I'm not against using the no-backswing approach. The obvioius benefit is that the grip on the ball is much harder to see. My point was more about the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy--Since event Y (greater velocity) followed event X (doing away with backswing), event Y (greater velocity) must have been caused by event X (doing away with the backswing). I think we have to be very careful concluding that doing away with a backswing necessarily results in greater velocity. That's all.