I'm not familiar with this term/concept. Can someone explain it to me in terms a simpleton would understand (or refer me to a post that will)?
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Ryno23,
Run...Run Now. I've been trying for a couple weeks to get a handle/answer on this and now I'm trapped.
It you don't run now, be sure to bring food and water...I can't last much longer.
If this warning doesn't work, I'd say just start reading any thread started over the past month. Torque is like a virus and is everywhere.
Don't blame me...I warned you.
Run...Run Now. I've been trying for a couple weeks to get a handle/answer on this and now I'm trapped.
It you don't run now, be sure to bring food and water...I can't last much longer.
If this warning doesn't work, I'd say just start reading any thread started over the past month. Torque is like a virus and is everywhere.
Don't blame me...I warned you.
At a "mechanical" as opposed to biomechanical (how living beings do it) level, the action is best described as torque applied via the hands to the handle.
For reliable interpretations of models that show how this involves "back arm/top hand inertia" which quickens the swing, see:
http://www.batspeed.com/messageboard/92831.html
for links to models and interpretation.
When humans "do it", they can actually actively/consciously apply and feel this mechanic start before the shoulders turn as part of a "running start", and see this on video.
Whether the "feel" is described as Torque or somethin else is a different matter.
It is easier to see than sorting out the tilt vs turn of the shoulders on video, but still a challenge.
For reliable interpretations of models that show how this involves "back arm/top hand inertia" which quickens the swing, see:
http://www.batspeed.com/messageboard/92831.html
for links to models and interpretation.
When humans "do it", they can actually actively/consciously apply and feel this mechanic start before the shoulders turn as part of a "running start", and see this on video.
Whether the "feel" is described as Torque or somethin else is a different matter.
It is easier to see than sorting out the tilt vs turn of the shoulders on video, but still a challenge.
Don't even waste your time on this nonsense. It isn't worth your time. If you're interested, a good rebuttal is at
http://www.******.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5282
There are also other several good posts on that website which do a great job or rebutting the pseudo-science of handle torque.
http://www.******.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5282
There are also other several good posts on that website which do a great job or rebutting the pseudo-science of handle torque.
The term 'handle torque' is a misnomer.
Torque is an external force applied to cause rotation.
One cannot applly torque to swing a bat although a batter could be spun with the application of force on the bat end.
This is a common misconception when the swing and bat speed are rationalized using the conservation of angular momentum.
Torque is an external force applied to cause rotation.
One cannot applly torque to swing a bat although a batter could be spun with the application of force on the bat end.
This is a common misconception when the swing and bat speed are rationalized using the conservation of angular momentum.
Quincy,
YOU DA MAN!!! A LIGHT AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL!!!
Man, somebody give me hug...I feel like crying.LOL
I hope Ryno23 reads this soon...it could save his sanity.
Next thing you know, someone will say torque is actually the rotational path the bat follows to contact.
YOU DA MAN!!! A LIGHT AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL!!!
Man, somebody give me hug...I feel like crying.LOL
I hope Ryno23 reads this soon...it could save his sanity.
Next thing you know, someone will say torque is actually the rotational path the bat follows to contact.
JJA-
you have admitted there is torque in the running start, you are now just quibbling over how much effect it has on trajectory, Nice try.
http://z6.invisionfree.com/Hitting/index.php?showtopic=355&st=285
Posted: Sep 26 2006, 07:32 AM
JJA to Teacherman,
"Yes, Mankin would call that top hand torque. Near the beginning of his video, he has a top view of John Elliot hitting. As Elliot starts to accelerate the bat into the bat plane, Mankin stops for a few moments and says something like "See that, that's top hand torque". So, yes, I've heard the golf club analogy, I've heard the archer on the bowstring, etc., but because of that John Elliot analysis, I conclude that would you indeed are seeing is what he would call top hand torque."
Quincy-
I think your ball on string model is a darn good one, BUT I think that human muscle action can be biomechanically applied to torque handle as the equivalent of an "outside force" as compared to passive mechanical models (or, JJA, to purposely sabotage models to discredit a perceived rival as Ny3an did when setting up his model with the forces MISdirected).
Since the bat is a rigid "lever", the arms/forearms/wrists can apply torque which fires the bathead out with the system resembling ball on string more and more as the bathead lines up with the forearm.
In any case the "string tension"/radius at the lead elbow needs to retain connection to the torso/shoulder's center of rotation.
When handle torque forces the bathead outside the radius to the hands, the bathead fires while the torso keeps turning.
you have admitted there is torque in the running start, you are now just quibbling over how much effect it has on trajectory, Nice try.
http://z6.invisionfree.com/Hitting/index.php?showtopic=355&st=285
Posted: Sep 26 2006, 07:32 AM
JJA to Teacherman,
"Yes, Mankin would call that top hand torque. Near the beginning of his video, he has a top view of John Elliot hitting. As Elliot starts to accelerate the bat into the bat plane, Mankin stops for a few moments and says something like "See that, that's top hand torque". So, yes, I've heard the golf club analogy, I've heard the archer on the bowstring, etc., but because of that John Elliot analysis, I conclude that would you indeed are seeing is what he would call top hand torque."
Quincy-
I think your ball on string model is a darn good one, BUT I think that human muscle action can be biomechanically applied to torque handle as the equivalent of an "outside force" as compared to passive mechanical models (or, JJA, to purposely sabotage models to discredit a perceived rival as Ny3an did when setting up his model with the forces MISdirected).
Since the bat is a rigid "lever", the arms/forearms/wrists can apply torque which fires the bathead out with the system resembling ball on string more and more as the bathead lines up with the forearm.
In any case the "string tension"/radius at the lead elbow needs to retain connection to the torso/shoulder's center of rotation.
When handle torque forces the bathead outside the radius to the hands, the bathead fires while the torso keeps turning.
quote:Originally posted by Quincy:
The term 'handle torque' is a misnomer.
Torque is an external force applied to cause rotation.
One cannot applly torque to swing a bat although a batter could be spun with the application of force on the bat end.
This is a common misconception when the swing and bat speed are rationalized using the conservation of angular momentum.
Can the hands not be an external force on the bat??? What about a torque wrench? Does it not apply torque to the nut or bolt???
Tom,
You are confusing torque (which turns inward to an axis) with propulsion (force which sets in motion).
What you refer to as bat torque, I would call bat whip. If a batter whips the bat in conjunction with triceps flex and extension, bat speed will increase.
PTA,
If you have ever used a torque wrench, you would know and understand that you are turning externally towards a central point.
The swing is propulsion away from the body with string tension causing angular acceleration and centripetal force.
You are confusing torque (which turns inward to an axis) with propulsion (force which sets in motion).
What you refer to as bat torque, I would call bat whip. If a batter whips the bat in conjunction with triceps flex and extension, bat speed will increase.
PTA,
If you have ever used a torque wrench, you would know and understand that you are turning externally towards a central point.
The swing is propulsion away from the body with string tension causing angular acceleration and centripetal force.
The motion of the bat at go has very little to do with the motion of the body if done right. You are looking at the swing as a whole. The torque of the handle comes from the hands and only the hands. The torque is created at a point between the hands which is the center of that axis.
powertoallfields, I'm trying to think about how the hands and only the hands can create torque. I'm missing something in my physiology understanding. Pressures are being applied by various parts of the body and that knob demonstrates minimum displacement at best. Reference the jersey number.
quote:The torque is created at a point between the hands which is the center of that axis.
If this were the case then the hands could only torque the hands.
In order to torque the bat there would have to be an axis at the bat head that is being rotated.
If torque is created between the hands, from where is it being exerted?
Are you trying to say that the bat is creating the torque ?
Quincy, I think you and I are both thinking along the same lines. I apologize for that.
Why apologize?
Your point was well presented.
Your point was well presented.
There isn't an iota of evidence that handle torque is a significant contributor to swing speed. As described by Dr Adair in his book "The Physics of Baseball", force is applied to the bat along the length of the bat, not perpindicular to it. In other words, there is virtually no handle torque being applied to the bat that impacts bat speed. Tom's quotes - as usual taken completely out of context - are an attempt to obfuscate the fact that handle torque is an insignificant contributor to swing speed.
Like I said, JJA has admitted torque, as in his latest ruminations at BBF:
"...force on the handle is directed along the bat, not perpendicular to the bat, i.e. there is virtually no handle torque"
Like the old joke says, we're just arguing about the price now.
Look at the ***** sims again JJA. Note the more the back arm weighs, the quicker the swing.
That has nothing to do with force along the bat.
Nyma-n seems to be revising quite a bit these days, even taking shots at his old faithful.
