[ About ]
[ Batspeed Research ]
[ Swing Mechanics ]
[ Truisms and Fallacies ]
[ Discussion Board ]
[ Video ]
[ Other Resources ]
[ Contact Us ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Torque Technique Part II

Posted by: Melvin () on Thu May 2 11:40:18 2002

I started this anew because the last thread has gotten long and branched.
> > > > >
> > > > > From what I've read, Paul is advocating the body actions, transfer mechanics, shoulder rotation and linkage that Jack and many others here also advocate.
> > > > > I have seen this same technique used as a teaching aid to eliminate the disconnection of arms from shoulder turn.
> > > > > But I've always seen it used as a step along the way, not the final step.
> > > > >
> > > > > Given the complications added to the swing by starting the arms in a disconnected fashion, then connecting them properly, I think this is a useful teaching tool.
> > > > > I am not clear on whether the bat is upright or laid out flat, ala, a deranged, exaggerated Chuck Knoblach. I don't think the flat bat/ultra Knoblach swing is useful at all.
> > > > > However, interestingly, holding the hands low and back so that the bat touches the upper arm does load the scapula. It also creates a kind of tighlty bound version of Bonds' swing. He also starts the hands low and allows the shoulders to pull the hands into rotation from there.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think there are some advantages to allowing the hands to move away from the body. The stretch gets more slack out of the lead arm AND allows the hands to pull back in, a motion similar to a figure skater's when increasing the speed of a spin (they pull their arms in). This can be done in the 1/4 turn of the baseball swing as well and does increase batspeed.
> > > > >
> > > > > I guess I'm missing what the fuss is about, as this technique is not dissimilar to what Jack Mankin has put forward in many ways.
> > > > >
> > > > > Would opponents come forward with specifics on how this technique (esp. the bat against arm) decreases or limits batspeed.
> > > > > What are the perils involved, beyond looking unusual to other players and coaches.?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > However, once the proper body work is acquired and used, there are advantages to moving beyond the Torque Technique arm position.
> > > >
> > > > Major Dan
> > > >
> > > > I enjoyed your comments as to the possibility that the technique has merit. As for Joe and the rest of the people who with alias or who are afraid to put their names on their comments, your negative opinions are worthless until you get to the cage and try it.
> > > >
> > > > Richard Schenck
> > > > >
> > >
> > > Have you seen Jack's tape and have you tried his drills, like the heavy bag drill, with your technique?
> > > Can you clarify the bat position - laid back like Knoblach or not? (where is the barrel?). I didn't see any pictures and that isn't clear to me.
> I'm not sure what Paul recommends because I'm waiting for his tape. I just read the webball.com article and it said to lay the bat handle against the upper arm where the Deltoid muscle meets the bicep muscle. This is where my sons hold the bat. Neither of their bats is flat. They both hold the bat at approximately a 45 degree angle. The benefit I feel when I hit with them is increased bat speed due to the hands being close to the body causing the energy from the rotation to remain high (figure skater example) and then it exits the bat head through shoulders, arms, and hands as the bat meets the ball. All this energy starts with the legs and hips rotating. The torgue of the bat head pressed against the arm seems to multyply the already high energy (caused by the hands being close)
> I have no physics background but I can feel the difference when swinging. No question it is unusual but as a former DII college player and one who has played many years of fast pitch softball I've tried a lot of things and this is the only one that I could feel the results the first time I tried it. My sons are sold & looking forward to a productive summer. My only fear is well-meaning coaches who don't take the time to understand.
> Richard Schenck

Mr. Schenck

You are not reliable. How can we expect objective information from you? You obviously have a large emotional stake in the success of your children, who are, at least for now, wedded to this approach.

You write that you too are an advocate for the system based on personal success at it.

Most of us here are involved in bat speed discussions because we want to know what the best players in the world do to create it. None of them hit as you describe. Neither you nor the batting system's promoter can explain what about it is superior to what the best hitters in the world do.

Further, we don't need descriptions from good hitters. We can watch their swings and compare them to those of poor hitters. This is objective. This is fair. I won't say scientific, but it is serviceable in its lack of emotion, which clouds judgement.

No one is moved by your exhortations to try it out. Explain it compared to proved excellence and we won't have to. If you can't, it is because the system is inferior to the task, or that its proponents are unprepared.



Post a followup:

Anti-Spambot Question:
This pitcher had over 5000 strikeouts in his career?
   Nolan Ryan
   Hank Aaron
   Shaquille O'Neal
   Mike Tyson

[   SiteMap   ]