HELP! please evaluate my daughters swing

[FiveFrameSwing]

So no force into the handle (torquing) for you? Because that is all he is showing there imo

We disagree again.

Yes to hand torque. No to what is being demonstrated.

 

[2br02b]

So no force into the handle (torquing) for you? Because that is all he is showing there imo

Torquing the way TM does in that video helped me get two players to eliminate bat drag in about 20 minutes of drills. Because it is an extreme motion it really helped the girls see the difference between a "barrel to the ball" swing and their "knob to the ball swing".

It was just the first step though. 2nd was command drill and finally full swings. Upside was also downside- they had so much more time to look at a pitch their timing was pooched. Next step was hovering to help with timing. 3 weeks later and they are both TTB with improved timing, but still are working on hovering.

Summary - I think torquing is a teaching tool which has some use. I don't think I would demo it for anyone other than hitters with drag or DBSF.

 

[julray]

I find the feel of trying to work the knob up can be replaced with the feel of trying to align the barrel to the lead-arm.

And the angle of the lead arm is relative to torso tilt which is relative to pitch location? For example, Low pitch = steeper angle vs high pitch = less angle

 

[Mudders Brudder]

I’ll try to put all my responses into one post.

Teaching a hand pivot point is another reaction. Teaching torquing the handle is another reaction. Just like teaching a 50/50. It’s not get to a 50/50. It’s get back with resistance to get forward to use your torso. Get into your back heel to activate your legs. maintain the load in your back leg to stay back. Etc etc. create good posture to stay balanced longer. Create direction deep with the knob and work down to the ball. Have a dead back bottom leg so we can keep the front hip closed longer. All tangible actions to create the proper reactions. That just some cues I would use in a lesson. Or If I’m describing a something to a member.

Herein lies the biggest problem of discussing hitting on an Internet forum...people write something that they don't actually mean, but say or use in a general sense that they then need to explain the exact nuances of in person to a student or if they were talking to someone in person.

Example: This is the first time I've heard you say that when you say 50/50 weight shift with the COM into or at the launch position...that you don't really mean a 50/50 COM at the launch position. You then go on to write that a hitter should, "maintain the load in your back leg to stay back" as part of your teachings or understanding of the swing, which is basically all that is meant by the term of being "one legged", yet you absolutely despise that term.

That said, are you, I, and others really any different in what we're teaching when it comes to weight transfer, then shift in the swing? We all seem to agree that more weight is "back" in or at the launch position ("not get to a 50/50" or anything "forward" of that), we all seem to agree that the weight/load should be in "your back (one) leg to stay back", but yet you argue that we're not on the same page when it comes to that...and honestly, until you said today that you "don't really mean a 50/50" I thought we weren't also. But now I'm beginning to think at least in that part of the swing sequence we're all pretty much saying the same things, just with a little bit different descriptive words is all.

So now I have to wonder if we were to get together in person, would our preferred bat paths be the same, but simply because of the inherent limitations of the written word of these forums...we're more or less arguing about the thing(s) we're all really teaching or doing the same. Hmmm...

 

[2br02b]

I find the feel of trying to work the knob up can be replaced with the feel of trying to align the barrel to the lead-arm.

I can see that - got a drill for that or just a verbal cue?

 

[julray]

Torquing the way TM does in that video helped me get two players to eliminate bat drag in about 20 minutes of drills. Because it is an extreme motion it really helped the girls see the difference between a "barrel to the ball" swing and their "knob to the ball swing".

It was just the first step though. 2nd was command drill and finally full swings. Upside was also downside- they had so much more time to look at a pitch their timing was pooched. Next step was hovering to help with timing. 3 weeks later and they are both TTB with improved timing, but still are working on hovering.

Summary - I think torquing is a teaching tool which has some use. I don't think I would demo it for anyone other than hitters with drag or DBSF.

