Re: Re: Re: Re: searching for a definition
Posted by: ray porco (
) on Mon May 7 18:22:45 2001
> > > >
> > > > definition of balance can be complicated or simple. is balance "physical equilibrium"? if so, am i balanced with my feet together, with my feet 12 inches apart from each other, with them spread as far as i can stretch? how about balance with regard to time? to achieve a position of balance do i have to hold this position for a determined amount of time - say 10 seconds, or can it be just a mille-second, or perhaps not even discernably recognized as "holding" (just passing through the balance point on you way to the other side).
> > > >
> > > > How about shifting? is it hitting the right key on my keyboard in order to capitalize? (comic relief!) how about changing the place of something? or the position of something? or the direction of something? and then when we combine the two - balance and shift. doesn't THAT complicate things! do we just think of it as weight of one side in excess of another? is it that simple?
> > > >
> > > > AND THEN, balance and shift with respect to the baseball swing.
> > > >
> > > > a simple experiment:
> > > > round 1 - stand facing a mirror and place your feet tightly together. lift your left leg (or right) and watch the position of your head in relation to the right (balancing) foot?
> > > > round 2 - this time start out with your feet 12 inches apart (with your head centrally located - between your feet, that is). lift your left leg (or right) and watch the position of your head in relation to the balancing foot AND the distance the head must travel.
> > > > round 3 - the further you spread (with your head centrally located between your feet), the further your head must travel to balance when you lift one of your legs.
> > > >
> > > > NOW, what the hell is the point.
> > > > i think watching the head in relation to the feet and the distance the head travels, is the key to defining weight shift and balance.
> > > >
> > > > take 3 hitters (all RH). all start with their heads centrally located between their feet, which are spread apart shoulder width. the first, strides forward 6 inches with the left foot (he does not shift his head PRIOR to lifting his stride leg). as his stride leg goes forward, his head must go forward, but this hitter tries to keep his head centrally located between both feet. the second hitter DOES shift his head (over his right leg - balancing in the process) PRIOR to lifting his stride leg. now he steps. his head does not have to shift (or go forward). the third hitter shifts his head OVER his stride leg upon striding.
> > > >
> > > > call me crazy, but i call the third guy a "lunger", the second guy - "rotational", and the first guy - "weight shift". bonds is an example of hitter number two and palmiero is an example of number one. yea, there are varying degrees to each, but watching the head in relation to the feet determines the degree.
> > > >
> > > > just trying to create a model for definition and comparison. feel free to throw darts.
> > > >
> > > > ray porco
> > >
> > > Ray -
> > > I agree that #3 would give the appearance of lunging.
> > > I have been looking at clips on Setpro to test your theory.
> > > [url]http://www.setpro.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000152.html[/url] has clips of Ruth, Williams, Mantle, Aaron. I've also looked at Griffey on the Members forum.[there are also some in the regular forum].
> > > Griffey is close to a #1 He keeps his head back early on. Williams and Ruth are #2's - head clearly travels with body. Mantle appears to be a #2 but it is a bad angle. Aaron's clip is one where is goes and gets a low outside pitch. He is a #3 in that clip. I've seen him on other clips with better pitches and he is the closest to a #3 of any of the hitters, though Ruth also has a noticable forward bend at the waist entering hip turn. A clip of Hornsby in the members forum shows him to be a #2.
> > > The Williams clip is most interesting. He is a #2 - head travels with the body, pretty centered. Then his hips slide forward, putting his head behind his hips, then hip rotation occurs.
> > > The Ruth clip is his Happy Gilmore swing. On his last left foot step, he leaves his head over his back foot (#1), then strides, then, amazingly, moves his upper body and head forward again (#3)! during initial hip rotation, only to have the hips turn under him and move forward enough to rebalance him (#2). Strange but I've heard this was a BP swing and he may have been showing off or fooling around (Happy Gilmore in a game???).
> > > Think of the implications of Ruth's fun swing - if he was going for maximum show on an easy BP pitch, he added EXTRA forward linear momentum with the Happy Gilmore run up; after getting weight back, he shifted everything (hips to head) forward again; and he delayed the pushback until into the early stages of hip turn - much later than on a normal swing. Its like he was pushing the envelope, cheating a bit to put something extra on a ball that was easier to hit. Of course this is all speculation.
> > > Ray, from these clips, I'd say that your model leaves way too much in doubt. It makes Williams ( and most hitters) a weight shifter, Aaron a lunger, Ruth out of control (maybe your theory is right ).
> > > Beyond that head and feet aren't indicator of rotational hitting. Any hitter that does not rotate the lower body isn't much of a hitter (show me a major leaguer who locks his hips sideways and doesn't turn them towards the pitcher). As Jack always points out, it is transfer mechanics, shoulder rotation and the relationship of shoulders and arms that really defines rotational hitting, not just if the lower body turns.
> > >
> > > I'm thinking, the longer the stride, the more the head travels. A true #3 is a lunger. A true #1 is a back foot spinner/squish the bug guy. A #2, a balanced hitter.
> > > But it is not the feet and head that we should be looking at. Where is the torso going? Do the hips/torso shift forward past the rest of the body before roatating?
> > > Rotational - shoulders turn arms/bat into contact. Linear - arms push bat forward away from body into contact. Aaron showed that a #3 can be rotational. Williams a #2 rotational. Griffey a #1 that is rotational. Feet and head are not the indicators.
> > > Sorry if that is a big dart.
> > major,
> > your quote:
> > "Beyond that head and feet aren't indicator of rotational hitting. Any hitter that does not rotate the lower body isn't much of a hitter (show me a major leaguer who locks his hips sideways and doesn't turn them towards the pitcher)".
> > the more i read those two lines the more i felt i was being insulted.
> > boy, you don't give me much credit if you think i expect some kid to go to bat and hit a ball without turning his hips. look here, - it's head location in reference to foot location which (am throwing out for discussion) is the indicator of how much weight shift occurs in each individual swing, BEFORE rotation.
> > how about a little of your own medicine? this is your reply to coach tom (fri may 4 05:58:12 2001):
> > "You misunderstood one very important point. I am referring to forward movement of the hips BEFORE hip rotation, not during."
> > this is the basis of the whole line of recent discussions started by YOU on may 1 - "Weight shift and balance before lower body rotation".
> > am i to be left out?
> > even weight shift hitters (and i'm starting to not like categorizing this way) rotate. what i'm talking about is DEGREES of weight shift, and to what degree this has to happen for you to be considered weight-shift or rotational.
> > ray porco
> > >
> Ray -
> Sorry, I wasn't trying to insult you. I know you are knowledgeable and that no one hits with locked hips.
> We are on the same page in that we are talking about weight shift, etc. before rotation. My only point is that I don't think head and feet are the best indicators - they are more effect than cause. We may certainly learn something from looking at it the way you propose. I am starting to think that hip movement is more of a cause than an effect and that how the hips move affects how the head and feet move and affects upper body rotational actions as well. So that may be more central.
> Jack has maintained that there are many variations of lower body rotation that can work with upper body rotational mechanics. But that is the upper body rotational mechanics that determine the great hitters. If so, then the head and feet analysis may end up with confused results if the upper body mechanics are ignored.
> I suspect you are thinking that certain lower body mechanics force you away from upper body rotational mechanics. Is that what you are thinking?
for what i'm thinking - see my reply to your reply of my reply to your reply of my post "searching for a definition".
and jack, please, i sure would like to know what your thinking. i promise i'll be good.
Post a followup: