Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: squashing the bug again
Posted by: grc (
) on Tue Apr 24 09:15:38 2001
>>> If I may chime in here, I would like you all to consider the following: stride or no-stride, the hips travel forward ( a linear movement) that shifts the weight onto the front foot. This action happens BEFORE rotation. It accomplishes things including establishing the backward tilt of the axis of rotation AND generates linear momentum that the body can convert to rotational/angular momentum. The back heal may rise during this shift or the back foot may start to push and turn over or squish the bug or whatever you call these movements. As long as the hips shift forward you will not create back foot spinners.
> > When the front heal drops and the front knee turns out the conversion to rotational movement has begun. The body redirects linear momentum into rotational/angular momentum as the front leg pushes back and the back leg drives the back hip forward, torquing the hips. For lack of a better term, the 'bracing' of the front leg, is how the body converts linear to angular momentum. I think 'bracing' is not a descriptive term, however. The front leg is not just used to bounce off of, but to catch the body weight and redirect it. The flexing of the quads of the front leg near contact is significant. Hitnut referred to his studies showing 110% of body weight on the front foot at contact. This would accomodate such things as back foot toe dragging after turnover, etc.
> > I don't see anything incompatable with a weight shift before a rotational swing. The churning motion of the hips (slide forward, then torque) is the core motion of the swing. You can accomplish it with or without a stride.
> > I believe that most good hitters have this motion as part of their swing. Jack has shown me clearly that the more significant distinction between hitters at the top levels is in upper body rotation, circular hand path, shoulder turn during contact, keeping the hands in/back during the turn, etc. <<<
> > Hi Major Dan
> > I did not say that a weight shift and linear motion were incompatible with a rotational swing. Obviously, there are many rotational hitters who do take strides and shift weight. But I am saying that those linear movements are not necessary to produce power and bat speed. Equally good hip and shoulder rotation can occur without the hips or body first sliding forward. Many good hitters (stride or no-stride) set their axis angle and come to full balance (linear momentum at rest) and use both legs to generate rotate around a stationary axis.
> > Major Dan, it would help me better understand your thinking if you would answer the questions I asked grc.
> > (1) Do you think a batter with very limited or no linear movements can generate great bat speed? Can a batter who sets his axis angle and just picks up the front foot and places it back down in the same spot (no stride or forward weight shift), rotates around a stationary axis and has a light amount of weight on the back toe (no toe drag), hit a ball 450+ feet?
> > (2) How much farther do you think Tiger Woods could hit a golf-ball if he were to add those linear components to his swing? Forgetting accuracy for a minute, how much more club-head speed could he develop by striding forward a foot or so (adjusting the tee position), shifting his axis forward 5 or 6 inches, and dragging the back-toe a good distance?
> > The reason I posed the Tiger Woods question is because in golf they stress that to generate maximum shoulder rotation the hips must not start back and slide forward – the swing must start and finish with a stationary axis. Much the same can be said for the baseball swing. The farther the body is shifted forward, the less leverage the batter has to cause lead-shoulder-pull (torque and hook effect).
> > “Hitnut referred to his studies showing 110% of body weight on the front foot at contact.” I can attach no significance to his statement. I can think of no one who thinks differently. Whenever a batter rotates their body around an axis (linear movement or not), the burden of supporting the body’s weight will naturally shift from one leg to the other. But that does not mean energy is released that would effect the rate of angular displacement of the bat. ---We must also be consider how much of the 110% that is due to the bat’s momentum.
> > Jack Mankin
> Jack -
> I understand that you do not think that weight shift and rotation are incompatible. Neither do I. I think we both agree that you don't do both at the same time - shift then rotate, or just rotate, but no shifting during rotation (moving axis - either lunging or back foot sitting and spinning).
> I see the point you are making. I can't answer either of your questions with certainty. I need to look at some more clips to see if I can find examples of hitters using no weight shift. Can you give examples of power hitters with no weight shift?
> Shooting from the hip (sorry, I couldn't help myself), I would say that there is more energy available to the body to convert to rotational/angular momentum with a weight shift/hip slide than without one. Theoretically, a player with very strong, very quick legs could torque them from a standstill and generate considerable power / batspeed. It is not inconceivable for a Bagwell-type player to hit a ball 450'. But I think it would be harder and less efficient to do that.
> As far as golf, I am not a golfer and haven't taken lessons. Maybe its folklore, but the Happy Gilmore style does seem to produce more power. Not too good on the accuracy or consistency of contact however. And given the nature of the long, light golf club and the consistency and aim requirements of golf, players may get the best output (consistency with much but not all possible power) from a stable axis and a long swing radius.
> The nature of a baseball swing, due to reaction time, is to generate batspeed quickly while seeking a moving target collision. The pre-powering of the hip torquing motion with a hip slide/weight shift is non-committal and loosely coupled with the actual swing timing, i.e., you can use the same shift and hit a fastball, changeup, high pitch, low pitch, inside, outside, etc.
> Having the body 'loaded' with energy when the quick swing motions begin should make it easier to torque the hips, allowing for faster bat acceleration with less brute force muscling and the accompanying tension involved in forcing/powering/exploding.
> I guess, to sum up, I think many or most players use weight shift/hip slide as a tool to generate the rotation you advocate. While not, perhaps, essential, it is very common even among the elite hitters. My guess is that done correctly it is more optimal than a no shift swing. I am beginning to think of this hip motion (torso and thighs) as the key power producer - the engine that drives the rotation, if done correctly.
> You said "Many good hitters (stride or no-stride) set their axis angle and come to full balance (linear momentum at rest) and use both legs to generate rotate around a stationary axis."
> Help me understand your thinking here. Are you saying there are players who stride and then have no linear momentum at rotation time? Is this the equivalent of the "stepping onto thin ice" cue? Is this balance static (dead stop) or dynamic? Can you point me at a player example of this?
>jack....major dan has made some excellent points but maybe i have misuderstood your position...you are on record as suggesting that linear mechanics inhibits rotational mechancis.....are you saying that there is NOT a forward shift of the body prior to LAUNCH?...if so, how do you explain the nomar clip?....or, are you saying that once you are in launch position there is no FURTHER forward body movement?....i responded to your questions and i would appreciate it if you could address the questions raised in the nomar clip as well as major dan's posts....it may be that we are all talking about the same thing...respectfully, grc.....
Post a followup: