- Oct 12, 2009
- 1,463
- 0
I think it's time that I create a thread where I discuss what I believe and why.
Here are some thoughts on my point of view...
1. There is tremendous overlap between what I teach and what Paul Nyman came up with in terms of hitting and what Steve Englishbey is now teaching.[1] I don't know if the overlap is 100%, but it's probably at least 95%. For instance, I use the PCRW framework as the basis for organizing my thoughts, but with some extensions. The main difference between Nyman, Englishbey, and me largely comes down to HOW we teach things. I am deliberately trying to keep things very easy to understand and stay out of the weeds (e..g most of the physics)
2. I have a lot of respect for Mike Epstein. He was the first guy to see the right path. However, I believe it's been proven that there are limits to what Epstein teaches and how. However, I am still influenced by his approach to teaching; things such as focusing on the bare minimum number of drills.
3. I have a lot of respect for Howard Carrier. The guy knows how to produce good swings.
4. I believe in the running start, which is an idea that came from outside the Nyman, PCRW school but that is compatible with it.
5. I am unimpressed by the work coming out of Hitting Illustrated. I think the good stuff that HI folks talks about is largely just a rehash and rebranding of Nyman's PCRW stuff. For instance, where Nyman says "tilt" HI says "lateral tilt" and where Nyman says "separation" HI says "spatial separation". That's not originality. When it comes to original HI ideas, like early batspeed, the swivel, and the second engine, I think they are demonstrably wrong.
[1] If you know about Nyman and my relationship, you know that we despise each other (largely due to disagreements over baseball pitching). However, that doesn't change my belief that Nyman did a pretty thorough job of understanding and describing the high level swing.
Here are some thoughts on my point of view...
1. There is tremendous overlap between what I teach and what Paul Nyman came up with in terms of hitting and what Steve Englishbey is now teaching.[1] I don't know if the overlap is 100%, but it's probably at least 95%. For instance, I use the PCRW framework as the basis for organizing my thoughts, but with some extensions. The main difference between Nyman, Englishbey, and me largely comes down to HOW we teach things. I am deliberately trying to keep things very easy to understand and stay out of the weeds (e..g most of the physics)
2. I have a lot of respect for Mike Epstein. He was the first guy to see the right path. However, I believe it's been proven that there are limits to what Epstein teaches and how. However, I am still influenced by his approach to teaching; things such as focusing on the bare minimum number of drills.
3. I have a lot of respect for Howard Carrier. The guy knows how to produce good swings.
4. I believe in the running start, which is an idea that came from outside the Nyman, PCRW school but that is compatible with it.
5. I am unimpressed by the work coming out of Hitting Illustrated. I think the good stuff that HI folks talks about is largely just a rehash and rebranding of Nyman's PCRW stuff. For instance, where Nyman says "tilt" HI says "lateral tilt" and where Nyman says "separation" HI says "spatial separation". That's not originality. When it comes to original HI ideas, like early batspeed, the swivel, and the second engine, I think they are demonstrably wrong.
[1] If you know about Nyman and my relationship, you know that we despise each other (largely due to disagreements over baseball pitching). However, that doesn't change my belief that Nyman did a pretty thorough job of understanding and describing the high level swing.
Last edited:
