Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Big Questions for Jack

Posted by: () on Wed Jun 7 23:23:32 2000

>>>Knight1285@aol.com Mr. Lexicographer-I'm sorry to inform you that you have it all wrong!!!Driving your back leg into the ground ???? Sorry, but you can debate weightshift vs. rotation, stride vs. no stride, etc until the cows come home, but there is one fundamental principal that goes unchallenged: YOU MUST HAVE WEIGHT TRANSFER FROM BACK TO FRONT, and simply spinning on your back leg will not do it!!!Sorry I have to be so blunt, but whatever your problems may be now, they will surely get worse if you start "sitting and spinning".<<<
> > >
> > > Hi Bart
> > >
> > > Welcome to the site. I have a different view of how energy is developed for the swing than you stated above. Please go to “Batspeed Research” and read “Rotation and the Stationary Axis.” It discusses “Weight Shift” vs “Rotational” mechanics. Let me know your thoughts.
> > >
> > > Jack Mankin
> > > Thanks for the welcome, Jack, and yes, i have frequently studied your material, and much of it I agree with.One major point I do disagree with however, and that is your asssertion that using weight shift mechanics (linear mechanics) precludes the use of rotational mechanics. From what I understand of the two systems, (1) the 2 systems have several characteristics common to both systems and (2) the characteristics the 2 systems do not have in common are still similar but differ only by degree. I'm not saying that these subtle differences are not important , I'm just saying that the importance of the differences have been exaggerated. I think the "weight transfer" element of the swing involves two things: (1) the hips rotate and (2) the body shifts forward. With weightshift the body shifts forward in a straight line more than in rotation (but we are talking about "INCHES"), and the hips probably don't rotate as much. With rotatiom, you have less forward movement(in a straight line) and a little rotation. The "axis" of rotation is probably a little farther back toward the back foot than with weight shift. But, even so, "driving" one's foot into the ground sounds to me like making the BACK FOOT the "axis" of rotation, and based on YOUR materials that I have read, I know that is not what you had in mind. But, in fairness to Mr. Lexciographer, I ASSUMED that this is what he had in mind. Maybe Mr. L can correct me if I made an incorrect assumption. P.S. A great site, as is setpro (I can do without Huggens' site)
>
> Hello Bart,
>
> You are correct in assuming I am experimenting with the "sitting and spinning model." As a Hitting for Excellence Student, I agree with many of Hudgen's theories, but I believe that it is weight shift--rather than type of stroke--that is virulent to the swing. I will keep on experimenting, until I get my swing back, although I now believe that that Hudgen's "inside-the-ball" swing has nothing to do with a linear shove swing, but a rapid, circular short to the ball (without letting the hands drift away from the body)"
>
> Sincerely,
> The Black Hole Lexicographer
> Knight1285@aol.com
>

Followups:

Post a followup:
Name:
E-mail:
Subject:
Text:

Anti-Spambot Question:
 How many innings in an MLB game?    4    3    9    2

[   SiteMap   ]