[ About ]
[ Batspeed Research ]
[ Swing Mechanics ]
[ Truisms and Fallacies ]
[ Discussion Board ]
[ Video ]
[ Other Resources ]
[ Contact Us ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Atn: JJA and Enloe

Posted by: Jack Mankin (mrbatspeed@aol.com) on Sun May 30 13:43:31 2004

>>> P.S. I will be happy to respond to anyone's questions, but until Jack apologizes to me for his personal attacks, I will not answer his questions. I have never, and will never, ever attack anyone personally on this board. This is a scientific discussion, and Jack can be free to disagree with me. But to question my motives and background on something as extraordinarily difficult from a physics/math perspective is something that I think is unfair and biased, and I won't tolerate it. I would like to think my background can be helpful to some readers, but it's Jack's web site. It's up to him. <<<

Hi All

JJA stated, “To fully clarify my position, I simply state that Dr. Adair's model that little torque is supplied by the hands to the bat stands unrefuted by your arguments.

(Jack Mankin reply)

You have allowed your agenda to cloud your power to reason. By Adair’s own definition of his model, there is no kinetic energy to be transferred to the “whip effect” if a batter rotates around a stationary axis. Even poor hitters do not move their axis 18 inches forward as they rotate. His model is deeply flawed regardless of the existence of the torque or the whip effect.
Unless you (or your group) can provide a test (with a bat) that proves the existence of the whip effect (as described in Adair’s model) , this discussion has concluded.


I stand behind my statement. I see no reason for an apology. If you wish to post on this board you WILL answer my questions.

Jack Mankin


Post a followup:

Anti-Spambot Question:
Three strikes is an _____________?
   Stolen base

[   SiteMap   ]