Enlighten me on hitting

[Wellphyt]

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'm not sure who the many Ted Williams fans are, that studied Ted and disagree with Epstein. But I prefer to take Ted's word for the correctness of what Epstein teaches. In the only letter of recommendation ever given out by Ted Williams for hitting knowledge and instruction Ted says:

"...I see Mike frequently and have parried batting technique and theory with him — both the physical and mental sides — on many of those occasions. I'm a tough guy to please and impress, but I believe Mike comprehends and teaches the science of proper hitting as skillfully as anyone I have run across in all my years in baseball."

The reason I use Epstein's material as a foundation for what I teach, is not because I'm enamored with Epstein (I've never met or talked with the guy). It's because he was a personal friend of Ted and has first hand insight into Ted's views on hitting. IMO Ted had some of the best swing mechanics ever, over their many years of friendship Ted conveyed that information to Epstein and IMO Epstein's material is based on what Ted believed.

I would refer the fan's of Ted that don't think he's teaching Ted's swing correctly, to the video clip of the Fleck kid. It looks pretty similar to me.

 

[SBFAMILY]

I know of a person that actually worked and studied Ted Williams and he disagrees with that statement. He is based out of KY and has some interesting posts on Ted Williams . Bustos is not a contact hitter, but she follows Slaught's teachings. You are correct in the Fast Pitch Community, most Coaches follow Slaught. Bastian, , Candrea, just to name a few. Slaught has access to the baseball achieves. So we can see and study about any hitter you want in RVP. Slaught does not teach his swing, so not sure what his stats have to do with this argument. His work as a baseball hitting coach , changed many of the things he now teaches. Many are new ideas he has come up with in the last couple of years . They couldn't be proved till today's world of computer's. He and Sue have been conducting studies at UCLA on grip, stance, toe touch all different than we did 2 years ago. Now you can prove what you are teaching with BSI meters. We tell our students , if you can't feel it or see the difference than why do it.

 

[Mark H]

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..

I don't think Slaught is proposing to use his swing as the model. I think he uses the best ops hitters as his model to the best of his ability. And I think he's got more right than Mike. Many in fp gravitated to Mike even though he was, by his own statement, not seeking the fp community. Mike got a lot of pub from me and others some years back and the fp community found him. Don was brilliant in his marketing in that he got Candrea and Enquist on board day one giving him instant visibility with a pretty good product. I honor Mike E for his pioneering and his insistence on hitting for power but I have a problem when we get to the part about "do we teach what we see". He doesn't teach what I see. Reportedly he is changing some things though so good.

 

[Mark H]

I'm not sure who the many Ted Williams fans are, that studied Ted and disagree with Epstein. But I prefer to take Ted's word for the correctness of what Epstein teaches. In the only letter of recommendation ever given out by Ted Williams for hitting knowledge and instruction Ted says:

"...I see Mike frequently and have parried batting technique and theory with him — both the physical and mental sides — on many of those occasions. I'm a tough guy to please and impress, but I believe Mike comprehends and teaches the science of proper hitting as skillfully as anyone I have run across in all my years in baseball."

The reason I use Epstein's material as a foundation for what I teach, is not because I'm enamored with Epstein (I've never met or talked with the guy). It's because he was a personal friend of Ted and has first hand insight into Ted's views on hitting. IMO Ted had some of the best swing mechanics ever, over their many years of friendship Ted conveyed that information to Epstein and IMO Epstein's material is based on what Ted believed.

I would refer the fan's of Ted that don't think he's teaching Ted's swing correctly, to the video clip of the Fleck kid. It looks pretty similar to me.

I'd suggest comparing what Ted wrote and what the best ops hitters actually do to what Mike says to do on the chance that his recommendation had something to do with friendship.

 

[tom.guerry]

Well -


sarge and Mark and other followers of "PCR" or "PCRW" have not had adequate success with Epstein.

I have had success and have worked with others who have had success with Epstein.

