[ About ]
[ Batspeed Research ]
[ Swing Mechanics ]
[ Truisms and Fallacies ]
[ Discussion Board ]
[ Video ]
[ Other Resources ]
[ Contact Us ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: one handed vs. two handed swing)

Posted by: ray porco () on Thu Feb 15 21:51:13 2001

>>> grc asks a very good, burning question with his post "question about BATSPEED' on Sun Dec 17 12:03:22 2000, right here at batspeed.
> > > >
> > > > after reviewing the "El Grande" clips, - your response to grc (on Mon Dec 18 14:47:29 2000) was right dead on target.<<<
> > > >
> > > > Hi Ray
> > > >
> > > > When I ran the one-hand vs two-handed bat speed test, I started both swings with a static bat so as to eliminate any bat speed development prior to initiation. The one-hand test was initiated with the hand held high and stationary. Under those conditions I found the results as I described (wider and longer hand-path).
> > > >
> > > > When I duplicated the test as shown on Paulís clip, I found results similar to his. By using a hand motion similar to that of a catcher throwing side-armed to first base (from the chest, up to the ear and then around) I was able to generate a good deal of bat-head speed before body rotation and full initiation began. This did produce a somewhat tighter hand-path but the overall time and length of the swing seems to remain about the same.
> > > >
> > > > I think it is interesting to note that in the one-handed swing, the torque supplied by the wrist is significant factor. This is not as true for the two-handed swing. With just one hand on the bat, the wrist has freedom of movement to apply torque over nearly the total range of the swing. But having both hands on the bat restricts the range of wrist movement. Torque in the two-handed swing is mostly supplied from the push-pull action of the arms.
> > > >
> > > > Note: With a bat held in both hands, set down and place your elbows on a table. Note how little bat movement you can obtain with wrist action while keeping both elbows on the table.
> > > >
> > > > Jack Mankin
> > > >
> > >
> > > I do not think the experiment is valid to baseball unless it's done with a pitched ball. If someone could design that experiment, The issue of bad speed being the sole element of exit speed would be settled. Any rec coach who shag a few fly balls could tell you the ball will travel about as far with a onehanded swing or two handed. Paul's experiment is what one would expect off a T or even side toss.
> > >
> > > When that same coach hits a kid's 50mph pitch onehanded and square it's a weaker hit then two handed. A little common sense is in order here. I don't care if Newton himself suggested otherwise. A stronger man will hit the ball longer with the same batspeed as the stringbean. We see it every summer. Why is that if it's only batspeed?
> >
> >
> > lar,
> >
> > your implying that forces other than batspeed are at work? what do you think they are?
> >
> > ray porco
> Ray,
> I am really getting out of my element now. and surely will be trashed
> by the science folks but what the heck,
> I think Newton's 3rd law is part of the story providing I'm not getting my laws messed up, A faster ball then bat speed resulting in a opposite reaction, The bat wants to go back where it came from. It's mass is greater then the ball but there still is a threshold that a minor recoil may occur down the length of the bat. A slight quiver of .25 inch at the wrist would translate to a lot 24in down the bat length. Newton doesn't go away so we live with that one.
> The opposite reaction happens in lets say 1/1000 of a second, (I have no idea but I will use that figure for discussions sake.) The weak link is the wrist, rather then big guys I should say big forearms. Wrist are very weak unless they are in a prepared rigid position. Hitting a moving target doesn't lend itself to that level of awareness. Our joints are designed to flex and absorb on impact not be rigid and transfer it all back at the flying object like a machine. The stronger wrist guys on anything off the perfect sweet spot may simply be transfering more energy back to the ball because they are absorbing less. Sometimes on the little guys in youth ball you get lucky and catch the recoil on a frame when taping. It's right there in front of your eyes. It happens in weaker kids but not in the bigger kids, at least not pronouced enough to catch it on video. The weaker kids let the swing die after the recoil which is why we see it, The ball is on the bat and the energy is transfered in such a short instant can the recoil effect be even measured? I don't think you could ever catch it with the big kids. In HS age and beyond you would need high speed video, equipment such as used while freezing a moving bullet. I believe we have the equipment available to put this discussion to rest. Just need someone with access to it. I may check it out at the University of Michigan I live in the same town. A great undergrad project, and they do have the equipment to get good measurements. I have some contacts. We could use the Michigan players, take the smallest wrist and the biggest wrist. The camera would validate the ball being hit on the same spot of the bat. A pitching machine would provide constant speed. I guess my setpro device could measure batspeed, It would need to be the same speed, they have better radar then I do. It could happen but would take many swings to get similar conditions with both players. I shall call today, They will think I am nuts. I would have to have them design and perform it, U of M has a good global science rep. I just would need to sell it to them. If they read the discussions on the many baseball sites I think it will pique their interest. Science guys love to prove each other wrong.


helluvan idea. terrific observation - (your quote) "Our joints are designed to flex and absorb on impact not be rigid and transfer it all back at the flying object like a machine." wow, could that open up a new discussion.
at setpro, paul just made reference to the baum hitting machine and resultant batspeed and resultant ball exit speed. BUT, we aren't machines. we flex. and if we can't be as rigid or strong as a machine then perhaps we must torque to get added power. hey, i can just see paul rolling his eyes and smoke coming from his ears - "thought experiments". guess who is responsible for the following quote,"As the arms reach full extension, the knob will rapidly slow almost to a stop. The barrel of the bat will rapidly pivot developing maximum tip speed at ball/bat contact." if the knob almost stops and the barrel pivots - where is the pivot point? the wrists? is pivoting the same as torqueing? the quote is by paul nyman.

lar, go for it.

ray porco


Post a followup:

Anti-Spambot Question:
How many innings in an MLB game?

[   SiteMap   ]