A guy walks into an arm bar...

[Quasimodo]

View attachment 18841

MLB player with armbar. He'll never make it.

First off, this pitch may have been low-outside. Don't honestly know. But I have some Betts photos for you. Maybe you can give them some suggestions for that elbow.
Secondly as I have said a few times before, effective hitting, pitching, throwing, etc are governed by the laws of physics. There are no exceptions. Walking to the refrigerator and putting that cool-aid or beer to ones lips is governed by the same laws. The law of physics most closely associated with hitting is called "The Conservation of Angular Motion". And since I teach a combination of linear/rotational principles it is very relevant. The further the reach of the bat-head gets from the body, the slower the swing velocity because the swing becomes purely rotational. It is just like an ice-skater pulling their arms and legs in to make their rotation faster. It is part of why the back elbow is attempted to stay close to the side of the body. It is an effort to make the swing a little more linear. Linear energy is more efficient than rotational energy. It is the idea of a glancing blow as opposed to a direct hit. And the difference in the energy transferred can be huge. It is why the front elbow is bent, to allow projection (punch) of the back-arm or top-hand extension through the ball. A purely rotational bat-head with arm-bar is that less efficient transfer of energy, and produces an angular impact to the ball.


In figure (a) the train is not moving. The ball will bounce off at relatively 5 meters per second. In (b) the speed of the train (10mps) adds to the speed of the ball, so it is 5mps + 10mps. The ball moves at 5 m/s relative to the ground (that is 15 m/s relative to the train). It hits the train and rebounds at 15 m/s relative to the train. But the train is moving at 10 m/s relative to the ground and so the ball rebounds at 15+10 = 25 m/s relative to the ground. It is a calculation of increased kinetic energy translated into velocity. Now assume that the impact is not direct, but cuts across the flight of the ball and that the train is moving from left to right at 10 meters per second, the same speed. Because it is a glancing blow, caused by a rotational movement of the barred bat swing, the energy transfer will be less. And this is just a theory of mine, but rational. That is that a player who swings with a barred front arm may prefer an end loaded bat to compensate. A "wrist-active" hitter may prefer a more balanced bat. You think this is bad, you should see my paper on pitching velocity! My photos tell a story too. The second set with Romero are from a flyer I send in instructional materials to remote towns, villages, etc on one of the 7200+ islands here.

 

[BigSkyHi]

First off, this pitch may have been low-outside. Don't honestly know. But I have some Betts photos for you. Maybe you can give them some suggestions for that elbow.
Secondly as I have said a few times before, effective hitting, pitching, throwing, etc are governed by the laws of physics. There are no exceptions. Walking to the refrigerator and putting that cool-aid or beer to ones lips is governed by the same laws. The law of physics most closely associated with hitting is called "The Conservation of Angular Motion". And since I teach a combination of linear/rotational principles it is very relevant. The further the reach of the bat-head gets from the body, the slower the swing velocity because the swing becomes purely rotational. It is just like an ice-skater pulling their arms and legs in to make their rotation faster. It is part of why the back elbow is attempted to stay close to the side of the body. It is an effort to make the swing a little more linear. Linear energy is more efficient than rotational energy. It is the idea of a glancing blow as opposed to a direct hit. And the difference in the energy transferred can be huge. It is why the front elbow is bent, to allow projection (punch) of the back-arm or top-hand extension through the ball. A purely rotational bat-head with arm-bar is that less efficient transfer of energy, and produces an angular impact to the ball.

View attachment 18851
In figure (a) the train is not moving. The ball will bounce off at relatively 5 meters per second. In (b) the speed of the train (10mps) adds to the speed of the ball, so it is 5mps + 10mps. The ball moves at 5 m/s relative to the ground (that is 15 m/s relative to the train). It hits the train and rebounds at 15 m/s relative to the train. But the train is moving at 10 m/s relative to the ground and so the ball rebounds at 15+10 = 25 m/s relative to the ground. It is a calculation of increased kinetic energy translated into velocity. Now assume that the impact is not direct, but cuts across the flight of the ball and that the train is moving from left to right at 10 meters per second, the same speed. Because it is a glancing blow, caused by a rotational movement of the barred bat swing, the energy transfer will be less. And this is just a theory of mine, but rational. That is that a player who swings with a barred front arm may prefer an end loaded bat to compensate. A "wrist-active" hitter may prefer a more balanced bat. You think this is bad, you should see my paper on pitching velocity! My photos tell a story too. The second set with Romero are from a flyer I send in instructional materials to remote towns, villages, etc on one of the 7200+ islands here.

View attachment 18864 View attachment 18863
View attachment 18856
View attachment 18858

Respect what you do for the kids Quasimodo

 

[efastball]

The optimal swing using the Conservation of Angular Momentum, which I have written about tirelessly, would suggest both biceps should be as close to the torso as possible during the swing (through to contact).

 

[Quasimodo]

Respect what you do for the kids Quasimodo

Thanks!

 

[Quasimodo]

The optimal swing using the Conservation of Angular Momentum, which I have written about tirelessly, would suggest both biceps should be as close to the torso as possible during the swing (through to contact).

Yes in fact it does, but not in such a literal sense that it makes an excuse for an arm-bar, but it applies well to its affects on kinetic energy or momentum in a bat far from the body during a rotational movement. I am tired of this subject, and you will not change my mind. We should just disagree.

 

[Shawn]

Betts is creating a huge stretching throughout his torso/body, I don’t think your physics and conservation of angular momentum takes this into account.

It’s the same as creating a whip and transferring momentum from the bigger part of the whip out to the smaller part of the whip to break the sound barrier. Works great with a whip, although the body has muscle in between joints that can create energy and not just transferring energy.

 

[Shawn]

Another things about the whip analogy and conservation of angular momentum, the whip goes from the most massive to least massive. The whip gets smaller and smaller.

In the body the most massive part is the torso. The legs are the second in terms of mass and the arms are the least massive.

The human body isn’t made like a whip, not only is it not put together as the most massive the lesser massive it has a complex muscular, springy fascia, etc that can create force.

 

[TDS]

Efficient transfer of energy while swinging down to. Hips stop and even go into reverse

 

[Shawn]

If the swing was like a whip, as far as transferring momentum in the same way, more massive to less massive, which isn’t how the body is put together, we would see much higher exit velocities. Edit: and batspeeds.

 

[Quasimodo]

Betts is creating a huge stretching throughout his torso/body, I don’t think your physics and conservation of angular momentum takes this into account.

It’s the same as creating a whip and transferring momentum from the bigger part of the whip out to the smaller part of the whip to break the sound barrier. Works great with a whip, although the body has muscle in between joints that can create energy and not just transferring energy.

Well actually it does. First though, Betts is very linear, the big stretch and stride, full extension in the direction he hits the ball. It is a good "marriage". Gravity pulls the object, accelerating it before whipping around the orbit of the planet. I guess that could be seen as the stride and drive into the front leg.

The conservation of angular motion was an astro-physical question posed by a Russian physicist in 1908. The theory is already about an object in motion being accelerated, not a static object. In the case of hitting, the knee projection and stride is a substitute for that space object IN MOTION. The "pass-by" in flight which adds about 6% velocity is simply the rotational aspect of the swing. And no to the detractors, it doesn't add only 6%, and the planet or moon speeding around the sun added the momentum to the speed of the space craft. Whip? I have brought this up several times. I keep saying there is a whipping action in an efficient swing. And I believe a flexible midsection can add to that effect. The more contributing factors the better. Why be dogmatic and limit any legitimate contributors. My girls train with medicine balls to promote this core contribution. The only thing I emphasize in a swing I do not see in many major league swings is better wrist alignment, parallelism, and no uppercut.