Posted by: Doug () on Thu Apr 22 07:00:12 2004

<< >
> Doug>>>>
>
> Hi all:
>
> I think the topic of where the best information comes from is an interesting topic and I wanted to address this point. There has always been a reoccurring theme on the board by a few players that you had to have played the game in order to understand and correctly teach batting mechanics. I used Doug's quote above as a reference. Of course, that is the easy claim for anyone who has ever played pro ball, but the facts demonstrate that over many decades (1900 to 1990s), the good hitters were not necessarily good batting coaches. Most good hitters were not good batting coaches because they did not understand and teach the batting mechanics that they used. Surprisingly, this still occurs today. Bonds and Pujols do not correctly describe their own batting mechanics. I think we've all watched Gywnn's futile attempt to describe Bonds' mechanics. Despite that Tony Gywnn was one of the greatest contact hitters, he has no clue how to describe Bonds' swing - the best hitter in the game. Thus, while these good hitters may be good at getting "figuring it out" in the box, they do not correctly describe their own swing or correctly teach it to others.
>
> Until video analysis came along in the 1980s, the "good hitters" proved to be average batting coaches at-best because throughout the 1900s they continued to teach ineffective linear mechanics (A to B, hands to the ball, keep your shoulder in there, quick hands, throw your hands, and every other disastrous linear cue). Even coaches like Jack Mankin, who was a knowledgeable ballplayer and very good pitcher in his own right, suffered as a batting coach in the 70s and 80s because he passed down the same linear teachings to his players that had been taught to him by the "good hitters." Although Mankin was a good coach in Babe Ruth (his team/league won State five straight years) and his hitters were decent, they rarely became great hitters during those days. The problem was/is that most great hitters do not understand the rotational mechanics that they use and because of their lack of understanding, they teach totally different linear mechanics, probably because it was passed down from generation to generation.
>
> In the 1980s, video analysis became available and it was then when people started to understand the swing. During this time and throughout the 1990s, Jack Mankin spent thousands and thousands of hours reviewing thousands of swings of the best hitters to poor hitters, learning what they were doing differently and understanding why they were performing differently. Above and beyond reviewing and charting swings, he spent countless hours working with various college players and coaches, as well as with physics departments discussing the forces that act on the bat. He also spent quite a bit of time on various discussion boards trying to convince nearly everyone that they were not describing the mechanics used by the best hitters.
>
> Make no mistake that it was people like Mankin who began describing the mechanics used by the great hitters. Mankin did not invent something new, but he was a pioneer in describing the mechanics used by best hitters. Today, most hitters analyze film, read the internet/books, talk to others who read websites such as BatSpeed.com, and as a result some good hitters/coaches are learning how to teach powerful rotational mechanics.
>
> Thus, in response to the reoccurring suggestion that you had to have played the game to teach the game, history as well as the present have proven you wrong. To learn proper mechanics, most coaches would be better served by reviewing Mankin's materials and tapes, as well as a few others (such as Epstein if they want a discussion of lower body mechanics), rather than getting their advice from the gurus/good hitters on Sportscenter, who without fail, continue to teach linear batting mechanics. The next time that you hear a “good hitter” now turned commentator say that a batter who just hit a 450 foot homerun (who cares to which field BHL) "kept his shoulder in there" or "got great extension" or "had quick hands," you can rest assured that the good hitter does not know what he is talking about.
>
> I certainly do not prefer the condescending term used, "nerd," but regardless, there can be no honest dispute that it has been people like Mankin who have advanced the understanding of swing mechanics. It certainly was not the good hitters, as many wish to believe.
>
> Brian
> BatSpeed.com

Brian, Don't you consider Ted Williams a good teacher? We all know he was a great hitter.Your last sentence does not make any sense at all. When you talk about condescending terms, I think that you should read your own post over again.

Doug