Rotational Hitting

[skeptic]

skep said:

The responsibility of the instructional MATERIAL (if it is geared at the mass market) is to take this into account. Most kids who buy Epstein, RVP, Englishby aren't using it in conjunction w/ an instructor. They are using it w/ their mom or dad. And AGAIN, when they hear a cue like "skip a rock," they AREN'T going to interpret it. They will SKIP A ROCK.


=========================

Mom and dad should find the kid an instructor or find someone who knows how to find and instructor.

Aren't you in California? Who would you recommend for FP in your own area? Are there a lot of them? Are you an instructor? If not, why not?


And BTW, if that is really necessary (to find an outside instructor) to best use the material, the material should SAY that. If not, it is irresponsible, and the same objection as previously articulated still applies. I guess you can respond that it is the responsibility of mom and dad to know the same objection applies, and so they need to find an instructor or someone who knws how to find one. THAT little rhetorical trick can go on forever.

Anyway, does the material typically say this? Dos Epstein? Does RVP?

 

[skeptic]

In my opinion these are 3 developmental patterns going from arm only to arm and upper body to total body whip.

the total body/whip/high level pattern he was trying to desribe is the MLB pattern which is similar to the overhand throw/buggywhip/high level throwing pattern.

hip/leg action is hard to describe. I like hardy's way of doing it in golf which is to say that hips do not "turn" then going on to describe in more detail what the front hip and leg and back hip and leg do at one and the same time (one and the same time is a Hogan description).

Then you appear to DISAGREE with Dixon, and should probably quit citing him as supportive of your beliefs.

HE covers weight shift first, and says there are two types, with the elite type being torso based, WITHOUT use of legs and feet. I suppose this is why Nyman would so strongly agree with him.

Dixon doesn't find the leg action "hard to describe." HE finds it to be non-existent in the elite pattern.

Do you?

If not, you and he are NOT compatioble, and you need to quit using him to bolster arguments he would never support in person.

Further, I don;t recall him saying anything about developmental patterns or moving from one type (SPIN, PULL, WHIP) to another. He merely defines the type.

And then says the whip has two elements:

Torso based weight shift - a belief of Nyman and Englishby, right? And hips preceeding hands in the swing. The only people I know who really disagree with this are the guys at Hitting Illustrated, who say the hands go first, and torque the bat.

Are you a member there? Do you agree with this?

Again, if you do, lose the Dixon references. NOT where he was coming from, unless one TOTALLY puts words in his mouth.

A little intellectual honesty would be appreciated.

 

[skeptic]

it is important to understand what is similar and what is different about the throwing vs swinging arm action/motion.

greatest hitter of all time was the babe who is a sgood an example as you will ever see of crossing over the similarity. Cobb said the way Babe developed his stroke was by being left alone by the coaches to find his own stroke where he tried to always hit the ball as far as possible, the babe was what Cobb called "a home run specialist". he was left alone because while he was developing his stroke he was primarily a great left pitcher.

the typical trouble with pitchers trying to hit is that they are used to letting the weight go back to front so they tend to lunge. weight shift is diferent in swinging.

pattern is natural but easily degraded by adding incompatible elements, see Hardy article:

So hitting and throwing are the same except when they are different.

Any if you can throw, you can hit, if you are left alone to work on hitting when you are pitching.

And if you can throw, you can hit, except when you can't.

You have a convenient way of arranging theory as fact and as conceded fact to make whatever point you want to make. Hard to argue with that, so I won't. I'll just say you have presented a lot of theory, and little fact. And that when the theory doesn't jive with other theory you present, and that is pointed out by someone, you merely add another theory to bridge the gap.

Theoretically, that will win every argument.

In actuality, it will never teach a kid to hit.

 

[skeptic]

The marshall pattern is/has never been seen in nature.

it MAY resist injury, BUT it has never been effective in MLB (marshall did not throw the way he has designed).

there is a necessary injury risk/reward tradeoff for MLB pitching, that is a long story.

Agreed.

likewise, the one plane PCR pattern has never before been seen in nature.

In golf, the one and two plane patterns have both evolved, BUT the one plane has only appeared in recent times with the "modern" equipment and courses, possibly most related to the metal shaft.

Snead and Hogan were 2 of the first golf 1 planers.

Crap. By your OWN definition (which is simply reflective of your bias), there are one plane swings in MLB. Not so many perhaps - by your definition - but SOME. So it IS seen in nature. That's by YOUR defenition.

Hardy's too, I think. Aren't you quoting HIM selectively TOO? Doesn't he say that the 1-plane golf swing more resembles the baseball swing than does the 2-plane golf swing?

1 plane can be OK for fastpitch/hot bats, especially if good overhand throw mechanics are lacking.

Excellent. So you and I agree? For the people on THIS (pastpitch) forum, the one-plane swing is fine? (Unless of course they are using wood bats).

 

[skeptic]

What I find compelling is that the same pattern works regardless of which arm is dominant. Switch hitters like Mantle or turned around righties like Williams or True lefties like Bonds.

You find it compelling, I find it completely dismissive of your theory.

If the throwing arm can be in the non-throwing position on the bat, and the same pattern emerges, then development of that pattern is NOT based on throwing. Unless the hitter can throw ambidextrously. About as rare as a Mac O'Grady (scratch golfer, either hand), I'd say.

You need a new theory, and if Slaught / Candrea means this the same way you apparently do, so do they. (But I'll bet that they don't. Saying "if you can throw, you can hit" is a LOT different than saying the same overlapping pattern applies totally to both, and that it's best learned together.) Even if the mechanics have SOME overlap, one is a proactive action, one is reactive. That alone would cause me to doubt the similarity.

Further, the first statement is a rhetorical decice. The second is an attempt to build foundation without empirical knowledge (although I awit eagerly your answer to my previous question about your direct experience as an instructor).

Unless YOU mean it rhetorically. In which case, no problem.

 

[skeptic]

I think Hume was the blank slate guy.

LOL. Clever.

And in the sense of rejecting that the Ceator had any influence in shaping man's mind or reasoning process, you're right. That is what Hume believed.


The irony of corse is that mankind continues to use the mind that Hume thought was a blank slate, and nontheless turn to Deity for guidance. Imagine that. No divine "shaping" of the mind, and yet something like 90% of Americans use their minds and still come to a belief in the Divine.

Coincidence, no doubt.

Hume is interesting. In my mind, he is an absurd intellectual elitist (horrible trap to fall into, because there is always someone smarter), and it insults God AND his fellow man. But he IS interesting. Just not likable.


Anyway, I see you as more of a Schopenhauer guy, Tom. On an endless quest / desire for a universal hitting theory. I suspect that like Schopenhauer, you'll eventually discover that your desire can never be fulfilled. Even if you do twist things around to give the appearance of universalism.

 

[skeptic]

I feel you've misquoted Dixon.

I feel you've misquoted Hardy.

I feel you've ascribed a kiship between Lau / Wlliams and Slaught / Epstein that the would NEVER ascribe to each other. Which to me, is the heightn of arrogance (as if you know what they mean better than they themselves do).
y
I feel you've probably mischaracterized Nyman and Englishby.


I feel you've built a nuclear-glue type theory which holds all this together - until someone plays Jenga with it, in which case the removal of about two sticks makes it fall to the ground.


And I honestly don't understand why.

Why not use your awesome powers for GOOD, Tom?

I think it would be cool if you took even a couple of young kids, and spent the time teaching them to hit that you spend typing up all this stuff. I sincerely think you'd find it more rewarding, too. I really think you probably want to help people. So do it. Suspend your ego - or put it on the ine - and head out to the ballyard and see what you can do.

My 2 cents.

 

[tom.guerry]

Good stuff again skep.
I do like Schopenh.
I like Jung a lot too who may have been a bastard descendent of Goethe.

Anyway, lots of stuff in those replies.

I DO think the PCR 1 plane is a fine way to go in fastpitch, probably better than the disconnected arm swing/wrist roll if the overhand throw is not in pattern.

BUT if you get them young enough/able enough to teach a good overhand throw OR they figured it out, you should strive for MLB/2 plane for power hitting in my opinion (this has been my stated opinion for many years now).

Are you interested in diving into Dixon's exceptional player stuff ?

we can do this if you like.

Again, Dixon took the universal's appraochch after low and found the throw vs swing patterns even MORE similar than I believe they are.

His recognition of patterns was breakthrough stuff, BUT they wer developmental patterns, not alternative high level patterns.
The developmental nature was what made the two motions seem so overly the same to him.

Then when describing the universals of the high level whip, in NOT understanding the need to avoid the incompatibilities between the 1 and 2 plane appleas and oranges, he got a number of universals wrong to the point of making his info more likely to mess you up than help.

One of the worst assumptions he makes is that turning the front leg open (external rotation) forces the front shoulder to fly open. This is NOT true and this info will PREVENT the MLB pattern if followed which is a MAJOR reason his stuff does not work (and his reaction was to go look for the god-given help rather than fix the description of universals).

This is the same way PCR type instruction RUINS any progress toward the MLB pattern if followed, things like avoiding back arm external rotation thinking that this causes drag or keeping the front foot closed or taking swings with a pole to keep your shoulders turning (not tilting) the the Nyman blueprint requires.

Lau and Williams and Epstein abnd Slaught among others get enough stuff right wthout forcing pattern killing incompatibilities.

With regard to hardy, I think a more fundamental/accurate interpretation of his work is not "1 plane golf is like baseball swing", but rather there are 2 ways of taking a high level swing, 1 0r 2 plane in BOTH baseball and golf.

 

[tom.guerry]

For a north bay hitting coach, you might consider the hitting coach at sonoma state, brett kim. they have camps and clinics and he is very good.

fast-pitch wise I suspect heliotis is fine. he knows enough to keep out of trouble forcing incompatible features.

nationally in fastpitch, I think lotief is the best. he will be presenting at NFCA soon and has camps.

 

[tom.guerry]

take a look at the pictures at the top of the forum page. there are 3 pictures. the middle one has the typical arm swing palms back front wrist roll at contact.

This was taught for YEARS in the bat area by many coaches with Ninemire (Cal) leading the charge.

Rittman cane from a baseball background and the Huskies faspitch had mostly baseball type hitting coaches when he came to Stanford. he has been teaching mor MLB type swing as with mendoza and of course Candrea and Enquist have moved that way under Slaught's influence.