Some of the video illustrates that the rear foot is unweighted well before contact which I would think debunks the "swing causes the shift" and one legged theory for most hitters. The mass shifts and begins to rotate before foot plant.
I must be odd, because I can turn my "torso" (upper torso) w/o turning my hips...yet I'm unable to turn my hips w/o my "torso" (lower) turning also.
Which then leaves me scratching my head as to how my torso (and resulting "top down swing") is supposedly what turns my hips in the proper swing according to the above quotes.
Little help please?
I must be odd, because I can turn my "torso" (upper torso) w/o turning my hips...yet I'm unable to turn my hips w/o my "torso" (lower) turning also.
Which then leaves me scratching my head as to how my torso (and resulting "top down swing") is supposedly what turns my hips in the proper swing according to the above quotes.
Little help please?
Sorry Five, not trying to be dense (it just comes naturally ), but I'm not understanding what you're trying to get across here. I was simply replying to this comment, "So the torso turns the hips. Not the hips turn the torso", and I honestly don't know or can feel how that is supposed to actually happen anatomically, or kinetically hitting wise.Perhaps consider that active torso rotation is not purely horizontal, but is largely vertical in nature with the horizontal movement being more a result. It isn't simply the hips, but the torso.
Yes, almost exactly what I'm saying just above this...I just took the long way around to get there. So "thank you", you stated pretty much the same, just much more succinctly, and in a far easier understood/user friendly example of what I was trying to say.I was taught by a basketball coach when defending the ball to watch the guys hips. He can fake you out with his upper body but if the hips turn then he's likely to drive that way. Different sport I know but it goes along with what you're saying.
Yes, almost exactly what I'm saying just above this...I just took the long way around to get there. So "thank you", you stated pretty much the same, just much more succinctly, and in a far easier understood/user friendly example of what I was trying to say.
Sorry Five, not trying to be dense (it just comes naturally ), but I'm not understanding what you're trying to get across here. I was simply replying to this comment, "So the torso turns the hips. Not the hips turn the torso", and I honestly don't know or can feel how that is supposed to actually happen anatomically, or kinetically hitting wise.
Yes, if I was hanging by my hands suspended from a bar with my feet off the ground (open chained), then yes, I can use my torso to move my hips (I can also use my hips/legs to turn my torso, but I digress)....but when standing on the ground (closed chained) then I can turn my torso all I want, and I'm not going to turn my hips (pelvic girdle) unless I activate my hip sockets (femoral heads in their respective acetabulums), and move it (or maybe better stated "allow it to be moved").
Just my take on what Dixon is quoted as saying, and why it still leaves me scratching my head from an anatomical standpoint. But maybe he was trying to use it as some teaching cue or in another format, which I guess then should be used in the overall context in which it was presented, and not just a stand-alone sentence to be used on its own for some other purpose or meaning unless followed up with the additional explanation(s) to allow it to make any sense. JMO....OMMV.