[ About ]
[ Batspeed Research ]
[ Swing Mechanics ]
[ Truisms and Fallacies ]
[ Discussion Board ]
[ Video ]
[ Other Resources ]
[ Contact Us ]
Re: Re: Re: W/S, rotation revisited

Posted by: Black Hole Lexicographer (Knight1285@aol.com) on Thu Dec 23 07:09:54 1999

> Hey BHL,
> If w/s does nothing more than center weight, why not start out centered in the stance and simply rotate?
> I agree with Jack in that, in a good swing, by the time you're ready to hit the ball, forward motion has stopped and your motion is rotational (I might quibble about some finer points regarding the extension of the rear arm, but that's a minor point.) What I don't understand is how Jack's test proved that w/s and linear movement play absolutely no role whatsoever in generating bat speed AT ANY POINT IN THE SWING. That's why I was pestering him to state this point unequivocably. I wasn't sure I understood him correctly.
> It's quite possible that I still don't. Jack might also be basing this statement on something other than just the bat/steering wheel knob experiement, thus the question that started this thread.But if I understand the proceedure he used correctly, it seems the only thing it would prove definitively is that hand torque is necessary to create angular displacement. Though angluar displacement is clearly the most important factor in overall bat speed (therefore making Jack's findings very significant), I'm not sure "angular displacement" and "bat speed" are terms that should be used interchangably. It also seems an ambitious bit of extrapolation, based solely upon this experiment, to say linear motion does nothing to generate bat speed. Is it not possible that at least a modest degree of weight shift is necessary to ignite the kinetic chain that results in so much rotational motion later in the swing. And again, I would agree with Jack that by the time contact looms, your motion better be purely rotational.
> Ferroli seems to be on the same page. He's very much a Williams disciple (obviously) and a proponent of rotational mechanics. Yet even he talks about the pendulum action of weight shift, and in fact calls it a key to timing a pitch.
> Again, I might have misinterpreted Jack. If so, I'd gladly reconsider his statements in the light of a fuller explanation.
> Regards and happy holidays,
> Jeff

Good EST morning Geoff,
While I believe that the transferrence of weight shift to rotational energy does contribute a small amount, that small amount would only be a trace of your derivation in power.

Succinctly put, in my haste to post, I forgot to mention another factor--inertia. Yes, I suppose some players, such as Nomar Garciaparra, can start from a balanced position, then simply rotate.

However, this position is not comfortable for most homo sapiens. A weight shift foward or backward will help the batter overcome inertia a priori to reaching the balanced position, when he or she rotates.

In fact, the Mike Schmidt study (Mike Schmidt and Rob Ellis) argued that "the foward tilt of the bat in the Williams theory helps the batter overcome inertia."

Therefore, I might have overlooked inertia, and its contribution to power. I still believe, however, that the direct contribution of weight shift directly to power is negligable--but it contributes indirectly by 1)assisting a batter to overcome inertia, and start rotation, unless one does not need that step, in which step two is not needed, and 2)help the batter swing from a balanced position.

The Black Hole Lexicographer


Post a followup:

Anti-Spambot Question:
This MLB Stadium is in Boston?
   Yankees park
   Three Rivers
   Safeco Park
   Fenway Park

[   SiteMap   ]