If not a DISCUSSION forum, then what?
In your post on Wed Mar 16 06:07:43 in the thread titled (Full Transfer Mechanics) you:
A) Refuted what you believe to be an incorrect assumption of your teachings.
B) Clarified your approach (although not fully).
C) Stated your contentions.
D) Made Claims (although not definitively) based on high speed motion analysis.
E) Praised these discussions by calling them “…great…”.
F) Admonished these discussions, for not being accurate.
G) Pleaded that these discussion become accurate when depicting others.
H) Promoted yourself by extending an invitation to your website.
I) Advertised by posting your website address.
J) Offered to answer questions.
Some of us responded to your post. Attempted to promote discussion. Asked questions.
There had been no response from you until 46 days later.
In your post on Thu May 5 06:56:11 2005, you:
A) Gave An Excuse as to why you haven’t responded earlier.
B) Directed that we “…need…” to understand why.
C) Gave Us Permission to ask questions directly at a posted address (to which I might add, I tried in May ’05 with no response)
D) Asked Us To Realize how busy you are, with regard to email and instruction.
E) Gave An Extremely Vague One Sentence Answer To My Very Specific Question. (More on that, later).
F) Included A Quote By Albert Einstein that could be construed as a personal insult. (More on that, as well).
Well, here is my response.
You have posted to a DISCUSSION FORUM. While you justifiably did so to correct incorrect assumptions of your teachings, you none the less posted to a DISCUSSION FORUM.
What is DISCUSSION?
It is an extended communication (often interactive) dealing with some particular topic.
It is consideration of a subject by a group; an earnest conversation.
It is a formal discourse on a topic; an exposition.
It is consideration of a question in open and usually informal debate.
It is a formal treatment of a topic in speech or writing.
What is a FORUM?
It is a medium (as a newspaper) of open discussion or expression of ideas.
It is a public facility to meet for open discussion.
The way I see it, back in May you had three choices in response to tomguerry’s post.
1.) Ignore it.
2.) Sue him.
3.) Defend yourself , but not without strings attached.
You chose to defend yourself, AND to ignore the purpose of discussion forums (unwritten rules of politeness – speak when spoken to). You entered the Arena. More than that, you Advertised in the Arena. And you made promises that you did not fulfill, in the Arena.
Enough of that.
My question (March 22, 2005):
>>>If I may ask, what are your parameters for “…total effective swing time…:? In other words, when (your definition) does effective swing time start and end?<<<
Your answer (May 5, 2005):
>>> The effective swing time of .11 to .13 of a second has been achieved many times by my college age players as well as some of my 16+ age students....and is basically measured from initiation of the hand movement to or through lead arm extension, into such a position as to no longer be in an effective impact configuration. <<<
For someone who contends, - your quote - “It is my contention, after countless hours of High Speed Motion Analysis study of the best, that fundamentally we neither move in a linear or rotational way...we use a combination of linear and rotational movements.....when we view the best in High Speed Motion Analysis, which is a specialty of mine, we truly teach what we see....because the best move so fast, we MUST slow them down (and I do not mean 30 frame a second camcorder stuff) to 100 to 250 frames a second to ACTUALLY SEE what they are doing and how they are sequencing it, or putting it together.”
That’s the best answer to my question that you can come up with?
“…from initiation of the hand movement...”??????
- WHEN IS THAT, GOSHDARNIT?
If you claim that total effective swing time is measured to hundredths of a second and that you analyze with video slowed down to 250 frames per second, can’t you be a bit more specific on what you consider to be the “start of the swing”?
And what the heck is - your quote – “…to or through lead arm extension, into such a position as to no longer be in an effective impact configuration.” Is that intentional obscuritism for “contact”? Or some mysterious point before contact?
What you have done Coach Peavy, is made claims (“…as some of my premier students swing in less than .13 of a second, with some in the .11 second range…”) at a DISCUSSION FORUM without offering PROOF. Instead, you have delayed an extremely vague answer, offering that you have been just too busy. While all the time, Jack has been cordial enough to permit your advertisement.
And if you see this post as being too harsh, please consider the reality.
One last item.
In your last posts you have included a quote by Albert Einstein:
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds"
This was not included in your prior post. By quoting Einstein, what are you hoping to accomplish?
One might misconstrue an attempt by you at achieving martyrdom. Comparing your “…great spirit…” to a (violent?) opposition by my and tomguerry’s “…mediocre minds…”
Actually, used in context, Einstein was expressing his abhorrence of racial prejudice. The correct quote is:
"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence."
Post a followup: