Rotational Hitting

[Pops]

Awaking The Sleeping Giant

Dear TryIN2GetItRight,

Thanks for taking the 2 hours to read this thread and awaking the sleeping giant with your post. We will all now be coming back here for endless hours on end just to check up on the latest input.

You are correct in saying that I am satisfied with the results that my daughter has gotten from going to the Epstein hitting camp. In fact I've just scheduled an Epstein clinic for her school team which I coach, that will take place in September. And am in the process of scheduling one for her travel team to take place later in the Fall.

I'll post the results of both teams efforts in the near future.

Best Regards,

Pops

 

[Mark H]

Points of order. Slaught and Epstein take great exception to any notion what they do is similar. Tom has reason for personal bias against Nyman and he apparently doesn't teach anyone in person on any regular basis. As always, compare everything anyone, including Epstein, Slaught, Nyman, Englishbey, Tom, me, the guy next door or anyone else, says about hitting to slow motion video of the best in the world.

Siggy's Hitting Clips - ImageEvent

 

[tom.guerry]

Mark -

I would recommend we just stick to purveying information as the engineers describe it.

What specific incompatibilities do you see between Epstein and Slaught ?

 

[Mark H]

Mark -

I would recommend we just stick to purveying information as the engineers describe it.

While the video test is important I think it's also relevant to understand the source.

 

[tom.guerry]

Mark -

At BBF you stated:

"I would submit that what Epstein teaches can in no way be reconciled with what either Englishbey, Slaught or Yeager teach for starters. Then there's Hudgens and Lau and so on. Are the differences exxagerated due to language and point of view? Probably, but there are definite differences IMO."


This differs significantly from my position, well supported by the golf info, that Epstein and Slaught and Yeager and Hudgens and both Laus are all teaching the same 2 plane/MLB pattern and as such can be reconciled and fit together compatibly.

On the other hand, Nyman and Englishbey are both describing the hugely different single plane/"PCR/W" pattern. Their differences with each other can be reconciled betwen them, but not with the MLB pattern approaches above.

Two very separate/incompatible patterns,MLB vs PCRW, which for the most part should not be mixed.

So again, let's discuss any specific incompatibilities you perceive within either group if you are interested.

 

[Mark H]

Mark -

At BBF you stated:

"I would submit that what Epstein teaches can in no way be reconciled with what either Englishbey, Slaught or Yeager teach for starters. Then there's Hudgens and Lau and so on. Are the differences exxagerated due to language and point of view? Probably, but there are definite differences IMO."


This differs significantly from my position,... .

Well now that's funny anywhere. Go ahead and answer me on BBF.

 

[skeptic]

Just found this site. Seems lke a good one, and an interesting thread.

No, you probably didn't see me unless you were in Athens for the 2004 Olympics. Just wondering about if you played bc it much different between watching video and actually doing it... no offense.

Posey:

If memory serves, there are only two players from the 2004 team that did not play in either 2000 or 2008 (or both). Are you Clark, or Giordano?

And I ask not out of some absurd desire to out you (not that there is anything to criticize with a world class player, anyway), but because I'd like to comment on your swing (I have clips of either player).

The comments will NOT be criticism of mechanics - NO ONE's swing is perfect, and yours was obviously plenty good. However, it is fair to say that the clips of either player reveal that she doesn't actually DO what you say YOU are doing.

Meaning that you are presenting cues, which as Mark has pointed out could mean a lot of things, and God bless the instructor who finds one which works on any given day with any given kid.

However, there are two things to remember with cues:

1) You are for the most part arguing (on this thread) with guys who are discussing REALITY of movement in the swing, and you are instead presenting cues which cause the reality. For YOU. Two separate discussions, and that is why you are somewhat disconnecting (pun intended).

2) Cues are feel-based. And what a world-class player feels is dramatically different than what the typical kid feels. Perhaps hard to understand - it is as natural to you as how to think. And I understand it is hard to grasp that others don't think as you do - to carry on the example. It is so innate to each of us that we assume others approach it the same way. Not true with thinking, though, and not with athletic movement, either. Kids who are typical athletes need to first learn to move like elite (the .999) athletes. This is hard, but can be accomplished, or at least approximated, before there is any chance of them feeling the same thing. Or any meaningful chance of the same cues working.



As for Candrea - all the Principals in this converstion know him, and like him. They have seen his hitting beliefs change DRAMATICAllY over the years. And 5 years ago, the people who were defending his instruction - as you are now - were EVERY BIT as didactic as are you. And of course, they were wrong, because he absolutly changed his beliefs, and there is some indication he is continuing to do so. Which isn't all bad - a sign of growth. But if you draw a line in the sand as an absolute of his instruction, you're probably going to have to recant at some point.


Finally, some of the Principals you are slamming in this dialog have shown remarkable restraint. While none of them have played on a National team, one poster on whom you've been particularly hard has put 60+ kids into college on scholarships, and has seen at least one of his kids graduate ONTO the National team (someone you no doubt know). Another poster you have been pretty rough on was himself a world-class athete (though not in baseball) and has worked with hitters from several colleges, including at least one team which was in OKC for the WCWS this past year. A lot of the board is made up of dads trying to learn. But there is some real experience and expertise here too, and I think you should respect it a little. Even if you disagree.


And you REALLY need to understand that the average person here - who may have worked with some elite athletes - typically does not, and instead works with athletes who are more modestly gifted. And God bless THEM (instructors AND girls), too, they are the backbone of the game. But I feel that you need to respect that the frame of reference for these instructors is the reality of swing movement, not cues. And that the cues they DO use are NOT geared to world-class athletes. In fact, they tend to be very individual to the hitter and her particular pathology. Certainly, the cues world class athletes use often don't work with typical athletes (the 99.9%). But other cues do - just not universally.


When YOU - or Mendoza, or any world class hitter says "this is what I think about," that has a certain value. And people do listen. But you really need to consider that they are listening even while watching. "OK, that's wha she tells herself to get her body to do that" is a point of interest. But what yur body is actually doing is compelling. It is fine for you to say - for example - that rotating the hips is completely natural, and doesn;t need to be emphasized. I'm glad that's true - for YOU. Lots of other girls out there whose hips don't open at ALL, and their swing sucks, and it DOES need to be a point of emphasis.

Thanks for listening - best of luck in your continuing career.

 

[tom.guerry]

skeptic -

That was a very nice and well thought out post.

Another thing that can be worthwhile to stress is learning a number of skills and how they relate.

For example, it is highly desirable to learn overhand throw and swinging together. They have lots of similarities as well as differences which create a perpsective from which to learn by comparing and contrasting.

Similarly, learning and understanding the golf swing can be VERY helpful.

The recent emphasis by Hardy in golf on how the body organizes a high level swing into 1 or 2 plane patterns is extremely useful information for teaching and learning and can be applied to hitting and throwing as well.

The swing Mark likes is a "single plane" swing where the shoulders turn actively to swing the arms/club bat in the shoulder plane.

The MLB pattern I prefer is a 2 plane golf swing pattern where the shoulders tilt to assist the arms in swinging the club/bat in a different/resisting plane from the hips which blends to create a controlled stretch and fire of the torso on the fly to create a lengthy matching contact zone.

Within a given pattern, feel cues are very similar. Across/between patterns they are often VERY different/incompatible.

Improved consistency in a swing comes from learning a pattern in as pure a form as possible, eliminating incompatible pieces (redusing how out of position you are - the more out of position features you use, the harder it is to execute the swing well).

A key example of this from golf is this description of the classic 2 plane golf swing which is very similar to the MLB type hitting pattern:

Golf Swing Magic: An Abridged Version of Joe Dante's Four Magic Moves to Winning Golf

see in particular with regard to shoulder/scap action:

The Golf Downswing: The most critical move in the golf swing...

Note: shoulder TURN is a killer flaw in this pattern. There instead needs to be a lateral tilt or "rocking" of the shoulders to "resist" better and avoid throwing the club out over the top and rushing/interrupting the stretch and fire load of the torso between the upper and lower body.

See especially:

Golf Downswing: Third Magic Move


"The whole downward action is initiated by the lateral movement of the hips to the left.

"Since at the top we are in a tightly coiled position, this hip action causes the shoulders to rock to the right and turn.

"The rocking action, with the left shoulder coming up and the right going down, is what moves the arms and the club.

