When does full arm extension occur?

[ssarge]

I think I have a better idea of what your swing approach is, based on the above. And that's fine, although I completely disagree with it. Obviously you beleive in what you're doing.

Mike:

Is it possible you are mis-characterizing Skeptic, and are trying too hard to relegate him / her to the "other" camp?

I OFTEN use a cue to keep the front shoulder in. It works well with some hitters. Does that mean I don't understand Englishbey's material? Or does it perhaps mean others don't understand it, or are quoting it out of context?


One thing I've learned since my daughter started playing in college is that it is pretty tough to hit in college. Stats are real (not daddy ball). Pitchers are consistently good, and you almost never get a D1 pitcher that you can "get fat" on. Instruction in college is sporadic, and most of the successful kids are dancing w/ who brung 'em. (and if Skeptic wants to take exception to that, have at it. It's still my observation).


Kids who hit HRs in college can hit. Kids who hit .300 in college can hit.

ANYONE who can get kids ready to do that should be listened to.


One thing Skeptic seems to be saying is that talking about getting kids ready is not as valuable as actually getting kids ready.

I have long agreed with that opinion. And Tom knows my feeling that he would be well served to head down to the ball yard and actually work with some hitters. And use with us on the message boards the same language he ultimately finds works with kids at the ball yard.

Regards,

Scott

 

[ssarge]

This requires using the arms and shoulders to be somehow loaded back and be able to stay back and resist coming forward as the load and connection is established.

By definition, if the hands come forward, you are NOT connected. So we agree on this point.

So the kind of "connection" you are trying to create ends with the last quicj stretch of the torso with hands staying back which is what permits the spatially early bathead trajectory that is adjustable temporally "late".

ALL that hitting is is an optimal sequential load followed by an optimal sequential unload. With some overlap.

I have no idea what a temporary adjustment (late) is.


Tom, do me a favor, would you? Could you describe how you would actually communicate what you have posited on this thread to a hitter? If you aren't sure, I understand (seriously, not a shot). But surely you know how all of the people with whom you are engaged use it? Or you could ask them? I'd seriously like to know what you would say / have said to a hitter in order to get them to understand this stuff.

Thanks and regards,

Scott

 

[tom.guerry]

great to here from you scott.

welcome to the discussion.

The MLB pattern (as opposed to the gate pattern/PCR) has "early batspeed" and "late adjustability".

Early batpseed means the swing starts well back behind the hitter in the swing plane with the early torquing of the handle creating a running start of the bathead while at the same time reactively helping the scaps/shoulders resist turning open.

This gives quick adjustable acceleration starting behind the hitter which means that read time is maximized. this means you can wait on/read the pitch longer, then still adjust and swing quickly.

That is what is meant by "temporal" as in the adjective form of "time".

SPATIALLY EARLY bat acceleration and quickness and adjustability allows you to wait longer before committing to the final swing trajectory.

That means "early batspeed" enables "late adjustability".

The adjustability is not "late" in the spatial sense, but late in the timing sense or "temporally late".

SPATIALLY EARLY enabling TEMPORALLY LATE swinging.

or EARLY BATSPEED enables LATE ADJUSTABILITY.

Clear as mud ?

This is entirely diferent from the PCR concept of "frame counting" and trying to make the swing a "standard swing" that is as "efficient" as possible.

This is an ENTIRELY different approach where you need to find the right pattern which is the MLB pattern that is optimized differently so the perfect swing is not a standard swing but is instead the adjustment you make.

Now about the language thing, whatever works. Cues can be interpreted any kind of way, so as coach you paint the word picture however you need to to get the result you want. There should be some (not necessarily consistent/initially repeatable but SOME) immediate improvement/progress or you move on to something different.

One way I disagree with skeptic is that I think the FEEL of a given pattern is VERY similar across people even though feel is extremely subjective, so for example if we look at the David Wright 1 arm drills, when he talks about not moving the shoulders or hitting it out of the catcher's mitt, that IS what the MLB pattern feels like to most.

it also feels like "SWINGING DOWN" to most as the swing begins.

it also feels like a "slight UPSwing through contact" as Williams described it.

it also involves "palm-up extension" of the back arm.

it also means hitting with top hand wrist unbroken,etc

so much of this language can be re-used/is consistent across students even in describing feel. This area is well explored in The Golf Machine as an example from other skills where a similar pattern gives a similar feel which helps learn the pattern, IF the mechanic is described objectively enough and adequately communicated. I think the kinesiological sequence IS a method that enables precise description and interpretation/communication between instructors. See Homer Kelley, TGM: sections 1-J and 3-B: "You must learn the precise Mechanic and then Translate it into its 'describable sensation.' Precision Mechanics produce Precision Feels. Then, Feel alone reliably reproduces those precise Mechanics."

The PCR/gate swing does not have these same feels.

What particular drill or cue area would you like detail on ?

 

[ssarge]

One way I disagree with skeptic is that I think the FEEL of a given pattern is VERY similar across people even though feel is extremely subjective, so for example if we look at the David Wright 1 arm drills, when he talks about not moving the shoulders or hitting it out of the catcher's mitt, that IS what the MLB pattern feels like to most.