While I agree with sarge and Mark that Epstein's description of why things work and how things work is not always objectively/scientifically correct, I think his system and drills still work fine (and are the best widely available system) because he has developed them over the years by trial and error so that they DO help produce the MLB pattern swing that Epstein knows inside and out. I think Williams endorsement signifies this as well.

Sarge and Mark take the position that if Epstein works, this is in spite of the bad detailed descriptions that Epstein gives and if you defend him, you are making up for his deficiencies by purely subjective claims of "what Epstein really means".

This position is understandable IF you believe the way you learn is to follow an objective description of the swing as instructed by the coach.

I would say that this is not how anyone learns. People learn based on a combination of experience and inborn patterns that form a template for a discrete set of possible motor solutions.

These internal patterns are far more powerful than anything a coach can describe or enforce. The job of the coach is to try to recognize and adjust the environment to enlist the influence of the pattern to expedite mastering it.

So IF you believe in innate patterns as the primary organizer and template for learning, THEN you apply the external resources you find based on this.

So if you use the Epstein system in the way Epstein does with knowledge of the look and feel and results of the MLB pattern you are likely to get good results.

You can try other systems as well to both understand better what exactly the underlying universal pattern does and does not consist of and you can then use this info to mix and match strengths in various programs to overcome any weakness. Compatible MLB pattern systems include Mankin, Dixon, Slaught, Hudgens, Yeager, Schmidt, Baker, and many others. The Nyman based systems are INcompatioble primarily because of the way scap function is described.


To get a bigger perspective, you can also extend this use of patterns to other closely related skills, especially in this case, overhand throw and golf swings.

So when I suggest "better" ways to interpret what Epstein says, it is in relation to what the underlying MLB pattern appears to be based on the experience of a number of programs over a number of skills, all describing the same underlying/universal pattern, analagous to more and more blind people describing the same elephant.

So I am not telling you what "Epstein really means", I am telling you how you can better interpret what he says by how consistent it is with a univeral underlying pattern that Epstein himself uses.

it is useful to review/research as many descriptions of the same thing as possible to nail down exactly what the pattern is and is not and no one person can contribute as complete a picture as a community of individuals all devloping the same pattern.

this is a powerful way to make use of a range of skills to leverage the learning of each which is why, for example, "if you can throw, you can hit", a big advantage for Dixon,Yeager and Slaught systems.

Probably the most advanced description of how patterns like this work is by Hardy in golf with his "Plane Truth" series.

Nyman was the first in baseball to intuit the importance of scap "function", first in throwing, then in swinging. He developed his PCRW swing system based on a particular way of scap functioning which unfortunately is neither like the way the scaps function in the MLB swing or the overhand throw. He does get scap action explained well in his throwing information which is the best and most complete available. Still not "complete" and not as useful as Wolforth's (pitchingcentral) system based largely on Nyman's info. The scap "function" he describes for the swing PREVENTS the MLB pattern.

What Hardy figured out (20 years or so ago) from the golf swing was that with regard to high level/total body/"rotational"/"side-on" swing patterns, there are 2 basic very different options/"patterns" which diverge based most essentially on how the scaps "function" to connect the arms to the body.

Either you use the 1 plane pattern - the scaps swing the arms around the body as the body turns (Nyman PCR hitting/alligator arms/hook handpath/swing scaps around ribcage/shoulders turn arms/bat in shoulder plane) or the 2 plane pattern - the scaps have a more passive role as the arms swing up and down as the body turns back and forth (hands and hips/MLB swing/swing down early/slight upswing late).

He thinks of each pattern as having "two motors", the arm and the body motor, and different ways of synching the motors. In 1 plane, body/scaps would be king. In 2 plane, arms dominate.

In the MLB baseball swing, the arms contribution is limited to shorten and quicken the swing and the dominance goes to the hands and forearms (hence the "hips and hands" or "hands and hips" traditional description).

Within each pattern there are more slight variations, for example, here is a recent Hardy interview where he describes 2 different 1 plane variants depending on different weight shift/pivots - More forward/"trapping" for Hogan type 1 plane or for more recent "stack and tilt", more back/"sweeping" for Snead type 1 plane.

