No "load" for pitching? Anyone heard of this?

Welcome to Discuss Fastpitch

Your FREE Account is waiting to the Best Softball Community on the Web.

Sep 15, 2015
98
33
Yup. For instance if you look at Amanda Scarborough in the Power Drive video she bends way over but when her back foot comes off the ground she is not in the 'sprinters stance'. I always find it interesting that the sprinters stance is used as a model in women's fastpitch but not in men's. The men come into launch position from the top down, the women do it from the bottom up. So I see girls who get into the sprinters position and launch out too much with the upper body and never get their hips back underneath them.

The top down compared to bottom up observation is really interesting. I totally agree. I am not sure, however, that what we are calling the sprinter’s stance is that different than where Scarborough is when her back foot leaves the ground. See below. She doesn’t have the benefit of the back foot off the rubber, and some girls have more hinge on their “sprinter start.” But I think she is in a similar position otherwise to what people are trying to achieve with the sprinter start. It’s just the first part of her motion, with the deep waist bend, is eliminated.

I would add too that trying to study this from photos and videos (i.e. positional analysis) is probably of limited value. The folks that I’ve heard advocating this type of start will tell you loads more about foot pressure, joint angles, sequencing, and a lot of other points that can’t be gleaned by watching a video. They would say that it’s not the positions but how they are achieved that’s important. IMG_1600.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Sep 30, 2013
155
28
Northwest, IN
And she's not the only one teaching it. It has been around a while now and the Foot Doctor has some biomechanical studies backing him up that indicate this way is far superior to the other way. He wasn't around here back in 2009-2012 posting about it so it won't get much traction on DFP. Most of the people adhering to this new style don't post on message boards anymore, they use FB and other communities to converse so that is where you will here about it more.
Far superior? Hmm. I don't see the fastest (speed) woman in the world in this stance. It works for some, does not work for all. Lots of kids in this stance, stand straight up, instead of going out. Again, watch NCAA softball. How many start in that stance, some, yes? Most no. Also pretty sure Paisley has moved away from the Foot mans teachings recently.
 
Jul 19, 2021
630
93
Far superior? Hmm. I don't see the fastest (speed) woman in the world in this stance.
You can't get into the same stance that an Olympic sprinter gets into to start a pitch my man!! lol...... so yeah, it definitely isn't the same. Those two athletes need to be in completely different positions within 1/2 second of their initial explosion so of course they can't start in the same position. Sprinters don't get fully upright until quite a ways away from the starting line. Pitchers need to be upright almost immediately.


But seriously, I don't really know nor care enough to research it much honestly. Just relaying what he has said and he has studied it more than you or I have, I can guarantee that. You should check it out, it's worth a read. My DD doesn't use the method so I have no skin in the game. Don't care one way or the other how Pitcher x, y or z starts her pitches, just trying to relay information to folks here.
 
Last edited:
May 15, 2008
1,913
113
Cape Cod Mass.
The top down compared to bottom up observation is really interesting. I totally agree. I am not sure, however, that what we are calling the sprinter’s stance is that different than where Scarborough is when her back foot leaves the ground. See below. She doesn’t have the benefit of the back foot off the rubber, and some girls have more hinge on their “sprinter start.” But I think she is in a similar position otherwise to what people are trying to achieve with the sprinter start. It’s just the first part of her motion, with the deep waist bend, is eliminated.

I would add too that trying to study this from photos and videos (i.e. positional analysis) is probably of limited value. The folks that I’ve heard advocating this type of start will tell you loads more about foot pressure, joint angles, sequencing, and a lot of other points that can’t be gleaned by watching a video. They would say that it’s not the positions but how they are achieved that’s important. View attachment 25432


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Here is what a sprinter start looks like in slo-mo. Not even close to Amanda S.

 
Sep 15, 2015
98
33
Here is what a sprinter start looks like in slo-mo. Not even close to Amanda S.



I think we are using the same words to mean two different things. When I wrote "sprinter's start" (in quotes) and used the phrases “what we are calling the sprinter’s stance” and "what people are trying to achieve with the sprinter start," I was referring to a takeoff that looks something like the videos, with maybe a little more hinge. I didn’t realize that when you referred to a “sprinter’s start” (in quotes), you meant the start that an actual sprinter would use. Obviously those look a lot different since an actual sprinter starts with hands on the ground and takes more than one step.

The point I was trying to make is that the people advocating what maybe should instead be called “a simplified start,” as in the videos, are promoting a starting point that looks a lot like the picture of Scarborough that I posted. The pelvis is coiled around the throwing side hip, the athlete is hinged, and the center of mass is forward with nose over front knee and front knee over toe. Folks who analogize (not equate) the takeoff to a sprinter’s start are looking for something similar; they are not looking for an actual sprinter’s start.

I take your point that the two motions are different with different objectives so why compare them, but at the same time, energy transfer is energy transfer, so it also isn’t immediately obvious to me why the comparison is wrong or it is a mistake to try to borrow principles from one starting position that may apply to the other. As I said at the beginning, my kid didn’t like this approach, but there are plenty of very good pitchers who seem to have success this way too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
May 15, 2008
1,913
113
Cape Cod Mass.
so it also isn’t immediately obvious to me why the comparison is wrong or it is a mistake to try to borrow principles from one starting position that may apply to the other.
Because the intended goal or task is different and it is the goal or task which shapes the physical action. A sprinter stays square (faces forward) and keeps going gaining velocity. A pitcher has to turn in midair and get her hips to fully open, her push off is designed to facilitate this. A pitcher lands with her front foot at a 45 degree angle. Many pitchers turn the push off foot out, a sprinter would never do that. Look at Ueno's push off foot and her launch in general.

 
Sep 15, 2015
98
33
Because the intended goal or task is different and it is the goal or task which shapes the physical action. A sprinter stays square (faces forward) and keeps going gaining velocity. A pitcher has to turn in midair and get her hips to fully open, her push off is designed to facilitate this. A pitcher lands with her front foot at a 45 degree angle. Many pitchers turn the push off foot out, a sprinter would never do that. Look at Ueno's push off foot and her launch in general.


I still wonder if you are not looking at this too far down the sequence, rather than focusing on the initial impulse. Why isn't the kinetic sequence from dead stop to the point where the push leg is maximally activated the same or very similar? The point of this thread is why are people pitching from this "simplified" or "no load" starting position. I think the answer is that some athletes may not need much of a load (i.e. a negative move) to generate a powerful initial push, similar (but also different in important ways) to how sprinters move from a dead stop. If people were comparing pitching to riding a bicycle, I could see why you would say that there is no comparison. To me, these movement patterns--at least from load to the point where Scarborough is in the picture I posted--are more alike than that.
 
May 15, 2008
1,913
113
Cape Cod Mass.
I still wonder if you are not looking at this too far down the sequence, rather than focusing on the initial impulse. Why isn't the kinetic sequence from dead stop to the point where the push leg is maximally activated the same or very similar? The point of this thread is why are people pitching from this "simplified" or "no load" starting position. I think the answer is that some athletes may not need much of a load (i.e. a negative move) to generate a powerful initial push, similar (but also different in important ways) to how sprinters move from a dead stop. If people were comparing pitching to riding a bicycle, I could see why you would say that there is no comparison. To me, these movement patterns--at least from load to the point where Scarborough is in the picture I posted--are more alike than that.
All of this is irrelevant, the downstream actions of sprinting and pitching are different, the start or push off may use similar mechanics but how are you going to separate that out? The goal or task shapes the movement, so what do you tell the pitcher, use a sprinter start until you get to the position Amanda Scarborough is in in this picture? Or use a sprinter start for the first 20% of your pitch? This is my comment on the sprinters stance, using it as a template for a pitcher can have negative consequences.

I dislike the use of the sprinters stance as a model for the pitching motion. I have seen too many pitchers who have been taught sprinters stance as a take off and never get back to being stacked.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
42,830
Messages
679,481
Members
21,445
Latest member
Bmac81802
Top