"If the right shoulder comes down (rocks slightly) as it begins to turn, it brings the upper right arm against the right side and the swing starts down on an inside line.

"It is when the shoulders turn, throwing the right shoulder high and out toward the ball, that the golf swing goes outside. Keeping the head back helps the slight rocking action which brings the right shoulder down."

----------

This is why cues like "swing down" and "keep the shoulder in there" and "don't fly open" and "shift the weight", etc DO apply to the MLB pattern, and they are VERY different feel cues from a swing that uses shoulder TURN to turn the arms bat.

Mixing patterns/mixing incompatible cues greatly interferes with learning.

 

[skeptic]

Tom Guery:

As a long time lurker but infrequent contributor to hitting web boards, I have read your material many times in the past. And believe I understand your points of emphasis.

For example, it is highly desirable to learn overhand throw and swinging together. They have lots of similarities as well as differences which create a perpsective from which to learn by comparing and contrasting.

The throw thing is interesting. May be some validity there. However, cues like "skipping rocks" seem to me to basically suck, because it is TOO good. TOO easy to emulate. And kids take it literally. Why wouldn't they? Candrea says "skip a rock, I'll skip a rock." When I skip a rock, my hand trails my elbow, but it also loops below the elbow. When an elite hitter's hands trail the rear elbow, it seems to me that the rear forearm remains pretty vertical. The hands are still near the back shoulder, and pretty level with it. Doesn't look like any rock skipping I have seen. In fact, I would judge it impossible to skip a rock starting with the hands in this position. It is way different, and it's a very important difference.

Kind of like squish the bug. When some high level guy uses the term, I GUESS I undersand he really means to let the rear foot roll up onto the toes as a result of the rotating hips. Unfortunately, that is NOT what squish the bug connotes to a kid. THEY will SQUISH A BUG. An action which can be completed without even turning the hips - merely turning the foot and lower leg (up to the knee). Horrendous action for hitting. And if you doubt it, stand opposite a kid and hold her shoulders, then tell her to rotate her hips. Most young hitters WILL squish the bug, and turn the rear foreleg and the rear knee. And won't rotate the hips an inch. Not useful for hitting.

YOU may get what people really mean when they use these cues. And you may think others SHOULD get it. But they don't, typically, and so these are horrible cues.


If Candrea actually SAYS don't let the hips open - per Posey's assertion - that is another horrible cue for 99.9% of the people who would hear it. Might work at a very elite level with certain hitters who have a propensity to open too early or too hard. Will be a disaster for everyone else.

Cues and reality. It is what most of the arguments on these boards are about. And arguing about cues - or presenting them as universally meaningful - is lunacy.

The recent emphasis by Hardy in golf on how the body organizes a high level swing into 1 or 2 plane patterns is extremely useful information for teaching and learning and can be applied to hitting and throwing as well.

I do know who Hardy is, and have read excerpts from his book. I don't know one plane from two planes, or care much, frankly. As near as I can figure it, the two-plane swing makes rather more use of the arms than the one plane? Using the arms extensively will be a disaster for the typical female hitters. Who use 25-27oz bats in college (compared to their male peers who use what? 32s?). And yet they have maybe 1/3 of the arm strength. From my perspective, most females need to de-emphasize the use of the arms to have ANY chance of remaining connected. And if you say that won't work in MLB, OK, maybe you know something about that which I don't. But the ball is in the hitting area for rather a longer time in softball (because of lower pitch speed), and I think it works just fine to hit on a single plane. Most successful female hitters do, at least as I understand your definition. Their challenge in terms of reaction time is very like baseball. But the ball is moving through the zone at 70% of the speed of a baseball, and the single plane swing works fine.

Within a given pattern, feel cues are very similar.

I just don't believe this. I think it relates very much to athletic ability and natural movement patterns. Natural athletes seem to me to move their bodies very differently than I do (I am NOT a "natural" athlete). It absolutely strains credulity for me to assume I am feeling what they are. No matter WHAT the attempted movement.

Mixing patterns/mixing incompatible cues greatly interferes with learning.

