blue dog,
Be careful, thats as close to something of substance as youv'e posted in days. But all i have to do is ask a question and you'll disappear.
Shawny, I post more substance in one day than you post in a lifetime.....
Keep babbling...You like to hear yourself!
Keep babbling...You like to hear yourself!
no you pontificate. As soon as anyone asks you for clarification you practically hurt youself avoiding the question. No wonder you and richard are such good buddies.
quote:As soon as anyone asks you for clarification....
Why don't you swing a bat Richard's way?...Never mind, it's not clear enough for you....
For whatever reason people seem to have difficulty grasping the point that the big muscles of the body, namely the lower body and torso, are what power the swing, not handle torque. It's just common sense but apparently not for everyone.
Let me try it one more way. Take your bat and your stance and go ahead and torque away, but under no circumstances are you allowed to rotate your lower body or your torso (i.e., don't let the hips or shoulders rotate). Go ahead and torque that handle. Push the top hand, pull that bottom hand, supinate that wrist, pronate that wrist, roll the wrists, try to create that all important "bat blur" via torque, do whatever you want to the handle, and what happens? You get a swing that can't get the ball out of the infield.
Once again, it's really simple. It's rotation that powers the swing. You want to hit harder, rotate faster, not torque the handle harder. This is also why some relatively little guys can hit the ball a long way. They create a very efficient swing which allows them to rotate fast even though they aren't imposing physically. If the handle torque guys were right, that it really does power the swing, then MLB would be filled with weightlifter types with Popeye forearms. The 500 home run club is filled with guys under 200 lbs, and none are above 300.
I don't know how many more ways I can describe this. I think I'm up to 5. Handle torque is a fiction, plain and simple. It doesn't exist no matter how many times Richard says it does. There isn't the slightest bit of evidence, not a scintilla, that supports this position.
-JJA
Let me try it one more way. Take your bat and your stance and go ahead and torque away, but under no circumstances are you allowed to rotate your lower body or your torso (i.e., don't let the hips or shoulders rotate). Go ahead and torque that handle. Push the top hand, pull that bottom hand, supinate that wrist, pronate that wrist, roll the wrists, try to create that all important "bat blur" via torque, do whatever you want to the handle, and what happens? You get a swing that can't get the ball out of the infield.
Once again, it's really simple. It's rotation that powers the swing. You want to hit harder, rotate faster, not torque the handle harder. This is also why some relatively little guys can hit the ball a long way. They create a very efficient swing which allows them to rotate fast even though they aren't imposing physically. If the handle torque guys were right, that it really does power the swing, then MLB would be filled with weightlifter types with Popeye forearms. The 500 home run club is filled with guys under 200 lbs, and none are above 300.
I don't know how many more ways I can describe this. I think I'm up to 5. Handle torque is a fiction, plain and simple. It doesn't exist no matter how many times Richard says it does. There isn't the slightest bit of evidence, not a scintilla, that supports this position.
-JJA
quote:Originally posted by jja:
For whatever reason people seem to have difficulty grasping the point that the big muscles of the body, namely the lower body and torso, are what power the swing, not handle torque. It's just common sense but apparently not for everyone.
Let me try it one more way. Take your bat and your stance and go ahead and torque away, but under no circumstances are you allowed to rotate your lower body or your torso (i.e., don't let the hips or shoulders rotate). Go ahead and torque that handle. Push the top hand, pull that bottom hand, supinate that wrist, pronate that wrist, roll the wrists, try to create that all important "bat blur" via torque, do whatever you want to the handle, and what happens? You get a swing that can't get the ball out of the infield.
Once again, it's really simple. It's rotation that powers the swing. You want to hit harder, rotate faster, not torque the handle harder. This is also why some relatively little guys can hit the ball a long way. They create a very efficient swing which allows them to rotate fast even though they aren't imposing physically. If the handle torque guys were right, that it really does power the swing, then MLB would be filled with weightlifter types with Popeye forearms. The 500 home run club is filled with guys under 200 lbs, and none are above 300.
I don't know how many more ways I can describe this. I think I'm up to 5. Handle torque is a fiction, plain and simple. It doesn't exist no matter how many times Richard says it is. There isn't the slightest bit of evidence, not a scintilla, that supports this position.
-JJA
No one has said the hips aren't a power source. I think the number one source of power. From what I get from Richard is that the hands are the "second engine." They (the hands) do create early batspeed and handle torque allows for late adjustability and ads to late batspeed. Hips without the hands or hands without the hips create no power.
quote:why some relatively little guys can hit the ball a long way.
Because they have strong cores, legs, hips, hands and forearms and they use them correctly.
quote:Originally posted by jja:
You get a swing that can't get the ball out of the infield.
Like the guy in that Youtube video doing the one-handed drills?
You are so right JJA about the shoulders. Look, this guy on the left is rotating his shoulders to get the bat on plane. Is this what "maintain the box" means? The guy on the right has pronated his bottom hand and supinated his top hand. I must be wrong.
Torque is not just produced with the hands....It is produced in the mid-section, also....The wrinkles in the shirt move....Watch the wrinkles, JJA...
Here's the alternative...No torque in the hands or the mid-section.....
So, you see, JJA, we're not saying just torque the hands....We're saying torque with the hands and the hips...
You can mislead all you want....We'll explain it, again....
Here's the alternative...No torque in the hands or the mid-section.....
So, you see, JJA, we're not saying just torque the hands....We're saying torque with the hands and the hips...
You can mislead all you want....We'll explain it, again....
quote:Originally posted by ShawnLee:
no you pontificate. As soon as anyone asks you for clarification you practically hurt youself avoiding the question. No wonder you and richard are such good buddies.
bluedog - I second that opinion. You just come up with a new buzz term from time to time, but can't describe how they work (if they do) in the real world. I suggest you get out and actually swing a bat.
XV,
Wrong, wrong, wrong!!! You guys know, rql, right? Played college ball ~30 years ago, very strong player, frequent internet poster on lots of sites, though perhaps not here. He had several posts a few years back on Mankin's site that at 50+ years old he could hit the ball 300+ (but not 400) feet with the one-armed swing. The guy is "non-denominational", no "camp" that he is associated with. There is no reason to doubt his claim, and even Mankin accepted it without questioning it as rql has been a straight shooter for a while. If people want to stake out a claim that no one can hit a ball 300 feet one handed, I'll see what I can do. It's common knowledge that on the golf trick shot circuit the the Chuck "Hit Man" Hiter can hit a one-armed drive 260 yards with either arm, so it isn't a real stretch to a 300 foot one-armed swing with a baseball bat.
That's my very point. Handle torque can't get it out the infield but rotation without handle torque can. Guys, did anyone even try my handle torque demo I asked before? Just try it and see how much bat speed you generate. Now try the one armed swing and see how much bat speed you generate. Which won wins by a landslide? It isn't even close, is it?
Bluedog, sorry. This is about handle torque. You'll never get me to criticize anything about torque in the torso and lower body, because that's what's causing rotation of the torso/lower body. This goes way beyond the subject matter here, but even your youngster has torque driving his lower body and torso. Agreed, it's not your favorite "separation", and I don't want to get into the Yeager "push-block" stuff, but there is torque in that swing as well. There has to be to cause rotation. But there is positively, absolutely no handle torque. That's my point. I take strong exception to your contention that hips without hands produces no power. Rotation of the body (hips and torso) produce power, not handle torque. Again, every scientific study done of the baseball and golf swing supports this conclusion, as Tom will reluctantly admit. I'm sorry Richard won't accept this data, but it's not even controversial in the science world. The handle torque argument isn't even worthy of an argument it's that bad. Believe it or not, Adair is right. One of the foremost physicists in the country from Yale, he actually can analyze the swing better than a guy who owns a bar and has no formal education. This isn't difficult, guys.
Finally, XV, try this. I gave you the simple experiment of allowing you to torque away on the bat handle any way you could without allowing you to rotate your hips or shoulders. I asserted - and no one has disagreed with my conclusions by the way including you, BlueDog and PTA - that the resulting bat speed couldn't get the ball out of the infield. That is an absolutely conclusive example that shows that handle torque does not drive power in the swing.
But because I'm a nice guy, I'll give you the hips as well. Go ahead and take that bat, swing away with handle torque and all of the separation you can generate. Pre-set those hips, fire them as hard as you like while you torque that handle with every trick in the book. Supinate that wrist, push-pull with hands, "blur that bat" do whatever you want as before, but under no circumstances are you to move the shoulders. They must stay fixed.
What happens? You generate the same amount of power as you did in the handle torque experiment before, a pathetic amount of speed that can't get the ball past the shortstop even if you look like Hulk Hogan (even in his prime). These two together don't generate nearly that bat speed as a one arm swing with everything rotating together.The hips can't transfer their momentum to the bat because the torso didn't rotate. Once again, this a simple but dramatic example of why handle torque does not drive power in the swing.
It's rotation that powers the swing. Handle torque is fiction. That's all there is to it.
-JJA
Wrong, wrong, wrong!!! You guys know, rql, right? Played college ball ~30 years ago, very strong player, frequent internet poster on lots of sites, though perhaps not here. He had several posts a few years back on Mankin's site that at 50+ years old he could hit the ball 300+ (but not 400) feet with the one-armed swing. The guy is "non-denominational", no "camp" that he is associated with. There is no reason to doubt his claim, and even Mankin accepted it without questioning it as rql has been a straight shooter for a while. If people want to stake out a claim that no one can hit a ball 300 feet one handed, I'll see what I can do. It's common knowledge that on the golf trick shot circuit the the Chuck "Hit Man" Hiter can hit a one-armed drive 260 yards with either arm, so it isn't a real stretch to a 300 foot one-armed swing with a baseball bat.
That's my very point. Handle torque can't get it out the infield but rotation without handle torque can. Guys, did anyone even try my handle torque demo I asked before? Just try it and see how much bat speed you generate. Now try the one armed swing and see how much bat speed you generate. Which won wins by a landslide? It isn't even close, is it?
