Understanding the real "enemy"

[Hitter]

BM

Next time I am in California I would be honored to be your caddy....never played golf...however I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night!

We are not perfect in our teachings however if I were throwing hand grenades it would be a hit anyway!

Fore!


Thanks Howard

 

[Ken Krause]

I think some of you guys are under-estimating the intelligence of the rest of the membership. People are smart, and they can recognize practical information v. BS or pontificating. I know, because I get PMs and emails about it all the time.

Instead of wasting time, effort and server space arguing about who has what credentials, state your case, offer your advice with proof points, and let the people decide. They'll read what gives them ideas they can take to their daughters, players and students. They'll skip over the stuff that offers no value to them. Trust me -- they can tell the difference.

 

[BoardMember]

BM-

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.

More golf info on the fastpitch board........???

.....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 ?

Ssarge knows how to get it done. And he know where to focus his efforts. And I've been on the "other side" of the fruit of his teaching.....

He took a team of totally medeocre talent and turned them into a national level team, including a trip to ASA Gold nationals........And in his case, he'll tell you, and I'll back it up........Pitching WASN'T the team's strong point. He did produce runs.......MANY RUNS.......

Howard has obviously dedicated TONS of "hands on" time to the swing. This type of "trial and error" is something that cannot be replaced with reading books for watching DVD's. I'm on board with most everything he says. Because I also have 25 years of "trial and error" under my belt, I can recognize where these efforts have paid off in the long haul.......He teaches a "slow and GO" approach that many of us have been using for years to produce explosive movement.......

I believe he, like many of us who've been doing this with LIVE hitters for so many years, lives by a montra set forth by one of my favorite golf icons:

"The WILL to win PALES in comparison to the WILL to PREPARE to win"..........

As far as girls in baseball Tom. No, your suggestions won't work. For several reasons. Not the least of which is because boys are "pulling the legs off of spiders" at 9 years old or younger......Most girls aren't prepared for the level of competition that IS inherant in boys IMO.

I would venture to guess that less then 5% of all females under the age of 10 would be able to compete on the field with boys at such a young age.........Nor would they want to.

And that amount under 5% that do/can, posses the "B" gene inherantly IMO.......Bustos would fall into that catergory IMO.......But she IS the exception......NOT the rule......

 

[Wellphyt]

Based on the tone of some of the post, it sounds like those of us who believe in the HLBS (high level baseball swing, the new politically correct term for MLB swing), are the enemies. Personally, I’m very comfortable being portrayed this way in this instance. I consider it a badge of honor.

Put me down as one of those crazy fastpitch coaches/parents that believe that there is a rotational hitting blueprint used by MLB hitters.

For those who are interested, here is the blueprint that I follow. It’s written by Epstein. It’s a fairly long explanation, but IMO there are a lot of important nuggets contained within.

The common approach I see from instructors like Epstein (hitting) and Bill Hillhouse (pitching) is their emphasis on understanding the difference between style and technique (Epstein), or Style and absolutes (Hillhouse).

Whereas style is individual and personal; technique is universal. When teaching I find it critical to separate the two. In keeping with the title of this thread, I think style can be added to the enemies list, because often times it masks the technique portion of the swing and can be used to muddy the water.

As to the question of when a girl should start learning the HLBS. I would point to Katie Cochran whose Dad turned her on to Ted Williams at the tender age of 11. Given the fact that many D1 college programs are attempting to teach the HLBS, I would think a player would want to get started a few years before that.

I don't believe for a minute that Katie Cochran felt like her dad was shoving the HLBS down her throat when he introduced her to the teachings of Ted Williams. I also believe that Cochran voluntarily carries Ted's "Science of Hitting Book" with her in her back pack because she values what Ted has to say about hitting mechanics?

In addition, I feel quite certain that the thousands of young ladies, who have attended an Epstein hitting clinic, do so because they are genuinely interested in learning how to become better hitters and not because their parents are driving the High Level Baseball Swing down their throats?

I certainly hope my daughter or the other girls I work with, aren’t thinking that.

This is a great thread because it accurately illustrates the dialogue taking place within the fastpitch community at ball parks all across the country regarding hitting. The split taking place is very predictable. The good thing is that rotational hitting principles have won out over linear hands-to-the-ball principles. So, at least we are all reading from the same chapter. I think eventually we will all wind up on the same page. But that moment is probably several years away.

 

[tom.guerry]

BM-

The some of the best fp hitters in our/your neck of the woods have either played baseball or golf and been left alone or have ignored well meaning instruction meant to shortenb and quicken their swing (usually including removing the necessary preparatory action as stressed recently by Enquist/slaught/candrea etc.).

