Mankin
- Thread starter Delicious bass
- Start date
Welcome to Discuss Fastpitch
Your FREE Account is waiting to the Best Softball Community on the Web.
Tom, you are proving yet again that you don't read this stuff, merely regurgitate it.
And the material itself (see below) clearly demonstrates that Mankin and Epstein do not come CLOSE to believing the same things about the swing, and are NOT describing the same thing. No matter how hard you try to explain what they really mean.
If not, Tom will probably tell us what you really meant. . . .
That is drop the HEEL to initiate rotation, NOT slot the elbow to initiate rotation, Tom. (RVP)
Pick a guru. Those two are NOT saying the same thing. Neither is Mankin. So pick one, and stick with him. NOT blendable.
Accurate, he doesn't. In fact, he puts NONE.
WHY is this your guru of choice, Tom, believing as you do that "arm action is king?" And endorsing a site where the swivel of the hands is king?
Damn straight, and those who personally instruct - especially females (relevant for this female softball site, of course) - generally KNOW this is true a large percentage of the time. And is deadly.
Beautiful. A "commendable thoughtful explanation" for a "non-teach." Very good diplomacy. Except it's NOT a "non-teach" for Mankin. He places heavy emphasis on making it a very purposeful action.
I asked Epstein about THT once in a phone conversation, and he was a little less diplomatic, frankly. But definitely said he didn't teach it.
In terms of learning, instructing, implementing the swing, Epstein and Mankin DO NOT agree on a lot of things.
But Mike, torque continues after launch. Or so says Jack. It just is with the BOTTOM hand.
Obviously, Mankin and Epstein do not agree. Even if they are describing the same "pattern,"" as Tom will no doubt maintain in yet another regurgitated post, a heavily detailed written description of the swing has very limited value. TEACHING it has enormous value. Using drills and a planned sequence of development. Having the knowledge to fix things when they go wrong without "breaking" something else. These things are very valuable. But are experientially based, not theoretical. At least that is my opinion.
But then, I actually work with hitters, and have a bias in this regard.
Damn straight, and again, obvious and frequently observed by those who actually work with kids.
Tom, if you feel otherwise, argue with your guru of choice. I'm just quoting him. Or quoting you quoting him, I guess.
And the material itself (see below) clearly demonstrates that Mankin and Epstein do not come CLOSE to believing the same things about the swing, and are NOT describing the same thing. No matter how hard you try to explain what they really mean.
If not, Tom will probably tell us what you really meant. . . .
That is drop the HEEL to initiate rotation, NOT slot the elbow to initiate rotation, Tom. (RVP)
Pick a guru. Those two are NOT saying the same thing. Neither is Mankin. So pick one, and stick with him. NOT blendable.
Accurate, he doesn't. In fact, he puts NONE.
WHY is this your guru of choice, Tom, believing as you do that "arm action is king?" And endorsing a site where the swivel of the hands is king?
Damn straight, and those who personally instruct - especially females (relevant for this female softball site, of course) - generally KNOW this is true a large percentage of the time. And is deadly.
Beautiful. A "commendable thoughtful explanation" for a "non-teach." Very good diplomacy. Except it's NOT a "non-teach" for Mankin. He places heavy emphasis on making it a very purposeful action.
I asked Epstein about THT once in a phone conversation, and he was a little less diplomatic, frankly. But definitely said he didn't teach it.
In terms of learning, instructing, implementing the swing, Epstein and Mankin DO NOT agree on a lot of things.
But Mike, torque continues after launch. Or so says Jack. It just is with the BOTTOM hand.
Obviously, Mankin and Epstein do not agree. Even if they are describing the same "pattern,"" as Tom will no doubt maintain in yet another regurgitated post, a heavily detailed written description of the swing has very limited value. TEACHING it has enormous value. Using drills and a planned sequence of development. Having the knowledge to fix things when they go wrong without "breaking" something else. These things are very valuable. But are experientially based, not theoretical. At least that is my opinion.
But then, I actually work with hitters, and have a bias in this regard.
Damn straight, and again, obvious and frequently observed by those who actually work with kids.
Tom, if you feel otherwise, argue with your guru of choice. I'm just quoting him. Or quoting you quoting him, I guess.
Scott, good to see you posting again. Epstein may put little emphasis on the hands, but "little" is a lot different than "none." As Epstein says in another Collegiate Baseball article..
Epstein is big on getting the hands flat quickly...me, too. Per Epstein, you have to perform the movements above to get there. I'm pretty much in agreement with that. Although my views have changed over the years to a more top hand dominant swing with the hands/arms taking an active role in turning the bat.
Epstein is right, you can get too handsy/armsy with the swing, as much too many fastpitch instructors still cling to in their teaching. Thankfully, I'm coaching at a different HS now whose HC has similar hitting views as mine.
Best Regards,
Mike
Epstein is big on getting the hands flat quickly...me, too. Per Epstein, you have to perform the movements above to get there. I'm pretty much in agreement with that. Although my views have changed over the years to a more top hand dominant swing with the hands/arms taking an active role in turning the bat.
Epstein is right, you can get too handsy/armsy with the swing, as much too many fastpitch instructors still cling to in their teaching. Thankfully, I'm coaching at a different HS now whose HC has similar hitting views as mine.
Best Regards,
Mike
Scott-
Nice to see you posting here again, and I appreciate the fact that you always try to include some content in your posts.
I think at this point here at Marc's site we could do with even less personal remarks.
Let me know the priority of specifics you would like me to address and I can try to be less dense/lengthy.
Thanks again Marc.
Nice to see you posting here again, and I appreciate the fact that you always try to include some content in your posts.
I think at this point here at Marc's site we could do with even less personal remarks.
Let me know the priority of specifics you would like me to address and I can try to be less dense/lengthy.
Thanks again Marc.
The Epstein link that Tom posted is why I like Epstein. He understands the concept of less is more and that much of the swing happens naturally and doesn't need to be taught.
If I get too detailed with my daughter and start commenting on parts of the swing that naturally occur, then she starts thinking too much.
I find it interesting that some say that Epstein isn't as good as their favorite hitting guru because he doesn't teach some component of the swing that their favorite guru teaches.
The thinking goes, "my hitting guru teaches 'xyz' and your guru doesn't so mine is better." Then you go to Epsteins message boards or writings and do some reading and find out that he knows that 'xyz' happens in the swing, but he believes it is something that occurs naturally and if 'abc' and 'def' are performed correctly then 'xyz' happens as a result.
Tilt comes to mind. Why do I need to teach my daughter to tilt over the plate to reach certain pitches when she does it naturally?
Why do I want to teach her THT when there isn't any other way to get the hands flat?
Don't get me wrong. I enjoy the back and forth discussion and I am learning a lot. I just can't help but get a nagging feeling that some of these hitting gurus are teaching parts of the swing that don't truly need to be taught in an effort to differentiate themselves from the next guy.
If I get too detailed with my daughter and start commenting on parts of the swing that naturally occur, then she starts thinking too much.
I find it interesting that some say that Epstein isn't as good as their favorite hitting guru because he doesn't teach some component of the swing that their favorite guru teaches.
The thinking goes, "my hitting guru teaches 'xyz' and your guru doesn't so mine is better." Then you go to Epsteins message boards or writings and do some reading and find out that he knows that 'xyz' happens in the swing, but he believes it is something that occurs naturally and if 'abc' and 'def' are performed correctly then 'xyz' happens as a result.
Tilt comes to mind. Why do I need to teach my daughter to tilt over the plate to reach certain pitches when she does it naturally?
Why do I want to teach her THT when there isn't any other way to get the hands flat?
Don't get me wrong. I enjoy the back and forth discussion and I am learning a lot. I just can't help but get a nagging feeling that some of these hitting gurus are teaching parts of the swing that don't truly need to be taught in an effort to differentiate themselves from the next guy.
Nice post, Wellphyt. I think in talking about getting the hands flat and into the swing/pitch path as soon as possible it is better to talk hands/arms. In working with hitters, I talk about the need to get the hands flat as soon as possible and to "switch elbows" - another point Epstein talks about.
You can get the hands flat by concentrating on the lead hand/arm/shoulder connection and pulling -, so to speak, the hands into the hands flat position. I would rather use both hands/arms to turn the bat in combination with lateral tilting action and create whip - that is, whip the bat into the hands flat position. Candrea/RVP and Yeager talk about throwing the top hand, as in making a 3/4 throw or, as Candrea describes a "skipping a rock across the water." In that regard, I like the top hand dominance involved in the swing. Others think the lead hand/arm is dominant, but I disagree with that.
Concerning Candrea's RVP CD, I think he sends conflicting signals in regard to the throwing action. On one hand, he is careful to note not to let the elbow of the top hand/arm lead in an excessive manner - causing bat drag. But then he demo's sidearm throwing drills using the top hand that clearly shows what you do NOT want in the swing, leading to contact with the back elbow. I'd rather stick with his warning not to lead that elbow.
Mike
You can get the hands flat by concentrating on the lead hand/arm/shoulder connection and pulling -, so to speak, the hands into the hands flat position. I would rather use both hands/arms to turn the bat in combination with lateral tilting action and create whip - that is, whip the bat into the hands flat position. Candrea/RVP and Yeager talk about throwing the top hand, as in making a 3/4 throw or, as Candrea describes a "skipping a rock across the water." In that regard, I like the top hand dominance involved in the swing. Others think the lead hand/arm is dominant, but I disagree with that.
Concerning Candrea's RVP CD, I think he sends conflicting signals in regard to the throwing action. On one hand, he is careful to note not to let the elbow of the top hand/arm lead in an excessive manner - causing bat drag. But then he demo's sidearm throwing drills using the top hand that clearly shows what you do NOT want in the swing, leading to contact with the back elbow. I'd rather stick with his warning not to lead that elbow.
Mike
I noticed the same thing when I saw the video clip from his CD. I know I'm in the minority here when I say that I don't like to use throwing technique comparisons when teaching hitting. IMO the differences between the two are enough to potentially give the hitter the wrong movement.
I saw a while back on Epstein's message boards where he described the flattening of the hands as being similar to "scooping sand".
Well,
I talk about the similarities between hitting and throwing to hitters. I look at the similarities in regard to how the body creates momentum and stretch, and also the timing and sequencing of upper and lower torso movements. IMO, arm action is also alike in the way the back arm and shoulder loads, and then releases that load. I like the throwing analogy but as you point out, you have to be careful in it's interpretation. But with a little study of what Candrea, for instance, is getting at, I think one can discern what the movement entails. I think in his shoes, I would have been more of a perfectionist in describing and demoing the top hand throwing motion so there were no conflicting signals. Overall, I think he did pretty well..with exceptions.
Mike
I talk about the similarities between hitting and throwing to hitters. I look at the similarities in regard to how the body creates momentum and stretch, and also the timing and sequencing of upper and lower torso movements. IMO, arm action is also alike in the way the back arm and shoulder loads, and then releases that load. I like the throwing analogy but as you point out, you have to be careful in it's interpretation. But with a little study of what Candrea, for instance, is getting at, I think one can discern what the movement entails. I think in his shoes, I would have been more of a perfectionist in describing and demoing the top hand throwing motion so there were no conflicting signals. Overall, I think he did pretty well..with exceptions.
Mike
