Torque the handle?

quote:

Originally posted by jja:
Guys,

Although this is physics, it isn't rocket science. In the one handed bat experiment, just hold onto the bat and rotate. Watch the bat head. Then repeat the experiment but rotate twice as fast. What happens to the bat head? The barrel goes forward and the handle goes backward twice as fast as in the first experiment. Since you're not actively torquing the bat, how come the bat head is moving? It's the centifigual force acting on the bat head to drive it forward derived from the rotation of the body, much like the force you feel in a car as you drive around a curve. It isn't active torque on the handle of the bat applied by the hands.

I'm not actively torquing the bat? Are you serious? You just told me to rotate the bat twice as fast? How do I rotate it twice as fast? The same way I rotate it once as fast. I supinate my forearm! DUH!?

Like I said, no reason to argue with idiots. The definitions that YOU posted for torque and lever were not the same, yet YOU argued that they were. You are more concerned with winning the argument than you are in the truth. That's OK if your one student didn't have to suffer because of your personal shortcomings.

You might also want to back off TR. Didn't he have two sons that played D1. He probably learned something along the way. Where does yours play. Or is PLAY the proper choice of words?

quote:

Originally posted by jja:
Guys,

Although this is physics, it isn't rocket science. In the one handed bat experiment, just hold onto the bat and rotate. Watch the bat head. Then repeat the experiment but rotate twice as fast. What happens to the bat head? The barrel goes forward and the handle goes backward twice as fast as in the first experiment. Since you're not actively torquing the bat, how come the bat head is moving? It's the centifigual force acting on the bat head to drive it forward derived from the rotation of the body, much like the force you feel in a car as you drive around a curve. It isn't active torque on the handle of the bat applied by the hands.

I don't know what others do for a living but I do know that jja is actively in the field. Quincy, you seem to have a great grasp as well. I've sent out some of these posts to various professors and eagerly await their responses. Of course, I'm sure that they have better things to do. Perhaps one will respond. I'd have to say that lately we've had it all on the site from sublime to the bizarre. This thread, in and of itself, is a very interesting read. JMHO! (Oh, and I'm just a history/health teacher and so, science is not my gig.)

XV,

I asked you to hold onto the bat with one hand and simply rotate your body. I didn't ask you to do anything to the wrist joint.

An illustration of what I wanted you to do is this video Mankin made. You can ignore most of it, but go to

http://www.batspeed.com/research02.html

and fast forward to about 1:19 in the movie. With a 1 handed swing, using his "pathfinder" bat, he rotates his body and the bat head moves. There isn't wrist supination or pronation in this example. It's just rotation of the body that causes the bat to move. And is has to be rotation. Mankin is right that a linear motion of the hands doesn't cause rotation of the head, but the rotational motion does. Hope this makes some sense. That truly is the "whip effect" and as Adair points out, the forces acting on the bat ahead are along the length of the bat, not transverse to the bat as the readers above erroneously believe. That's the physics of what is happening.

Coach, most of the professors you talk to probably won't understand anything these guys are saying as they use non-precise language which is confusing. If they're not up on this as an active research area, just have them read Adair's book. That makes it really clear to follow and will get them up to speed more than any other source I can think of.

-JJA

quote:

Originally posted by jja:


Coach, most of the professors you talk to probably won't understand anything these guys are saying as they use non-precise language which is confusing. If they're not up on this as an active research area, just have them read Adair's book. That makes it really clear to follow and will get them up to speed more than any other source I can think of.

-JJA

JJA, one sent a response and I thought he might since he is my child's God Parent. Essentially, he said that there are many holes in this theory but, as you stated, the calculations necessary for such an accurate description would necessitate much time and expense at his firm.

One more comment about Mankin's demo. This is a basic physics lesson so those wanting to read about hitting - not a bad assumption since we're on a high school bulletin board nominally on the subject of hitting - go ahead and stop now. I'm just writing this because some may be interested in the physics of the swing, and it might help to clear up some of this endless churning about torque on the handle.

What physicists like about Mankin's demo is the use of that pathfinder bat. The bat has a handle and a joint that allow the bat to rotate about the joint freely but no other motion can occur (in other words, it doesn't slide or rotate in any other direction). Physicists call this a "pin joint". What is interesting about a pin joint is that if you rotate the handle about the direction of the joint, the bat head doesn't move (except of a small amount of motion due to the friction in the joint). For a perfect pin joint (no friction), the joint can't apply a torque to the bat in the direction of the pin. Thus, in Mankin's exampe, there is ZERO torque being applied to the bat around the axis of the pin (except for small torques due to friction in the pin joint).

This means that in Mankin's example, there is ZERO torque being applied to the bat around which the bat rotates, yet the bat still rotates about that axis. Isn't that amazing? Maybe most people don't think so, but I still it is an amazing fact. It is due to the rotation of the body which through dynamic coupling forces the bat head to move. The harder you turn, the faster the bat head moves. Torque on the handle has nothing to do with it, because in fact Mankin's bat doesn't allow torque to be applied to the bat in the direction of the pin. It's actually a clean example of why bat handle torque is not what is happening during the swing.

-JJA

JJA-

How is it that mlb hitters rotate the bathead BEFORE the body rotates as can be seen consistently on video of mlb hitters ?

B25, make sure you ask your professors that.

Staying out of this one but thought I'd throw this one in...called a friend this morning with a Doctoral degree in Mechanical Engineering and a minor in BioMechanics (something Bio is all I know) and asked him if "torque" and "lever" actions/mechanics are the same thing or if it was even possible that they could be considered the same thing.

"Not in this world, technically speaking" was his answer.

Can a lever exert a force to cause "torque" was the next question? "Yes, a lever can exert force on an object to MAKE IT ROTATE AROUND AN AXIS".

Next question was does this type of lever action occur in a baseball swing and is there torque generated? "No, not in the sense of creating a rotational movement around an axis down the lenth of a bat. BUT...imagine a hole drilled in the bat handle and think of that hole having an axis; a compound lever action that applied force to the handle in opposing directions above and below the hole would cause that hole TO ROTATE WITHIN ITSELF IN THAT SPACE AND TIME".

Would you call that torque? "The hole itself has been torqued or rotated by opposing lever action. The BATHEAD AND HANDLE HAVE NOT as they are on a different axis; they has been levered in one direction".

" Let me guess, you're wondering about the some of the theories of torque and how they relate to a baseball swing, aren't you?"

"If it's the baseball swing, think more about the rotational torque developed around the axis of the hitter himself".

Are you talking about around the hitter's backbone or torso? " To a degree, yes but bio-mechanically it is an axis from the front shouder to the back hip and knee that that torque is generated around".

Like golf? "Yes, initially the appliaction of torque is very similar. Torque of the golf club itself actually happens in golf as the face of the club rotates open and closed during the swing".

Can you torque a baseball bat or bat handle? "Other than what I said earlier about the hole...No, not without letting go of the bat then re-gripping it".

"Think of wrists/arms/elbows as levers...you can cause torque but then we are getting into supination and pronation of the wrists which still act as levers".

That was pretty much it; he knows baseball also as he played OF in college D1. Hope this muddies things up enough.

Sounds like we all have a semantics issue.

I'm back in the peanut gallery.

Tom,

This subject continues to meander. The statement was made that handle torque is required to produce the "bat blur". The one arm example was constructed to show that isn't true.

I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to, but if you're talking about bat motion right after launch, the bat head rotation is caused by rotation of the body via the whip effect stated earlier.

-JJA

quote:

Originally posted by jja:
One more comment about Mankin's demo. This is a basic physics lesson so those wanting to read about hitting - not a bad assumption since we're on a high school bulletin board nominally on the subject of hitting - go ahead and stop now. I'm just writing this because some may be interested in the physics of the swing, and it might help to clear up some of this endless churning about torque on the handle.

What physicists like about Mankin's demo is the use of that pathfinder bat. The bat has a handle and a joint that allow the bat to rotate about the joint freely but no other motion can occur (in other words, it doesn't slide or rotate in any other direction). Physicists call this a "pin joint". What is interesting about a pin joint is that if you rotate the handle about the direction of the joint, the bat head doesn't move (except of a small amount of motion due to the friction in the joint). For a perfect pin joint (no friction), the joint can't apply a torque to the bat in the direction of the pin. Thus, in Mankin's exampe, there is ZERO torque being applied to the bat around the axis of the pin (except for small torques due to friction in the pin joint).

This means that in Mankin's example, there is ZERO torque being applied to the bat around which the bat rotates, yet the bat still rotates about that axis. Isn't that amazing? Maybe most people don't think so, but I still it is an amazing fact. It is due to the rotation of the body which through dynamic coupling forces the bat head to move. The harder you turn, the faster the bat head moves. Torque on the handle has nothing to do with it, because in fact Mankin's bat doesn't allow torque to be applied to the bat in the direction of the pin. It's actually a clean example of why bat handle torque is not what is happening during the swing.

-JJA

JJA,

I try to stay open minded and think through everything you guys are saying (since I have been proven wrong once before), but there are some serious flaws in what you are saying here. One, is that you are looking at him swinging a bat with no resistance. Two, there is torque being applied. The pin being stationary (on a freely moving pivot) and the weight of the bat head being on the top end of the pivot will obviously keep moving when put in motion. This does not however resemble a real swing. How far could he hit a pitched ball with this bat??? Could he adjust to a breaking pitch? Could he check his swing once it was put in motion? Mankin is showing in this demo that the hips do apply torque and create bat speed when used properly, but that is only half of a MLB swing.

I really can't understand why this point is being argued. Tom hit it right on the head when he said the bat is put in motion by MLB hitters before the upper body moves. Torqueing the handle doesn't take away from what you guys have taught, it just enhances it, IMO.

quote:

Originally posted by S. Abrams:
Staying out of this one but thought I'd throw this one in...called a friend this morning with a Doctoral degree in Mechanical Engineering and a minor in BioMechanics (something Bio is all I know) and asked him if "torque" and "lever" actions/mechanics are the same thing or if it was even possible that they could be considered the same thing.

"Not in this world, technically speaking" was his answer.

Can a lever exert a force to cause "torque" was the next question? "Yes, a lever can exert force on an object to MAKE IT ROTATE AROUND AN AXIS".
Next question was does this type of lever action occur in a baseball swing and is there torque generated? "No, not in the sense of creating a rotational movement around an axis down the lenth of a bat. BUT...imagine a hole drilled in the bat handle and think of that hole having an axis; a compound lever action that applied force to the handle in opposing directions above and below the hole would cause that hole TO ROTATE WITHIN ITSELF IN THAT SPACE AND TIME".

Would you call that torque? "The hole itself has been torqued or rotated by opposing lever action. The BATHEAD AND HANDLE HAVE NOT as they are on a different axis; they has been levered in one direction".

" Let me guess, you're wondering about the some of the theories of torque and how they relate to a baseball swing, aren't you?"

"If it's the baseball swing, think more about the rotational torque developed around the axis of the hitter himself".

Are you talking about around the hitter's backbone or torso? " To a degree, yes but bio-mechanically it is an axis from the front shouder to the back hip and knee that that torque is generated around".

Like golf? "Yes, initially the appliaction of torque is very similar. Torque of the golf club itself actually happens in golf as the face of the club rotates open and closed during the swing".

Can you torque a baseball bat or bat handle? "Other than what I said earlier about the hole...No, not without letting go of the bat then re-gripping it".

"Think of wrists/arms/elbows as levers...you can cause torque but then we are getting into supination and pronation of the wrists which still act as levers".

That was pretty much it; he knows baseball also as he played OF in college D1. Hope this muddies things up enough.

Sounds like we all have a semantics issue.

I'm back in the peanut gallery.

Shawn,

You just made our point for us. Thanks! Just go back and read everything you posted. The "hole" is the point between the hands being torqued.

This Engineer would have to be performing a MLB swing to understand what you are asking him. I would say he never had a MLB swing or he wouldn't be an Engineer.

Can a lever exert a force to cause "torque" was the next question? "Yes, a lever can exert force on an object to MAKE IT ROTATE AROUND AN AXIS".

Is this not exactly what XV said??? The axis is the point between the hands.

quote:

Originally posted by jja:
Tom,

This subject continues to meander. The statement was made that handle torque is required to produce the "bat blur". The one arm example was constructed to show that isn't true.

I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to, but if you're talking about bat motion right after launch, the bat head rotation is caused by rotation of the body via the whip effect stated earlier.

-JJA

JJA,

Look at the videos again. The bat blurs before the upper body starts to move. If you see this, the arguement is over. If you can't, then....

quote:

Originally posted by tom.guerry:
JJA-

How is it that mlb hitters rotate the bathead BEFORE the body rotates as can be seen consistently on video of mlb hitters ?

B25, make sure you ask your professors that.

Tom, I'd be as impressed with how you explain this to the players you work with each night in the cages.

quote:

Originally posted by CoachB25:

quote:

Originally posted by tom.guerry:
JJA-

How is it that mlb hitters rotate the bathead BEFORE the body rotates as can be seen consistently on video of mlb hitters ?

B25, make sure you ask your professors that.

Tom, I'd be as impressed with how you explain this to the players you work with each night in the cages.

Coach,

He already told us how he explains it earlier in this thread (the whole quote by Jack Mankin is on page 4 of this thread).


"Therefore, I have found that if I can get the batter to correctly envision the bat-head first accelerating rearward to the lag position before he directs his energy toward the ball, the more likely he will generate the most productive hip and shoulder rotation to accomplish the task."

quote:

"Think of wrists/arms/elbows as levers...you can cause torque but then we are getting into supination and pronation of the wrists which still act as levers".

Shawn,

This guy should be giving hitting lessons! He understands it better than you, lol.

powertoallfields, thanks and I stand corrected on that statement. I didn't realize that Tom now teaches hitting at hitting facilities. Of course, if I'm correct, and Tom doesn't teach at facilities nor has students he works with hands on, he'll state that.

It is akin, in my opinion to someone claiming that they know the MLB pattern and criticise everone else when they have no involvement at all with putting that theory into practice. Not unlike, I might add, to those college professors who profess theory about careers including the teaching profession who could not last a day in the classroom. Again, Tom, I apologize since you are now working hands on with hitters.

B25-

Lot's of good info at

hittingillustrated.com

Coach,

Sorry, I didn't know you guys had history. Maybe I should have said, the quote states what he believes and what Mankin tells his hitters. I don't know if Tom does or doesn't work with hitters.

Anyway, what do you think about the merits of Mankin's quote?

power -

I have worked with hitters a lot.

The past few years it has just been assisitng hitter's and their coaches by videoanalysis which has worked fine for them.

JJA -

Back in the day before you found N&$man and adopted him as your guru of pseudo-science, he was a proponent of the swing and throwing motions as being best explained as separate upper and lower body motor programs that merged.

He then got off track into the one thing doing one thing deal and got completely confused to the point of not being able to recognize waht happens in the mlb pattern. PCR+/- W which is being constantly revised is NOT the same pattern as MLB.

It is best to think of the swing as separate upper and lower body motions that are related/synched (with upper body in charge of synch). That's how the torquing can start before what you call "rotation".

This is what Slaught/Candrea are getting at with the "independent hands" cue/description and what Mclean is explaining as the key to how "x-factor stretch" is created in the 2 Plane golf swing that the mlb swing pattern closely resembles.

http://www.golfdigest.com/instruction/swing/2008/01/mclean_xfactor1


"That's right: The upper body and lower body should work independently."

Don't start throwing aspersions out about me teaching kids. I have taught well over a hundred kids, spending lots of free hours doing it. I may be an engineer by trade, but that doesn't mean I don't know how to teach the baseball swing. It's safe to say I have lots more hours on the field than an awful lot of people writing here. But once again when people start losing arguments, personal attacks start coming out.

Let's try it this way. If the hands were pushing and pulling like Mankin says, then the wrists have to extend. There is no getting around it. Push with the top hand, pull with the bottom hand (both in a direction perpindicular to the bat) and what happens? The wrists extend and the bat moves. The bat moves in a familiar way, but the wrists extend. It's impossible not to do that. But you don't see that in a big league swing, do you? Of course not. The wrists don't extend until near contact. That's because there isn't any significant amount of handle torque during the swing.

-JJA

Great post SA

Thank your friend for us all.

I especially liked the reference to the wasted motion of supination and pronation.

Success in athletics usually is the product of effective motion and elimination of unnescessary motion.

This holds true in all sports.

This is what we call 'the edge' that one gets over others of equal or greater natural ability.

powertoallfields

I'm not Shawn.

My friend actually did have a MLB swing (D1 player remember)and I would bet had a swing better than any of us combined. Drafted by the Rangers in 15th round; didn't see a future so he went to grad school. Career .305 hitter in college with decent power but not the tools needed at the next level ( compared to what I see at the MLB level today, he was wrong).

Basically, he said everybody is saying the same thing but using different terminology. He said it would make more sense if everybody quit trying to sound like an engineer and say precisely what they meant by hand position,etc. so there would not be any argument. LOL (Fat chance).

Doubt he made anybody's point..if he did he made everybody's point. Read his next ststement about the bathead and handle.

He actually thought what we were discussing was funny. He did say that the only true torque that occurs to the length wise axis of a bat happens as the elbow slots and the hands are working themselves to an over/under position...and he said that is pushing the definition somewhat.

He said "watch MLB hitters hips/hands and how quickly they slot the elbow during the rotation of the hips; that's where the bat quickness starts that a MLB hitter has that most players don't".

He said "the hands are important in any swing but having the hands in the right position at the proper point in time is initiated through the kinetic chain relying on the torso for torque and rotational power. The body without the hands to transmit the power is useless also; you must have both in unison".

Unfortunately he added " what you guys are discussing is based on another, much more imporatnt factor...pitch recognition. Everything you are discussing is reliant on visual cues and those change based on speed,location and angle. I won't even get into spin or varying light conditions. You guys are making alot of assumptions on factors out of a hitters control. I'd advise all of you to quit thinking and just swing the bat at good pitches".

My only difference to his view is the hand position into contact.

I have found that the Ruthian side-side allows greater range of wrist movement and bat speed.

But as is often stated, no two hitters are the same.

quote:

Originally posted by jja:
Don't start throwing aspersions out about me teaching kids. I have taught well over a hundred kids, spending lots of free hours doing it. I may be an engineer by trade, but that doesn't mean I don't know how to teach the baseball swing. It's safe to say I have lots more hours on the field than an awful lot of people writing here. But once again when people start losing arguments, personal attacks start coming out.

Let's try it this way. If the hands were pushing and pulling like Mankin says, then the wrists have to extend. There is no getting around it. Push with the top hand, pull with the bottom hand (both in a direction perpindicular to the bat) and what happens? The wrists extend and the bat moves. The bat moves in a familiar way, but the wrists extend. It's impossible not to do that. But you don't see that in a big league swing, do you? Of course not. The wrists don't extend until near contact. That's because there isn't any significant amount of handle torque during the swing.

-JJA

Wow! Even after you've seen the slow motion video, huh? I see torque being applied from the point the bat head is put in motion through the point of contact. I guess these two camps will never agree, huh? Is this kind of like Democrats and Republicans???

JJA-

You should study Mankin adequately before you criticize him. That was the same mistake N$$man made.

Jack goes into plenty of detail about how applying torque through the hands in the mlb swing pattern does NOT involve prematurely uncocking/aDducting the wrists. That's part of that nasty arm/forearm action stuff youdislike so much.

In fact, the application of handle torque creates a reactive force that controls and continues the coil/load of the torso which actually RETAINS the hinge angle between of the lead wrist between the bat and the lead forearm.

You can torque the handle without either adducting the wrists OR firing the bathead out of the arc of the handpath prematurely so that coil is enhanced instead of interrupted. It helps to have a vertical bat to create more out of swing plane freedom/room for the "running start".

quote:

Originally posted by S. Abrams:
powertoallfields

I'm not Shawn.

My friend actually did have a MLB swing (D1 player remember)and I would bet had a swing better than any of us combined. Drafted by the Rangers in 15th round; didn't see a future so he went to grad school. Career .305 hitter in college with decent power but not the tools needed at the next level ( compared to what I see at the MLB level today, he was wrong).

Basically, he said everybody is saying the same thing but using different terminology. He said it would make more sense if everybody quit trying to sound like an engineer and say precisely what they meant by hand position,etc. so there would not be any argument. LOL (Fat chance).

Doubt he made anybody's point..if he did he made everybody's point. Read his next ststement about the bathead and handle.

He actually thought what we were discussing was funny. He did say that the only true torque that occurs to the length wise axis of a bat happens as the elbow slots and the hands are working themselves to an over/under position...and he said that is pushing the definition somewhat.

He said "watch MLB hitters hips/hands and how quickly they slot the elbow during the rotation of the hips; that's where the bat quickness starts that a MLB hitter has that most players don't".

He said "the hands are important in any swing but having the hands in the right position at the proper point in time is initiated through the kinetic chain relying on the torso for torque and rotational power. The body without the hands to transmit the power is useless also; you must have both in unison".

Unfortunately he added " what you guys are discussing is based on another, much more imporatnt factor...pitch recognition. Everything you are discussing is reliant on visual cues and those change based on speed,location and angle. I won't even get into spin or varying light conditions. You guys are making alot of assumptions on factors out of a hitters control. I'd advise all of you to quit thinking and just swing the bat at good pitches".

S. Abrams,

Sorry about the Shawn thing and I guess JJA too. I keep getting Shawn Lee and you mixed up, but that's for another session. Anyway, I really don't have much arguement with much of what you have said here. I will only say, that my camp believes that the hands manipulating the bat (notice I didn't say torque, since I really don't care what anyone calls it) is what causes "how quickly the MLB players slot their elbow during the rotation of the hips."

Anyway, I guess your friend would make a good instructor, lol.

quote:

Originally posted by jja:
Don't start throwing aspersions out about me teaching kids. I have taught well over a hundred kids, spending lots of free hours doing it. I may be an engineer by trade, but that doesn't mean I don't know how to teach the baseball swing. It's safe to say I have lots more hours on the field than an awful lot of people writing here. But once again when people start losing arguments, personal attacks start coming out.

Let's try it this way. If the hands were pushing and pulling like Mankin says, then the wrists have to extend. There is no getting around it. Push with the top hand, pull with the bottom hand (both in a direction perpindicular to the bat) and what happens? The wrists extend and the bat moves. The bat moves in a familiar way, but the wrists extend. It's impossible not to do that. But you don't see that in a big league swing, do you? Of course not. The wrists don't extend until near contact. That's because there isn't any significant amount of handle torque during the swing.

-JJA

JJA,

If this was meant for me, I appologize if you thought the quote meant for S.Abrams was directed at you. Either way, it was made in gest. Heck, after listening to what his Engineer friend had to say, he may understand it better than all of us, lol.

PTA,

Good to see that you have dropped the torque mantra.

Try assuming the slot position and then figure out the easiest way to get to that position.

quote:

Originally posted by Quincy:
PTA,

Good to see that you have dropped the torque mantra.

Try assuming the slot position and then figure out the easiest way to get to that position.

I've already done that. Thanks!


"Therefore, I have found that if I can get the batter to correctly envision the bat-head first accelerating rearward to the lag position before he directs his energy toward the ball, the more likely he will generate the most productive hip and shoulder rotation to accomplish the task."

Jack Mankin

This is what I have described as throwing the bat at the base on the foul line in front of you.

http://www.teachersbilliards.com/Hitzone/BarryTed.gif

powertoallfields

Take a peek at the clip of Vlad in the "bat Angle" thread. Watch the slotting of the elbow and how the hands and bat blur during that movement.

During that phase of the swing I know there is a definite feel of pulling back with the top hand while the bottom hand is pulling (actually starting to move) forward.

I guess the question is...Is that feel generated by the pull on the upper hand caused by the elbow slotting or something else such as conscious pull/push of the hands or a combination of all.

I personally am of the camp that the pull feel is caused by the elbow slotting motion.

Mankin or ***** (can't remember which) talk about the weight of the rear arm/elbow and how it relates to early bat speed...I don't like the term weight as much as speed or force of the elbow moving to the slot. I strongly agree that the speed of the slotting action is key to bat head speed and quickness.

My engineering friend and I worked on his swing alot his Fr year ( I was a SR) as I saw too many holes early in his career to really succeed at D1. I had the knowledge but he had the tools (6'2", 205 lb, 4.6 40 yd) to really do something with little work. Knee injury (non sports related) immediatedly out of college probably killed his chances playing at the next level. I was probably the better hitter but the balls he hit made a much different sound than mine. His screamed, mine whimpered at best. Doubt he regrets anything...great family and career over the years and worth several million would tend to make someone have very few regrets.

Amazing that I reached him at home this morning...usually he's at the golf course.

quote:

Amazing that I reached him at home this morning...usually he's at the golf course.

Ahhhhh! Now that's the life! Maybe the decision to send my Daughter to Engineering school will pay off after all. Unfortunately, she hates golf!

All I can say to your comments, is try this in the cage off of a tee for a while and see if you still feel the same way. Believe me, I felt the same way you do now about a year ago and until I understood it and worked with it, I didn't believe it either. I do now and have taught it to a few hitters (including my Son) and it is a marked improvement.

Whether MLB hitters just stumble on this by trial and error or someone has taught them to do it, I believe virtually all of them do. I believe this quote by Jack Mankin explains how to do it very well.



