Also pretty much all hitters regardless of age are able to "put their hands on their hips" when asked, and can fairly easily figure out how to "turn them" by using the core (without turning their shoulders). But if I asked them to point to turn their "core", well, not so much...and I've got a 50-50 shot that those that do know where it is, when asked to turn it, will turn their torso instead just as much is their propensity to turn their hips.
I just prescribe to the K.I.S.S. method of instruction, and find that most kids are a lot more familiar with the common names of the bones of their body but not so much with all of the names of the muscles that move those bones...so I just stick with that.
Whereas the turning spine does not really transfer power to another body part (unless I guess if someone had a fused spine), and is thus simply an axis that the power produced elsewhere is moved around. I think the driveshaft and/or axle is a little bit better "driveline" part if we're using the analogy of that of a car.
But needless to say, whether we think of it as the crankshaft or the driveshaft, it's still part of the entire system used to move the car, or move the body to hit a softball. But it's just my opinion that to try to get some hidden energy or "engine" out of it, is more just an exercise in futility, and our time can be much better spent on focusing on the really "absolutes" needed to hit a round ball with a round stick. Just saying...
There can and should be some stored up energy around the spine. As the hips open first while the shoulders remain closed. Catapult or X factor or whatever else you want to call it. I don't think the spine is an engine either.
I will say that as far as 'engines' go.....maybe the lower half is the engine.....hips don't include the lower half...they are part of the upper half.....and guess what there's a second engine......the rear leg is the driver.
That 'stuff' I find interesting and not something my DD needs to know about hitting a softball. I may give DD hints to tweak and move her swing along. Again, it's 'stuff' that I find interesting and helps fight off the boredom.
Last edited by rdbass; 06-06-2018 at 07:52 PM.
I don't know sh!t from shinola!
I also do not think about the spine. But if I did, it would be in regards to the muscles surrounding the spine, as others have mentioned. My concern with the spine engine discussion is that I think it can create a goal of turning the body. While the body does turn, I prefer to view it as a result rather than a goal.
"Once you stop learning, you start dying" -- Albert Einstein.
Learn to move using the core and allow the legs to be the supporters Similar to the guy walking without legs.
Gracovetsky did a lot for the study of the spine....however his theory is ...a theory. If he had of named it the spinal-pelvic engine...that would of been more appropriate IMO.... but then he would of had more of a problem trying to fit it into his evolution theory.
So those studying this.... may keep it in perspective...consider that the man with no limbs....does have a pelvis..which without, he wouldn't be ambulating. Many moons ago..i treated a man with total Ankylosing Spondylitis (total fusion of every vertebrae). He also could ambulate (walk).
The importance of the role that the pelvic region plays (both spinal/pelvic junction & hip/pelvic junction) ....in human movement and athletic movement… is huge of course.
Learn to move, train the core and knock the snot out of it!