That's awesome! I had a different experience. This exaggeration ended up in my DD TTB and losing control of the barrel which resulted in the barrel getting way too low and being under every pitch. This is why I believe reinforcing the body first to get in a good position to control the barrel.. this may be a teaching point, but I believe the hitter needs to have a solid foundation to control the barrel. And when they do, this exaggerated motion/action will likely not occur to such an extreme in a complete swing

 

[2br02b]

That's awesome! I had a different experience. This exaggeration ended up in my DD TTB and losing control of the barrel which resulted in the barrel getting way too low and being under every pitch. This is why I believe reinforcing the body first to get in a good position to control the barrel.. this may be a teaching point, but I believe the hitter needs to have a solid foundation to control the barrel. And when they do, this exaggerated motion/action will likely not occur to such an extreme in a complete swing

...then I remembered that I have two others who literally try to take that torquing motion to the tee.. One was getting down so low on the tee that she knocked it (a Tanner!) into the Bownet twice in about 10 swings.

 

[julray]

Herein lies the biggest problem of discussing hitting on an Internet forum...people write something that they don't actually mean, but say or use in a general sense that they then need to explain the exact nuances of in person to a student or if they were talking to someone in person.

Example: This is the first time I've heard you say that when you say 50/50 weight shift with the COM into or at the launch position...that you don't really mean a 50/50 COM at the launch position. You then go on to write that a hitter should, "maintain the load in your back leg to stay back" as part of your teachings or understanding of the swing, which is basically all that is meant by the term of being "one legged", yet you absolutely despise that term.

That said, are you, I, and others really any different in what we're teaching when it comes to weight transfer, then shift in the swing? We all seem to agree that more weight is "back" in or at the launch position ("not get to a 50/50" or anything "forward" of that), we all seem to agree that the weight/load should be in "your back (one) leg to stay back", but yet you argue that we're not on the same page when it comes to that...and honestly, until you said today that you "don't really mean a 50/50" I thought we weren't also. But now I'm beginning to think at least in that part of the swing sequence we're all pretty much saying the same things, just with a little bit different descriptive words is all.

So now I have to wonder if we were to get together in person, would our preferred bat paths be the same, but simply because of the inherent limitations of the written word of these forums...we're more or less arguing about the thing(s) we're all really teaching or doing the same. Hmmm...View attachment 13992

Funny this is, the disagreeing, alternate ways of explaining the same thing, misunderstanding leading to greater discussion has really been helpful for me. So thumbs up to the understanding lost in translation of the written word, LOL,

 

[Work=wins]

Herein lies the biggest problem of discussing hitting on an Internet forum...people write something that they don't actually mean, but say or use in a general sense that they then need to explain the exact nuances of in person to a student or if they were talking to someone in person.

Example: This is the first time I've heard you say that when you say 50/50 weight shift with the COM into or at the launch position...that you don't really mean a 50/50 COM at the launch position. You then go on to write that a hitter should, "maintain the load in your back leg to stay back" as part of your teachings or understanding of the swing, which is basically all that is meant by the term of being "one legged", yet you absolutely despise that term.

That said, are you, I, and others really any different in what we're teaching when it comes to weight transfer, then shift in the swing? We all seem to agree that more weight is "back" in or at the launch position ("not get to a 50/50" or anything "forward" of that), we all seem to agree that the weight/load should be in "your back (one) leg to stay back", but yet you argue that we're not on the same page when it comes to that...and honestly, until you said today that you "don't really mean a 50/50" I thought we weren't also. But now I'm beginning to think at least in that part of the swing sequence we're all pretty much saying the same things, just with a little bit different descriptive words is all.

So now I have to wonder if we were to get together in person, would our preferred bat paths be the same, but simply because of the inherent limitations of the written word of these forums...we're more or less arguing about the thing(s) we're all really teaching or doing the same. Hmmm...View attachment 13992

Nice post. I would say, 50/50 in a dynamic sense. Hopefully makes sense. When teaching it. I won’t say 50/50. Unless a kid is sitting on the back leg. Just to get them to move off of it. But in my mind, it’s 55/45 in real life. 50/50 in a dynamic sense.

 

[julray]

...then I remembered that I have two others who literally try to take that torquing motion to the tee.. One was getting down so low on the tee that she knocked it (a Tanner!) into the Bownet twice in about 10 swings.

LOL.. I know the feeling. But it worked for the other 2, so I would think if both were performing the drill correctly before the tee, then there must be 1. a difference in learning style - literal vs figurative, or 2. 2 who were successful had overall better body mechanics allowing them to implement void of exaggeration in their complete swing. Which probably ended looking more like FFS explained, barrel aligning with lead arm.

Again I am far from an expert and still learning, and making a lot of assumptions of your own personal experience, lol