Posted by: TC2 () on Sun May 23 09:12:36 2004

Site Moderators: I think this deserves a new thread as it was never addressed previously:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > BHL- for the record you never, not ever addressed your idol Epstein's "de facto", absolute that the front heel drop initiates the hips...you know the one that I proved with your idol's own website was/is bunk? Is it possible that "for the record" there is finally something on this site you can't refute?
> > > > > > > > ------------------
> > > > > > > > Hi TC2,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Although some individuals raise the heel higher than others, the heel drops initiates the swing. Yes, the hips can be turned without the heel-drop. But, then the hips will not lead the hands.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > BHL
> > > > > > > -----------
> > > > > > > BHL,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Nice try but I caught your slight deviation from your original post awhile back and the one I contested where you stated the front heel drop was a MUST in initiating the "HIPS." This time you ommitted hips and added "initiates the swing?" There is a difference, I could start a swing with no lower half at all, so I'll get you back on track on your original word.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You don't see the contradiction in what you wrote? Let me help.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If you agree hips can be turned (initiated, engaged, whatever)without dropping the front heel and for which Esptein's own poster student clearly demonstrated on his own website (home page Nick Amariti) and for which anyone could determine on their own, then what does raising a front heel higher have anything to do with hip initiating, which was your original "de facto/absolute" on this site?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Your presumption that it is impossible for the hips to lead the hands "without a heel drop" makes no sense? If, as you state, and we agree on, it is NOT necessary for a heel drop to initiate the hips then what possible role does the "heel drop" (not placement) play in keeping the hands back? Ans: NONE! And not because "I" said so...you fail to address the fact Epstein's studentin THAT video clip and polished swing he is promoting, that student has "NO" heel drop and therefore, his own student emphatically "says so". To borrow from your idol, I call that "teaching what we see".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Summary for the second time: Front heel drop is not an absolute in initiating hips whatsoever. Inward rotation of the back knee initiates the hips and can absolutely be done with no front heel assistance and that IS because I "see it and feel it".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks for at least finally addressing the issue.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > TC2
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi TC2,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I agree that the front heel does not need to drop in order to make the hips turns.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > However, if the hips are to start ahead of the hands, the front heel must drop to initiate the swing. It is precisely this point that I am obstinate about.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I hope this post clarifies any confusion.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sincerely,
> > > > > > BHL
> > > > >
> > > > > And OR NOT "drop" at all as in it can remain flat. Agree?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > bhl....if The Swing starts right at heel plant, shortly before or shortly after, i'm not sure....maybe it depends on each individual pitch....but i can tell you this: the time of heel plant has nothing to do with whether the hips are ahead of the hands or not....if a hitter has sufficient inward turn, high elbow and bat cock, as i have documented in the past the hitter's hips will be ahead of the hands...
> > >
> > > Hi grc,
> > >
> > > I agree with you on many points, but I must disagree with you on this one. GRC, if the front heel does not drop, the hips will not lead the hands.
> > >
> > > Respectfully,
> > > BHL
> > > Knight1285@aol.com
> >
> > BHL,
> >
> > NOT according to Epstein and his student-if we "really teach what we see" and because, as is your steadfast opinion, you keep coming back with a statement you refuse to budge on without substantiating it. You just "say so" with a lot of contradictions thrown in?
> >
> > BHL,give us something more than just "you say so". Obviously you went from your original statement, you proported was supported by Epstein that the heel drop was an "absolute/de facto" to initiate hip rotation to agreeing it is not. That change of thinking had to be
> > inspired in part by Esptein's own student demo so- tell us what do "you" see in that student clip (or any other where a heel drop is NOT used)that supports your front heel drop = hips lead hands theory?
>
> Hi TC2,
>
> I see the hands remaining "back" until the front heel drops, going back a quarter of an inch more, before being "yanked forward" in a manner that Epstein describes. This causes the seperation. Once the heel drops, look for the upper body to begin "unwinding" at a rapid rate. This is the proof that I can "see" in the student clip.
>
> Sincerely,
> BHL
> Knight1285@aol.com

BHL,

It's amazing (for lack of a better word) that you can "see" something that never happens in that video clip? More amzing that you somehow qualify a 1/4 of an inch movement? Where do you see that student raise his front heel at all????? Yet you still boldly claim that is why his hips were before his hands?

The student not only never raises his front heel to even drop it...he doesn't move it at all? Yet, like Epstein as well- you want the rest of us to see something that "ain't happen'n" and then further, you attempt to substantiate your claim that without something that "doesn't happen" in the first place the hips cannot lead the hands? Stick to linguistics that make you "sound" logical because you failed miserably, especially by using Epstien's poster student in "seeing" that logically you can't support your claim.

"For the record", and yes, I can substantiate it and even mentioned it previously to "you" on this site; even Epstein knows the heel never dropped and didn't have to on this student because I brought it directly too his attention! I didn't need "you" to say so but instead to prove:

When posters start using illusions of something they pretend to see in a video to prove a point that I would guess 99.9 out of 100 would never see in same video, that is a good time to end a thread and let the "record" show why.