Bluedog, sorry. This is about handle torque. You'll never get me to criticize anything about torque in the torso and lower body, because that's what's causing rotation of the torso/lower body. This goes way beyond the subject matter here, but even your youngster has torque driving his lower body and torso. Agreed, it's not your favorite "separation", and I don't want to get into the Yeager "push-block" stuff, but there is torque in that swing as well. There has to be to cause rotation. But there is positively, absolutely no handle torque. That's my point. I take strong exception to your contention that hips without hands produces no power. Rotation of the body (hips and torso) produce power, not handle torque. Again, every scientific study done of the baseball and golf swing supports this conclusion, as Tom will reluctantly admit. I'm sorry Richard won't accept this data, but it's not even controversial in the science world. The handle torque argument isn't even worthy of an argument it's that bad. Believe it or not, Adair is right. One of the foremost physicists in the country from Yale, he actually can analyze the swing better than a guy who owns a bar and has no formal education. This isn't difficult, guys.
Finally, XV, try this. I gave you the simple experiment of allowing you to torque away on the bat handle any way you could without allowing you to rotate your hips or shoulders. I asserted - and no one has disagreed with my conclusions by the way including you, BlueDog and PTA - that the resulting bat speed couldn't get the ball out of the infield. That is an absolutely conclusive example that shows that handle torque does not drive power in the swing.
But because I'm a nice guy, I'll give you the hips as well. Go ahead and take that bat, swing away with handle torque and all of the separation you can generate. Pre-set those hips, fire them as hard as you like while you torque that handle with every trick in the book. Supinate that wrist, push-pull with hands, "blur that bat" do whatever you want as before, but under no circumstances are you to move the shoulders. They must stay fixed.
What happens? You generate the same amount of power as you did in the handle torque experiment before, a pathetic amount of speed that can't get the ball past the shortstop even if you look like Hulk Hogan (even in his prime). These two together don't generate nearly that bat speed as a one arm swing with everything rotating together.The hips can't transfer their momentum to the bat because the torso didn't rotate. Once again, this a simple but dramatic example of why handle torque does not drive power in the swing.
It's rotation that powers the swing. Handle torque is fiction. That's all there is to it.
-JJA
JJA -
Handle torque is a fiction you have admitted exists in the mlb swing. Now it's just a matter of how important it is.
I never said anything about the hips not being the main power source, and neither did Mankin.
You really should avoid mischaracterizing your own position and that of others.
Mankin has always said that torque is what improves the connection to the body rotation (need torque and CHP for good "transfer mechanics").
I have gone further and said the torque not only improves the connection/transfer, but controls and improves the coil of the body (timing and direction of reversal of "cusp/"x-factor stretch").
The whole point of Richard
s SECOND engine model is that the torque is in addition to (and controls how first engine works and blends) the main/first engine which is hip/body rotation.
You are just creating false strawmen and tearing them down in a attempt to discredit others by association, just like your mentor N$man's attempt to swiftboat Jack.
Looks like Shawn is off the reservation, maybe you can help him see the light again.
Handle torque is a fiction you have admitted exists in the mlb swing. Now it's just a matter of how important it is.
I never said anything about the hips not being the main power source, and neither did Mankin.
You really should avoid mischaracterizing your own position and that of others.
Mankin has always said that torque is what improves the connection to the body rotation (need torque and CHP for good "transfer mechanics").
I have gone further and said the torque not only improves the connection/transfer, but controls and improves the coil of the body (timing and direction of reversal of "cusp/"x-factor stretch").
The whole point of Richard
s SECOND engine model is that the torque is in addition to (and controls how first engine works and blends) the main/first engine which is hip/body rotation.
You are just creating false strawmen and tearing them down in a attempt to discredit others by association, just like your mentor N$man's attempt to swiftboat Jack.
Looks like Shawn is off the reservation, maybe you can help him see the light again.
Tom,
None of you guys will admit that torque contributes little to bat speed. Despite what you state in your post, Mankin says 50% of bat speed is due to torque. Doesn't that sound like a primary power source to you? Until you admit that torque is a non-factor in bat speed production, I'm going to continue to pound and pound on that premise. If you want to say torque is used for other factors, I'll go there AFTER we get this nonsense about bat speed production over with. Just admit - and the evidence is overwhelming in support of my position - that torque is inconsequential for bat speed production and I'll get off this kick.
I'm defending Adair, not "N". You keep interjecting "N" in for your own personal agenda. I haven't used the terms PCR or "N" purposely because that gets an automatic response from lots of people. If you defend handle torque as a power generator, you're going against Adair and all of the researchers out there. That's my point. It's completely, 100% independent of "N" and PCR. It's the physics of the swing whether you like it or not.
Instead, why don't you try my experiments and report how much bat speed you generated with your beloved hand torque? That would be a lot more interesting to most folks than your tired personal tirades against "N" and Englishbey. But those experiments are awfully telling in support of my position, aren't they?
-JJA
None of you guys will admit that torque contributes little to bat speed. Despite what you state in your post, Mankin says 50% of bat speed is due to torque. Doesn't that sound like a primary power source to you? Until you admit that torque is a non-factor in bat speed production, I'm going to continue to pound and pound on that premise. If you want to say torque is used for other factors, I'll go there AFTER we get this nonsense about bat speed production over with. Just admit - and the evidence is overwhelming in support of my position - that torque is inconsequential for bat speed production and I'll get off this kick.
