Thread: Rotational Hitting

If you can throw, you can hit.

Then you'd think the average MLB pitcher would have swing mechanics that looked pretty good. Might struggle with timing, etc., because after all, most haven't swung the bat all THAT much since high school. But if the PATTERN was absolute and natural, wouldn't they demonstrate it?

Of course, most don't. Most of their swings look like crap.

And I'm still struggling with how your pattern observations make any sense whatsoever for the RH thrower / LH hitter. I really don't get that. An awful lot of those guys do pretty well, though.

If the teacher knows the pattern and the expected/necessary results (ball flight), then the feel cues can be applied well.

Not one in 100 does - as YOU define the pattern. Actually, I wouldn't put the percentage too much higher by my own definition. Therein is the problem. The responsibility of the instructional MATERIAL (if it is geared at the mass market) is to take this into account. Most kids who buy Epstein, RVP, Englishby aren't using it in conjunction w/ an instructor. They are using it w/ their mom or dad. And AGAIN, when they hear a cue like "skip a rock," they AREN'T going to interpret it. They will SKIP A ROCK.

Is your failure to acknowledge this because you actually doubt it?

How many tapes has Epstein sold? 100K, maybe? (I pick him as an example only because he appears to be the mass market leader.) How many of those kids are interpreting his cues through the filter of an Epstein certified instructor? Maybe 500? Where is the responsibility for the other 99%? Same for the other hitting guys. If you are going to use cues in your instruction, they HAVE to make sense in the frame of reference of the typical patron of the materials. If not, it IS a crappy cue.

SO be careful applying cues if you do not know what the pattern feels like yourself.

Ok, so by your estimation (extrapolating from your previous posts), there are about 5 female hitters in the country who are qualified to instruct. I think Bustos actually DOES (she coaches a Gold team, anyway). Big country, though. Lots of hitters looking for instruction. As I acknowledged above, there are a lot of bad instructors out there. Male AND female. But there are more than a handful of good female instructors. And so I personally find your assessment of the female hitter (and eventual instructor) a little demeaning. Hopefully, that is not your intent.

I'll get out the thesarus and try to make some progress with your Dixon and God post, then post back.

Despite my sarcasm in the previous post, this is actually an interesting discussion. Not sure what that any of this has to do with hitting, and perhaps I erred in raising the question initially. But I trust others on the board will indulge a BRIEF discussion of the topic, before we all return to the mechanics of hitting. And in that the discussion is within the framework of learning how to hit, and patterns of athletic movement, perhaps it does have some relevance - at least for some.

Lau's approach is a UNIVERSAL'S based approach which is based o the [assumption that all high level/MLB hitters share the same pattern.

Interesting. HE seemed to be saying that the pattern was decidedly different than a Williams-style hitter. And it certainly appeared Williams agreed with him when he indicated that Lau "set hitting back 50 years," or whatever the quote was. Just like Epstein and Slaught, THEY think they are different. And I think everyone else thinks so too. Well, everyone except you. But regardless, you'd think THEY would know. Have you pointed out to both of them that they are wrong? How'd that go?

Dixon was not describing anything remotely like the PCR guidelines.

THAT mantra is getting WAY old. I didn't bring up PCR, and don't know all that much about it. I would observe that the guys who are allegedly from that "camp" seem seldom to mention the term. In fact, about the only person who ever mentions it is YOU.

Dixon then began having second thought about this Universal's approach being consciously taught or teachable and spent the rest of his time trying to develop some sort of mysterious Alexander type mystical/fundamentalist way of tapping into the natural pattern.

My guess is that Dixon, who as I understand it was an avowed evangelical Christian, was NOT into anything "mystical." In fact, I'd bet on it.

I personally do NOT think you HAVE to believe in God and a single given universal pattern which can best be learned by connecing to it with via faith, BUT I think a good theory would explain how this apporach might work.

