radial deviation

[tom.guerry]

sarge -

The swing motion is difficult and cmplex enough to model that I find medical and other "scientific" articles are rarely relevant.

The models can be useful for some things as adair describes like figuring out ball trajectories, but have little if any value for teaching/learning.

The place to go for learning/teaching the swing is the golf instruction literature. even in golf the scientific literature is of limited help, mainly only helpful when put into the context of successful swing teaching theories such as Hardy 1 v 2 plane patterns or The Golf Machine with emphasis on backward chaining, precise enough swing description to provide consistent feel and in this case the "educated hands" and "hand controlled pivot" concepts.

Pivot =body, so hands control body.

For this last concept, see:

Hand Controlled Pivot- Thesis - LynnBlakeGolf Forums

 

[ssarge]

A thesis is always interesting, Tom. It is always illustrative to read someone's conjecture.

OTOH, I'm not a highly educated guy, so this is only a guess on my part. But I would think the books / textbooks on bio-mechanics and kineseology do a pretty good job of explaining, you know, bio-mechanics and kineseology.

Perhaps these books REALLY mean something else?


The below quote from your linked text illustrates my point exactly:

A golf example would be the muscle stretch you might feel during a full shoulder turn. This feel can dominate all sensations based on overall intensity, but instead of having that feel as your primary focus you should still have your primary thought on moving the hands. You would still feel the shoulder turn, sense it, and be aware of different feels, but those feels belong in the background, not the foreground. To summarize, the mind can selectively focus on what is important, regardless of the degree of any sensation.

Essentially, the author is saying to use a cue to gain the thought of moving the hands. He acknowledges that REALITY is something different. In this case, that reality is the stretch and turn (rotation) of the shoulders.

In other words, CUE a concentration on the hands.

As you do in your descriptions of the swing.

That does NOT change reality, as even the author you quoted states.


So I have to ask, when you "strongly disagree" with my statement:

ssarge said: Good conclusion. That is how the kinetic chain works. The body's core controls movement of the appendages, from the top of the appendage to the most distal link.

Doesn't feel that way, sometimes, especially with the hands. But it IS reality

.

Tom Guerry said: Strongly disagree.

What are you disagreeing WITH?


1) The reality of kinetic movement? Which I believe is consistently defined in about a zillion textbooks

2) Or my concentration on reality, rather than on cues / feel?

The thing is, I believe STRONGLY in cues. But I think it important that an instructor UNDERSTAND reality, so that he can develop different cues for different students on different days. Different pathologies, genders, ages, experience, whether a hitter is currently going good, etc. In my experience with about 300 kids, diffrent cues are often necessary. All should be based on the reality of what really happens, though.


I recognize your strong preference is to discuss cues / feel rather than anatomical reality. Which as an MD, you do understand. You're simply making a different choice for emphasis.

I have no problem with that preference. I'd like such a preference to be based on real world experience, but I have no problem with it.

In fairness though, I think anyone should identify whether an offered description is based on cues, "feel," or biological reality.

My statement clearly identified what someone might feel, and then made a claim for reality.

A claim consistent with the thesis you linked.

So again, I ask what you are "strongly disagreeing" with?

Regards,

Scott

 

[tom.guerry]

sarge, I strongly disagree with this notion:

"The body's core controls movement of the appendages".

Those things you mention like biomechanics/kinetics treatises are all just theses testing hypotheses/fit/context, but in areas that are again too removed from the direct area of interest which is teaching/learning the swing. When you reach an area of complexity, you need to solve the problem based on operational experience with teaching and learning swinging, not with some abstract scientific principle at least one step further removed from reality.

Now as mentioned before, TGM also is a precise enough description of swing options that feel can be consistently described and reproduced, here is an example of the different but consistent feel of the range of "release patterns", either angled hinging (similar to MLB swing pattern as described by Williams - no roll,top hand wrist unbroken at contact) vs vertical hinging (like you would inside out a ball to go oppo) vs horizontal hinging (good for golf, less so for bb/fp).

YouTube - Lynn Blake Explains Hinge Action (part 2)

The hinging is the feel of the lead arm in the shoulder socket, consistently:

angled hinge - no roll
vertical hing - reverse roll
horizontal hinge - roll.


see also progression of backward chaining from basic to acquired to total motion:



The "swivel" here is a followthrough element, not the early swivel of the MLB swing pattern.

And don't forget from Lynn Blake Golf:

The hands offer the advantage, because they are farther along the 'chain', and thus the mind, which is amazing at adjustments if allowed, can recover from less than ideal swings before impact.

...for the reasons above, there will always be an advantage to hands control.


Lynn Blake: "The Homunculus Concept is that of a human figure whose body parts are distorted in direct proportion to the amount of brain power devoted to their respective functions. View such a figure at:

Hands-Controlled Pivot: Any questions?"

 

[ssarge]

Those things you mention like biomechanics/kinetics treatises are all just theses testing hypotheses/fit/context, but in areas that are again too removed from the direct area of interest which is teaching/learning the swing. When you reach an area of complexity, you need to solve the problem based on operational experience with teaching and learning swinging, not with some abstract scientific principle at least one step further removed from reality.

You're an MD but believe the textbooks on how muscles move are mere thesis?

That is SCARY, Tom, seriously.

Now as mentioned before, TGM also is a precise enough description of swing options that feel can be consistently described and reproduced, here is an example of the different but consistent feel of the range of "release patterns", either angled hinging (similar to MLB swing pattern as described by Williams - no roll,top hand wrist unbroken at contact) vs vertical hinging (like you would inside out a ball to go oppo) vs horizontal hinging (good for golf, less so for bb/fp).

Again, FEEL, not reality. I get it, Tom. NO further links required. There are lots of things out there that describe "feel." As I have stated several times, I am describing the reality of how the body moves. Apparently, I'm not stating it clearly, because you keep coming back to me with links about what it is possible to feel. I get it, already! I had a fever of 105 a couple of years ago, and ended up in the hospital. Had several agonizing bouts of shivering, "the chills." Terrible experience, I felt like I was freezing to death. Turns out, that wasn't reality. But the feeling was real.

I understand feel. I understand cues tapping into feel. You continue to argue with my understanding of the REALITY of what the body is doing in the swing. Which I continue to maintain is CRUCIAL to developing the cues that will enable hitters spanning a plethora of variable circumstances to hit.

I will state that it is absurd to think that a 12 YO girl FEELS the same thing Ted Williams did when she swings a bat. I understand you think she does, and we'll have to settle for disagreeing.

The hands offer the advantage, because they are farther along the 'chain', and thus the mind, which is amazing at adjustments if allowed, can recover from less than ideal swings before impact.

...for the reasons above, there will always be an advantage to hands control.

Cool. So you agree that REALITY is there is a kinetic chain, which the hands are further along in - meaning the core is more proximate in. We agree. Post that agreement, you continue to insist that the CUES should always involve the hands, and I maintain that isn;t universally true, and is typically NOT true for young female hitters whose desire is to use the hands too much, and who do nothing to develop the power possible with the core. Much less "connect to it.".

But I get itnow, as the above quote indicates, this is a concentration on the end of the chain because you find that to be a better cue. You AREN'T arguing the existence of the kinetic chain.

I'm sure you confused many readers when you "strongly disagreed" with my statement of it, but in fact, the statement above supports it. The core is the start of the kinetic chain, and the hands are the end of it.

Whew. For a minute there, I thought you were continuing to argue what is reality. Apparently, neither you - or your quoted sources - are doing that.

Basically, you are just continuing to insist your cues are more appropriate than someone else.

If those cues are tested in the field with the kids you work with, then I respect that. The cues that have worked for the 50 kids playing in D-I last year which came through the Sorcerers club program, the Sorcerers Academy, or the Shockers Club program are the cues I use. Hard to argue with results.

But I do appreciate your concession that your discussion is based on cues / feel, rather than anatomical reality.

see also progression of backward chaining from basic to acquired to total motion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMEHl...eature=related

The "swivel" here is a followthrough element, not the early swivel of the MLB swing pattern.

Then what is it's relevance?

The hands offer the advantage, because they are farther along the 'chain', and thus the mind, which is amazing at adjustments if allowed, can recover from less than ideal swings before impact.

You REALLY have to re-think this "late adjustability" claim, Tom. Really, REALLY good human reaction time is in the neighborhood of 0.1 seconds, and typical is about 0.15 seconds, which is longer than the elite baseball swing. There is NO TIME for adjustment after swing launch - the system doesn't permit it.

It MAY work in golf, I don't know. But the golf swing takes longer, and is proactive, not reactive (no finite time window). Less need for adjustment, too, since the ball isn't moving. But it is obvious that golfers DO make mid-course swing adjustments - or try to - when they sense something is wrong.

I see NO evidence of that in baseball. Not in 0.12 to 0.15 seconds. That is actually the window of human reaction time, and at the end of that window, tip bat speed is 90mph. NOITHING is getting "adjusted."

 

[tom.guerry]

sarge-

I would keep in mind that science is searching for truth by constantly testing and trying to discredit even the most accepted hypotheses. skepticism is the name of the game. Science is an ongoing dynamic process of debunking, not a set of eternal true facts.

Saying that because the hips are in a certain place in the kinetic chain means they control the appendages makes no sense in teaching/learning a swing.

The kinetic chain is a nice concept, but things are much more complicated than that and trying to teach a swing based on the concept of the simplified scientific kinetic chain will doom you to failure.

Motionanalysis showing expected sequencing and speed gains from link to link (hips to torso to hands to bathead/clubhead - notice shoulders are not considerd officially a link) is a good measure of swing pattern/effectiveness, BUT again it doesn't help communicate/teach the motion.

here is an interesting hypothesis generated from the teaching/learning/experiencing side of the actual golf swing, the multiple firing theory as opposed to the chain:

see WUT vs MFT here:

Tiger and Sadlowski: Emergence of a New, More Powerful Swing :: Oceanic Time Warner Cable's AroundHawaii.com


What is really dangerous is to think the "kinetic chain" is an adequate enough description of a swing to effectively teach the real MLB swing pattern.

 

[ssarge]

What is really dangerous is to think the "kinetic chain" is an adequate enough description of a swing to effectively teach the real MLB swing pattern.

The kinetic chain is no more a description of the baseball swing than gravity is a description of the high jump.

But the underlying realities - of the universe, and of our bodies - exist.


Gravity will limit what I can accomplish as a high jumper. And the kinetic chain will limit what I can accomplish as a hitter.

These are REALITIES, not cues.

If a high jumper's coach wants to say "ignore gravity - today you can fly!" And it works, then I think that is great. I hope the guy breaks Sotomayer's record.

But GRAVITY STILL APPLIES.

And the kinetic chain applies to the baseball swing, whether it makes "sense" to you or not.

It defines REALITY.

That said, whatever cues can be used to tap into reality are good cues.


I think an INSTRUCTOR would have better results by building the cues AROUND the reality, but what do I know? I have a decided bias, because I actually instruct, and that shapes my bias.

Things either work across a multitude of kids / situations, or they don't.

Regardless, I believe the responsible poster doesn't DENY the physical realities of the universe. He may choose to build his constructs around other things, but he should still acknowledge the reality.


Finally, this statement:

The kinetic chain is a nice concept, but things are much more complicated than that and trying to teach a swing based on the concept of the simplified scientific kinetic chain will doom you to failure.

has no credibility with me. Because I have students, and many of them are attaining their objectives and goals. Which not for nothing, are about the most realistic goals any female hitter can aspire to attaining.

Let me hasten to add that is about one part me (as an instructor), and nine parts kid / hitter. But I play a role, and I'm proud of the results.

In other words, it is hard to accept a statement that something I am doing will doom me and my students to failure, when we're experiencing success. And particularly hard when that criticism is being levied by someone who is either unwilling or unable to point to his own success with students.

IMO, this is the ultimate credibility factor.


Take the last word, Tom. I'll have nothing new to add, and am probably repeating my points already.

 

[Wellphyt]

When I started teaching my daughter, I was big into the kinetic chain link methodology. The "swing works from the ground up", the "big muscles pull the small" etc. What I ended up with is a hitter that had great separation, but "pushed" bad into contact. Even had some bat drag.

What I have since learned is that the kinetic chain is only one apsect of the high level swing. When I stride my hands go back. Then, somewhere between toe touch and heel plant, I begin "turning my hands over" to arc the bat head backwards (hands kept at back shoulder). What I am doing is getting the bat head started slightly before the kinetic chain forces catch up to the upper body.

IOW, the hands being further up the chain, can get the bat head started, backwards, not towards the ball, so that when the kinetic chain forces catch up, the bat head is not starting from a dead stop. Which in my experience is the major cause of bat drag.

My daughter had really good seperation. Her front heel planted, the hips triggered, the shoulders followed, and the arms and hands got left behind. From this position she had no choice but to drag the bat forward to catch up to the shoulders.

Now what she is does is, arc the bat head backwards into heel plant, while the hands are kept at the back shoulder. Her heel plants. Her hips trigger. The shoulders begin to lateral tilt and rotate; and the hands keep up/stay connected because the bat head is already in motion. The result is one seemless smooth arc of the bat head. First backwards and then around. One motion with no pauses.

