Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: level swing
>>>ITS LONGER AND TIME CONSUMING WHEN TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE.IT CAN HAVE MUCH GREATER REWARDS BUT AT A COST OF CONSISTENTLY <<<
> > > >
> > > > Hi RQL
> > > >
> > > > I am having trouble understanding what you base your statement on. The mechanics are not used solely by power hitters. Ted Williams (400+ average) and George Brett (396 average) also used rotational batting principles.
> > > >
> > > > Jack Mankin
> > RQL-
> > Theoretically,timing is the most important element in hitting.Timing errors are minimized by the shortest hand path from launch to contact with maximum batspeed.Learned and practiced well,the mechanics Jack describes should be the best for most.Failure is likely to be because the usual experience is to learn a whipping hand path/linear mechanics which only a few can successfully retool and remain productive long enough make it to the big leagues and be successful. TOM,I THINK IM COMING CLOSER TO MY POINT WITH YOU,YOU SAY TIMING ERRORS ARE MINIMIZED WITH SHORTEST H.P. FROM LAUNCH TO CONTACT WITH MAXIMUM SPEED.1ST HOW DOES MAX. B.S. MINIMIZE TIMING ERRORS IT SEEMS MORE SPEED MEANS LESS CONTROL OF IT ,LIKE A CAR,BIKE,SKIING.ALSO IF LAUNCH IS AT THE POINT OF A INSTEAD OF B" THEN IT IS A SHORTER STROKE AND LESS TIMING ERRORS.ALSO IF REAR HIP ONLY IS BEING PUSHED FORWARD AND LESS TWIST AWAY FROM BALL WITH FRONT HIP THEN LESS HIP ACTION ALLOWING A MORE QUIET SWING NOT DISTRACTING FROM TIMING.WHY DO WE BUNT INSTEAD OF HIT AND RUN,BECAUSE ITS SUPPOSE TO BE MORE SURE OF GETTING FAT PART OF BAT ON BALL.WHY BECAUSE THEIRS LESS MOVEMENT LESS ROTATION LESS EVERYTHING TO MESS UP TIMING.NOW ALL OF THIS I HAVE SAID IS NOT TO PUT SOMEONE IN THE M.L.ITS FOR THE MULTITIDES OF KIDS WHO WILL NEVER GET PAST L.L. AND MAY HAVE TRIED YOUR WAY AND COULDNT DO IT.IT JUST SEEMS LIKE YOU FEEL AT THIS SITE THAT THIS IS THE EASIEST WAY TO HIT AND I THINK ITS THE HARDEST WAY BUT THE BEST WAY IF YOU CAN DO IT AND MOST CANNOT AND EVENTUALLY FALL BY THE WAY SIDE BUT IF THEY CAN MAKE CONTACT WITH SOME VARIATION OF THIS WITH A FEW QUIETER MOVES THEY MIGHT GET TO COMPETE A LITTLE LONGER.
Excellent questions,and possibly an example of where underlying nonintuitive physical principles may change one's approach.
My assumptions are that batspeed is tantamount to power and that timing is the major issue in power hitting.Spatial errors become more important in placement hitting.
Please see a summary of these issues from Richard Schmidt,MOTOR LEARNING AND PERFORMANCE posted by Paul Nyman at
As far as the handpath is concerned,Jack's analysis shows that in his mechanics the hands move less from initiation to contact(by several inches) as compared to more linear("weight shift and extension")mechanics.It also minimizes swing length by being on plane from initiation to contact.
Philosophically,I believe that once you understand and believe these things(which I do)you then have a responsibility to figure out how to teach them.These are mechanics that Jack has identified as those that enable success(max productivity) at the pro level.The main reason kids don't make it to the pros is inability to hit productively.I think the ones that make it are the ones that are able to rebuild their swing over and over to improve it and in more cases this means evolving to the mechanics that Jack has observed and presented here.If kids are taught other mechanics as a power swing,then they will be at a disadvantage if they have to break ingrained habits to hit with power.Theoretically,this is the best overall swing.If you look at golf,you will see that most players have gravitated to the same basic swing and in the future,most will emulate the mechanics exhibited by Tiger which are not working just because he is superhuman,but because he has taught himself the best mechanics.Just ask him how much better he is now than just 2 years ago when he still was able to win the Masters by a record margin.To win consistently as he does now requires a far far more reliable swing than his "old" one.Are the mechanics he uses likely to be the best for most regardless of genetic potential?I think so,but the more you have learned bad habits the harder it will be to change.
Finally,do you run the risk of having kids fail at younger levels because they can't be successful with these(Jack) mechanics?I don't think so.With good instruction this risk can be managed,but this is the challenge.I think that the reward is worth the risk.
Post a followup: