Creating Correct Core Torque

Ken B said:

Hoping PC, BoardMember, rdbass or some other technically skilled computer whiz can break down this one into a spiffy, stop-motion gif:

Click to expand...

Never thought about you guys that know what your doing... bet your blood goes up seeing this (lol)

Hi Rick,

This is interesting... I was surprised to see that you start young pitchers out with this. Granted, what you do in your instruction is supervised by you and probably more detailed than your post... But, when I think young... I think 8-11... or prepubescent. I used to incorporate this years ago... but made a decision - based on research and experience - to introduce this gradually (and indirectly) by allowing the pitcher to reach greater physical maturity AND learn proper i/r mechanics, as well as learning the proper sequencing of the stride.

As core contribution is marked by stabilization, I found that lack of development in the other areas made "prime" stabilization nearly impossible. When young girls go through adolescence, their pelvic region changes notably (cartilage turns to bone, etc) and as a result the larger muscles and stabilizing muscles (quads, maximus, medius, etc...) that are in the region mature at that time. The gluteus muscles grow rapidly during that stage. Furthermore, the core muscle groups are all at different stages of development based on lifestyle.

As a result of these proximal muscles undergoing such changes, and without having the distal muscles programmed (via correct mechanics repetition) - I noticed that postural compensation (negative changes) would appear after introducing this concept (your post), as well as increased NEGATIVE angles with the stride leg (knee), and negative horizontal adduction (arm disappearing behind back), etc. I'd see a mix of these traits in all younger pitchers (8-11), as well as older inexperienced pitchers. I would not see the prevalence of these traits with experienced pitchers that were older and utilized proper mechanics.

After researching growth patterns and the active pitching muscle groups, as well as the prevalence of undeveloped muscles negatively impacting stabilization, the results solidified my position... and unless asked or provoked will spare you all... I ended up getting them into a rather vigorous resistance-band routine to work on developing the active pitching muscles equally AS they learned sound arm mechanics and pitch/stride sequencing... This way, those muscles were equally developed and the neuromuscular patterns were ingrained. I would let them naturally open-close, rather than the more intentional/forced hip to shoulder method you reference... All of these actions require core muscle stabilization/activation - but the gradual process allows the muscles to develop in tandem with proper mechanics... thus ensuring that the muscles recruited during the pitching motions were the right ones... and not compensating muscles that were recruited because of a muscle deficiency - or lack of development - in the pitcher. i.e. The core is comprised of many large muscle groups that work together... so having strong abs and weak hip flexors (or vice versa) compromises pelvic stabilization.

Don't get me wrong... I completely agree that the hip/shoulder and core contributions to the pitch are absolutely necessary - as evidenced in all high-level pitchers...

That said, I'm really curious as to your experiences - as you have a lot... and your take on getting young pitchers doing this drill PRIOR to developing sound fundamentals and a certain level of physical muscle maturity/development... As the proximal muscles are larger and more influencing - I'm just curious as to your take on allowing undeveloped smaller distal muscles this influence... so early on in the process...

Sorry if this is confusing... I probably should've put more thought into making this easier to read... and you really made me think (hopefully sensibly). I'm just hoping to add some of your experience/knowledge to my notebook.

Cheers,
JS

You make a lot of sense, JS. In fact, I think that teaching this torque at young ages is what results in "slamming the door", which is a far more detrimental mechanics then hello elbow.

-W

starsnuffer said:

You make a lot of sense, JS. In fact, I think that teaching this torque at young ages is what results in "slamming the door", which is a far more detrimental mechanics then hello elbow.

-W

Click to expand...

Thanks, W.

Hopefully my respect of Rick and his dd doesn't get lost by other people in left field... His experiences instructing could benefit many on this board, no doubt.

I've had more kids either quit or laid up from bruising of the hips, stress fractures and bruising in the upper forearm, as well as kids who developed an overcompensating lean towards 3B and exaggerated mechanics in attempt to not hit themselves then I've had kids complaining that they pitched 3mph slower then the girl next to them. Come to think of it, I've never had a kid complain that they were pitching slower because they weren't hitting themselves.

So, you'll have to excuse me if I value the health and happiness of a kid more then I value their potential to have picture perfect pitching mechanics at 11 (that will have to be changed anyway as they grow).

Brush interference and the partial closing of the hips (hip torque) are all things that we can see most elite pitchers do. Clearly there is a reason for this. However, I believe NONE of those pitchers were actually actively taught to do those things. These are non-teach mechanics for the most part. The only time I've found myself teaching them is when an older kid comes to me complaining about her upper forearm pain and hip bruising, and that "their mechanics are broken because they're hitting their hip". That happens a lot, and when we sit down to look at video and see that these things take place on the best pitchers, the student is much less likely to overcompensate and we figure out a way to balance the mechanics with the pitchers toughness and pain tolerance at that given time.

