Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: SKIPPER, question about timing
Posted by: SteveT (
) on Thu Jan 6 13:03:20 2000
Your post of yesterday read:
"A given is the old F=MA (Force = Mass X Acceleration) Thus, my statement inferes that there should be acceleration through - not to contact. The formual is not Force = Mass X Velocity. So even if the maximum velocity was reached prior to contact - maintained at contact - and consistant after contact - physics tell us that a greater force will be exerted through the use of acceleration.
EXAMPLE: where the contact bat speed is X and equal in both 1 & 2
1. Start swing (X-50), acceleration to (X), contact (X), post contact (X), deceleration (X-30) - (X-50)end swing
2. Start swing (X-50), acceleration to (X), contact (X), post contact (X+5), deceleration (X-30) - (X-50) end swing.
Because of the acceleration through the contact point a greater force is delivered even with the same impact velocity as represented by (X)."
Somehow that does not strike me as "speaking mainly from a coaching standpoint." It strikes me more as an attempt to use physics principles to support a totally erroneous statement. You didn't say/ write that you thought we should teach that. You stated it as fact that "we all can agree on." That's quite a different matter, in my view. It's what I take serious issue with.
Excuse my directness, and I don't wish to be rude, but after all, you started this whole thing. And you've perpetuated it with vague (and not so vague) "geek" references. Perhaps you've forgotten the source of the technology that allows you to send statements over the Internet with impunity- science and engineering. Ditto for countless other technologies you use every day. Yet you ridicule science while exploiting its discoveries and principles at the same time.
How would you like me to start throwing around possible stereotypes about you? I think you would not take too kindly to it. Neither do I. In fact, if I had the pleasure of meeting you, I believe you would find those stereotypes to be wholly inaccurate im my case.
Your recent posts in this thread appear to be unfortunate attempts at "covering your tracks." I guess I understand why people do that. But what you really should do (in my opinion) is go back and retract your statement(s), apologize for misleading people, and refrain from it in the future. I've had to apologize to Jack for inaccuracies, and I did so as much out of respect for truth, as regard for the incredible dedication Jack Mankin has given to the study of batting mechanics.
Please consider carefully what I've written here before preparing your response (if any.)
None of us has ALL the answers.
Post a followup: