Understanding the real "enemy"

[tom.guerry]

hitter-

I think it is best for you to study pertinent examples rather than depend on me to fully answer your queries.

To understand what a pattern is or how it is effectively derived in a sports skill, I would recommend reading BOBBY JONES ON GOLF who described the two plane pattern in golf which was the the preferred pattern in the hickory shaft days. After the availability of metal shafts, the 1 plane alternative became possible and Jim Hardy explains how to understand one pattern in terms of another, see his PLANE TRUTH FOR GOLFERS.

For "blueprint" please refer to Homer Kelley, any of his 7 editions of THE GOLF MACHINE. This is also the finest existing example of a backward chaining approach to teaching a skill, the progression from basic to acquired to total motion.


Hardy's info explains Oleary's observation that people often teach the opposite of one another which is a very confusing situation for the learner. Understanding Hardy's work can get you out of this situation by a rational rather than religious find your one true guru approach.

What is "best" for a given hitter is according to Hardy to learn as pure a swing pattern as possible which lowers error and increases consistency by limiitng the degree/risk of being "out of position" at any point during the swing.

As far as examples, I would ask you to pick what you think might be proficient MLB power hitters that are different and we can discuss. If you have studied Slaught, he makes the same point about how similar most are (like his Mantle vs Ichiro comparison). It does not do any good for me to pick an example because my position is that they nearly all adhere to the pattern.

My teaching approach is to start by teaching overhand throw by forward chaining mostly after Hodge (BIOMECHANICBASEBALL) and backward chaining mostly after Nyman (ebook and same info in Wolforth pitchingcentral.

Then this same action where appropriate (if you can throw you can swing) is applied to Epstein's method of teaching the Williams swing with some additional drills available at H-I.com and prior to this at batspeed.com.

I have described throwing drills in great detail over the years. Undertsanding the swing drills requires studying Williams/Epstein first.

For "mother" nature, feel free to substitute god or chance or science or however you personally need to explain the central mystery of life.

How do you recommend getting past the "oleary problem" of students being taught opposing actions ?

As far as I know, Hardy is the only one who has ever satisfactorily answered this problem.

 

[JC heir]

Thanks for that paragraph Howard. Has anyone put up a progression list of what elements to work with in what order to provide a progression towards a superior swing? I'd love to see something like that if anyone has a good source.

Thanks everyone for sharing your information. The more I learn the more I find out I don't know.

I am a coach in the process of learning just like you.but I will take a stab at that

For teaching pretty rough. uneducated girls, the place to start is at the bottom-

1 stance needs to be correct
2 get the grip right
3 make sure the kids know what a negative move is, & how it enhances the positive move.
4 the girl needs to know that the object is to get the barrell on the plane of the ball quickly, with palms up & down @ contact.
5 it is essential to get good weight transfer, with rear hip drive for power
6 finish with good extention after contact.

we all know theres a terrible lot more to the superior swing than that, but I feel those 6 points will give a beginner a good start at developing a swing, & are in the order I would start working. Theres plenty of threads on here addressing different camps thoughts on each point. Lane

 

[Bishop]

Thanks Lane. Looks like you and I are about the same place in our education. On those 6 points I have a strong enough grasp of them to give basic instruction to build a foundation. In most of them I have at least an idea of why but know my knowledge is incomplete as to all the reasons. I've got enough confidence that I want to start digging into the finer points so that I can do more to help the kids. Search function here I come.

 

[Ken Krause]

Hitter, I have made no secret that I am in agreement with you regarding the differences between working with a 28 year old MLB player and a 10 to 12 year old girl. Huge difference in experience and knowledge level. Also, by the time the hitter is at the MLB level it has become obvious that the talent level and whatever else is required to be an elite player has already identified itself. For a 10 to 12 year old girl, she is just in the beginning of the process and it's unlikely anyone can tell how far she will go or what she can achieve. It's a huge difference, and I think the expectations have to be adjusted accordingly. In this case, I think the phrase close enough for rock and roll applies.

(This next part is not directed at Hitter specifically; it's my general thoughts.) That being said, I find value in studying MLB hitters. I find value in studying excellent college hitters. But I also find value in working to understand how the body works, what actions contribute to better hitting (as well as which can be detriments), and most of all thinking things through to see what makes sense.

Personally, I like to see different ideas. I may not agree with them at first, and I may not agree with them later either. But lots of ideas are worth considering. In the end, though, I have to synthesize them into something I can teach to that 10 or 12 year old.

I guess my approach is something like the old Thomas Edison quote: I haven't failed, I've just found 10,000 ways that don't work. I know what I teach, and the way I teach it, has evolved over the years. It's still evolving. It will likely always evolve since I don't foresee a definitive answer on exactly how to swing a bat coming anytime soon. We don't have the science to do it just yet. Reviewing video is too subjective, and it depends on which swing you have video of. You can look for commonalities, but it's still subjective. What I think is important may be trivial to you, and vice versa. If both our hitters are successful who is right? Or are either of us? And does it really matter?

Different people have had players become successful while teaching different and sometimes conflicting things. That certainly keeps things interesting. I'd say there's no exact answer yet. Just theories.

 

[Bishop]

Hey Ken, I have an idea on your topic, now that I'm done derailing it, sorry.

Is softball hitting something that people could agree that there is more than one 'correct' way of doing it? It seems that there are several different styles of swings/hitting/philosophy that in use. The different styles are either wholely or partially incompatable. The different styles 'work'. Without getting into what is best argument, is is possible to agree that they all work to one degree or another. If that weren't the case then successful coaches wouldn't be useing the different styles.

If that could be agreed upon at a basic level, and the various styles would be identified. Once identified the various proponents of each style could hammer out in a non(less)-confrontational environment a description of each style possible even breaking out into variations on style. Would something like that achieve what you are thinking of?

At the highest level of description there's linear and rotational swings. I imagine someone out there is teaching something of a hybrid of both. If they could be broken down a bit more and can classified and described then people could at least communicate in terms of that team uses xyz hitting style and that one uses abc. Common terminology that soaked into fastpitch would certainly help folks like me find the information we are looking for.

 

[ssarge]

After working with a few hundred hitters, Hitter knows a LOT. And I don't agree with all of it, but I always read it. Because it was developed by working with hitters, and because as near as I can see, he has no agenda whatsoever.

Tom quotes Hardy's Golf book in almost every post. Including on this thread. Then espouses a two-plane baseball swing. Hardy STATES in his book that the baseball swing is one plane. This is disingenuous and selective quoting, obviously.

If others can accept all of that and still find value in his meanderings, fine. They are certainly entitled, and more power to them. But IMO they'd be better advised to listen to one of those posting on this site who actually work with multiple hitters. In the case of "Hitter," he's worked with thousands.

As I imagine this will be my last post on this site, let me wish well to those who are in the trenches with hitting students - or even a single student / DD. Best of luck in getting your student as far down the road as they want to go. In your quest to reach the goals, I URGE you to listen to the people who have actually helped multiple kids reach the college level and even beyond. So much of success at earlier ages is based on early-onset strength and athletecism. It's not always enough, as the rest of the field catches up soon enough.

Scott

 

[Hitter]

Hitter, I have made no secret that I am in agreement with you regarding the differences between working with a 28 year old MLB player and a 10 to 12 year old girl. Huge difference in experience and knowledge level. Also, by the time the hitter is at the MLB level it has become obvious that the talent level and whatever else is required to be an elite player has already identified itself. For a 10 to 12 year old girl, she is just in the beginning of the process and it's unlikely anyone can tell how far she will go or what she can achieve. It's a huge difference, and I think the expectations have to be adjusted accordingly. In this case, I think the phrase close enough for rock and roll applies.

(This next part is not directed at Hitter specifically; it's my general thoughts.) That being said, I find value in studying MLB hitters. I find value in studying excellent college hitters. But I also find value in working to understand how the body works, what actions contribute to better hitting (as well as which can be detriments), and most of all thinking things through to see what makes sense.

Personally, I like to see different ideas. I may not agree with them at first, and I may not agree with them later either. But lots of ideas are worth considering. In the end, though, I have to synthesize them into something I can teach to that 10 or 12 year old.

I guess my approach is something like the old Thomas Edison quote: I haven't failed, I've just found 10,000 ways that don't work. I know what I teach, and the way I teach it, has evolved over the years. It's still evolving. It will likely always evolve since I don't foresee a definitive answer on exactly how to swing a bat coming anytime soon. We don't have the science to do it just yet. Reviewing video is too subjective, and it depends on which swing you have video of. You can look for commonalities, but it's still subjective. What I think is important may be trivial to you, and vice versa. If both our hitters are successful who is right? Or are either of us? And does it really matter?

Different people have had players become successful while teaching different and sometimes conflicting things. That certainly keeps things interesting. I'd say there's no exact answer yet. Just theories.

Ken

I feel we are on the same page. Others who offer little substance to the conversation without practical experience in my opinion hinder the process of the parents and coaches learning.

I get sick and tired of hearing MLB Elte Swing Pattern and then those that offer no more to a parent or coach than to look at a golf swing, or a one line response of that is too linear or that is not an Elite Swing Pattern.

Then an example of it takes 5 years in the minor league system to hone your skills to have an MLB Elite Swing Pattern!

If that is the blue print and that is the logic these girls are never going to hit the ball so we might as well just teach ONLY the short game and bunting.

I find personally that most of the arguments come from the baseball sites and baseball minded people that seem to have fun with what the girls do not know and they do not know how to teach them so they try to side track the conversations to derail most parents from learning while pontificating IF you are using the blue print your daughter will hit like AP or Bonds or Manny possibly!

I have worked with Crystl for 9 years and feel we have a pretty good handle on what works and how to teach it and we have some data ( the kids in college) that are using it and it did not take 5 years in the minor league system to teach it. Is a perfect swing ? No! Is it paying for college? Yes!

I think her career average of plus .400 lends to she must have a handle on what she is doing with the blue print she is using.

So then we scientifically say there is no such thing as hip thrust and the martial communities with a blue print that is 1,100 years old says there is. Stand in front of me and I will show you what it looks like and we demo it at the clinics as a simple move of the back heel up and not full hip rotation.

Offer up what you think works and then God forbid some ones tries it and it works and OH! My GOD it actually worked!

I thought TSW was the only one who knew how to swing a bat! Mantle, Arron, Rose, Gehrig never new anything about hitting. Now to all the purist of swings are we cookie cutting TSW and his methods or are we trying too find what he and others did that many have in common?

Guess what as we begin our swing we are going to be pushing the bat to some extent so do not have a heart attack that the hands are too far from the body or that this is happening as it is part of the process of learning how to swing.

Most people can see what you are doing in a video they post however can they tell you how to fix what you see is incorrect or needs to be improved?

Our blue print...Teach them in measurable and observable terms and then how could we test to see it, feel it and fix it! Teach them how to throw first, use a hammer and what weight shift and leverage is and balance! If you want to teach them golf then teach them how to play putt putt golf!

Measure off from the plate

Get ready to hit

Get set to hit by bending at the waist and softening the knees and get a good two eyed look using the top hand grip we have described.

Slow to load, soft to step landing on the inside edge of our lead foot on a flexed knee and separating our hands rearward slightly keeping the hands above the shoulders.

Allow the weight to keep shifting until you decide to swing as the hips lead the way.

Back elbow begins to lower and the lead elbow moves forward and up and the back hand is over the top of the elbow or what we term staying strong on the back side.
Or elbows working together and the knob is leading and our hands are INSIDE the path of the ball. The bat is about at shoulder height and is turning and then we say parallel to contact and the hands are flat and we begin bat lag.

Knob is leading and based on the pitch we release the barrel to the ball with our head down at contact and want the hitter to think to the ball and through the ball and have rotated our hips as needed based on outside, middle or inside pitch.

To the ball and through the ball and extension and finish over the shoulder and run and do not look at where the ball is going as that is the first base coaches job!

No all the details are not here and we go into more detail at clinics and maybe if I write book I will include the details. However there are enough people to help each other complete the journey in my opinion.

We have helped the high school coaches when they are opened minded and really that is all there needs to be is an open mind.

Thanks Howard

 

[Chris O'Leary]

I think it is best for you to study pertinent examples rather than depend on me to fully answer your queries.

To understand what a pattern is or how it is effectively derived in a sports skill, I would recommend reading BOBBY JONES ON GOLF who described the two plane pattern in golf which was the the preferred pattern in the hickory shaft days. After the availability of metal shafts, the 1 plane alternative became possible and Jim Hardy explains how to understand one pattern in terms of another, see his PLANE TRUTH FOR GOLFERS...

Perhaps a more pertinent example would be one from the world of baseball or even softball.

 

[tom.guerry]

Again, let's try to stop the personal stuff. Don't get distracted. Deal with the subject.

I have worked with many kids over the years. More than sarge. probably less than Howard. Let's not just spout off a bunch of hearsay stuff that has nothing to do with anything.

Ken started this off as a thread about defining and mobilizing against what is perceived as a common enemy. But how is the enemy defined ?

Oleary makes the observation that well meaning people teach incompatible/opposite things.

This can not be explained by something as simple as "any cue can mean anything".

Discussing the subject adequately REQUIRES conflict, CIVIL conflict. Don't retreat to some unrealistic KUMBAYA approach.

Again, the only foundation for meaningfully sorting this out that I have found is to take a pattern view of the skill as exemplified by Hardy in golf. Until you do that there is no framework for useful discussion I am aware of. I am open to other explanations.

If anyone has an example from baseball/softball as Oleary mentions, by all means, lay it out here.

When you take a pattern view based on careful observation of many swings, you can get somewhere as in the example of Hardy who can sort things into:

1- belongs in 2 plane swing
2-belongs in 1 plane swing
(some overlap/elements in common between these two), and

3- things that don't belong in any golf swing


#3 is the common enemy that can be identified and mobilized against, BUT you have to take a pattern perspective to make any sense of this/to sort reliably.

an example:

high level/swing like throw pattern involves the Epstein type "rearward tilt" for up/down adjustment

the PCR/gate swing involves the bend at waist/anterior tilt up/down adjustment

these each have very different sequence/weight shift aspects, but some similarities as well, BUT

in neither case is a "reverse pivot" ( center of mass moving back before contact) involved.

reverse pivot is a common enemy.

mix gate and high level swing patterns and you confuse the student.

If there are some other issues you want to discuss besides the common enemy discussion, start another thread.

 

[tom.guerry]

BM-

Thanks for the somewhat on topic post.

I think the Hardy golf info is a highly developed and successful example of sorting by pattern just like the Kelley example is for the "blueprint approach". wikipedia definitions of pattern and blueprint really are not very informative.

the golf info is bigger and more complex and more confusing than bb/fp, but hardy has figured out a way to make sense of it which is quite an accomplishment.

But the same thing is mentioned in rudimentary form by Slaught/Candrea and Enquist as Gate vs high level swing, shoulders turning bat more directly vs "live and independent hands".

as sarge said I was once a PCR site moderator and quite familiar with the development of that blueprint approach. I parted ways because the PCR dogma included denial of early handle torque (epstein flat palm hitting) which is essential for eliminating drag in the high level swing.

That is another example of opposite teaching related to choice of underlying pattern. the early torque is necessary for high level live and independent hands (getting palms flat early) as opposed to the gate swing where oleary recommends starting the bat near plane,etc.

you have talked with sarge quite a bit.

How do you reconcile his approach with yours and what you understand of howard's bustos baseball swing ?

IS howard's approach accelerating learning toward the bustos swing or would it just be better to get girls to play baseball a lot from a young age, including overhand pitching, then switch over in high school to fp and grab a skolly ?