I'm defending Adair, not "N". You keep interjecting "N" in for your own personal agenda. I haven't used the terms PCR or "N" purposely because that gets an automatic response from lots of people. If you defend handle torque as a power generator, you're going against Adair and all of the researchers out there. That's my point. It's completely, 100% independent of "N" and PCR. It's the physics of the swing whether you like it or not.
Instead, why don't you try my experiments and report how much bat speed you generated with your beloved hand torque? That would be a lot more interesting to most folks than your tired personal tirades against "N" and Englishbey. But those experiments are awfully telling in support of my position, aren't they?
-JJA
Guys,
I wanted to expand a bit on Dr. Adair and his book "The Physics of Baseball". I strongly suggest those with an interest in the physics of the baseball swing read it (even though it has little if nothing to do with teaching anyone how to swing). It's only about $10 and it's really a terrific book with lots of interesting facts that few people really understand.
People like Mankin continue to assert that Adair's analysis of the physics of the swing is wrong, that there really is torque on the handle even though Adair implications in his writing is that there isn't.
Guys, few of you understand the academic environment. Ultra-highly competitive that make these board arguments look like tea parties, guys can make their careers by showing a top guy like Adair is wrong on some esoteric physics. If he was wrong on this topic, gobs of young Ph.D.'s would be all of that book, proving the great Adair wrong. It hasn't happened, has it? Believe me someone would be all over it over the last 17 years if he was wrong. So when he says there is no significant torque in the swing, it's true.
It's actually logical to take Adair at his word and assume that there is little torque in the swing. Once that position is adopted, the next logical question is what is causing the "bat blur", the so-called "second engine"? It's not torque, that's conclusively proved. If not torque, then what is causing it? The answer is actually straightforward, but it takes an understanding of the physics of the swing that few baseball people have (and in all actuality has nothing to do with teaching the swing).
So if this all so obvious, then why do people continue to defend untenable positions? Here's the problem. Over the last couple of years, Richard has ridiculed and spit at everyone who disagreed with him. With torque being ruled out as the explanation, he's now left with being unable to explain what causes "bat blur", "forearm swivel", and "second engine". If he really is all-knowing, then he should be able to come up an explanation that fits the facts that he knows better than anyone. He can't, and that is a catastrophe for him.
Again, what he sees can be explained in a straightforward answer, but he hasn't articulated it. I'm not helping by the way. This really is a classic example of the emperor having no clothes. Once torque is discounted as the cause of "bat blur", "forearm swivel" and the "second engine" all of the wheels come off of his arguments and HI with it.
-JJA
I wanted to expand a bit on Dr. Adair and his book "The Physics of Baseball". I strongly suggest those with an interest in the physics of the baseball swing read it (even though it has little if nothing to do with teaching anyone how to swing). It's only about $10 and it's really a terrific book with lots of interesting facts that few people really understand.
People like Mankin continue to assert that Adair's analysis of the physics of the swing is wrong, that there really is torque on the handle even though Adair implications in his writing is that there isn't.
Guys, few of you understand the academic environment. Ultra-highly competitive that make these board arguments look like tea parties, guys can make their careers by showing a top guy like Adair is wrong on some esoteric physics. If he was wrong on this topic, gobs of young Ph.D.'s would be all of that book, proving the great Adair wrong. It hasn't happened, has it? Believe me someone would be all over it over the last 17 years if he was wrong. So when he says there is no significant torque in the swing, it's true.
It's actually logical to take Adair at his word and assume that there is little torque in the swing. Once that position is adopted, the next logical question is what is causing the "bat blur", the so-called "second engine"? It's not torque, that's conclusively proved. If not torque, then what is causing it? The answer is actually straightforward, but it takes an understanding of the physics of the swing that few baseball people have (and in all actuality has nothing to do with teaching the swing).
So if this all so obvious, then why do people continue to defend untenable positions? Here's the problem. Over the last couple of years, Richard has ridiculed and spit at everyone who disagreed with him. With torque being ruled out as the explanation, he's now left with being unable to explain what causes "bat blur", "forearm swivel", and "second engine". If he really is all-knowing, then he should be able to come up an explanation that fits the facts that he knows better than anyone. He can't, and that is a catastrophe for him.
Again, what he sees can be explained in a straightforward answer, but he hasn't articulated it. I'm not helping by the way. This really is a classic example of the emperor having no clothes. Once torque is discounted as the cause of "bat blur", "forearm swivel" and the "second engine" all of the wheels come off of his arguments and HI with it.
-JJA
JJA -
As Reagan used to say, there you go again.
Bat QUICKNESS is what we are after. Bat quickness that starts early in the swing plane to produce "early batspeed" for max read time and optimal adjustment to match pitch location via a big contact zone.
Torquing the handle provides resistance that sharpens the coil/cusp of the torso as well as enabling efficient transfer to swing the bathead (not waste energy spinning the body as with the N$man PCRW) which produces quicker acceleration, JUST the way the increased weight of the back arm quickens the ***** simulation you won't admit to understanding.
Unlike the purely mechanical model, the human body has somewhat separate upper and lower body programs which permite the second engine to optimize the entire swing.
***** hasn't got a model for that yet, but it's pretty well understood in golf that the upper and lower body work separately then blend to create x-factor stretch.
As Reagan used to say, there you go again.
Bat QUICKNESS is what we are after. Bat quickness that starts early in the swing plane to produce "early batspeed" for max read time and optimal adjustment to match pitch location via a big contact zone.
Torquing the handle provides resistance that sharpens the coil/cusp of the torso as well as enabling efficient transfer to swing the bathead (not waste energy spinning the body as with the N$man PCRW) which produces quicker acceleration, JUST the way the increased weight of the back arm quickens the ***** simulation you won't admit to understanding.
Unlike the purely mechanical model, the human body has somewhat separate upper and lower body programs which permite the second engine to optimize the entire swing.
***** hasn't got a model for that yet, but it's pretty well understood in golf that the upper and lower body work separately then blend to create x-factor stretch.
quote:JJA -
As Reagan used to say, there you go again.
LOL...Comparing JJA to Reagan...But, I gotta admit, in this context, it fits!
quote:It's actually logical to take Adair at his word and assume that there is little torque in the swing.
You say that Adair says "little", Mankin says something else, but we all agree, there is torque in the swing.....
Now, if you have an axe to grind with Richard, why not take it up with him?
quote:Looks like Shawn is off the reservation, maybe you can help him see the light again.
JJA, Shawn is now saying, it's about the hands and hips.....Any thoughts on this?
Bluedog,
I could care less what Shawn or anyone else thinks about torque in the swing. Physics isn't a democracy where whatever position is most popular is right. Torque either supplies significant power to the swing - as maintained by Mankin - or it doesn't. It isn't a popularity contest. Despite many attempts to get a yes or no answer out of Tom or anyone else from the HI school for that matter, no one will come out and say that torque isn't a significant contributor to swing speed. The overwhelming evidence is that is isn't.
Once we establish that, we can then take on the "quickness" issue. But sorry guys, if you won't admit something that is patently obvious and has been proved way beyond a reasonable doubt, I'm not wasting time on more arguments.
-JJA
I could care less what Shawn or anyone else thinks about torque in the swing. Physics isn't a democracy where whatever position is most popular is right. Torque either supplies significant power to the swing - as maintained by Mankin - or it doesn't. It isn't a popularity contest. Despite many attempts to get a yes or no answer out of Tom or anyone else from the HI school for that matter, no one will come out and say that torque isn't a significant contributor to swing speed. The overwhelming evidence is that is isn't.
Once we establish that, we can then take on the "quickness" issue. But sorry guys, if you won't admit something that is patently obvious and has been proved way beyond a reasonable doubt, I'm not wasting time on more arguments.
-JJA
There you go again.
Reminds me that Copernicus and Galileo were arrested by the Roman Catholic Church for claiming that the Earth was not the center of the solar system
Some people will stick to their dogma no matter what proof they are offerred.
Some people will stick to their dogma no matter what proof they are offerred.
Yep, there you go again!
OK Bluedog,
It's apparent I'm getting nowhere, so this is a pretty good time to exit stage right. But I leave you with something you brought up earlier. You correctly stated that video does not lie. My response at that time was that you were correct, but it's the intepretation of the video that is the hard part. Hopefully some of these posts have helped at least some readers understand that difficulty.
I know it's tough to swallow, but assume for the moment that Adair is right and torque isn't a significant factor in the swing. Then what is causing that "bat blur" you see? There is actually an answer (it turns out, the correct one) that explains what you see but doesn't require torque to explain it. If you can figure this out and get the correct answer, you'll be well on your way to understanding the complex dynamics of a baseball swing. Or you can continue to accept Richard's wrong answer as fact and go along your merry way. We all have to make our choices in life.
-JJA
It's apparent I'm getting nowhere, so this is a pretty good time to exit stage right. But I leave you with something you brought up earlier. You correctly stated that video does not lie. My response at that time was that you were correct, but it's the intepretation of the video that is the hard part. Hopefully some of these posts have helped at least some readers understand that difficulty.
I know it's tough to swallow, but assume for the moment that Adair is right and torque isn't a significant factor in the swing. Then what is causing that "bat blur" you see? There is actually an answer (it turns out, the correct one) that explains what you see but doesn't require torque to explain it. If you can figure this out and get the correct answer, you'll be well on your way to understanding the complex dynamics of a baseball swing. Or you can continue to accept Richard's wrong answer as fact and go along your merry way. We all have to make our choices in life.
-JJA
I'm doing my best to go into seclusion/remain quiet/not force my belief system on anyone else, but did want to offer this observation:
On another website,(BBF)there is a young man who has had a cup of coffee in the bigs and who might get a better shot this year. He commented that not only does he not torque the handle, he can't seem to find any of his colleagues who do. He went further to say that the various hitting instructors he's worked with have no notion of this theory. Now, I know the argument, you're going to argue that they don't know what they are doing, the coaching is poor etc. However, the claim that what is being described as a MLB swings looses one heck of a lot of crediability when those doing it don't subscribe to the theory. JMHO!
