Posted by: tom.guerry (tom.guerry@kp.org) on Wed Apr 24 12:51:33 2002

* Tom's personal opinions/reactions:

> >
> > ##
> > ss coach....you misunderstood me....i am not a "linearist" and i do indeed agree with many of jack's theories....but his theories do have flaws......some examples.....he refuses to acknowledge that many major leaguers achieve full extension on outside pitches, despite evidence to the contrary.....he does not believe in the "whip" theory...he does not believe in the "kinetic chain"....he thinks you should not hit the inside part of the ball on an outside pitch; he thinks you can hit the os pitch the same way as an inside pitch by simply having a wider swing radius (some would call this "casting"......he thinks major leaguers achieve almost full hip and shoulder rotation on outside pitches, despite evidence to the contrary..... whenever i discuss these matters with him, he responds with either asking me a question...then when i respond he ignores my response.....or...sometimes he will respond with a canned answer which doesn't address my points.... so, i'm not defending "linearists"...it's quite simple: rotation on is pitches, "linear" (his term, not mine) for outside pitches....
>
> hi, jack...thanks for the response.....i stand corrected...without going to the archives, i think i do recollect you having made a distinction between "throwing the hands" and "throwing the bathead"...."throwing the bathead" does indeed require different mechanics than "throwing the hands" and i do apologize for the apparent and unintentional misrepresentation.....my overall point was not to rehash old issues but to simply suggest that in general there can be cues that while in theory (yours or mine)might not be good, in practice and for the individual might well be useful.....again, my apologies.....
>
> as for my post at setpro, perhaps i have again misunderstood you in the past and issue by issue (each of which has generated much discussion over the years)perhaps you could correct the record...
>
> (1)"he refuses to acknowledge that many major leaguers achieve full extension on outside pitches, despite evidence to the contrary".....if i must, i could go to the archives to cite your comments on this matter as well as the other issues discussed in my post......
>
* What do we mean by full extension?Usually it's the power "V" which happens after the front upper arm has cast away from the chest.This should never happen before contact or there will have been deceleration before contact which ruins timing/batspeed/power.

*Jack has stated many times that the "L" comes out of the elbow prior to contact on the outside pitch.This is a form of extension.The important thing Jack has shown is that the handpath needs to remain circular for this pitch.The statement that you should be linear for the outside pitch is bad information.The "L" can(and should) come out of the back elbow on the outside pitch without the hand path "going linear" and without the front upper arm disconnecting from the torso.

*Jack has also repeatedly mentioned the high load/less torso rotation situation for the outside pitch.

*If you consider the essence of the swing to be good timing,the ideal of hitting the ball square is a good one(addressing point about hitting inside of ball for outside location).
> (2)"he does not believe in the "whip" theory"....it is not well-documented that you disagree with the "whip theory" as well as the "kinetic chain" theory?....

*Jack has pointed out that transfer mechanics are not synonymous with whipping.Ball on string principles play a role and there is not tapering of mass.

*I see Jack's statement that what is important about the lower body is that it gets the shoulders turning is an acknowlegement of the kinetic chain idea with the added clarification of how transfer mechanics need to work to get torso energy converted to batspeed.


>
> (3)"whenever i discuss these matters with him, he responds with either asking me a question...then when i respond he ignores my response.....or...sometimes he will respond with a canned answer which doesn't address my points".............jack, there has been several times when this is exactly what happened in some of our exchanges and if it were that important i could go to the archives & provide examples.......


*Jack often asks provocative questions which I find helpful to clarify people's positions.I haven't seen him do this to avoid answerring questions.
>
>
> (4)i think it would be important to point out that i prefaced my remarks at setpro with "i do indeed agree with many of jack's theories....but his theories do have flaws"......is it not true that you and charley lau jr, or paul, or mike schmidt or mike epstein share many of the same theories, but that you believe each of them have at least one or more particular flaws?

*Jack seems the most willing of these gurus to have the direct communication necessary to hash out the agreements and disagreements which seem to exist.That would be enlightening for all.
>
> jack, my post here as well as at setpro as well as any and all other posts i have made has not in any way whatsover been meant to denigrate you....i have meant absolutely no disrespect to you whatsoever and if i have misrepresented your views i truely do apologize........respectfully, grc.....
> >

*One way to limit misrepresentation is to write a statement that you believe to represent someone's position,then have that person sign off on it.I'll bet Jack would be willing to give such feedback.