Ted Williams did it to perfection.

 

[Fastpitch Trainer]

Wellphyt,

Have you posted video of your daughter before on the board? Just curious.

Mark

 

[tom.guerry]

some useful aspects of the kinetic chain theory include:

1- proximal to distal links are hips, upper torso, hands, club/bat head
2-links need to get to max momentum which equals max velocity in right sequence, proximal to distal
3-next more distal link in chain needs to connect and accelerate when prior link is at max momentum (stressed by Nyman).
4-in the MLB pattern, there is an expected range of speed gains/summation from link to link, not too much (over-rotation of earlylinks) not too little (large gains with final link).

Nyman stresses the need to fire the bathead to assist acceleration when the torso gets to max momentum and describes the desirabiity of a torso loading "cusp" which can help efficiency of bat acceleration/unloading of torso transformation into batspeed. The cusp was described earlier in golf as "x-factor stretch in the downswing", a last quick stretch/load of the torso load/coil and the presence and magnitude of this was present in high level swings, not in lower level swings.

What is not captured in any of this is the desirabilty of spatially early acceleration which is necessary as part of the MLB pattern. This lets you keep the hands back and buys time for reading location better and adjusting a better/matching swing plane for solid/fair/powerful contact.

The way this works in the MLB pattern is that bar is accelerated rearward as the hands stay back which gives the bat a running starts and which lets the upper body resist turning with the hips so that the hands can be the site of control of the direction and timing of the torso cusp AND the timing of the firing of the bathead with the unloading of the torso.

In this way there is (spatially) early batspeed with (temporally) late adjustment and no loss of quick acceleration due to the running start and resistance producing a good x-factor stretch and a well timed firing of the bathead.

 

[SBFAMILY]

The hands have separated rearward, along with the wrists, forearms, elbows and upper arm...just kidding. Simply the hands went back and separated some where between the top of the shoulder and ear hole on the helmet and you can choose the hitter to illustrate your point.

When the back elbow is lowered or some say slot, isn't the action of the elbows working together as a unit and staying connected or linked happening? As the knob of the bat is being moved forward does this not cause the bat to transition forward causing the bat to move from the action of the elbows working as a unit and directing the hands to change planes and direction? If the back elbow is lowering and the shoulders have started to turn the back elbow is a little further away from the body and the knob of the bat is being directed(actually transitioning) more towards the inside of the ball until finally we have a degree of bat lag and the knob of the bat is starting to go upward and forward possibly like going up a ramp so to speak and the lead elbow is above the hands, the hands are above the ball and the angle of the barrel of the bat is downward matching the plane of the pitch? Where did we just decide that the bat head had to move prior to the hands moving the knob of the bat forward from the separated position?

I suggest you get against a net (back up towards a net and try this) stance, load, toe touch, separated and swing. Did you hit the net with the bat as you started connection or if preferred started to lower the back elbow to slot? If you torque or make a deliberate effort to tip the barrel of the bat forward then rearward you probably hit the net from excessive bat drag. Using the net verses a wall as it will save the wall and possibly a bat if you are at a chain link fence. When working with hitters who use this excessive torquing of the bat the net will catch them every, so why would any one teach this extra move? You can not tell me pop ups will not result from this movement when the back elbow gets ahead of the hands. I think of a hitter drawing a circle or a semi circle when I hear rolling my wrist backwards or turning my hands over, prior to making a good first move with the lead elbow moving forward and up simultaneously as the back elbow is lowering and the knob of the bat is moving forward leading the elbows and we release the wrist to allow the barrel to come to the ball or release the barrel to the ball. Even if this is what you see Barry Bonds doing is it something you want to try and teach or would Sheffield's action with his bat be under consideration.

I still say compare apples to apples and if talking fast pitch I will take Bustos as the model elite hitter.....400 plus average over 10 years is not bad either and several 450 feet plus hits! If you want to use Bonds say Bustos and no steroids either!

The differences in the male to female body are enough to warrant the swing being achieved differently as to male verses female... hips wider, Q angle knee to hip, glutes fire the male knee before landing and does not on the female, spine is more erect on the female verse male changes their balance point, quads are more balanced as to hamstring and quads on a male and the quads are more pronounced on the female and the hamstring is not usually as well balanced on females, flexing of the lead foot knee must be taught to the female more so than the male and it shows especially when they throw as the back leg does not release or follow around and the weight does not shift or transfer. This is why some say they throw like a girl because they use their upper body verses using the lower body and we the male coaches can not explain why or how this happens....