Just my two cents, but I also do not have a good opinion of Epstein on some of his teachings. Many in the Elite softball field that I'm around have the same feelings. I would say I follow Slaught , but have read many of the above. I know he has a big following on the baseball side, but many of the Ted Williams fans that studied Ted, disagree with Mike . I think you must pick and choice from all of them and take what is best. Epstein is changing because he had the minority few on some of his teachings.
Enlighten me on hitting
- Thread starter NWITom
- Start date
Welcome to Discuss Fastpitch
Your FREE Account is waiting to the Best Softball Community on the Web.
- Status
Here is a video clip of Bonds hitting a low pitch. Check out his rear foot at contact. His foot is not on it's toe. He is on the ball of his foot. There are plenty of other clips showing the same thing from other ML hitters. I copied this clip from a past discussion at Batspeed.com.
I really appreciate the challenges to Epstein's material because it forces me to dig deeper and find proof that what he teaches is reasonably sound.
Last edited by a moderator:
You are confusing form and function. It's not a question of getting up on the toe. That's form. The function is getting off the back side as opposed to squishing the bug. The thing to look for is the hitter rocking back onto the foot after the swing. Of course you see this in the Bonds clip.
Wellphyt, I think you called it right. Bonds does everything correctly, yet is on the ball of the foot at contact. Whether one is on the toe or ball of the foot will vary from individual to individual. Bonds satisfies Mark's function requirement, yet doesn't have the classic form concerning the back foot. It happens.
Mike
Mark that is what most of us disagree with Mike about. That was the big argument with Slaught. Wouldn't watch a golfer swing a golf club and keep the weight on the back side.
Mark, with all do respect I'm not confusing anything. The Bond's clip clearly illustrates that he is on the ball of his foot at contact. Why is he on the ball of his back foot? Because he is hitting a low pitch.
I'm very clear on the importance of the hitter getting the weight off the backside heading into contact. The fact is the weight on the backside is going to vary depending on pitch location. On their free section, Hitting Illustrated has an arrangement of Pujols' clips, and on high pitches his back toe is way off the ground and on lower pitches it remains in contact with the ground. The point being, that even Pujols with his spread out low to the ground stance can't get his back foot to come off the ground on certain pitches.
Sorry to mention the HI site, but some of their clips are very helpful to me as are Mankin's and O'Leary's. I go wherever I need to for information.
Thanks for keeping the discussion going guys, it's been very helpful.
Wellphyt, I cannot begin to count the number of times Mark has said "you are confusing form and function." But it has been too numerous to count, and has gotten very stale. He usually says it in disagreeing with someone and when the someone is supporting a competing hitting instructor. Lots of turf protection; it's on-going.
Mike
Mike
OK, I assumed you were using the clip to defend Mike's hitters not getting off the back side. Instead, are you saying weight on the back side/hinging the knee is an adjustment mechanism for pitch height as Mike has said? Or are you just saying it varies or...?
This is a very interesting post. I'm seeing a lot of FP kids in my area with swings that resemble golf swings. Instead of hitting with their weight behind their axis they have more weight over their front leg. Yes, the rear foot rolls over onto the toes, but the hitter's center of mass at contact is too far forward.
If the argument against Epstein is that his hitter's don't get their weight off their backside, then I'll defer to video clips of his hitter's performing live swings showing the rear foot up at contact.
I do believe that the FP community is going to be more inclined to gravitate to Slaught's teachings because he was more of a contact type hitter and not a prototypical rotational hitter. Which makes perfect sense for the era he played. Assuming the stats I found are correct, he had 1151 total hits.
811 singles...235 doubles...28 triples...77 homeruns.
The pure rotational hitters similar to him in size (6-1 and 190 lbs) hit way, way, way more homeruns and had much higher slugging percentages.
Don Slaught (6-1, 190lbs) SLG % 412
Ted Williams (6-3, 205lbs) SLG % 634
Willie Mays (5-11, 180) SLG % 557
Hank Arron (6-0, 180) SLG % 555
Statistically speaking Slaught was an excellent contact type hitter. I have no problems at all with his material in the context of the type hitter that he was. However I do believe it's safe to say that Don and Ted would not agree on swing mechanics.
IMO I do not believe the FP community is totally onboard with the high SLG percentage type baseball swing. However it's important to understand that there is more than one way to hit a baseball or softball. Batting lineups typically have different types of hitters...table setters...and run producers.
- Status
