University of Sydney swing study

[BadMonkeys]

By me saying "I thought that stood out too" I was not claiming to confirm or deny Greenmonster's opinion that it was dissimilar to a HLBB. I was merely agreeing that the set up stood out. You know, the part he quoted.

 

[MountieSB]

By me saying "I thought that stood out too" I was not claiming to confirm or deny Greenmonster's opinion that it was dissimilar to a HLBB. I was merely agreeing that the set up stood out. You know, the part he quoted.

Getting into a discussion about this with jbooth is pointless, BadMonkeys. First, you'll be really bored. Second, you'll keep feeding him so he can tell you how smart he is and how dumb you are (and all the rest of us, too!). Third, you'll be really bored.

 

[Greenmonsters]

I was just waiting for a response like this.

It doesn't matter. You seem to not be able to grasp the fact that the basic physics principles are the same whether you analyze Barry Bonds or a AA hitter.

It's true that a 7 year-old beginner's physics might be different, but not those of a pro. It's clear from the diagrams that the hitter that they analyzed moves in the pattern that all good hitters do.

They analyzed the shoulders, arms, hands and bat paths. Which paths that they showed, do you believe to be different from the HLBB swing?

What parts of the analysis do you believe to be incorrect?

JB –

If you actually read what I wrote, you will note that I didn’t question the results of Cross’s study, but offered my opinion of the quality of the swing that he analyzed. Obviously the application of physics is the same, whether it’s a good or bad swing. But, same as I expect the on-field results to differ, I don't expect that an analysis of a good swing and a bad swing would yield the identical conclusions. The instructions to the laboratory hitter to keep the feet fixed and swing horizontal at an imaginary ball suggest that experimental limitations (e.g., the use of a single camera) dictated that concessions be made in order to limit the number of variables being considered during the analysis.

How can you conclude that an efficient sequence/good mechanics resulting in the same pattern that all good hitters use was employed in the swing analyzed? If the swing wasn't efficient i.e., properly sequenced/synchronized lower/upper body, then it isn't HLBB representative. Cross notes that "The bat initially rotated about a fixed axis in the handle, near the batter’s right shoulder. During this time interval the batter did not move his arms with respect to his trunk, but rotated his legs, hips, and shoulders to start the swing. The batter’s head remained fixed to within 30 mm during the entire swing.” I found the highlights above to be strong indicators that the swing used wasn’t HLBB representative (or that Cross’s description was poor in that a good swing is initiated long before shoulder rotation is initiated and the head is relatively still only after heel plant).
Cross himself concludes that his analysis and findings have limitations, specifically

“The model developed in this paper will assist in providing partial answers, but is unlikely to provide complete answers because the forces and torques applied to a bat depend on the forces and torques exerted by all the various body segments used by the batter.”

As to Cross’s conclusions regarding the physical forces and torque involved in swinging a bat, I’ll defer to the trained experts. However, my personal opinion is that that there is an underlying reason that certain pros hit the ball more consistently and harder than others. Those are the swings I’d like to see analyzed more closely.

 

[jbooth]

JB –

If you actually read what I wrote, you will note that I didn’t question the results of Cross’s study, but offered my opinion of the quality of the swing that he analyzed. Obviously the application of physics is the same, whether it’s a good or bad swing. But, same as I expect the on-field results to differ, I don't expect that an analysis of a good swing and a bad swing would yield the identical conclusions. The instructions to the laboratory hitter to keep the feet fixed and swing horizontal at an imaginary ball suggest that experimental limitations (e.g., the use of a single camera) dictated that concessions be made in order to limit the number of variables being considered during the analysis.

How can you conclude that an efficient sequence/good mechanics resulting in the same pattern that all good hitters use was employed in the swing analyzed? If the swing wasn't efficient i.e., properly sequenced/synchronized lower/upper body, then it isn't HLBB representative. Cross notes that "The bat initially rotated about a fixed axis in the handle, near the batter’s right shoulder. During this time interval the batter did not move his arms with respect to his trunk, but rotated his legs, hips, and shoulders to start the swing. The batter’s head remained fixed to within 30 mm during the entire swing.” I found the highlights above to be strong indicators that the swing used wasn’t HLBB representative (or that Cross’s description was poor in that a good swing is initiated long before shoulder rotation is initiated and the head is relatively still only after heel plant).
Cross himself concludes that his analysis and findings have limitations, specifically

“The model developed in this paper will assist in providing partial answers, but is unlikely to provide complete answers because the forces and torques applied to a bat depend on the forces and torques exerted by all the various body segments used by the batter.”

As to Cross’s conclusions regarding the physical forces and torque involved in swinging a bat, I’ll defer to the trained experts. However, my personal opinion is that that there is an underlying reason that certain pros hit the ball more consistently and harder than others. Those are the swings I’d like to see analyzed more closely.

This response is not just to you, but to a couple of others. I'll try to dumb it down. Yeah, I am smarter than most of you, that's pretty obvious and I don't apologize for it, or have a problem being arrogant about it. Most posters here show their ignorance often.

KMA if you don't like my arrogance. I deal in facts. Facts that most can't comprehend, no matter how much I dumb it down.

The physics involved in the internal combustion engine of a 1932 Ford Model A, are no different fundamentally than those working in a 2014 Ford. A fuel-air mixture is compressed and ignited and the explosion pushes a piston which turns a crankshaft which turns a drive shaft, which turns a trans-axle, which turns the rear wheels. The difference is that the 2014 version is highly refined.

The physics of a professional level swing, whether it be a AA player (1932 Ford) or Miguel Cabrerra (2014 Ford) are fundamentally the same also. Cabrerra is more like the 2014 version of the Ford.

The analysis presented in the OP lays out the fundamental physics. Whether the guy that they videoed is an AA player or the best MLB player, is irrelevant. The fundamental physics, of a fundamentally sound swing, are what they are. Described and confirmed by physicists many times over, over many years.

Some people are grasping at straws, questioning the results of the study, because the conclusions of this study and many others, prove that what they think to be true, is nonsense.

 

[MountieSB]

JB –

If you actually read what I wrote, you will note that I didn’t question the results of Cross’s study, but offered my opinion of the quality of the swing that he analyzed. Obviously the application of physics is the same, whether it’s a good or bad swing. But, same as I expect the on-field results to differ, I don't expect that an analysis of a good swing and a bad swing would yield the identical conclusions. The instructions to the laboratory hitter to keep the feet fixed and swing horizontal at an imaginary ball suggest that experimental limitations (e.g., the use of a single camera) dictated that concessions be made in order to limit the number of variables being considered during the analysis.

How can you conclude that an efficient sequence/good mechanics resulting in the same pattern that all good hitters use was employed in the swing analyzed? If the swing wasn't efficient i.e., properly sequenced/synchronized lower/upper body, then it isn't HLBB representative. Cross notes that "The bat initially rotated about a fixed axis in the handle, near the batter’s right shoulder. During this time interval the batter did not move his arms with respect to his trunk, but rotated his legs, hips, and shoulders to start the swing. The batter’s head remained fixed to within 30 mm during the entire swing.” I found the highlights above to be strong indicators that the swing used wasn’t HLBB representative (or that Cross’s description was poor in that a good swing is initiated long before shoulder rotation is initiated and the head is relatively still only after heel plant).
Cross himself concludes that his analysis and findings have limitations, specifically

“The model developed in this paper will assist in providing partial answers, but is unlikely to provide complete answers because the forces and torques applied to a bat depend on the forces and torques exerted by all the various body segments used by the batter.”

As to Cross’s conclusions regarding the physical forces and torque involved in swinging a bat, I’ll defer to the trained experts. However, my personal opinion is that that there is an underlying reason that certain pros hit the ball more consistently and harder than others. Those are the swings I’d like to see analyzed more closely.

Greenmonsters - don't feed the beast!

 

[BadMonkeys]

This sounds like a task for jbooth with accompanying rdbass gifs?

Yeah...no. Your suggestion kinda spoiled the mood. Thanks for trying!

 

[BadMonkeys]

Ouchy grouchy. Thanks for the warm welcome though!

 

[pstein]

This response is not just to you, but to a couple of others. I'll try to dumb it down. Yeah, I am smarter than most of you, that's pretty obvious and I don't apologize for it, or have a problem being arrogant about it. Most posters here show their ignorance often.

KMA if you don't like my arrogance. I deal in facts. Facts that most can't comprehend, no matter how much I dumb it down.

The physics involved in the internal combustion engine of a 1932 Ford Model A, are no different fundamentally than those working in a 2014 Ford. A fuel-air mixture is compressed and ignited and the explosion pushes a piston which turns a crankshaft which turns a drive shaft, which turns a trans-axle, which turns the rear wheels. The difference is that the 2014 version is highly refined.

The physics of a professional level swing, whether it be a AA player (1932 Ford) or Miguel Cabrerra (2014 Ford) are fundamentally the same also. Cabrerra is more like the 2014 version of the Ford.

The analysis presented in the OP lays out the fundamental physics. Whether the guy that they videoed is an AA player or the best MLB player, is irrelevant. The fundamental physics, of a fundamentally sound swing, are what they are. Described and confirmed by physicists many times over, over many years.

Some people are grasping at straws, questioning the results of the study, because the conclusions of this study and many others, prove that what they think to be true, is nonsense.

Question: do you believe elite hitters generate and utilize more force than an average hitter?

 

[softballphreak]

Yeah...no. Your suggestion kinda spoiled the mood. Thanks for trying!

There is actually some very good knowledge from most all even though they seem more interested in squabbling.

 

[BadMonkeys]

There is actually some very good knowledge from most all even though they seem more interested in squabbling.

Yes, jbooth did at least offer a reply to my original post and offered a summary translation. Then, well... I don't know, maybe he just needs a hug?