Hi, Tom:

I am willing to engage in discussion of the specifics as my time permits - work is busy, I am giving some hitting lessons at night, probably will coach with the Gold team this summer since Kelly is probably coming back to play one last season, and I am burning up Highway 5 every weekend to watch her play in SoCal.

But as time permits. . . .


I'd like to start with things that are a little abstract, but which I think are vital to understanding how to best instruct kids.

And please understand that is my priority and only real objective. I care not a whit about what MLB hitters say they do. I guess I don't really care what they ACTUALLY do. What I DO care about is what elite female hitters do. I work with high school and college female hitters (I have about 3-4 male students, and maybe 5x that female). My objective is to get female HS hitters into college on schollies, and to help insure their success once they get there. And I've been fortunate enough to be a participant in some success with those endeavors.

And I'd like to get a lot better.


Now, if that means that what I teach doesn't "match" the MLB swing, I'll live with that. Please understand I'm not conceding that point. I'm merely stating that my criterion for success is doing well as a college FP hitter, not how closely someone else says my student(s)'s swing matches up with their opinion of how it compares to Manny.


First "abstract" point:

I have worked with close to 200 female hitters in the past 6 years. I absolutely do not think they feel the same things that you say are common to all hitters. I absolutely am convinced that a dependency on arms and hands is an invitation for their failure. They are already swinging bats that weigh 85% of the bats used by their male peers, and they have maybe 30-40% of the arm and upper body strength. Same reaction time as post-0college male hitters, and need to overcomne MORE force in the bat / ball collision than a male. With a slightly lighter bat. NOT emphasizing connection as an absolute necessity is an invitation for failure. I have no idea who skeptic is, but he has this part right.

And - no surprise - I don't think you are close to understanding what Englishbey teaches / believes in this regard. I just worked with him for a week, and I DO know. And you don't have it right. Nor are any of my students "holding on and turning" or whatever pejorative term you (guys) currently apply in your derisive dismissal of all things Steve. I have an emphasis on connection, for sure. I do NOT coach a rigid, non-adjustable, slavish marriage between shoulders, arms, hands, and bat. But I am certainly much closer to that than you are, and you'd be closer to where I am if you actually instructed girls to hit at the gold and college level. That is not a shot at you, it is merely a very strong opinion borne out of hundreds of hours of experience.


And I also agree with skeptic that the language needs to be as simple as possible, and as brief as possible.

I actually think all of those things are true of male youth hitters as well, but my experience there is more limited, and so I'll stand down. But as far as what I said applying to female athletes / hitters, I believe I have sufficient experience to make a credible claim.


The 14 YO female hitter is NOT feeling the same pattern - much less the same specific mechanics / movement - as one of the 400 best adult male hitters in the world. She just isn't.


And so I guess I reject the premise upon which you are staking your position. Which maybe isn;t so abstract after all. Or do you see middle ground?

Thanks, and best regards,

Scott

 

[Slapper23]

Is it possible you are mis-characterizing Skeptic, and are trying too hard to relegate him / her to the "other" camp?

First things first - Scott, it's great to hear from you. We may (do) disagree on swing mechanics, but that does not (IMO) take away from the friendly discourse we have enjoyed over the years. I've not always agreed with you, and have not agreed with your sometime derisive sarcasm toward Tom (way beneath you, IMO). But, I have always considered you a friend and have valued your opinions on hitting - whether I have agreed or not.

Now, as to your quote above....I take Skeptic's description of the one hand drills as I have read them. And my conclusion is works them and dscribes the value of them to hitters much differently than me. Does he sound closer to PCR-ish type instruction than to what I teach? Yes.

Moving on...and one important note I would like to make. I work with HS kids mostly in a team setting. There is some individual work that goes on in the off season....same for 14U kids. I have not worked with 200 kids over the past 6 years, that's for sure. And I have never charged money for instruction. Not saying you do, or if that is bad. Of course it isn't.

I care not a whit about what MLB hitters say they do. I guess I don't really care what they ACTUALLY do. What I DO care about is what elite female hitters do.

I care what they all say AND do. Why would I shut out a valuable learning resource?

I absolutely am convinced that a dependency on arms and hands is an invitation for their failure.

It can be. Just depends on how they are used. There is a yokel in town who teaches swing down to contact, practices hitting the ball with the knob of the bat, and pushes the hands forward for a late snap at contact. Told a kid who had just hit a home run, "that's the last home run you're going to hit."
So yeah, I don't like the way he emphasizes hands and arms.

NOT emphasizing connection as an absolute necessity is an invitation for failure.

I agree, but I think we approach connection differently. Another point I might make is I believe you are more lead arm dominant in the swing. I teach a more top hand dominant swing.

And I also agree with skeptic that the language needs to be as simple as possible, and as brief as possible.

With hitters, of course it does.

The 14 YO female hitter is NOT feeling the same pattern - much less the same specific mechanics / movement - as one of the 400 best adult male hitters in the world. She just isn't.

You may be right for the majority of them. But I completely disagree on them learning to FEEL and DO it. There is only one swing, IMO...and it's not a fastpitch swing. It's a swing based upon THE swing - the ML swing. I believe the ML swing to be the most efficient swing going.

Ok, Scott, it's darn near midnight out here and I have to hit the sack. 5:30 A.M. will be here n a flash!

Take care,
Mike

 

[tom.guerry]

scott-

you are familiar with Cochran and her dad. When did she feel what ?

how similar to the Ted Williams/MLB swing is her swing ?

how similar is the feel she gets to the way Williams describes it ?

 

[ssarge]

Tom:

Although Pat Cochran is a very good friend - we enjoy sitting together and talking hitting as we watch each other's daughters play - I would not presume to speak for him or for Kate.


Kate is the best of the 3,000 D-I hitters, and as such, should be studied by all female hitters (my daughter has begun to emulate her high hand pre-load setup, for example). But I have no idea what Kate feels, and of course, she has no idea what Williams felt. I suppose that is the rub. Agreeing with the words expressed by one hitter doesn't mean you actually are feeling the same thing he did. All it means FOR SURE is that the words are agreeable to you, for whatever reason.


That WIlliams was the swing model for Kate is absolutely true, as he was Pat's swing model, and Pat was Kate's instructor. He currently (and historically) has worked with other hitters as well. Pat himself made it to AA (he was a catcher), and he well understands the swing. I respect him a great deal, and would be very comfortable with him working with my daughter. So would she - she likes him a lot, and seriously considers anything he says.


To MY eye, Kate's swing looks a lot like Williams's swing. But there are differences, too. In MOST of the clips I have of Williams, he is more vertical than she is (Kate tilts significantly - and somewhat variably - at the waist), has slightly lower hands than her at launch, and is more extended prior to contact ("Power-V" type position).

I am basing my description of Kate's swing on the several clips I have of her, plus the many times I have seen her swing in person. Williams, I never saw in person, though I do have 50 or so clips.

 

[ssarge]

Duplicate post, sorry. Seems to be happening to me a lot - weird.

 

[ssarge]

I have not worked with 200 kids over the past 6 years, that's for sure. And I have never charged money for instruction. Not saying you do, or if that is bad. Of course it isn't.

I never charged a fee when I was involved as a Travel Ball and High School coach. Worked with 160-170 kids in that environment, ranging from under 10 to college players. For the past year, I have not been involved in team coaching (I may do it again this summer if my daughter plays on a Gold team).


In that past year, I have begun giving fee-based lessons at a local academy, and have worked with 20 or so kids. I am finding it satisfying. In the team setting - which is basically year-round in California - your primary objective is to get the hitter ready for Saturday. Makes it hard to take a long-range view to building a swing, and makes it more likely you'll merely put a band-aid on a problem. You find yourself wishing for a month or two with no games so that you can get a little more radical with the hitters. You also want to help the kid earn the scholarship. I wish I could say that is based on the college coach seeing mechanics and being impressed. That is almost never a majority factor. Instead, it is based almost entirely on performance. Whether the performance is against quality pitching should be a big consideration. It seldom is, frankly.


In the instructional setting, the priorities are different, and more long-term. And I like it better. I think the money is important, because it puts skin in the game for the hitter and her family. I'd probably still do it for free if I had a choice though, because it isn't enough money to much worry about, and I don't like to feel mercenary. All instructors at the academy are required to use the same fee structure, though, for obvious reasons.

 

[ssarge]

One way I disagree with skeptic is that I think the FEEL of a given pattern is VERY similar across people even though feel is extremely subjective, so for example if we look at the David Wright 1 arm drills, when he talks about not moving the shoulders or hitting it out of the catcher's mitt, that IS what the MLB pattern feels like to most.

it also feels like "SWINGING DOWN" to most as the swing begins.

it also feels like a "slight UPSwing through contact" as Williams described it.

it also involves "palm-up extension" of the back arm.

it also means hitting with top hand wrist unbroken,etc

Tom, there is no more clannish group than MLB players. They all use this language. Who knows if they all really feel it?


And before dismissing that as the ramblings of someone who just doesn't get it, please consider again the story Slaught tells of Bonds. Who INSISTED he swung down al the way to and though the ball, and when faced with video evidence from Slaught, was incredulous. But then told him he has always believed what he did because it is what he was told by his father and everyone else around baseball.


If the greatest HR hitter of all time ACTUALLY BELIEVES he swings down all the way through the ball because people told him he did, then he is something of a lemming. He is also not a great candidate for explaining the swing. And he apparently didn't FEEL what Williams felt. Right?

it also feels like a "slight UPSwing through contact" as Williams described it.

If Williams and Bonds don't feel the same thing, why do you maintain that inexperienced kid hitters feel the same as they do?


Bonds IS a great hitter to emulate, but I think it is entirely based on "do as I do, not as I say." And I repeat, I don't think the average person feels what he does, and I don't think the average person can rely on what he SAYS he feels to determine if they feel the same thing. He is a great hitter, not a great communicator, and like most in the BB world, is trapped in the vernacular and nomenclature he has always heard. To SOME EXTENT, that affects his description of what he "feels."

Given that, he STILL disagreed with Williams on what he was feeling (see above).