My point exactly. Where we differ is that you seem to think that a typical 12 YO hitter is going to benefit from (for example) whatever Posey said about Mendoza's "feel." Something about trying to keep her hips from rotating? Probably means she is trying to retard rotation until later in the swing, since her hips obviously rotate 90 degrees+ like any other great hitter's. But trying to retard hip rotation would be DEATH for the 12 yo FEMALE HITTER. Horrible CUE FOR HER. (And of course, it is a CUE - NOT reality - see y previous comments).

Tom, I seriously hope you get this point. If you honestly think the 12 year old is "feeling" what Mendoza is feeling, then I fear your critics are right. You really HAVEN'T worked with young hitters.



The other exception I would take with your oft-stated assertions is your seeming insistence that hitting guys are all talking about the same thing, just saying it differently. Yes, yes, I know, you mean everyone is talking about the same thing EXCEPT Setpro and englishby. The trouble is, even the other HITTING GUYS don't believe this. THEY think they are saying something radically different. That is why Slaught and Epstein don't agree at all in public settings (someone referenced the NFCA meeting in Phoenix where they made competing presentations). Mankin and Epstein seem to have an uneasy peace, but Mankin even says on his tape he disagrees with at least one Epstein teaching (as I recall, something about "using up the hips," though he doesn't call Epstein my name). These guys AREN'T saying the same thing, or even if they are, it is indecipherable to the average kid and her parents. Not one in 1,000 of these folks are capable of blending the methodologies and creating synergy. Most would be far better off to pick one and follow it religiously.


Not criticism, Tom, merely disagreement. You seem willing to get involved and help people, which is to your credit. I just think you - and they - would be much better served if you put things in terms the typical person could understand. And simplified it dramatically. Not "see the ball, hit the ball" - that is absurd. But if your desire is actually to get results, you'll have to change your approach. If your desire is to show how much more you know than other people, well, you win. At least when competing with me. But I sure think it would be cool if you turned some of that wattage into actual attempts to get some 12 year old to improve.

My 2 cents.

 

[tom.guerry]

skeptic-

thanks for the reply. A couple of things before more specifically addressing the points in your post:

1- Understanding how to interpret cues is very variable and requires one on one discussions and a relationship for a particular case/student-coach relationship.

In general, the most helpful apporach to organizing cues and their interpretation is by applying the Hardy 1 v 2 plane filter.

You can not teach without feel cues.

Feel cues are impossible to fully explain objectively, but the application/fit of cues is greatly enhanced by taking the 1 v 2 plane patterns into account

2- anyone can go to the golf range and take some hacks. in general, the discussions here require taking actual hacks to assess the validity of the "info"

even if (or perhaps even better if) you have never played golf, you can get to the range and experience the feel of trying a single plane middle out shoulder turm dominant swing and how it feels entirely different from a 2 plane hips and arms swing.

and you can take swings in bb/fp and experience the same HUGE difference between connected swings of the PCR vs MLB type.

These are each very different from the disconnected arm swings which are STILL the most prevalent swing seen in fastpitch.

"science wise", the connected swings are the same in the sense of harnessing the "kinetic link principle" which requires sequential body part acceleration such that max velocity (and max momentum) of hips occurs before max torso rotational speed (torso, does NOT =Shoulders or scaps) which precedes max arm velocity which precedes max club/bathead velocity.

in disconnected swings. the sequence gets out of order typically associated with what is called "rushing" and "casting".

In the disconnected arm swings there is acceleration/deceleration/reacceleration of bathead and sequence is changed so that torso momentum maxes out AFTER arm max. this gives the typical arm swing/low swing/end up swinging down look that the great majority of FP instruction still encourages with compensation for the low finish swing down by wrist roll that gets the bathead back up some.

this then creates a tiny/nonadjustable contact zone that makes consistent contact VERY unlikely, even with redhot bats with a big sweetspot.

The connected swings (1 and 2 plane), while looking basically the same scientifically by motionanalysis have two extremely different alternatives/sequences of body position which are best understood in golf where again, you can feel two very different ways of executing a good kinetic link.

The most accessible motionanalysis info here is the work of Phil Cheetham who now has an agreement with acushnet/titleist to put his work up, see the titleist performanceinstitute web site.

See for example:

http://www.advancedmotionmeasurement.com/Articles/KinematicSequence-
TransitionandDownswing.pdf

I would recommend you go to the range and takes hacks in each pattern and see if you can feel the difference