Down to...

[FP26]

Many demos isolate an element of the swing.. I have never seen Pujois, Trout etc stand in the box flat footed and just move their hands. That's the problem when critiquing these pros, not looking at the big picture. They are breaking their craft down piece by piece, and I can understand how that looks odd to some people. But when integrated into the entire swing, it makes sense. Pujois is "down to" like most other MLB hitters.

I have no issue with any of that. In fact, I have no issue with Pujol's demo at all. Never did... If that is what he feels, great. If hitters learn from it, better yet. My only caution is that people need to be careful when applying such "feels". If you only isolate that one element and don't get the other elements right, you are no further ahead. In fact, you could make things worse. The same goes with all the guru stuff. It doesn't matter if you follow Ted Williams, Jack Mankin, or Charley Lau. It doesn't matter if you follow Matt Lisle, Matt Antonelli, or Justin Stone. It doesn't matter if you follow Teacherman, SwingBuilder, or 1ChapterAhead. They each have their own beliefs, and they each tend to break things down in various different ways. It the focus is specifically on one element and the "big picture" is missed, the entire concept will not be understood. That is why I brought up some of the ferris wheel detractors in the other thread. Some people arguing against the ferris wheel are "isolating an element" without "looking at the big picture".

 

[clemenslee1]

I have no issue with any of that. In fact, I have no issue with Pujol's demo at all. Never did... If that is what he feels, great. If hitters learn from it, better yet. My only caution is that people need to be careful when applying such "feels". If you only isolate that one element and don't get the other elements right, you are no further ahead. In fact, you could make things worse. The same goes with all the guru stuff. It doesn't matter if you follow Ted Williams, Jack Mankin, or Charley Lau. It doesn't matter if you follow Matt Lisle, Matt Antonelli, or Justin Stone. It doesn't matter if you follow Teacherman, SwingBuilder, or 1ChapterAhead. They each have their own beliefs, and they each tend to break things down in various different ways. It the focus is specifically on one element and the "big picture" is missed, the entire concept will not be understood. That is why I brought up some of the ferris wheel detractors in the other thread. Some people arguing against the ferris wheel are "isolating an element" without "looking at the big picture".

This is spot on, in my opinion! Exactly the point I believe is what needs to be said.

 

[julray]

I'm not arguing against ferris wheel.. I just think it's a non teach, a forced result. My problem is people keep saying down to is feel and not real. "Down to" is what the pros demo and practice, and it's how they initiate that phase of their swing. I caution people not to force a result, focus on what needs to happen to produce that result.

 

[FP26]

I'm not arguing against ferris wheel.. I just think it's a non teach, a forced result. My problem is people keep saying down to is feel and not real. "Down to" is what the pros demo and practice, and it's how they initiate that phase of their swing. I caution people not to force a result, focus on what needs to happen to produce that result.

All depends on how you want to apply "down to". My focus is barrel path. From the point of launch until the point of contact, a great deal of the barrel's motion is "down". I don't know anyone that is arguing that. But it is important how you get there to begin with. There are many ways to do it, but not all of them are correct.

 

[julray]

I have no issue with any of that. In fact, I have no issue with Pujol's demo at all. Never did... If that is what he feels, great. If hitters learn from it, better yet. My only caution is that people need to be careful when applying such "feels". If you only isolate that one element and don't get the other elements right, you are no further ahead. In fact, you could make things worse. The same goes with all the guru stuff. It doesn't matter if you follow Ted Williams, Jack Mankin, or Charley Lau. It doesn't matter if you follow Matt Lisle, Matt Antonelli, or Justin Stone. It doesn't matter if you follow Teacherman, SwingBuilder, or 1ChapterAhead. They each have their own beliefs, and they each tend to break things down in various different ways. It the focus is specifically on one element and the "big picture" is missed, the entire concept will not be understood. That is why I brought up some of the ferris wheel detractors in the other thread. Some people arguing against the ferris wheel are "isolating an element" without "looking at the big picture".

I think we are saying the same thing, when demoing a portion of a swing you need to consider all moving parts and how it's integrated in the entire swing. What I don't agree on is the labeling of "Feel"... down to is happening for real. Those who can't see it are ones who aren't integrating it into the entire swing.

 

[FP26]

I think we are saying the same thing, when demoing a portion of a swing you need to consider all moving parts and how it's integrated in the entire swing. What I don't agree on is the labeling of "Feel"... down to is happening for real. Those who can't see it are ones who aren't integrating it into the entire swing.

I see "feel" and "real" as non-consequential terms. What's important is how the hitter understands and implements the concepts.

 

[_MIA_]

I see "feel" and "real" as non-consequential terms. What's important is how the hitter understands and implements the concepts.

In other words, stop theorizing @julray put what you are saying into practice with the DD and come back and let us know what you did and how it worked out (preferably with before and after videos)

 

[julray]

In other words, stop theorizing @julray put what you are saying into practice with the DD and come back and let us know what you did and how it worked out (preferably with before and after videos)

It's not a theory.. I'm not going to paste videos of my DD all over this site when there are already so many examples of the best in the world doing it. Julray's DD does it.. oh ok it makes sense now. Come on man, we have some of the best hitters out there saying this is what they do, and then we have video showing them doing it. What's more credible, my DD's swing or HOF.. Good try, but your not baiting me on this. My DD, and I love her with all my heart and soul and I am so proud of her work ethic. She's just not athletic, she's not going to play college ball and that's absolutely fine with me. More importantly she's ok with this. She's a smart girl who has a bright future, just not playing ball.

 

[_MIA_]

It's not a theory.. I'm not going to paste videos of my DD all over this site when there are already so many examples of the best in the world doing it. Julray's DD does it.. oh ok it makes sense now. Come on man, we have some of the best hitters out there saying this is what they do, and then we have video showing them doing it. What's more credible, my DD's swing or HOF.. Good try, but your not baiting me on this. My DD, and I love her with all my heart and soul and I am so proud of her work ethic. She's just not athletic, she's not going to play college ball and that's absolutely fine with me. More importantly she's ok with this. She's a smart girl who has a bright future, just not playing ball.

Alrighty then...guess I hit a sore spot. I wasn't "baiting" whatever that means in this context...If it means I was trying to get you to show your kid's swing, well I couldn't care less if I never see her swing again.

My point (and it was what I was getting at from the beginning of this thread) is that it is all conjecture, from the teaching perspective, until somebody can show (preferably with multiple " students" ) that teaching a developing hitter using what the pros are saying here results in a swing which "plays". @Work=wins kid has a pretty good swing and I think he has taught her using some of these ideas so I guess we have N=1 examples documented.

 

[julray]

Alrighty then...guess I hit a sore spot. I wasn't "baiting" whatever that means in this context...If it means I was trying to get you to show your kid's swing, well I couldn't care less if I never see her swing again.

My point (and it was what I was getting at from the beginning of this thread) is that it is all conjecture, from the teaching perspective, until somebody can show (preferably with multiple " students" ) that teaching a developing hitter using what the pros are saying here results in a swing which "plays". @Work=wins kid has a pretty good swing and I think he has taught her using some of these ideas so I guess we have N=1 examples documented.

Yes I understand your point if this was a new radical idea... but it's not, The sample size is much larger than 1 and with all due respect to W=w much more credible professional hitters than his DD