On another website,(BBF)there is a young man who has had a cup of coffee in the bigs and who might get a better shot this year. He commented that not only does he not torque the handle, he can't seem to find any of his colleagues who do. He went further to say that the various hitting instructors he's worked with have no notion of this theory. Now, I know the argument, you're going to argue that they don't know what they are doing, the coaching is poor etc. However, the claim that what is being described as a MLB swings looses one heck of a lot of crediability when those doing it don't subscribe to the theory. JMHO!
JJA, the blur has never concerned me...Maybe it should, but, it hasn't....
The front foot must be down and the back elbow must be down before any serious swinging of the bat should occur, IMO....I just don't see where blur is a factor.....
The front foot must be down and the back elbow must be down before any serious swinging of the bat should occur, IMO....I just don't see where blur is a factor.....
quote:However, the claim that what is being described as a MLB swings looses one heck of a lot of crediability when those doing it don't subscribe to the theory. JMHO!
Coach, the same could be said for PCR.....I have yet to hear any great hitter say they connect the hands to the shoulder, set swing plane with posture and rotate like heck.....
Have you?
quote:Originally posted by BlueDog:quote:However, the claim that what is being described as a MLB swings looses one heck of a lot of crediability when those doing it don't subscribe to the theory. JMHO!
Coach, the same could be said for PCR.....I have yet to hear any great hitter say they connect the hands to the shoulder, set swing plane with posture and rotate like heck.....
Have you?
Bluedog, no I haven't. I 0nce had tremendous access to some MLB players but now don't. I would say that while people in the camp you belong to (Loosly) point to video arguing torque etc. those same videos can be used in different frames to demonstrate connection. Various video of Pujos, Bonds, etc. demonstrate "tilt" or posture. Finally, the rotational aspect of those swings can not be argued. While "just hold onto the **** bat and turn" might be simplistic, it does, in my opinion, fit the bill more realistically when I swing a bat than cognitivly thinking to torque the handle. JMHO! Now we know that my opinion and $6 will get you an extra value meal at Micky D's and so take it for what it's worth. (McSalad I know!)
I can't look at this video and say he's hanging onto the bat and turning.....
I can't say he connected his hands to his shoulders...
I can't say he set swing plane with posture....
And, I can't dismiss this video....Aaron was definitely a great hitter....
I can say we can look at video and see different things happening.....
And, I can say I feel hand torque when I swing a bat.........
Yes, merely opinions......
I can't say he connected his hands to his shoulders...
I can't say he set swing plane with posture....
And, I can't dismiss this video....Aaron was definitely a great hitter....
I can say we can look at video and see different things happening.....
And, I can say I feel hand torque when I swing a bat.........
Yes, merely opinions......
Coach, what do you think about ShawnB saying he now believes the swing is about the hands and hips?...And, that scap load is overrated?
Shawn also said this:
And this:
Any thoughts?
Shawn also said this:
quote:There is no such thing as a ML swing. Some have great swings and others are just OK.
And this:
quote:.....if your following any of Jim Dixon's theory and built your assumptions after his theory, you are more then likely going to be as wrong as Dixon. Dixon never helped a single hitter. His theory that you don't use the arm/hands or the legs and some how a movement system does all of that for you, is deeply flawed.
Any thoughts?
quote:Originally posted by BlueDog:
Coach, what do you think about ShawnB saying he now believes the swing is about the hands and hips?...And, that scap load is overrated?
Shawn also said this:quote:There is no such thing as a ML swing. Some have great swings and others are just OK.
And this:quote:.....if your following any of Jim Dixon's theory and built your assumptions after his theory, you are more then likely going to be as wrong as Dixon. Dixon never helped a single hitter. His theory that you don't use the arm/hands or the legs and some how a movement system does all of that for you, is deeply flawed.
Any thoughts?
Bluedog, I'm not out to change the world which is why I give my opinions infrequently on this topic. Shawn is entitled to his "Quest." I've led such a poor life and have been imperfect and so I don't tend to judge others UNLESS they judge me. I've coached for the majority of my life. In doing so, I've had these underlying beliefs that I've always coached and the players have had success with. I've found similar beliefs, have implimented those concepts into what I teach and have continued to have success. I'm helping players with this. That has always been my goal. That's enough for me. I will say this, unless someone has access to Steve E.'s library, unless they have talked to him, unless they have read all of the various scientific studies he post on his site and references, then they don't know PCR as he presents it. I'll go one step further and suggest that many of those critics never understood it and their various stances are NOT because they originally disagreed with PCR but rather are because they were either thrown off of Paul N.'s site or Steve's. That is my opinion. Lastly, "observations" are presented often on this site regardless of topic. What isn't posted often on this site is the "How" of accomplishing that observation. Steve E. has a "library" that is literally hours of "how to." Again, all of this is JMHO!
(Bluedog asked and so, I responded. I'm not trying to sway anyone. I'm not trying to hijack this thread into another p-ing contest. An opinion was asked for and given.)
Coach, I believe you should voice your opinions on here.....I believe everyone who is interested in hitting and has an opinion should....We won't agree, and that's O.K....But, the conversation is creative.....
I don't agree that those who disagree with PCR theory do so because they got kicked off any board.....It sounds good, but, isn't representative of reality, IMO.....
I have said I believe MLB hitters do have differences in their swings....They are not all identical launch to contact, IMO.....But, there is something that makes them better than everyone else.....And, great hitters do it even better yet, whatever that something is......
How muscles work and how the kinetic chain works is not what great hitters sit/sat around talking about, IMO........It certainly isn't documented that they did, as for as I know.....But, it is documented that great hitters did learn how to hit better from each other.....This is what I'm interested in learning....How did they swing the bat and how did they teach it to others?
I don't agree that those who disagree with PCR theory do so because they got kicked off any board.....It sounds good, but, isn't representative of reality, IMO.....
I have said I believe MLB hitters do have differences in their swings....They are not all identical launch to contact, IMO.....But, there is something that makes them better than everyone else.....And, great hitters do it even better yet, whatever that something is......
How muscles work and how the kinetic chain works is not what great hitters sit/sat around talking about, IMO........It certainly isn't documented that they did, as for as I know.....But, it is documented that great hitters did learn how to hit better from each other.....This is what I'm interested in learning....How did they swing the bat and how did they teach it to others?
Nobody will argue that these are two pretty good hitters.....I've used this example before because these two hitters look so different and the pitch location is similar.........These swings are not the same launch to contact....
A quote by ShawnB which makes alot of sense and is accurate, IMO......Shawn has always been an independent thinker and I have always respected his opinion, and still do....
Another accurate quote, IMO.......
quote:The lowering of the elbow, is the start of swing. The force acting on the top hand/bat is downward. This downward force causes the back knee to flex as the hips begin, Creating a natural sitting action. And while not all arm action are exactly the same, the lowering of the elbow can (IMO) create natural rotation. This goes back many years, it's a top/down execution.
Another accurate quote, IMO.......
quote:Not all swings are created equally. There is no such thing as a ML swing. Some have great swings and others are just OK.
Pseudo-scientist JJA in action commenting on the Jim Booth BOX+1 PVC pipe model of hitting.
Jim has figured out if he doesn't prevent inertia from narrowing the hinge angle between the box and bat, the bat swings out very late. So Jim applies some force perpendicular to the bat to quicken things.
Sound familiar ?
And JJA, our resident PCR scientist chimes in:
http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=73328&page=7
"Testosterone aside, Booth's PVC pipe shows "bat blur" without torque."
Sound familiar ?
There he goes again.
Jim has figured out if he doesn't prevent inertia from narrowing the hinge angle between the box and bat, the bat swings out very late. So Jim applies some force perpendicular to the bat to quicken things.
Sound familiar ?
And JJA, our resident PCR scientist chimes in:
http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=73328&page=7
"Testosterone aside, Booth's PVC pipe shows "bat blur" without torque."
Sound familiar ?
There he goes again.
A few things to consider.
Dunn is listed as 6'6" and 240 pounds. With his size he can have a less than effective swing and hit home runs. Look at his hand position at contact.
Aaron was listed at 6'0" and 180 pounds. He had an effective swing that allowed him to hit very effectively. Look at his hand position at contact.
What do you see? Which is most effective?
Dunn is listed as 6'6" and 240 pounds. With his size he can have a less than effective swing and hit home runs. Look at his hand position at contact.
Aaron was listed at 6'0" and 180 pounds. He had an effective swing that allowed him to hit very effectively. Look at his hand position at contact.
What do you see? Which is most effective?
Quincy -
I think, just mechanically speaking, Aaron's swing is far better.
In my opinion, the more you can belly-up and still cover the whole zone, the quicker your swing. The quicker the better.
Aaron also had a lot of other stuff going for him.
I think, just mechanically speaking, Aaron's swing is far better.
In my opinion, the more you can belly-up and still cover the whole zone, the quicker your swing. The quicker the better.
Aaron also had a lot of other stuff going for him.
As obvious as the difference is, I didn't think some would see it.
Those who refuse to see are the truly blind.
I'll make it easier.
Why must Dunn's hand come off the bat with his swing style?
Those who refuse to see are the truly blind.
I'll make it easier.
Why must Dunn's hand come off the bat with his swing style?
quote:Originally posted by jja:
Guys, few of you understand the academic environment. Ultra-highly competitive that make these board arguments look like tea parties, guys can make their careers by showing a top guy like Adair is wrong on some esoteric physics. If he was wrong on this topic, gobs of young Ph.D.'s would be all of that book, proving the great Adair wrong. It hasn't happened, has it? Believe me someone would be all over it over the last 17 years if he was wrong. So when he says there is no significant torque in the swing, it's true.
-JJA
I don't have any idea whether good hitters torque the handle of the bat or not. But...
the inference that Adair's conclusions must be correct because no one has shown him to be wrong is simplistic at best.
