[ About ]
[ Batspeed Research ]
[ Swing Mechanics ]
[ Truisms and Fallacies ]
[ Discussion Board ]
[ Video ]
[ Other Resources ]
[ Contact Us ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lead Arm

Posted by: Jack Mankin (MrBatspeed@aol.com) on Fri Sep 30 15:38:40 2005

>>> In talking about the shortest handpath, one argument is brought up that a linear A to B handpath is the shortest, allowing you to wait longer on the pitch. A circular handpath is longer thus the batter has to cheat to get the hands to the contact position in time. My theory is that if you use a circular handpath to generate bat speed early in the swing, and since a handpath has been proven (by Jack) to generate much more bat speed than a linear path, wouldn't the hands be moving toward the contact position at least equally to a linear path? In other words the wouldn't the hands be making up for the lost time by generating the hand speed earlier during the path? <<<

Hi Dougdinger

Let us just cut to the bottom-line. -- A straight hand-path does not produce a quicker or shorter swing. The results of charting thousands of professional swings and results from a motion studies computer show that players using rotational mechanics (angular hand-path and torque) are 20+ % quicker to the ball and makes contact 8 to 10 inches farther back than those using a straight extension of the hands.

A rotational hitter requires 4 to 4 ½ video frames (9/60 second average) from initiation to contact. Batters with a straight hand-path require 5 to 6 frames (11/60 second average) and the arms are nearing full extension at contact. The rotational hitter’s back-elbow is still back at his side (in the classic "L" shape) and thus far from full extension. Therefore, the hand travel for the rotational hitter is a good 8 to 10 inches shorter than extension mechanics.

Jack Mankin


Post a followup:

Anti-Spambot Question:
This is known as hitting for the cycle in a game?
   Single, double, triple, homerun
   Four singles
   Three homeruns
   Three stikeouts

[   SiteMap   ]