Of course you don't. You don't have to believe in anything. That's the beauty of possessing a free will. And there may / may not eventually be consequences for believing / not believing (in a Deity). But you DO aparently believe in a single universal pattern (you certainly reference THE pattern often enough). You apparently (don't mean to put words in your mouth) just don't think it is God ordained. I have absolutely no problem with that as a position in a hitting argument. Seems irrelevant to me.

Now, you and I might disagree on whether God's pre-ordained pattern for a human's life is relevant. . . .

In general, there are more modern ways of thinking about why there are inborn patterns that exist in nature which do not require the active/"consc ious" intervention of a creator/God. This fundamentalist view would say that the creator God makes humans with potentials given ahead of time which can be realized in life, so called "a priori"/givens.

Since the second century with its incipent gnosticism, there have been many more "modern," intellect-based attempted explanations of faith. The several billion people of faith in the world today (about 1.5 billion of them Christian - like Dixon) would seem to be pretty strong evidence that the attempts have been less than fully persuasive.

From a postmodern/non-religious perpsective this would be considered the "myth of the given" as opposed to the post modern perspective that things are not just given and discovered, but are to some extent constructed by interactions between subjects and objects and open to some (but not total) freedom of expression and interpretation.

Nothng in the last half of the preceeding paragraph particularly at odds with any but the most dispensationalist Christian viewpoints. In other words, free will exists. For the devout Christian as well as for the atheist.

So rather than postulating a creator god [sic] who put a patern into each human to be realized, we can observe many people over time (observe them externally by vision/motionanalysis/ground force plates/etc AND observe them INternally by asking them what they felt when they did was observed) and see whether patterns are seen.

POSTULATING that there is a God? Or rather, NOT doing that because there is a better alternative?

Yeah, if you reject faith as a concept, and ask others to do the same, you can absolutely do that.

Of course it requires suspension of whatever actual faith a person might be INCLINED to feel. Not suspension of faith in apersonal relationship with God. I mean, it does do that. But it also requires suspension of the notion that God COULD have created things just the way they are. Rejecting the POSSIBILITY of God merely because there is another potential - but equally unproven (in a way, a FAITH based position, with the faith resting on power of intellect rather than the Divine) explanation for how we got to where we are is the epitomy of human arrogance and hubris. Believe what you want - that is a right that God grants - but saying there is no possibility of God's existence is just dumb. The POTENTIAL down side to that statement is obvious, at least in terms of eternity. What's the up side?

Patterns defined in this manner then are not necessarily a priori givens from the creator God, but are models we can reconstruct in hindsight that apply on the fly to new observations. These are then "a posteriori reconstructions" of an existing pattern that confirms we are not born as a blank slate.

Not necessarily, but not necessarily NOT, either. I certainly don't know, and don't know that it matters for something as mundane as athletic movement. However one successfuly taps into it seems OK to me.

Again, the point about a "blank slate" is odd to me. Who believes that? If God created man, he created DNA.

Anyway, do you mean "a prioiri" in the sense of constructed language? Or in the sense of propositional knowledge? I assume the later, since you reference a posteriori. (I assume you mean the terms to describe knowledge independent of experience, and dependent on experience?) But either way, your comment reeks of trying to make me (I guess it's directed at me) feel stupid.

You'll have to try harder. Lots of people have been to college, Tom.

I don't think ANYONE believes we were born a "blank slate." DNA is DNA, and when it comes to hitting or other athletic expressions, some people hit the jackpot. That too, is a concept valid for the atheist or the devoted.

Dixon recognized a hierarchy of DEVELOPMENTAL patterns from arm throw to body throw to total body throw(pull - spin - whip), and he recognized throwing and swinging were similar, BUT he confused the high level/mature patterns to the point of not helping learning, so he gave up and went the god [sic] given route.

Really? I was under the impression that Dixon STARTED with weight shift, and defined torso-based weight shift as superior to using the legs and feet to push.

Do I have this correctly?

Do you agree with it?

If not, I would say it invalidates everything he says to follow, since it is his basic premise.

Is this torso-based weight shift the MLB pattern? How does that jive with your comments about "push / pull / push" (or whatever), and your apparent embracing of Yeager and his leg push model?

Isn't this MORE of a PCR type belief? Dixon flat out says that "legs turn the hips is a MYTH." Do you agree? Or are you accepting his observations selectively?


And maybe I remember incorrectly, but all I RECALL Dixon saying about the "whip" pattern is that it involves torso-based weight shift, and the torso ahead of the hands in the swing. Certanly, that is his BASIC premise. Who is it again you say DOESN'T belive that? PCR? (Hard to believe).

So patterns are inborn and they are evolving and they persist because they have dramatic advantages over alternatives. For example, with a good overhand throw pattern applied to the MLB situation, this pattern results in velocity and control and resistance to injury ALL improving together.

I agree, actually.

Does Marshall know about that resistance to injury part? I'd like to lock the two of you in a room and see who walks out alive. I'm betting on you, since you are clearly more rhetorically gifted than he is, and because you can make giant leaps of logic which sound right. I just don't think they stand up to scrutiny.

The patterns can be defined as a sequence of positions and in the case of MLB throwing and swinging, to an arm action sequence that is key to synching the upper and lower body.

They can be defined as analgous to a monkey scratching its ass, too, but that doesn't mean they are defined correctly.

If you can throw, you can hit.

Again, see the #9 hitters in the NL. As hitters go, they are pretty darned good throwers.

If you learn to recognize the look and feel of the patterns you do NOT have to depend on a faith based approach.

Agreed (at least the second part). The HOF has its share of atheists. Based on post-contest interviews in all of sports the percentage of participants who are devout believers seems to me to be higher than the young population as a whole. For WHATEVER reason. But by NO means universal. And obviously not a requirement for success. On the other hand, it is far from an impediment to it, either.

skep-

more good questions/reactions.

skep:
Then you'd think the average MLB pitcher would have swing mechanics that looked pretty good. Might struggle with timing, etc., because after all, most haven't swung the bat all THAT much since high school. But if the PATTERN was absolute and natural, wouldn't they demonstrate it?

Of course, most don't. Most of their swings look like crap.
==================

it is important to understand what is similar and what is different about the throwing vs swinging arm action/motion.

greatest hitter of all time was the babe who is a sgood an example as you will ever see of crossing over the similarity. Cobb said the way Babe developed his stroke was by being left alone by the coaches to find his own stroke where he tried to always hit the ball as far as possible, the babe was what Cobb called "a home run specialist". he was left alone because while he was developing his stroke he was primarily a great left pitcher.

the typical trouble with pitchers trying to hit is that they are used to letting the weight go back to front so they tend to lunge. weight shift is diferent in swinging.

pattern is natural but easily degraded by adding incompatible elements, see Hardy article:

Testimonials


"After nearly 30 years of studying hundreds of golf swings and observing dozens of instructors, the swing guru from Houston has adopted the theory that all golfers use a one-plane or a two-plane swing - and that the concepts of those two don't mix.

"You can use either one and you can be successful with either one, as long as you don't mix and match," Hardy said. "The elements are not compatible and, as a result, there are probably more people being hurt by instruction than at any time in history.

"If you look at guys like Seve Ballesteros, Ian Baker-Finch, Chip Beck and David Duval - they have been taught right out of their business. They have lost their game. Duval was the No. 1 player in the world, and he didn't just fall out of bed one day and forget how to play. What happened is he has mixed two-plane issues with a one-plane swing."

skep said:

And I'm still struggling with how your pattern observations make any sense whatsoever for the RH thrower / LH hitter. I really don't get that. An awful lot of those guys do pretty well, though

=============================
What I find compelling is that the same pattern works regardless of which arm is dominant. Switch hitters like Mantle or turned around righties like Williams or True lefties like Bonds.

I suspect you have to start very early to get the pattern with dominant arm as lead arm

I said:

If the teacher knows the pattern and the expected/necessary results (ball flight), then the feel cues can be applied well.

skep said:Not one in 100 does - as YOU define the pattern.