First, Adair's academic reputation (he's a member of the National Academy of Sciences) is based on his research into elementary particles and forces in subatomic physics. That field is far removed from baseball, and in fact studying baseball is a hobby for Adair.
Second, the number of people trained in physics who are studying the baseball swing is minimal, and nobody can make an academic reputation out of such an unimportant subject. Nor can they afford to spend much time on it-- no agency would fund it. In fact, most work on this sort of subject is aimed at pedantic uses: illustrating physics by examples that may be interesting to college underclassmen.
Thirdly, what Adair writes in his book isn't controversial or even particularly novel-- others had previously written about the baseball swing, and there is a bigger literature for the golf swing. Adair has done a very good job of making the subject accessible to non-physicists, and I strongly recommend the book.
Adair used a simple physics model to "illustrate the complex reality". He starts by assuming that the hands and wrists are free hinging during the swing (meaning he assumes that there is no handle torque) and shows that it is possible to tweak the various parameters of his model such that the resulting calculated swing motion is pretty close to actual swings. That doesn't mean that handle torque isn't used in real swings, it just means that it is likely possible to swing a bat with little handle torque and still develop good swing speed.
Here's what Adair actually said: "The contribution of the hands and wrists to the energy of the bat is almost negligible". That's very different from saying that there is no significant handle torque in the swing. You have put words in his mouth.
Does handle torque significantly impact the baseball swing? I don't know. It is well understood that handle torque at the beginning of the down swing in golf (sometimes termed "casting") is very detrimental, and causes the club head to reach speed too quickly, so that it is already slowing down by the time the ball is struck. But a golf swing doesn't need quickness and is very long compared to a baseball swing. Handle torque possibly could enable a swing that reaches full bat speed more quickly. Adair doesn't address the question.
If it is presumed that the bat is a lever, then Adair is right on the money.
Torquing an imaginary spot in the middle of a solid object is futility.
Torquing an imaginary spot in the middle of a solid object is futility.
3fingeredglove,
The difficulty of writing on these baseball forums is that most people on these boards never took physics and can hardly understand what I'm writing even when I try to make it as simple as possible to understand. So at times I gloss over the details which virtually no one could follow.
Since you're more scientifically oriented then most, this is what I'm referring to. Adair, "The Phyics of Baseball", third edition, page 29-30
"In considering the mechanics of the batting process, it is useful to construct a model of a full swing that is tractable but sufficiently close to a real swing by a real batter that the consequences of the simple model illuminate the complex reality. Such modeling is simplified by the realization that a player swings a bat very much as he would a weight on the end of a rope; to a very good approximation, the forces on the bat exerted through the hands are directed along the axis of the bat."
That's as plain as day that handle torque doesn't play a significant role in the swing process as modeled by Adair. Sure, Adair was a theoretical physicist, but surely as a technical person you can't argue that this material is particularly difficult to understand, something that Adair couldn't understand perfectly.
If you can prove Adair's model wrong in the baseball swing, go for it. Produce a model that uses significant handle torque and attempt to match swing results. What you will find, as "N" did at S&etpro is that the simulation results do not remotely match what is seen in a real swing. But if you feel that his simulation results are wrong, that's fine. At least you're trying to prove the existence of torque the real way. I've staked out my position. Adair is right, that torque is an insignificant contributor.
As an aside, Mankin (Mr Bottom Hand Torque and Top Hand torque) sent Adair a white paper detailing how hand torque was a significant contributor in the baseball swing and was totally rebuffed by Adair. Obviously the good Dr. believes he got it right the first time.
-JJA
The difficulty of writing on these baseball forums is that most people on these boards never took physics and can hardly understand what I'm writing even when I try to make it as simple as possible to understand. So at times I gloss over the details which virtually no one could follow.
Since you're more scientifically oriented then most, this is what I'm referring to. Adair, "The Phyics of Baseball", third edition, page 29-30
"In considering the mechanics of the batting process, it is useful to construct a model of a full swing that is tractable but sufficiently close to a real swing by a real batter that the consequences of the simple model illuminate the complex reality. Such modeling is simplified by the realization that a player swings a bat very much as he would a weight on the end of a rope; to a very good approximation, the forces on the bat exerted through the hands are directed along the axis of the bat."
That's as plain as day that handle torque doesn't play a significant role in the swing process as modeled by Adair. Sure, Adair was a theoretical physicist, but surely as a technical person you can't argue that this material is particularly difficult to understand, something that Adair couldn't understand perfectly.
If you can prove Adair's model wrong in the baseball swing, go for it. Produce a model that uses significant handle torque and attempt to match swing results. What you will find, as "N" did at S&etpro is that the simulation results do not remotely match what is seen in a real swing. But if you feel that his simulation results are wrong, that's fine. At least you're trying to prove the existence of torque the real way. I've staked out my position. Adair is right, that torque is an insignificant contributor.
As an aside, Mankin (Mr Bottom Hand Torque and Top Hand torque) sent Adair a white paper detailing how hand torque was a significant contributor in the baseball swing and was totally rebuffed by Adair. Obviously the good Dr. believes he got it right the first time.
-JJA