"...force on the handle is directed along the bat, not perpendicular to the bat, i.e. there is virtually no handle torque"
Like the old joke says, we're just arguing about the price now.
Look at the ***** sims again JJA. Note the more the back arm weighs, the quicker the swing.
That has nothing to do with force along the bat.
Nyma-n seems to be revising quite a bit these days, even taking shots at his old faithful.
quote:Nyma-n seems to be revising quite a bit these days, even taking shots at his old faithful.
Revising?.....It's about time....
There is nothing to revise. Handle torque does not contribute significantly to swing speed. It absolutely does not contribute 50% of the swing speed as Mankin maintains, not even close. I've maintained this for many years as you know, as has "N". There hasn't been the slightest shred of evidence, not a scintilla, that contradicts this statement. Dream on. Adair explained this 17 years ago now. He was right then and he is right now. All of the baseball literature as well as the golf literature confirm these findings, as you well know. Ph.D.'s in physics, biomechanics, etc. all agree on this, yet Teacherman and Mankin - guys with no scientific background at all - believe they have the science right and all the Ph.D.'s are wrong despite having no evidence at all in support of their position. To each his own I suppose.
Oh, Adair and "N" said it.....Well, that explains it............
Those scientists and Ph.D's ever hit against MLB pitching?
Great hitters sure talked about the hands alot when discussing hitting....Probably not a Ph.D. or scientist in the bunch.......
Those scientists and Ph.D's ever hit against MLB pitching?
Great hitters sure talked about the hands alot when discussing hitting....Probably not a Ph.D. or scientist in the bunch.......
Once a batter has developed a good swing, all that is left is hand-eye coordination.
See the ball, swing at the ball and hit the ball.
Most good hitters, outside of Ted Williams, wouldn't care why they can hit well. They would only care that they hit well.
This is probably the reason that the better hitters do not make good hitting instructors.
See the ball, swing at the ball and hit the ball.
Most good hitters, outside of Ted Williams, wouldn't care why they can hit well. They would only care that they hit well.
This is probably the reason that the better hitters do not make good hitting instructors.
All Adair (and "N") is saying is that handle torque is not a significant contributor to swing speed. He's not saying that the hands aren't important for other reasons. The fact Adair was a lousy player doesn't mean his physics are wrong. It's pretty obvious for anyone with or even without a science background to see that he is right. Swing speed is generated by the large muscles in the lower body and torso, not in the hands pushing and pulling on the handle. I think that observation is intuitively obvious to anyone who has played the game, watched the game or coached the game. It certainly doesn't take a Ph.D. to figure that out.
The zero evidence, nothing, nada, that suggest that handle torque contributes to swing speed. Many scientific papers from diverse researchers confirm this obvious conclusion yet some people continue to pass off this fiction as fact. Once again, to each his own I suppose.
The zero evidence, nothing, nada, that suggest that handle torque contributes to swing speed. Many scientific papers from diverse researchers confirm this obvious conclusion yet some people continue to pass off this fiction as fact. Once again, to each his own I suppose.
quote:Originally posted by Quincy:quote:The torque is created at a point between the hands which is the center of that axis.
If this were the case then the hands could only torque the hands.
In order to torque the bat there would have to be an axis at the bat head that is being rotated.
If torque is created between the hands, from where is it being exerted?
Are you trying to say that the bat is creating the torque ?
No! The hands moving in opposite directions are torqueing the point between the two hands, they just happen to be attached to the rest of the bat and that is a good thing.
quote:Originally posted by jja:
The zero evidence, nothing, nada, that suggest that handle torque contributes to swing speed.
Agreed! But only at the point of contact. Handle torque creates early bat speed, which leads to better adjustability and the ability to wait longer. Example; Two cars are in a 1/4 mile race. One vehicle goes from 0 to 60 in 5 seconds and the other goes from 0 to 60 in 10 seconds, but both cars have a top end speed of 150 MPH. Which one gets to the finish line first?
Powertoallfields,
Sorry to disappoint you, but handle torque does not contribute significantly to bat speed period, not just at contact. Please read Adair to understand where my comments are coming from.
-JJA
Sorry to disappoint you, but handle torque does not contribute significantly to bat speed period, not just at contact. Please read Adair to understand where my comments are coming from.
-JJA
quote:No! The hands moving in opposite directions are torqueing the point between the two hands, they just happen to be attached to the rest of the bat and that is a good thing.
Is this a comedy club?
quote:Originally posted by jja:
Powertoallfields,
Sorry to disappoint you, but handle torque does not contribute significantly to bat speed period, not just at contact. Please read Adair to understand where my comments are coming from.
-JJA
Video does not lie. A hitter that does not torque the handle at go does not blur the bathead rearward. That blur is created by the bat moving fast at the start. Video yourself swinging both ways and see if you can create that blur without torqueing the hands. It can't be done, period. I was right where you are about 6 months ago and have been studying hitting for about 35 years. Yes, I've read and studied Adair, Mankin, Englishbey, Williams, Epstein, Cohen, Kennedy and a few others along the way. I will say one other thing and that is you can not create a machine to duplicate human motions in sports activities. There are too many variables.
quote:Originally posted by Quincy:
[]
Is this a comedy club?
You don't believe the hands are moving in different directions when the bat tips first forward and then rearward???
What you are describing is the reason that players go to batting coaches in the first place.
In your description, a player lines up the 'knocker knuckles' only to 'torque' his grip into the box grip.
This means that the batter will keep his elbows bent, dragging the bat and not extending his arms into the swing.
You must either be a comedian or your teacher is.
In your description, a player lines up the 'knocker knuckles' only to 'torque' his grip into the box grip.
This means that the batter will keep his elbows bent, dragging the bat and not extending his arms into the swing.
You must either be a comedian or your teacher is.
quote:Originally posted by Quincy:
What you are describing is the reason that players go to batting coaches in the first place.
In your description, a player lines up the 'knocker knuckles' only to 'torque' his grip into the box grip.
This means that the batter will keep his elbows bent, dragging the bat and not extending his arms into the swing.
You must either be a comedian or your teacher is.
Opposite directions front to back, not spinning on the bat, genius!
You must be describing a very sophisticated super compound diametricly opposed double hand torque.
Front to back , back to front. Either way it is baloney.
It's a box grip, bat dragging, no arm extension swing.
The propensity to make bad contact damaging a wooden bat is heightened by this poor swing execution.
Or are you describing an aluminum bat only swing?
Front to back , back to front. Either way it is baloney.
It's a box grip, bat dragging, no arm extension swing.
The propensity to make bad contact damaging a wooden bat is heightened by this poor swing execution.
Or are you describing an aluminum bat only swing?
quote:Originally posted by Quincy:
You must be describing a very sophisticated super compound diametricly opposed double hand torque.
Front to back , back to front. Either way it is baloney.
It's a box grip, bat dragging, no arm extension swing.
The propensity to make bad contact damaging a wooden bat is heightened by this poor swing execution.
Or are you describing an aluminum bat only swing?
Go to sleep Quinc and be sure to take your Geritol, LOL.
powertoallfields, no sense in explaining to people who don't know how the human body works. Don't waste your breath on ignorant, close-minded people. They only see what they want to see.
Quincy, did you ever read up on muscle contractions?
Quincy, did you ever read up on muscle contractions?
JJA-
In NY&an's simulation, why does more back arm weight produce a quicker swing ?
Why can't human's consciously feel and apply this force ?
see:
http://www.******.com/stuff/rotational_simulation5.wmv
Ny$$an states:
When measuring forces at the top hand connection to the bat ("pin joint #50),force is present at right angles to the bat which creates rotation and is the purest example of top hand torque, not dependent on muscle action.
Lowering the weight of the back arm results in a later extension/rotation of the bat.
Increasing the weight of the back arm has a significant effect which causes a much quicker release of the bat and slows the torso down more, ******* momtentum out of the torso.
In NY&an's simulation, why does more back arm weight produce a quicker swing ?
Why can't human's consciously feel and apply this force ?
see:
http://www.******.com/stuff/rotational_simulation5.wmv
Ny$$an states:
When measuring forces at the top hand connection to the bat ("pin joint #50),force is present at right angles to the bat which creates rotation and is the purest example of top hand torque, not dependent on muscle action.
Lowering the weight of the back arm results in a later extension/rotation of the bat.
Increasing the weight of the back arm has a significant effect which causes a much quicker release of the bat and slows the torso down more, ******* momtentum out of the torso.
to play the link, replace the ****** with
s
e
t
p
r
o
s
e
t
p
r
o
Quincy, how does one check his swing if he is using "extension" to "power" the swing, in other words, "using the triceps" that you preach about?
How does one check his swing if he is using handle torque to power the swing?
