In this light, I think slaught's definition of the "swing starting" when the back starts down is a good one,
No reason to change his quote, Tom. The RVP instructional materials clearly indicate the rear elbow "keys rotation."
Which it doesn't.
As a true physics of baseball expert, Alan Nathan says:
the physicist's model of the game must fit the game
Yes. My issue is you apparently want to CHANGE the game, and say that throwing and overhand hitting are the same thing. I disagree.
AND, I think if you understand how the throw is like the swing, you will learn/teach an MLB/live and independent hands swing, not a gated core controlling appendages swing.
I'm waiting for you to tell me how the OVERHAND throw IS like a swing. Maybe we can have that rear forearm trailing the rear elbow at a near 90 degree angle as a starting point. We'll get a LOT of whip, then.
Englishbey quote from eteamz for reference:
"As opposed to those radical ,out of the box types like myself and Paul Nyman [and I suspect there are some others out there who are starting to catch on to this "out of the box stuff" ]who are seeking and using non-traditional sources ,to both explain and teach throwing and hitting."
Yep, non traditional. In the same time frame, on the same website, you were pointing kids and parents to Dusty Baker's site, where cues like "hands to the ball" and "squish the bug" were prominantly displayed.
Englishbey is non-traditional in that he DOES NOT use cues like that. He was using a hammer a long time before Slaught and Candrea, to pick yet another example. Who BTW, also have achieved considerable success by using non-traditional cues. And apparently, meet with your approval.
So what is your point, exactly?
And BTW, I'd appreciate it if you would react to what I write, rather than to tell me what Englishbey believes. My beliefs are my beliefs, and I have stated them above and here.
let's all remember this is just "theoretical".
I have no idea why that is funny to you.