"Therefore, I have found that if I can get the batter to correctly envision the bat-head first accelerating rearward to the lag position before he directs his energy toward the ball, the more likely he will generate the most productive hip and shoulder rotation to accomplish the task."


I have been teaching and studying hitting for nearly 30 years and had gotten, I think, everything right pretty much on my own by immulation, video and trial and error until I came upon Mike Epstein and learned a better way to use the hips. Then, I found this website and read what Richard was saying and feel I now have all of the parts. I guess time will tell, huh?

This post has nothing to do with any previous post but is a rambling that needs to be stated.

Ok, so I'm not smart but not afraid to say so. We have video and everyone crying "Hanson Principle." When, if ever, will we agree that there are flaws in this video principle? In other words, I'd agree if it were "Hanson Principle" on similar pitches. I'd agree if we all agreed on similar speed. I'd agree if it were comparison based upon pitch location. I'd agree if we all agreed that there are times when MLB players get fooled and so, any video representative of a poor swing was eliminated from consideration of various points. Instead, what we have in most of these arguments are videos that have been select per agenda. I could go on and get very negative concerning this and various posters on this site and/or others. However, that wouldn't serve any positive purpose. JMHO!

It has always been rather simple mechanics that have become shrouded by the various copyrighted commercial terms.

If you envision a pendulum with a hinge about half way down the arm and another hinge just before the bottom weight set as the bat is held, you would see that the greatest speed of the pendulum setting the hinges into action is high up on the pendulum.

The chain in the swing would be triceps, elbow/forearms and then wrists. This would cause the weight to whip twice, once at the initial pull and the second at the bottom point before the upward rise.

The rearward (first whip) movement is there as well as the wrists uncocking (second whip) and followthrough. Or as video shows, there are two blurs.

Or you could compare the path of the second pendulum when it has a running start vs when it does not here:

http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~plynch/SwingingSpring/doublependulum.html

quote:

Originally posted by CoachB25:
This post has nothing to do with any previous post but is a rambling that needs to be stated.

Ok, so I'm not smart but not afraid to say so. We have video and everyone crying "Hanson Principle." When, if ever, will we agree that there are flaws in this video principle? In other words, I'd agree if it were "Hanson Principle" on similar pitches. I'd agree if we all agreed on similar speed. I'd agree if it were comparison based upon pitch location. I'd agree if we all agreed that there are times when MLB players get fooled and so, any video representative of a poor swing was eliminated from consideration of various points. Instead, what we have in most of these arguments are videos that have been select per agenda. I could go on and get very negative concerning this and various posters on this site and/or others. However, that wouldn't serve any positive purpose. JMHO!

Coach,

I agree 100%, but who would choose the videos to analyze. It's just an opinion that isn't going to be agreed on, IMO. It's like Politics and Religion, most people are going to believe what they are going to believe no matter what the other person says. In most of the three instances, past bad blood, and their support for people they respect, clouds the thinking and it will make it hard for anyone to change their position. All we can do is try to articulate our positions to the best of our ability, in as respectful a way as possible (which is harder for some than others, me included) and let people make their own decisions.

quote:

Originally posted by tom.guerry:
Or you could compare the path of the second pendulum when it has a running start vs when it does not here:

http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~plynch/SwingingSpring/doublependulum.html

Tom,

That's what I was trying to get at with my car analogy, but it would have made my point better if I had said one car was standing still at the start and the other was already moving. In that scenario, both cars could be identical, but the moving car would still get to the line first. This graphic shows it very well. Thanks, again!

quote:

Originally posted by tom.guerry:
Or you could compare the path of the second pendulum when it has a running start vs when it does not here:

http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~plynch/SwingingSpring/doublependulum.html

The double pundulum can work to get the circular path. Hold the arm aprox to where the bat would be held and let go when the swing is in the proper direction. By hitting pause at the bottom you will see the accelleration at the beginning of the rise.

The triple pendulum is a bit tougher to work with because of the variations in segment length. This though takes into account the leverage gained in the elbow bend as well as the wrists whip.

This double pendulum is a perfect example of a system that has no torques applied to the joints, yet rotation occurs just fine. Thanks Tom for providing another good example of a system with no torque in it.

quote:

Originally posted by jja:
This double pendulum is a perfect example of a system that has no torques applied to the joints, yet rotation occurs just fine. Thanks Tom for providing another good example of a system with no torque in it.

Geez!