[ About ]
[ Batspeed Research ]
[ Swing Mechanics ]
[ Truisms and Fallacies ]
[ Discussion Board ]
[ Video ]
[ Other Resources ]
[ Contact Us ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A Truism or a Fallacy?

Posted by: Dollars worth () on Thu Jul 20 18:45:27 2006

> > >>> If rotation was around the spine, then there would be equal weight on the back foot. The weight would remain 50/50 on each leg/foot.
> >
> > This doesn't happen, the weight doesn't remain 50/50. Instead the mass turns around the front hip and the weight goes against the front leg. It is true this is similar to a gate swinging, the entire mass turns.
> >
> > I was the one that started the gate swinging, I heard it somewhere. I have a perfect clip of this happening. The front hip might move backwards but this doesn't mean the spine is the point of rotation. You could not get the entire mass into the swing by rotating 50/50. The weight would not transfer completely into the swing. It would be like taking half your mass out of the swing. Instead you would have a swing where 50% of weight remained on the back foot and it would not fully transfer into the swing.
> >
> > The front hip needs to be the rotational point to fully get the mass into the swing. This also helps with creating leverage against the front leg, as all thew weight is transfered against it. Even the front knee acts as a rotational point for the swing itself.<<<
> >
> > Hi Shawn
> >
> > First of all, your opening statement is misleading. The only time a batter’s weight is evenly distributed on each leg is when the center of the body is vertical.
> >
> > I think it is well understood that as a batter tilts his axis rearward in preparation for the swing, a greater percentage of his weight is supported by the back-leg. As the batter rotates, the gyro effect of his rotation about an axis overcomes much of the gravity (the weight on the back-foot is decreased) and his weight is then directed down the axis of rotation. That tilted axis of rotation points at (or close to) the front foot. This is why the lead-leg is supporting most of the batter’s weight at contact.
> >
> > After contact, body rotation has ceased and so does the gyro effect. The back-leg must once again support a great percentage of the body’s tilted axis.
> >
> > Shawn, please clarify this point for me. – Are you saying that the back-shoulder rotates about a posted (stationary) lead-shoulder (like a gate swinging on hinges)?
> >
> > Jack Mankin
> It seems that that were right in predicting that a response from Shawn would be slow in coming. You pointed out that it would be difficult for Shawn to explain to the obvious dichotomy in his philosophy, namely his claim that the hips rotate around a posted lead leg (like a swinging gate) while not being able to explain why the back shoulder does not rotate around a posted front shoulder. Of course, any casual observer has to acknowledge that the shoulders rotate equally about the spine and not around a posted lead shoulder (hence, the head does not move forward during the swing).
> I agree that this constitutes a significant contradiction in their analysis of the swing. And I owe you a dollar.
> Brian

This is an interesting statement but I haven't found it to be accurate. What I believe is that the hips rotate around the front hip socket, this coupled with a stationary head position is what sets the upperbody angle. If you reverse your logic and say that the head doesn't move then how does the upper body get into a position tilted back slightly to the catcher. I know not all hitters do but a significant number. I feel like the swing is initiated with the hips rotating forward on the front hip and chaining back to the shoulders rotating through contact.

To me this would explain the chain of events that you indicate is a contradiction.


Post a followup:

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

[   SiteMap   ]