Thread: Rotational Hitting

Hardy's golf experience and analysis would suggest that there are dramatically different swing patterns organized around how the scap connection takes place (how body and upper limbs are related). This means many differences discussed here are NOT likely to be a matter of semantics.

The PCR swing around pattern that Mark likes is HUGELY different from the swing down pattern Bonds likes which is the same swing as "slight upswing" that Williams likes which is the same swing that resembles overhand/sidearm throwing that Slaught likes,etc.

Learning is primarily by realizing inborn NATURAL patterns. Rather than give up like Dixon did in his later years, I think the type of detailed pattern information like that developed by Hardy in golf lets you learn and instruct compatibly with the natural pattern.

If you mix the details, you get a mess where you are attracted to one pattern one swing and another the next/etc.

See, again, Hardy explain the golf approach here that lets more "Sonny-lou's" be successful:

Improve Your Game in Golf and Life - Links of Utopia

The MLB baseball hitting pattern is even more upper body/hand dominant than 2 plane golf. In hitting you line up the plane more than in golf becasue you do not have to worry about the additional swing requirement of sqaring the clubface, but you DO have to worry about reaction time being limited.

in golf, the squaring of the clubface requires the club to approach contact on a plane that is not too steep or else the timing error of clubface closure gets too high.

Too shallow a plane in golf makes the error of lining the plane up with the target too great.

In hitting, clubface closure timing is not a problem, so, you want to line up the plane as much/steeply as possible with contact location to get a sweetspot of reasonable width to the ball for square contact.

This lets you use the scaps to tilt slaved to hands to give hands more control/resistance than in golf. Only this type pattern works in MLB.

This is nothing like the details of how the body works when you instead try to swing around the body and adjust by bending at the waist (up/down) and and changing your handpath radius (in/out).

These PCR details are just discovering what a natural single plane pattern is like which is GREAT for hitting off a tee.

Hitting moving ball ? Not so good.

Here's to Sonny-Lou !!!

Analysis

Decide for yourself is the armchair theorist is correct or if he's still carrying a grudge.

my position is that the way mark describes swing mechanics is NOT how mlb hitters swing nor is it the type of swing that includes arm action resembling the overhead/sidearm throw.

siggy's site linked by mark has the same info which is more fully developed by nyman at setpro and englishbey at his site. there are many devotees of this mechanical pattern on the net.

another one on this site who gets into the details of this "pcrw" pattern is Elliott, so another way to see how this swing is described is to search under elliott's handle here, 'ifubuildit'.

while this is not how I "see" mlb hitters swing, learning the pattern mark likes can help highlight the differences. it is always helpful to have multiple perspectives based on the natural tendencies/natural patterns you are influencing when you try to teach/learn.

Over the course of the last 6 or more years I have watched you post many a theory on hitting. Be it a golf ball or a baseball. While there are some things I will not accept in the theory of a high level swing that you or others talk about, there are some things that I will embrace.

I have embraced a number of things from various hitting instructors. The most recent was not PCRW, but I still use those applications on my students. Why? Because I see tremendous value in that method. I have also embraced things from other rotational instructors who I think are in line with what I like to teach my students. To create a high level swing.

I have moved beyond PCRW on to others and am about to spend some time in study with the RVP system of hitting. I have not been there yet Tom. That is not to say that I have discarded any of the knowledge I have gained from the study of PCRW from the gentleman that is so fond of you. I still like what he does and will continue to follow him too.

I have considered some of your post to be of value. While others may not see them that way I try to keep an open mind to some of what you say because I feel it needs consideration. Even if it sometimes borders on insane at times. There is a fine line between insanity and genius. So when you walk that line I have to figure out what side its on for that day. Keeps me sharp.

I want my students to have the best possible instruction I can provide. To limit my thinking to one type or another is to limit the knowledge I can pass on to make my students better. That isnt what I want to be about as an instructor.

So, you can label me if you want but I will continue to form my own opinions and now and then I come up with some original thoughts of my own on hitting that I find work better than any of those I have studied to date.

That I why I continue on this path. Who knows, one day I may reach the end of the road with something to show for it.

You never know.

Elliott.

Go check out Paul Nymans web site. Setpro.com if you want a better understanding of PCRW. I understand he had an excellent new video that will lay it all out for you in detail.

Elliott.

To clarify, you don't have to respond to read all of the posts and follow along. Just because someone only signs up recently doesn't mean you can't read everything to follow along (although this particular thread may take a few days to sort through; I may lose my job based on the amount of time I've spent reading it).

I will admit to knowing very little about hitting in the big scheme of things. All I can offer is my own experience. My daughter started out with a local instructor who expoused 'rotational hitting' as the greatest thing out there. She went to him for two years (12U) and had good success. When she moved up to faster pitching, pitchers with more ball movement, hitting corners and throwing the change, she began to struggle. I did some reading, watched videos of my daughter's swing, and purchased videos - what struck me was her swing was long and she was hitting weak grounders to 2B (she bats righty). She now goes to an instructor and has had (up to this point) very good success - he espouses quick to the ball, long on the follow through. If I ask him what he style teaches, he says most hitters have elements of rotational and linear; he chooses to stay out of the arguement, I guess.

What I'm sharing is completely anecdotal - I'm not making any statement against rotational. I will say that I think saying "rotational" is like saying ice cream - it comes in many different flavors. Not all good, not all bad.

I guess what I'm trying to say is I think all of these postings are great and I've enjoyed reading them immensely. In the end, much of what we will experience with our daughters is a personal journey that will involve some trial and error - and we're all trying to shorten the learning curve. This might be an over simplication but my sense is you have to see the ball, swing level, and stay balanced. If God gave your daughter quick hands and great eye-hand coordination, she will do well.

Has anyone ever analyzed Yogi Berra's swing? Was he rotational, linear or just a wonderful fluke of nature? (Yogi, if you're reading this blog, no disrespect intended!).

welcome B25. how did you figure out it was me ?

take a look at the hardy link in the earlier post on improving.

i like his categories of side on vs online as opposed to linear or rotational.

then within the side-on there are the very different one plane/swing around or 2 plane swing down options which can not be mixed without losing consistency/repeatability.

cats vs dogs is another good category

Originally Posted by tom.guerry

welcome B25. how did you figure out it was me ?

take a look at the hardy link in the earlier post on improving.

i like his categories of side on vs online as opposed to linear or rotational.

then within the side-on there are the very different one plane/swing around or 2 plane swing down options which can not be mixed without losing consistency/repeatability.

cats vs dogs is another good category

Tom, I do appreciate a good laugh. At least it wasn't your posting style that gave you away. I'm betting I could have put Cannonball on mine and you'd still know who it was as well. Speaking of golf, new season just around the corner. I have all of my letter earners back from a squad that went 18-6. We're hoping for good things.

Well if Tom is Magicmove rather than Richard does it really make much difference?

Originally Posted by TheMagicMove

If I tried to sell you, right now, that Mankin's stuff is what you should be teaching your hitters what would you do?

I spend little or no time on Mankin's site. I'm really not interested in changing for my child. We've had a lot of success with what we're doing which was the point of my posts. With what we're doing now, I see tremendous upside and the present has been very good. We're getting interest from higher levels, having productive at bats and my child believes in the system. I'm not trying to market any product for anyone in that previous post and so, do you consider the content of said posts invalid?

Edited to add: I didn't include Mankin in the list of previous instructors since I spend little or no time there. Also, I didn't list Candrea because I haven't seen enough of his stuff from RVP.