37 sec mark......so....do you listen to this pro or not......
Then....2:06 he does what behind his back shoulder.
Do you? I listen to every pro.
37 sec mark......so....do you listen to this pro or not......
Then....2:06 he does what behind his back shoulder.
37 sec mark......so....do you listen to this pro or not......
Then....2:06 he does what behind his back shoulder.
Pray tell....Can you 'chop down' and get depth. And if so, how does a hitter get 'depth'.He was a chop down guy with no depth
So you say. I'll disagree with the 'in EVERY swing'.Barrel turns in every swing
Pray tell....Can you 'chop down' and get depth. And if so, how does a hitter get 'depth'.
So you say. I'll disagree with the 'in EVERY swing'.
Again, the BIG difference is WHEN AND WHERE.........
Bad/amateur hitters turn their barrels beside or in front of them. Not what a HL hitter does.
Do you like what BB had to say?Do you? I listen to every pro.
Still gets turned.. it does matter where, but it gets turned. Unless you hit the ball with the knob of the batSo you say. I'll disagree with the 'in EVERY swing'.
Again, the BIG difference is WHEN AND WHERE.........
Bad/amateur hitters turn their barrels beside or in front of them. Not what a HL hitter does.
The 1:30 mark is the point. That enables him to LET the barrel GET turned.
‘This neutral position MAKES IT SO THE BARREL CAN turn behind my back shoulder’
His depth was fixed because his sequence/balance were fixed. He was a chop down guy with no depth. Just like JD Martinez’s swing changes we were reviewing a week or so ago, Same resulting problem, same fix.One was kinetically wrong. One was sequentially wrong according to BBs words. Hands first sounds like too me. Sequence affects kinetics and kinetics affect sequence. Personally they are married in my mind. Or the sequence can create the kinetics, but the ‘intentions’ must be in the right places.
Edit:some of us have been beating this dead horse for months.
You're right. Turning the barrel deep is what several people have been talking about. Setting it up with a lower body running start is what Tewks was talking about in the thread from 2011 that I mentioned a few weeks ago. These are all great points, but nothing that contradicts 1-leg/rear-leg hitting. It's all part of it... FWIW, this is one of the reasons I don't care for the "names". I can understand why people want to consider this 2-legged or balanced. It's all in the way we understand the various terms. They both fit.
FYI... Years ago, members of the posse created those terms (I think...). They were meant to be descriptive. But some people took offense to the names and started throwing in terms such as "balance". One side started to misrepresent what balance meant. Then the other side started to misrepresent what 1-legged meant. Etc. Etc. Etc. If you read the early threads, there was some good discussion about why the terms were used, and what they actually meant. Then some of the participants seemed no longer interested in discussion and only wanted to argue. That is pretty much when BBD started to go south. Some of the older threads had good, open, honest discussion that offered good information. Now it is just a lot of bickering with virtually no content at all.