Enlighten me on hitting

[obbay]

I haven't read everything in this thread, but I keep coming back to it and I wanted to add my 2 cents. I'm adding this because I've seen lots of girls this age and I know you need to keep it simple for them to get it.

1 cent: I have read "The science of hitting" and I have the two versions of his short films by the same name. While Epstein was coached by Ted, his stuff doesn't sound the same as that espoused by Ted. Maybe I'm wrong. Get the book, it's probably the best value you'll ever find. Believe in Ted. Decide for yourself.

2 cent: There are much more knowledgeable people on this board who have already offered advice that will get her to a higher level. If you need something simple to work on in the mean time, I would suggest the following:
I would start by having her practice swings, stop just before contact and then, on your ok, follow thru. Check the front arm, back arm, torso, hips and legs. I noticed at contact her younger sister had the back arm (top hand) at 90, elbow close to the body, lead elbow up, rear leg bent at 90 and front leg straightening. If 9 y.o. could get there she'd be well on her way. ......IMHO, Your 9 y.o.'s major problem (and it's a VERY common problem) is leading the hands with the rear elbow and not rotating the body enough. She gets maximum power to the bat before it gets to the ball and hits the ball on her follow thru. Girls this age don't always accept constructive criticism from their fathers (especially if they are already able to hit the ball with their less than desireable swing) so if you start with a simple correction, it may get you both on a path where you can incorporate more improvements as you go.

 

[NWITom]

Thanks.point taken and keep it simple is the plan.real plan is for Dad to learn more about teaching hitting.See Dad does it thr right way without knowing he is doing it that way.Teaching,whole different animal.Again thanks.

 

[obbay]

Hey Tom, I just thought of something else (throwing) and sent you a message

 

[Wellphyt]

But I HOPE there won't be a follow-up post indicating what Epstein "really" means.

I've always found Epstein's material to be straight forward and simple and I have never had a problem deciphering what he means. I'm not hear to speak for Epstein. I really don't care if people buy his material or not. However I believe it's important that people reading this forum have correct information so they can make an informed decision as they seek material on hitting.

The fact is, the video clips of Epstein's more advanced students have IMO fantastic swings that resemble ML hitters. As a consumer I don't ever purchase a product without knowing what I'm buying. I appreciate the fact that Epstein shows on his website hardcore results from those who have used his product or been to his camps.

As far as the back toe being off the ground at contact, I know of no way to reproduce that effect in a drill. I am now of the opinion that the lifting of the rear foot is a non-teachable movement that naturally occurs if a hitter generates enough bat speed. As long as the hitter gets some weight forward, drives the rear hip and doesn't collaspe the back side then the rear foot will do it's thing.

Jack Mankin has an interesting explanation as to why hitters are able to defy gravity and not fall backward when they are tilted rearward with little to no weight on their back foot. Mankin believes the reason weight on the back-foot becomes lighter and is no longer needed to keep the body from falling rearward as the body rotates is due to the gravity-defying properties of gyroscopic motion. I would be very interested in other's thoughts on this as it sure seems like a reasonable explanation to me.

NWITom: If I can get a decent quality video clip of my DD hitting off a tee I'll try and post it. If nothing else it will give you something to compare your DD with as they are close in age.

 

[Mark H]

I've always found Epstein's material to be straight forward and simple .

I didn't interpret that "what he really means" comment to be directed to Epstein but rather to another fellow who is constantly telling the world what various hitting gurus "really mean" regardless of what they say. Epstein is clear on what he teaches.

Jack Mankin has an interesting explanation as to why hitters are able to defy gravity and not fall backward when they are tilted rearward with little to no weight on their back foot. Mankin believes the reason weight on the back-foot becomes lighter and is no longer needed to keep the body from falling rearward as the body rotates is due to the gravity-defying properties of gyroscopic motion. I would be very interested in other's thoughts on this as it sure seems like a reasonable explanation to me..

Jack, for all his good points and good work, has never understood momentum as evidenced by his tht idea and this idea. Momentum is what keeps the weight against the front foot and off the back foot BRIEFLY.

 

[Mark H]

I should add I'm very glad if Epstein is no longer teaching the weight moves from the inside of the front thigh to the inside of the back thigh during rotation. No question that's what my video tape from him taught but that was some years back.

 

[Wellphyt]

I should add I'm very glad if Epstein is no longer teaching the weight moves from the inside of the front thigh to the inside of the back thigh during rotation.

I just watched the "Numbers" dvd. Epstein says that the "weight should be centered on the inside of the back thigh" during the "Follow-Through". The picture during this part of the dvd clearly shows the hitter after she has finished her swing and has a big caption underneath that says "Follow-Through". The weight doesn't shift to the inside of the back thigh during rotation, it shifts there during "Follow-Through".

Along these same lines, I was reading on Batspeed.com where Mankin says he doesn't like the "Number Two" position in Epstein's "Numbers" drill because it teaches the hitter to "fully" open their hips while they keep their top side closed.

Of course that is not at all what Epstein says in his dvd I just watched. It clearly teaches to keep the top side closed only until the hips are "initiated". The initiation of the hips in the "Number Two" position is a very slight movement. Not even close to how Jack describes it. Epstein goes on to say that the hitter should invision that there is a cord attached from the front heel to the rear shoulder and when the front heel drops the shoulders basically follow.

Would this be a good time to clear up his view on "knocking knuckle" alignment?

Btw, I have never talked to Epstein or even asked him a question via e-mail. All my information on what he teaches comes exclusively from studying his dvds and reading his website.

Can I take video from a digital camera (not a camcoder) and post it on here?

 

[Mark H]

My vhs tape said otherwise to my recollection but I'll check it tonight. In any case, his hitters have tended to not get off the back side well historically. He's improving. Noted. A comment on your hip comment. He teaches, or taught, the more separation between hip opening and shoulders, the better. I would suggest the goal should be for each segment of the kinetic chain to tranfer it's momentum to the next segment at maximum rotational velocity rather than maximum separation. I'll be looking for him to start teaching vertical loading/tilt over the plate. Word is, when it was pointed out to him in the spirit of "do we teach what we see", his comment, after a thoughtful pause, was "I don't teach that". Looks like Mike is paying attention to the critics IMO. Good. Good for the kids, good for the sport and good for him.

 

[Slapper23]

Wellphyt,

I think it should be noted, and this is something you alluded in an earlier post, Mark's comments are colored by his belief in Englishbey's hitting thoughts - hence his opinion on Epstein and Mankin. Personally, I don't like a lot of Englishbey stuff- studied it, tried it, found it to be limiting and not representing what occurs in the ML swing, and moved on to something better....of course this is my opinion, too.

Mike

 

[Mark H]

I spent a lot of time recommending Epstein back in the day. Then I learned more. Sounds like Epstein is correcting at least one thing I didn't like. Good.