Also remember when you and I communicated about getting together, you refused becasue I insisted on go over how to throw first.
You apparently already knew all about that and how if you can throw you can swing.

But I have never heard you explain it.

Here is some context if you get interested, for comparison see howards big zone and soft toss hitting drill demos from behind:

The sequence of exactly how this happens for typical MLB hitters is somewhat different from what "works for Howard" which omits the "palm getting flat action, starting the palms fairly flat to the anticipated swing plane as recommended by Oleary for example.

You don't get the directly behind clips from live swings too much im MLB, and these are off axis a little.

Pujols:

http://www.hittingillustrated.com/Pujols/Pujols10.gif

Bonds:

http://www.hittingillustrated.com/Bonds/Bonds17.gif

Let's detail the Bonds action since it is a fuller clip including pitcher, but the universals are the same(universal) for Pujols.

First some context concerning similarity/difference between high level throw/swing.

The defining characteristic of this similarity is the rear/throwing arm action. As described in kinesiological terms by Hodge with this in mind in throwing:

1- get sideways to target (typically hands come in toward center/bellybutton as you windup/turn back to get sideways)
2- break hands with rear arm INternal rotation, hips cock
3-continue hand break with rear arm abduction/back elbow lift, cock arm, positive move/stride
4- throwing hand starts up by external rotation, lead arm remains INternally rotated, synched lead leg external rotation starts turning the front foot open

Up to this point the throw and swing motions are very similar, after this, they diverge.

A detailed sequence of swinging with emphasis on rear arm action sequence which can be seen as how tip of bat cocks and uncorks):

get sideways/take stance then rhythmic preswing activity, dance with pitcher starts, bat tips and unties repeatedly

1- start of swing action/inward turn when he shows you his back pocket you start showing yours, hands come in toward center/negative move, bat tips up past vertical
2-internal rotation back arm and front leg, hip cocks, bat tips toward SS

3- hands cock/load up and back, back arm abduction/back elbow lifts, stride foot goes out/positive move, bat tips/circles around toward pitcher

4- wind rubber band, hands move to their launch position relative to back shoulder by external rotation of rear arm which starts just before toe touch, bat starts untipping/rearward arc, synched INternal rotation of lead arm and external rotation of lead leg starting opening of lead foot. "swing starts" (Slaught) as rear elbow starts down

========

At this point, the hands have started to get flat, and this is where the swing action diverges from the throw action. this part of the swing happens more and more quickly and is best thought of in terms of kinetic link/connection/summation. In terms of this clip (approx. 30 frames per second), is is easiest to run the frames back and forth from ;launch to contact and the frames for the Bonds clip here are numbered in relation to contact as frame 0.


Contact minus 4 (C-4) - effect of "GO"- drop and tilt to "torque position (Epstein), "connection"(Slaught),rear hip thrust accelerates hip turn to max velocity/momentum (angular momentum)/"cusp formation". already rearward turning bat "blurs" (accelerates). "launch trifecta" action consisting of rear forearm supination and lead forearm pronation and elbow rotation and shoulder tilt. hands flatten but keep their position relative to back shoulder

C-3 - rear bicep stays pinched, torso accelerates to max momentum rearward acceleration of bat continues

C-2 - handpath velocity maxes out/"lag" position, widening of angle at rear elbow (this handpath portion of the kinetic chain summation is NOT produced by arm thrust/knob to bell arm extension but results in sequence from the connection/trifecta/cusp/"barrel to ball" action at GO). wrists still cocked

C-1 - unhinging/uncocking/aDducting lead wrist, ongoing rear triceps extension

0 - unhinging/whip continues to Contact

Parts of the HLBS universal pattern

 

[ssarge]

Ssarge knows how to get it done. And he know where to focus his efforts. And I've been on the "other side" of the fruit of his teaching.....

He took a team of totally medeocre talent and turned them into a national level team, including a trip to ASA Gold nationals........

Thank you, John. I appreciate the kind words. I think you might be overstating a little on both sides of the above, but I really do appreciate your thoughts.

And in his case, he'll tell you, and I'll back it up........Pitching WASN'T the team's strong point. He did produce runs.......MANY RUNS.......

WE had some pitchers who've gone on to do well in college. Interestingly, the one year over a three year stretch where we really did load up on college pitchers (3 D-I starters, including one from the Pac10) was the one year in the three we DIDN'T qualify for Gold Nationals.) Go figure.


Working with hitters is so surreal sometimes. Just when you think you have it knocked, reality kicks you in the teeth. There is so much to understand, and each hitter chases her own demons, and has a basically unique pathology. A constant challenge in instruction.

What to fix first?

How to do it in a way that doesn't "break" something else?

How to fix it even while the girl is competing every weekend, year-round, and still has to demonstrate results the FOLLOWING weekend to keep her spot (this is REALLY hard - as an instructor, you'd like to take a long view and break the swing down to "this is a bat" and go from there. But you just can't, because the girl will lose her chance to play and hone her skills. "You sometimes have to get worse to get better" is a real concept, but we don't usually have that luxury in advanced play in California, which is LITERALLY year-round.

Also, until college - and sometimes not even then - most female hitters do not face live-pitching in practice. For a variety of reasons, it is way different in this regard for females as compared to males. WAY too much dependence on the machine. I know of almost NO female hitters who get 50 live-BP pitches a day to practice. And those who figure out a way to do it benefit immensely. But it is rare.

And what is REALLY challenging in working with female hitters is that the pitching they face gets really good really young. The best female hitters are playing 18Gold ball beginning in 8th or 9th grade. And often facing D-I pitching when they do so, because that is who is competing along with them in Gold ball. They face pitching speeds which are as fast as they will EVER get, and from about age 14 on, ae facing a reaction-time window comparable to MLB. The challenge is not as hard as MLB obviously, but it is harder (relatively) than what 14 YO boys face.


One of the hitters I work with at the moment is a 13 YO 9th grader, who went on an unofficial visit to a D-I this past weekend, and received an offer. Which she is evaluating. It is ridiculously young to be making those kinds of decisions, but in California D-Is, the money won't be there when she is a junior / senior. Unless she gets very fortunate, so she has to think about this. As does the coach, who is making decisions with far too little data. Crazy. But real, and a part of the landscape where guys like Boardmember and I have to compete.

The girl's father played college football, and he is a bright guy. As a coaching influence, he would be the first to tell you that there is not a chance in hell he could evaluate hitting material and supervise her instruction. He would not even begin to see any value whatsoever in an email analysis of his daughter's swing, or a discussion of it on boards such as this. He counts on an in-person instructor to help his daughter develop. T

IMO, his is the norm of the FP world.

I have worked with about 200 hitters in person in the past 7 years. And it is ONLY that experience that allows me to figure out how to approach any given hitter. The talk of a pattern is not misplaced. Everyone needs a basis on which to build their instructional methodology.

However, what IS misplaced is a sense that you know how to get results because you have written a bunch of posts or analyzed video of hitters. I've done those things a lot, and am here to state that there is almost no carryover from those activities and actually getting results in personal instruction.

And so when someone says he has worked with more hitters than I have - but the "working" is responding to eMails and clips and NEVER personal instruction - I just shake my head.


Boardmember has worked with hundreds of female hitters over the years, and put more than 60 into college, most on scholarship. Howard has probably worked with thousands in clinics, and hundreds for more extensive instruction. Similar results. At the Sorcerer Academy, where I instruct, Phil Mumma has worked with over 1,000 hitters through the years. He is the current 18Gold national champion coach, and has won 2 18A national championships as well. I work with another NorCal team that is in a pattern of regularly qualifying for Gold Nationals. Between Phil and I (on the two teams and at the academy), there are close to 90 girls CURRENTLY playing in college, the majority in D-I.

NONE of that means that any of us have all the answers about hitting. Unlike others - who apparently think they do - I KNOW I DON'T. And the other guys on the list above would say the same thing. What it DOES mean is that because of experience in face-to-face instruction, we have a chance to help any given kid figure it out and gain the success she is striving for.

A chance.

Those who write a bunch about patterns, and say they work with kids because they look at clips and respond to eMails really do not have much of a chance. It is just SO much different when you instruct in person.


Ken says the participants on this board understand the above, and can make a judgment re: the CV of posters. I hope that is true. These kids work hard to conquer an almost impossible challenge. Hundreds of thousands of young girls first pick up a bat any given year. And about 1,500 of them make it to D-I every year. Many of those eventually wash out. The attrition rate is just unbelievable, at every level. As is is in any sport. However, I am aware of few girls who make it to the upper levels of the college landscape without a serious instructional influence beyond the high school or rec ball coach. It just isn't an activity well suited to completing without hands-on guidance. Somethimes the parent has a chance to immerse themselves in the kid's instruction, and some of those parents pay the dues to get good at it. It's rare that it gets a kid all the way to college. The pitching just gets SO much better in the upper levels of Gold ball and college. What seems to be working great in intermediate level Club ball and high school really isn;t well suited to the next levels. A quantum leap, and so a lot of kids who were athletic and worked hard, but whose mechanics were just so-so don't achieve what they dreamed of.

All of which sounds self-serving. I am, after all, and instructor. I'll accept anyone's assessment who says it is self-serving. No worries.

However, something I know FOR SURE is that depending on message board posts and eMail assessments will NOT get it done for a hitter. There HAS to be a hands-on influence. If you can accomplish that as a parent, fantastic. A great journey with your kid, and unbelievably rewarding. But I'd encourage you to find an instructor who has put kids in the next level and do a sanity check for a few lessons. (Assuming college play is your goal. Because time is the enemy, and there's no going back.) And then resume on your own.

Regards,

Scott

 

[ssarge]

Ssarge knows how to get it done. And he know where to focus his efforts. And I've been on the "other side" of the fruit of his teaching.....

He took a team of totally medeocre talent and turned them into a national level team, including a trip to ASA Gold nationals........

Thank you, John. I appreciate the kind words. I think you might be overstating a little on both sides of the above, but I really do appreciate your thoughts.

And in his case, he'll tell you, and I'll back it up........Pitching WASN'T the team's strong point. He did produce runs.......MANY RUNS.......

WE had some pitchers who've gone on to do well in college. Interestingly, the one year over a three year stretch where we really did load up on college pitchers (3 D-Istarters, including one from the Pac10) was the one year in the three we DIDN'T qualify for Gold Nationals.) Go figure.


Working with hitters is so surreal sometimes. Just when you think you have it knocked, reality kicks you in the teeth. There is so much to understand, and each hitter chases her own demons, and has a basically unique pathology. A constant challenge in instruction.

What to fix first?

How to do it in a way that doesn't "break" something else?

How to fix it even while the girl is competing every weekend, year-round, and still has to demonstrate results the FOLLOWING weekend to keep her spot (this is REALLY hard - as an instructor, you'd like to take a long view and break the swing down to "this is a bat" and go from there. But you just can't, because the girl will lose her chance to play and hone her skills. "You sometimes have to get worse to get better" is a real concept, but we don't usually have that luxury in advanced play in California, which is LITERALLY year-round.

Also, until college - and sometimes not even then - most female hitters do not face live-pitching in practice. For a variety of reasons, it is way different in this regard for females as compared to males. WAY too much dependence on the machine. I know of almost NO female hitters who get 50 live-BP pitches a day to practice. And those who figure out a way to do it benefit immensely. But it is rare.

And what is REALLY challenging in working with female hitters is that the pitching they face gets really good really young. The best female hitters are playing 18Gold ball beginning in 8th or 9th grade. And often facing D-I pitching when they do so, because that is who is competing along with them in Gold ball. They face pitching speeds which are as fast as they will EVER get, and from about age 14 on, ae facing a reaction-time window comparable to MLB. The challenge is not as hard as MLB obviously, but it is harder (relatively) than what 14 YO boys face.


One of the hitters I work with at the moment is a 13 YO 9th grader, who went on an unofficial visit to a D-I this past weekend, and received an offer. Which she is evaluating. It is ridiculously young to be making those kinds of decisions, but in California D-Is, the money won't be there when she is a junior / senior. Unless she gets very fortunate, so she has to think about this. As does the coach, who is making decisions with far too little data. Crazy. But real, and a part of the landscape where guys like Boardmember and I have to compete.

The girl's father played college football, and he is a bright guy. As a coaching influence, he would be the first to tell you that there is not a chance in hell he could evaluate hitting material and supervise her instruction. He would not even begin to see any value whatsoever in an email analysis of his daughter's swing, or a discussion of it on boards such as this. He counts on an in-person instructor to help his daughter develop. T

IMO, his is the norm of the FP world.

I have worked with about 200 hitters in person in the past 7 years. And it is ONLY that experience that allows me to figure out how to approach any given hitter. The talk of a pattern is not misplaced. Everyone needs a basis on which to build their instructional methodology.

However, what IS misplaced is a sense that you know how to get results because you have written a bunch of posts or analyzed video of hitters. I've done those things a lot, and am here to state that there is almost no carryover from those activities and actually getting results in personal instruction.

And so when someone says he has worked with more hitters than I have - but the "working" is responding to eMails and clips and NEVER personal instruction - I just shake my head.


Boardmember has worked with hundreds of female hitters over the years, and put more than 60 into college, most on scholarship. Howard has probably worked with thousands in clinics, and hundreds for more extensive instruction. Similar results. At the Sorcerer Academy, where I instruct, Phil Mumma has worked with over 1,000 hitters through the years. He is the current 18Gold national champion coach, and has won 2 18A national championships as well. I work with another NorCal team that is in a pattern of regularly qualifying for Gold Nationals. Between Phil and I (on the two teams and at the academy), there are close to 90 girls CURRENTLY playing in college, the majority in D-I.

NONE of that means that any of us have all the answers about hitting. Unlike others - who apparently think they do - I KNOW I DON'T. And the other guys on the list above would say the same thing. What it DOES mean is that because of experience in face-to-face instruction, we have a chance to help any given kid figure it out and gain the success she is striving for.

A chance.

Those who write a bunch about patterns, and say they work with kids because they look at clips and respond to eMails really do not have much of a chance. It is just SO much different when you instruct in person.


Ken says the participants on this board understand the above, and can make a judgment re: the CV of posters. I hope that is true. These kids work hard to conquer an almost impossible challenge. Hundreds of thousands of young girls first pick up a bat any given year. And about 1,500 of them make it to D-I every year. Many of those eventually wash out. The attrition rate is just unbelievable, at every level. As is is in any sport. However, I am aware of few girls who make it to the upper levels of the college landscape without a serious instructional influence beyond the high school or rec ball coach. It just isn't an activity well suited to completing without hands-on guidance. Somethimes the parent has a chance to immerse themselves in the kid's instruction, and some of those parents pay the dues to get good at it. It's rare that it gets a kid all the way to college. The pitching just gets SO much better in the upper levels of Gold ball and college. What seems to be working great in intermediate level Club ball and high school really isn;t well suited to the next levels. A quantum leap, and so a lot of kids who were athletic and worked hard, but whose mechanics were just so-so don't achieve what they dreamed of.

All of which sounds self-serving. I am, after all, and instructor. I'll accept anyone's assessment who says it is self-serving. No worries.

However, something I know FOR SURE is that depending on message board posts and eMail assessments will NOT get it done for a hitter. There HAS to be a hands-on influence. If you can accomplish that as a parent, fantastic. A great journey with your kid, and unbelievably rewarding. But I'd encourage you to find an instructor who has put kids in the next level and do a sanity check for a few lessons. (Assuming college play is your goal. Because time is the enemy, and there's no going back.) And then resume on your own.

Regards,

Scott

 

[tom.guerry]

sarge -

Glad to see you hung in there. You did an excellent job with Sorceror as BM says, BUT I seriously doubt what you teach is compatible with the MLB swing or the HLBB pattern or the variant that Howard teaches.


Especially if girls do not have a good overhand throw sequence, a gate swing is a big imporvement over disconnection (which really fouls up timing).

It makes no sense to teach the PCR gate swing and say emulate MLB hitters. That just confuses things.

Unless you have revised/progressed from your PCR/Nyman/Englishbey apporach.

Even so, "hybrid attempts" are risky if the patterns are not understood becasue you run into the Oleary "opposites problem", a problem best described and overcome by Hardy's pattern apporach in golf.

All the best.

 

[ssarge]

Distilling and summarizing the above to provide advice to parents:

I would:

1) Get my kid into a situation where she is exposed to an experienced instructional influence at least once a week. Som eone who is taking a personal interest in her progress and success, and is developing a plan specifically for her as a hitter.

If you think you can supervise this yourself, that is ideal But not reality for many of us.

2) Latch on to one methodology which is going to be the basis for 90% of her development over the next decade. KNowing full well many will try to "change" her - part of the landscape. But also knowing because of this that a base methodology is essential.

Believeing strongly that any reasonable plan violently executed is better than circling something looking for the perfect plan, I think picking any influence and sticking with it is the best course of action.

My first choice would be whatever is used by an instructor who works with kids who matriculate to play in college.

Second would be Englishbey. Followed by RVP. And then probably Epstein.

3) Try to get your daughter in a situation where she gets several hundred swin gs a week. AT least half of which are live-arm. Even if you have to pay a former college pitcher to groove fastballs to her 3 times a week, do it. NOTHING will get you as big a return as this.,

4) Resist the urge to look for the perfect solution. It isn't out there, and the effort will be distracting to you AND your daughter. Find a reasonable solution and stick with it.

 

[Chris O'Leary]

Especially if girls do not have a good overhand throw sequence, a gate swing is a big imporvement over disconnection (which really fouls up timing).

You're just one straw man after another.

Who around here teaches a gate swing (aka a swing with no hip/shoulder separation)?

I certainly don't, which is why I talk about separation pretty much everywhere.