you get up into the high levels, you need handle torque, you need early bat speed. You need adjustability. PCR/PCRW is going to get you no where. Sorry, but its true. The claims made by some of the guys are absolutely absurd!
Once again, the HI guys just can't get away from bashing PCR every chance they get, even when I never mentioned PCR once.
Fine, you don't like PCR. I get it. That has nothing to do with whether handle torque is applied or not. The point is that handle torque does not significantly add to bat speed. That's all. That's the physics. If Richard wants to be scientifically correct, he has to come up with another explanation. Handle torque is not what is happening no matter how many times he and Tom say it is. Or, he can simply admit he doesn't care about the science and just say his stuff is cues and then everyone will leave him alone as well. But as long as he keeps trying to say he's correct scientifically, he's going to be bashed over and over again as his position is scientific rubbish.
Fine, you don't like PCR. I get it. That has nothing to do with whether handle torque is applied or not. The point is that handle torque does not significantly add to bat speed. That's all. That's the physics. If Richard wants to be scientifically correct, he has to come up with another explanation. Handle torque is not what is happening no matter how many times he and Tom say it is. Or, he can simply admit he doesn't care about the science and just say his stuff is cues and then everyone will leave him alone as well. But as long as he keeps trying to say he's correct scientifically, he's going to be bashed over and over again as his position is scientific rubbish.
'quote:Originally posted by jja:
Once again, the HI guys just can't get away from bashing PCR every chance they get, even when I never mentioned PCR once.
Fine, you don't like PCR. I get it. That has nothing to do with whether handle torque is applied or not. The point is that handle torque does not significantly add to bat speed. That's all. That's the physics. If Richard wants to be scientifically correct, he has to come up with another explanation. Handle torque is not what is happening no matter how many times he and Tom say it is. Or, he can simply admit he doesn't care about the science and just say his stuff is cues and then everyone will leave him alone as well. But as long as he keeps trying to say he's correct scientifically, he's going to be bashed over and over again as his position is untenable.
Get your nose out of the text books and look for yourself. If a text book says black, but then you look and its white (just random colors, no racial comments intended at all), then is the study still correct? I doubt adair ever saw any clips of major league hitters. That or he was paid off by a PCR guy.
Look, you can't deny the hanson principle... or does adair allow you to?
Watch for your self:
A study isn't whats important, unless it is backed up by the best in the world. It may not seem correct, but it must be, because that is what they are doing.
Ray's fan, you have a pm. For a young man, you have very little knowledge of the realities of what is going on. You do cite the mantra. You lack the experience. Fix your swing first and then be critical of others.
EDITED TO ADD: You know nothing about what you speak. You only know what your leader tells you to say. In a quote 2 weeks before he left another site openly wrote that he didn't do "PCR that way" after talking with Steve E. which in turn means he never really understood the philosophy at all.
EDITED TO ADD: You know nothing about what you speak. You only know what your leader tells you to say. In a quote 2 weeks before he left another site openly wrote that he didn't do "PCR that way" after talking with Steve E. which in turn means he never really understood the philosophy at all.
What about this one jja?
quote:Originally posted by Rays Fan:
What about this one jja?
EDITED TO REMOVE NAME are you aware that I can find some 15-20 references that were once linked to these videos of Bonds with Richard explaining how they are the perfect PCR swing?
EDITED TO ADD THAT I COULD DO THE SAME FOR PUJOS, RAMERIZ, ORTIZ, ...
quote:Originally posted by CoachB25:quote:Originally posted by Rays Fan:
What about this one jja?
Connor are you aware that I can find some 15-20 references that were once linked to these videos of Bonds with Richard explaining how they are the perfect PCR swing?
I'd love to see them...