But the difference between 1 and 2 plane with different scap "functioning" is HUGE.

The way you build "consistency" is not by how simple the motion is to decribe (a Nyman principle with 1 plane simpler than 2, PCR simpler than MLB) but by how purely you adhere to the essential features of the pattern.

So, for example, if you are Mark or Sarge or a PCR advocate, you think PCR is a general description that can organize analysis/measurement of any swing, BUT one of the requirements of the blueprint is to swing the arms/bat with the shoulder turn in the shoulder plane. This lack of understanding patterns and the possible range of scap "function" means they approach the Epstein system with the idea that it will be consistent with PCR ideas like turning the scaps to turn the bat rather than understanding what Epstein "means" when he says "drop and TILT".

Or when Epstein talks about "axis tilt" it has nothing to do with the "vertical loading" that mark mentions which he understands as a "function" that is more important with the 1 plane PCR swing.

This vertical loading is a part of "hip cock" which is something that both Williams and Dixon emphasize, but it does not have to do with adjustment/sit on back leg which Epstein describes extremely well for MLB pattern.

This Epstein axis tilt is a forward/backward tilt of body for up/down/offspeed as seen from open side of batter and relates especially to how back scap is positioned and functions (not the way it functions in 1 plane PCR) and how the back knee flex/sit slaves to the scap action.

level shoulders/back scap up take the weight forward when you tilt. Back scap down when you tilt keeps the axis leaned back more.

Rubberbandwinding/stretch can be prolonged by sitting in back leg as for adjusting offspeed.

None of this works trying to apply "PCR" principles as developed by Nyman and used by Englishbey.

Mark and sarge really belive there is only one trial and error approach which is best organized by the PCR principles which is why they do not think in terms of divergent patterns and criticize pattern based discussions as either "telling you what Epstein (insert instructor's name here) really means" on the one hand or on the other hand saying better results come from applying MLB pattern information only becasue this is the type of "function" PCR advocates were describing and encouraging all along.

Both of these critiques miss the mark IF the pattern approach does in fact exist which is a decision each reader neeeds to make for themself.

I think patterns have a powerful effect and if you ignore them, you will be fighting mother nature which is ultimately a losing battle.

 

[Mark H]

Tom perhaps you could refrain from telling people what I believe, think or take a position on. I don't want to be one more person for whom you tell the world what I REALLY meant.

 

[tom.guerry]

MarkH-

Have you revised your views away from any of the Nyman PCRW orthodoxy ?

Do you still think the scaps function by swinging around the ribcage the way Nyman demonstrates it in his ebook ?

You also seem to have a lot to say about yeager whom you also claim to not have studied.

How about updating us on what you think you believe at present.

 

[Mark H]

MarkH-

Have you revised your views away from any of the Nyman PCRW orthodoxy ?

Do you still think the scaps function by swinging around the ribcage the way Nyman demonstrates it in his ebook ?

What I think is I'd prefer you didn't include me in your flights of fantasy.

You also seem to have a lot to say about yeager whom you also claim to not have studied.

As you well know I've said one thing-that Yeager's adherents have said some pretty smart things lately.

How about updating us on what you think you believe at present.

Believe? I believe if you actually taught kids to hit your all encompassing belief system would crumble. Whatever happened to who was it, Connor? Did you ever get together?

 

[Mark H]

I'm not sure who the many Ted Williams fans are, that studied Ted and disagree with Epstein. But I prefer to take Ted's word for the correctness of what Epstein teaches. In the only letter of recommendation ever given out by Ted Williams for hitting knowledge and instruction Ted says:
.

Well then who's this guy?

Ted Williams/Steve Ferroli Baseball Camp Home

Ted Williams/Steve Ferroli Baseball Camp Blog Archive Ted Williams and Steve Ferroli

Amazon.com: Hit Your Potential: Steve Ferroli: Books

 

[tom.guerry]

Mark -

Please enlighten us about Ferroli and how his interpretation of Williams approach differs from Epstein.