I think HE is more like cricket bowling.In the overhand pitching world HE would be the equivalent of linear throwing mechanics which relies on pushing the ball, extending the body/ arm toward home plate
I think HE is more like cricket bowling.In the overhand pitching world HE would be the equivalent of linear throwing mechanics which relies on pushing the ball, extending the body/ arm toward home plate
I would dare say that the "swim" is a newer technique that is taught with pitchers that are more closed/hips facing the catcher when they release the ball versus an older technique where the ball is released with the hips more open. In the older technique, the arm is taught to stay inline.I find this statement quite confusing. Your daughter was originally taught to swim with open arms "like you see many college pitchers do".
Yet for some reason you have enough confidence in her current PC to totally change this dynamic. What is her current PC trying to achieve with this change??
This has been my experience as well while coaching, it's bananas to me. As a youngster, I always threw an overhand throw with backspin and so did most of the people that I played with.I want to add that very few of my beginners throw backspin on their overhand throws, it's mostly bullet.
I would dare say that the "swim" is a newer technique that is taught with pitchers that are more closed/hips facing the catcher when they release the ball versus an older technique where the ball is released with the hips more open. In the older technique, the arm is taught to stay inline.
I find this statement quite confusing. Your daughter was originally taught to swim with open arms "like you see many college pitchers do".
Yet for some reason you have enough confidence in her current PC to totally change this dynamic. What is her current PC trying to achieve with this change??
I am a "newcomer" to the softball world of pitching. But I've spent almost 30 years trying to understand how the very best baseball pitchers throw the baseball. There is significant differences between fastpitch in baseball pitching motions but the physics and biomechanics that govern each are based on the same principles.
Based on my limited time here it seems that there are fundamentally two different schools of instruction.
One based on HE.
The other IR.
In the overhand pitching world HE would be the equivalent of linear throwing mechanics which relies on pushing the ball, extending the body/ arm toward home plate
The overhand pitching equivalent of IR would be rotational throwing mechanics.
The same analogies can be applied to the hitting world.
I would be interested if someone could further my education as to if there is/are other schools of instruction and specifically what gives them legitimacy.
Specific to your daughter she appears to be trying to achieve a hybrid between HE and IR which in my opinion does not work. I say this based upon what I understand to be the dynamics of both HE and IR with respect to their effective implementation.
Again I look forward towards other opinions/observations.
While I'm at "it" and really a topic for another completely different discussion is the concept of "Brush interference" as a applied to fastpitch pitching.
The reason I bring the concept of "Brush interference" is because this player is hitting their hip as they deliver the ball. But in her case if it is her hand that is hitting her hip than she is not exhibiting " Brush interference" as its defined.
The main justification for Brush interference is the belief that it adheres to the transfer of momentum principle i.e. that slowing down of the upper arm transfers the upper on momentum to the forearm/wrist hand. This is incorrect.
By its definition brush means a collision of the upper arm and body. Any collision of two objects unless it is completely elastic decreases the overall momentum of the system because of energy that is lost in the collision process. So momentum of the overall arm system is decreased with the collision of the upper arm to the body.
What actually CAN happen and I emphasize the word "CAN" is that the total system of arm-forearm-wrist-hand is moving at the same speed just prior to the Brush. But what also is critical to this is that each segment is jointed and actually can move freely on its own. Initially it's moving as a unified system.
But when contact of the upper arm occurs to the body the upper arm slows down but because of the joint action at the elbow the forearm will change its radius of rotation from that being in unison with the upper arm shoulder joint to the elbow joint itself.
Therefore the forearm/hand will continue on with its own individual momentum which is the same as what it was before the Brush but with a totally different radius of rotation. Rotation is now occurring around the elbow joint and not the upper shoulder joint.
This is the same as what would be called the "tetherball effect". Think of a tetherball attached to a rope which is winding around a vertical pole. As the rope gets shorter the rotational speed of the tetherball increases due to conservation of its momentum.
Theoretically this is what happens with the Brush. The upper arm slows down which changes the radius of rotation of the forearm because of its joint at the elbow in the form wants to continue on with the same momentum (but higher rotational speed) it had when it was rigidly connected to the upper arm.
That being said I do not believe there is a simple collision effect that occurs with the brush. I believe there is a neural component whereby the body is telling the upper arm to slow down on its own which is occurring either as a result of the brush or in conjunction with the brush or in preparation for the brush. Again one of the
integral complexities (mysteries) of how the human body nervous system functions to create goal directed movement