Posted by: Shawn (mariner0324@yahoo.com) on Thu Jul 21 19:32:43 2005

> Hi All
>
> I am trying to catch up with my backlog of e-mail. I thought my following reply might be a good topic for the Discussion Board.
>
> Jack Mankin
> ##
>
> comments: Hi Jack,
>
> I find it compelling that you are condemning the lineal approach to hitting. I can only speak from personal experience but I have far more good hitters using lineal methods as opposed to rotational methods, by the way I coach/teach fast pitch softball.
>
> Allot of my kids go to private instructors teaching both methods and I can attest to the fact that my good hitters are linear vs. rotational. I always leave it up to the individual kids but when I have parents asking me why isn't my daughter hitting good like another kid, it is 99% always a rotational kid asking the question.
>
> I would never condemn any method of hitting but it appears that linear is how most kids are being successful in softball with hitting. I would like to have your comments and thank you for having your site so people can have information.
>
> I believe the following to be true:
>
> 1. Rotational hitting in baseball does work because the male athlete is a stronger athlete physically than a women.
>
> 2. More upper body strength is needed in rotational and obviously again, men win there.
>
> Thanks again and I look forward to hearing to you. <<<
>
> Hi
>
> Thank you for the e-mail and please excuse the delay in my reply. I have been on vacation. – It might be wise to have coaches who say they teach rotational mechanics to define it. Many may teach a “no stride” approach with a straighter extension of the hands. That is not rotational transfer mechanics.
>
> Your closing statements below highlight one of our disagreements regarding rotational mechanics. You stated,
>
> “I believe the following to be true:
>
> 1. Rotational hitting in baseball does work because the male athlete is a stronger athlete physically than a women.
>
> 2. More upper body strength is needed in rotational and obviously again, men win there. “
>
> Whether it is linear or rotational mechanics, I would agree that a ballistic movement performed with greater force produces greater results. However, I disagree that greater upper body strength is required to execute rotational transfer mechanics. In fact, I have found just the opposite to be true. Rotational mechanic principles work well with the female athlete because it requires less upper body strength to generate greater bat speed.
>
> I premise my above statement by pointing out that over thirty of the girls I have worked with via video analysis to help perfect their rotational mechanics have now graduated from high school and received Division I or II College Scholarships. Their main problem now is the college coaches do not understand the swing mechanics that got these girls there. They basically want the batter to use their upper body strength to drive the hands and knob at the ball (or pitcher). These girls were trained not to use the muscles in their arms to extend the hands. They keep the hands back (lead-arm across the chest) and allow the rotation of the shoulders to fling the hands into a circular path. The rotation of their shoulders is generated from the larger muscles in the legs and torso.
>
> This is the key reason why both girls and boys with less upper body strength benefit from using rotational transfer principles. Using the larger muscles to swing the bat-head instead of using the upper body to drive the knob is also a key reason why greater bat speed can be obtained with bats of substance. – I have often stated that the –10 bats allow players with inefficient mechanics to compete.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jack Mankin

I would have to hear more about what makes a linear hitter-linear- and a rotational hitter-rotational.

I'm sure their is confusion going on of what the kids are actually being taught, and how they actually hit.