Pitchers improve by pitching, and hurt pitchers don't pitch.

-W

JS........Did you read my PM response? Are OLF's comments starting to sound familiar?

The comments and theory are consistant. Let the kids pitch on their own for a few years......How ever they pitch........If they start at 8yo in rec ball, give them 2-3 years of non-instructed mechanics and "see how they do".......And when 80-90% of all the flaws that you will find in 80-90% of these kids are nice and ingrained.......You can start "working the kinks out" from there........Just think of HOW MUCH MORE TIME you'll get to spend with them working out those ingrained "kinks"..........

I understand the theory........I really do.......I get that that early youth pitching should be like playing tag......Just a fun run-around with friends..........Letting kids be kids.........And the one's who want to pitch will "emerge" from the fray, and then you have your student.........IMO that's exactly what Rec Ball is for........

The funny part is, OLF somehow believes that that we as instructors go out and solicit 6yo kids and start them with a drill regiment......What she fails to comprehend is that kids coming to many of us for lessons have already done what she is suggesting........And are now seeking the "right path" for their kids to improve........

I've never taken on a student "who has never pitched before in her life".........That's Amy's job! (JK)

My students are always the one's who have had their time playing tag (pitching) in Rec ball........And now want to learn how to run faster to catch the "natural runners".........Or those "natural runners" who want to be the BEST at avoiding those who are chasing them.........Or many many students who have gone to other instructors teaching things like "push it down-pull it up" and are being passed up by everyone else...........

Just sayin.........The argument that OLF/Screwball is putting out there that we as instuctors are somehow ruining the fun just isn't the case..........They've done it........And now have the desire to "do it" like the best do........Or least be as good as they can given the talent level of the student........

Out in Left Field said:

".......Here’s an idea of the things we say to over-complicate pitching and make it difficult for our pitchers to “just throw strikes”:
“Should my pitcher try the IR or the Hello Elbow method of pitching?“
“Some people in our area throw an “open style of pitching.” I teach a “stride and drive” style – which one’s right.“
“Do you teach the same style of the pitching as the coaches in our area?“
“Do I need to start teaching more “open style” instead of having them closed?“
“Several fact sheets have been written about Internal Rotation, should I teach my pitcher that method?“

Cindy Bristow is the author, not me.

Click to expand...

With all do respect, if you are a pitching instructor of the prominence of Cindy Bristow you should be very interested in why these questions are being asked instead of dismissing them as over complicating pitching mechanics. Windmill pitching like hitting is a complicated execution of movements that require much analysis, change in mechanics, and practice to improve. This is what separates the good from the great. I would encourage all paid instructors to learn as much as possible about pitching mechanics so you don't over simplify the process and short change your student.

Going to copy some quotes from SS's post and give my rationale. In a "left handed way" I think his suggestion works.....but mostly because of the athletes natural instincts to use their core to create torque.

"I prefer the pitcher to understand the pendulum and use physics instead of brute strength."

Just as a whipping arm creates more speed/energy than a straight arm, a torquing movement creates more energy than a linear move.
I love physics and the law of the lever and there is definitely physics involved in pitching.....careful though 'cause most levers are straight. The pitching arm is definitely a lever....but an efficient pitching arm is really four levers: Upper arm/lower arm/wrist/fingers.....aka arm whip. So why not use the biomechanical movement that transfers more energy into the arm....torque.

"The rear leg either drags toe down or calf-to-calf (figure 4) depending on how the pitcher was taught and pitches the ball with good arm whip".

What causes the rear leg to drag???? Core torque! (again, same as in hitting)

"The trick to pitching is learning how to transfer forward momentum into ball speed."

Aha....the old linear to rotational discussion. The forward drive of a pitcher is a linear move. When the landing foot plants it (the landing leg) is one of four key body areas that provide front side resistance which in turn assists the core in rotating. Note that lots of pitchers landing foot is actually rotated close to 60--90 degrees as it strides forward, but it begins rotation even before toe/heel plant.....we note that it is at 45 degrees at foot plant but where was it as it approached foot plant? They are not turning their foot some may think of it....their core is torquing the hips which subsequently turns the leg/foot from 60--90 degrees to 45 degrees. This movement is very very similar to elite hitters with their stride/toe touch/heel plant. (stride=linear/rotation=core torque)

"you can see this clearly as she does not transfer weight to the front foot and resist forward momentum to create a pendulum,"

So what percent of her weight is on the front leg vs the back leg???? I am guessing it's nearly 95+% front leg or else how would she so freely drag the back toe? Again, same as hitting. Curious, what pendulum are you referring to?

"If the pitcher can throw 90% speed from a stationary position like Sarah, she isn't utilizing physics to her advantage"

Are you suggesting that the wind up/premotion/linear drive should account for more than 10% of the speed factor? I could be off a percent or two either way and there could be an exception to the rule, but I've seen it in live action to many times to alter my thinking on this. If a pitcher is not achieving 90% then they are leaving something on the table.
I think the key to note is that from the "K" position you can generate 90% of your top speed.....I'd say that this core torquing movement is a huge part of that 90%. As you get better at this drill your speeds from this position will increase.....your mound speeds increase almost in lock step.
Also, this drill isn't primarily intended as a speed drill....it is intended to encourage the body to work the way it really wants to work.
A later post accurately points out that this drill is a great method of correcting pitchers who have been taught some inefficient movement..exactly!.....look at the posters asking for help with their daughters......almost all of them display the need for this drill.

Thanks for taking the time to respond, Rick. I still have a few questions hanging out there... but, rather than dwell on those, I think it's great that you stay on topic and offer further commentary.

OLF - You've used sarcasm, negativity, and a generally insulting series of tactics to try and discount my post and others... not just on this thread. I could succumb to those same tactics - but, I always find myself wondering and asking: Why?

I don't know what motivates you, but I'm left suspecting that what drives you is ingrained, and any effort on my part or any other that is contradicting to your belief is futile.

With respect, I know it is easier to dismiss an idea than research it. You asked me to "tell you differently" in one of your last posts. Doing so would be repeating myself. I'm not one for expressing redundant ideas - especially when the audience is not genuinely interested in my response. If you really want an answer for your question, it's already on here. Read it. You'll find the answer and also realize that some of the conclusions you arrived at regarding me and my coaching methods were wrong.

This website is called discussfastpitch.com. At its core, it invites discussion - whether it is right or wrong. You probably have some decent stuff to contribute - and it's unfortunate that you do not, maybe all that negativity you've bottled up prevents it...

Whether I speak for others or not - I really wish you'd stop shooting down ideas that you are not familiar with. IMO, the best posts on these forums make people think - not ask them to stop.

I won't respond to anymore of your posts, PM's, or comments on this thread... as they are counter-productive and insulting to the OP.

I wish you the best in your endeavors... and will leave you with a quote:

"Without knowledge action is useless and knowledge without action is futile."

Cheers,
JS

What you forgot to include in that article from Ms. Bristow are ALL THE LINKS at the bottom of that blog that are included to "SELL HER PRODUCTS".......

IF ANYONE........And I don't care who it is.......Tried to tell me NOT to teach a pitcher proper high level mechanics, enhanced spin ratios, and increased velocity, because it will make it harder to throw strikes...........I'd laugh at them........Because ALL OF THOSE THINGS make it "harder to throw strikes"........And so we should avoid teaching them????........

Hell if this was "easy"........Every tom, dick and harry, or sally, jenny and melissa would be accomplished fastpitch softball pitchers.......

Raise your hand if you think learning to throw rise makes it harder to throw strikes.........Raise your hand hand if you think learning to throw drop makes it harder to throw strikes.......Raise your hand if you think learning to throw change makes it harder to throw strikes..........Raise your hand if you think working to increase velocity makes it harder to throw strikes.........YOUR DAMN RIGHT THEY DO.........Who is she kidding?..........

Learning I/R does NOT make it harder to throw strikes..........In Fact.......Learning how to utilize I/R biomechanics makes it EASIER to throw strikes.......Because I/R is a fundamental component of throwing a softball underhand with velocity CORRECTLY........ This is FASTPITCH is it not?.......

IMO that article was an attempt to sell product..........Her Product........Plain and simple..........

She may be the best instructor in the country........That article was rediculous IMO........

"Just throw strikes"......No matter how slow.......How flat........How weak.......How wrong.........."Just throw strikes"........That and a nickle will get you a "sucker"..........Literally.......

Out in Left Field said:

http://www.discussfastpitch.com/cin...ays-we-make-hard-our-pitchers-just-throw.html

".......Here’s an idea of the things we say to over-complicate pitching and make it difficult for our pitchers to “just throw strikes”:
“Should my pitcher try the IR or the Hello Elbow method of pitching?“
“Some people in our area throw an “open style of pitching.” I teach a “stride and drive” style – which one’s right.“
“Do you teach the same style of the pitching as the coaches in our area?“
“Do I need to start teaching more “open style” instead of having them closed?“
“Several fact sheets have been written about Internal Rotation, should I teach my pitcher that method?“

.....This type of over-complicated, confusing pitching info doesn’t have to be coming from you, it could be coming from one of your coaches, or the pitching coach your pitcher goes to, or even a parent. Wherever it’s coming from it’s not helpful for your pitcher. You want your pitcher to throw strikes? Then simplify things for her instead of making pitching seem like landing the Rover on Mars would be easier!"

Cindy Bristow is the author, not me.

Click to expand...