=============

plenty of BB players, moreso the higher you go have the pattern. they swear they "swing down" even when they don;t for example. It feels like swinging down, not swinging around (swing around feel is one plane).

very few fp players have the MLB pattern, although there is SOME teaching like Slaught/Candrea.Enquist or some kids get left alone and find it.

Some of the best "natural hitters I have seen in FP come from golfing family where dad is an old fashioned 2 plane type.

skep said:

The responsibility of the instructional MATERIAL (if it is geared at the mass market) is to take this into account. Most kids who buy Epstein, RVP, Englishby aren't using it in conjunction w/ an instructor. They are using it w/ their mom or dad. And AGAIN, when they hear a cue like "skip a rock," they AREN'T going to interpret it. They will SKIP A ROCK.


=========================

Mom and dad should find the kid an instructor or find someone who knows how to find and instructor.

skep said:

Interesting. HE [Lau Sr]seemed to be saying that the pattern was decidedly different than a Williams-style hitter. And it certainly appeared Williams agreed with him when he indicated that Lau "set hitting back 50 years," or whatever the quote was. Just like Epstein and Slaught, THEY think they are different. And I think everyone else thinks so too. Well, everyone except you. But regardless, you'd think THEY would know. Have you pointed out to both of them that they are wrong? How'd that go?


================


I think both lau and Williams were describing the same MLB pattern/elephant and much can be said of an approach that reconciles the two.

Lau Sr was the first to really emphasize the similarity of all at the "launch" position. Both he and Williams had a "universals" approach. Both were describing the typical MLB swing they saw.

Lau's ciricism of Williams was that his system ( as LAU interopreted it) produced one dimensional pull hitters who pulled off the ball and could not handle outside.

Lau's fix for this was weight shift and lead arm extension.

Epstein has gone on to more fully fill in the gaps of the Williams system and has the equivalent of weight shift and arm/scap action info that fits with Williams beliefs.

Williams stressed:

get a good pitch to hit, mechanics wise:

cock hips
cock hands
hips lead
slight upswing through contact with unbroken top hand wrist


Epstein concentrates on the middle phases of the swing and adjustment:

start on time and mechanics wise:

wind rubber band/hips lead hands
drop and tilt/adjust plane/get hands flat ASAP
weathervane/adjust plane/hands stay in

when you put these together, you get,mechanicswise

cock hips
cock hands
windrubberband
drop and tilt
swing

From Lau, I would add initial "rhythmic preswing activity".


Interestingly, Dixon's work which followed from Lau spent time also working out details for the middle phases of the swing which he found to be the key difgference between the lower level patterns.

The PCR people include the Nyman and Englishbey approaches. Nyman always based his apporach on the PCR blueprint/guidelines/building code and Englishbey claims to follow this.

The PCR code is by definition (Nyman's definition) a single plane swing where the arms are swung in the shoulder plane by the shoulder turn.

we can go into details, but as Hardy observes in golf it is an ENTIRELY different way of sequencing body positions and shifting weight with an entirely different arm action from the MLB/2 plane swing.

I bring this up because it helps to know both the apples and the oranges that you do not want to mix.

See here:

Nyman gives the official link to the PCRW "code" which is supposed to be a description of the MLB swing destination. Official description:

http://www.setpro.com/forums/showthr...=building+code

Note especially:

"Simplicity of the swing comes from understanding that a high-level swing is nothing more than making sure that the mass of the bat (sweet spot) travels in a plane of rotation parallel to a plane that is “scribed out” by a rod or stick passing through both shoulders extending in the same direction as would be the bat passing over home plate."

skep said:

Not necessarily, but not necessarily NOT, either. I certainly don't know, and don't know that it matters for something as mundane as athletic movement. However one successfuly taps into it seems OK to me.

========

I agree


skep said:

I don't think ANYONE believes we were born a "blank slate."

=========

I think Hume was the blank slate guy.