The answers to these two questions will show what you know about a high-level swing, and how the human body works.
Hint: the answer is not the same for both questions.
How does one check his swing if he is using handle torque to power the swing?
The answers to these two questions will show what you know about a high-level swing, and how the human body works.
Hint: the answer is not the same for both questions.
You're right, video doesn't lie, but the difficulty of course is explaining correctly what is happening in the video. The blur that Richard is so impressed with is not caused by torquing the bat handle, i.e., pushing and pulling on the handle with the hands.
I'll give you a hint as to the real cause. You could take a one-handed swing and make the bat "blur" as well. With one hand you can't apply torque to the bat (except through differential pressure in the hand which is almost zero). What is causing that blur if not torque? The answer is actually easy, but requires a real understanding of the physics of swing dynamics.
Tom, "N" did the simulation in order to show that top hand torque doesn't exist. It's obvious the simulation series did that conclusively. Using his own words to claim that he supports top hand torque is irrational. I don't know why you're so impressed with the portion of the simulation where the mass of the back arm went to ZERO and it impacted the swing significantly. That's a conclusion that should be obvious to anyone.
-JJA
I'll give you a hint as to the real cause. You could take a one-handed swing and make the bat "blur" as well. With one hand you can't apply torque to the bat (except through differential pressure in the hand which is almost zero). What is causing that blur if not torque? The answer is actually easy, but requires a real understanding of the physics of swing dynamics.
Tom, "N" did the simulation in order to show that top hand torque doesn't exist. It's obvious the simulation series did that conclusively. Using his own words to claim that he supports top hand torque is irrational. I don't know why you're so impressed with the portion of the simulation where the mass of the back arm went to ZERO and it impacted the swing significantly. That's a conclusion that should be obvious to anyone.
-JJA
Ryno23,
See what you started....I warned you.
Is it any more clear now?
Sitting this one out...I'm heading to the ballfield.
This reminds me too much of the old "Square to Square" debate in golf back in the early '70s.
See what you started....I warned you.
Is it any more clear now?
Sitting this one out...I'm heading to the ballfield.
This reminds me too much of the old "Square to Square" debate in golf back in the early '70s.
This whole idea of 'handle torque' is fundamentally flawed.
Since there is universal agreement that aligning the 'knocker knuckles' produces the optimum grip, this 'handle torque' to the 'box grip' is a step backwards.
No matter what type of swing sequence a batter uses (rotational or linear) if the grip is improper, results will be less than optimal.
Since there is universal agreement that aligning the 'knocker knuckles' produces the optimum grip, this 'handle torque' to the 'box grip' is a step backwards.
No matter what type of swing sequence a batter uses (rotational or linear) if the grip is improper, results will be less than optimal.
S. Abrams,
Don't worry, I'm done now. We're all sick of this discussion believe me. The answers are the same as they were 15 years ago: handle torque is fiction. Unfortunately, the physics are too difficult for many people to fully understand (and rightly so, we're supposed to coach baseball and not teach physics), hence the confusion.
Off to the field as well.
-JJA
Don't worry, I'm done now. We're all sick of this discussion believe me. The answers are the same as they were 15 years ago: handle torque is fiction. Unfortunately, the physics are too difficult for many people to fully understand (and rightly so, we're supposed to coach baseball and not teach physics), hence the confusion.
Off to the field as well.
-JJA
I have to laugh at the explanations and excuses for bat handle torque.
The box grip is usually accompanied by a swing with the hands facing up and down. This by its very nature is inferior.
Look at the Aaron clip. His hands are facing sideways allowing the greatest range of motion in the wrists. This along with the 'knocker knuckles' grip exerts the greatest bat speed.
What you are endorsing is a bent elbow half swing that would only allow home runs to be hit by the largest and strongest of batters, or brute force swing.
The science that you claim along with the pseudovideo evidence is inferior.
It is not only inferior mechanicaly but further inferior biomechanicaly.
The box grip is usually accompanied by a swing with the hands facing up and down. This by its very nature is inferior.
Look at the Aaron clip. His hands are facing sideways allowing the greatest range of motion in the wrists. This along with the 'knocker knuckles' grip exerts the greatest bat speed.
What you are endorsing is a bent elbow half swing that would only allow home runs to be hit by the largest and strongest of batters, or brute force swing.
The science that you claim along with the pseudovideo evidence is inferior.
It is not only inferior mechanicaly but further inferior biomechanicaly.
