Re: Re: QUESTION 4 TOM.GUERRY
tom........i know you are well informed on mike epstein's views......it seems to me that he is a believer in the circular hand path....and he seems to be an even stronger believer in the kinetic chain than jack mankin!!!!...... and , even though he calls it something else, he seems to be a strong believer in the "elbow in the slot"....but then epstein advocates a modified fence drill....modified so as to place the hitter even CLOSER to the fence...........it seems to me that if one were to develop a swing by practicing this modified fence drill, three things would happen............(1) no circular hand path (2) there goes the kinetic chain (3) there goes the elbow in the slot..............as a matter of fact, when i simulated this exreme fence drill, the only way i could get the bat toclear the fence was to do exactly what jack demonstrated in his video with the steering wheel knob: simply thrust my hands forward, and in a way that would make hitting the ball hard very difficult, if not impossible...........would you agree there is an inconsistency here?......i would appreciate your comments......respectfully, grc.........
> That same question was posted to Epstien on his web site, and he answered it, though I cant remember his answer except that he agreed with you and his fence drill was serving another purpose. You may find your answer on that site I think..
grc and Tom -
I was the one who posted that question at Mike Epstein's site. There is a history behind this.
Mike responded to someone's question about the shoulders, arms, hands, etc. and his response was along the lines of 'push knob of bat toward pitcher by extending arms, then snap wrists for incredible torque and batspeed'
I questioned the totally linear approach as being inconsistent with his rotational lower body technique.
Both his and my post were deleted within the hour.
I questioned that and he responded by saying it would confuse people and to stay tuned for his next Collegate Baseball article (#3 I think).
If you read that article, you may come to the conclusion that he spent a lot of time reading Jack Mankin's work and reguritating it wholesale with no credit given. Form your own opinion.
So, Mike's fence drill stuff IMO is a byproduct of his lack of understanding of upperbody mechanics. His version would IMO most likely create linear mechanics, not the rotational stuff he now advocates.
Tom, I know you try to be fair to everyone, but I think you are going too far in rationalizing Mike Epstein's fence drill. Lots of instructors know what they want to see, yet spout theories that don't match, and do drills that don't help get you there unless the actual instructor is there to have them done 'right'. The teacher may get good results based on their personal input, but if you read their book and follow their thoughts, you won't get the same results. I think that's what we've got here. Mike may know what he wants, but his concepts and drills for upper body are nothing you'd want to learn from. Jack's material is well thought out and can be taught. I think we both use ME for lower body and Jack for transfer mechanics and upper body.
you are right on the money with your questions.
IMO it is very unfair for Mike Epstein to take credit for Jack's work.
Post a followup: