Re: Too Narrow is Detrimental Jack?
> In a previous post, you argued against having too narrow a stance; I thought now was an ample time to bring such reasoning to the forefront.
> According to the laws of science (and explained to Schmidt and Ellis in The Mike Schmidt Study), limbs that are closer together will actually facilitate rotation, which translates into the fact that a person with a spread landing will not be able to rotate around a given point as fast as a person who lands with his or her feet closer together.
> As a result, the player with the spread landing will be further from the center, the circumference will increase, and hip rotion will be slower than a person with a real narrow stance.
> Jack, does not the laws of physics dictate that a person who has a real narrow stance will decrease their circumference dramatically, and increase hip rotation, which translates into a further chance to generate optimum batspeed at or before contact, assuming the transfer mechanics are not flawed?
> Based on my reasoning, I would appreciate if you can argue your point as to why you think too narrow a stance is detrimental (I believe it to enhance centrifugal force). You explained it earlier, but your explanation seemed not to include the idea of centrifugal force.
> Could you kindly submit a response to this question?
> The Black Hole Lexicographer
> Knight1285@aol.com BHL...i'm sure in due time jack will respond to your query..in the meantime i'll put in my 2 cents....there is more than just rotation involved in the swing, namely WEIGHT TRANSFER....i know some people who favor the ROTATION model don't like that phrase...i don't know how you and jack feel about the phrase...but it's a real concept...too wide of a stance , you'll transfer weight from back to front but then hip rotation will be restricted...conversely, too narrow of a stance will allow greater hip rotation but with too little weight (energy) having been transferred to the front side...there has to be a middle ground...respectfully, grc.....
Post a followup: