Circular or straight hand-path Cont.
>>>Nevertheless, I am still somewhat wary of your sweeping swing approach. Due to readings from your site, I believe you are attempting to inform the reading a way--backed by science--that can provide maximum power. The drawback of teaching a sweeping swing, according to Hudgens, is "an inaccurate bat barrel," which will have a noticeable impingement of consistency. <<<
>>>a) Do you advocate your circular hand path which will not yield consistent results but more home runs? >>>
>>>b) Do you advocate a straight hand path when the hitter is in a slump which will result in fewer home runs, but a better contact percentage?<<<
(The subject has changed so I started a new thread.)
In charting the swings of many professional hitters I found no evidence that an angular hand-path produced "an inaccurate bat barrel," In fact, I found just the opposite to be true. An angular hand-path allowed the wrist joints to rotate much more freely (fewer binds) and produced a truer swing plain with fewer waves.
(a) I would never advocate a hand-path of any type that would not yield consistent results. I must reject your contention that a circular hand-path yields inconsistent results. --- Please explain a mechanical reason for that assumption.
(b) I can think of no circumstance (other than bunting) where I would advocate a straight hand-path.
BHL, why do you refer to an angular hand-path as a " sweeping swing?" That implies a long slow type of swing. --- I have a question concerning weight-shift & extension mechanics --- As the batter extends his hands further and further toward full extension, does his swing get shorter and more compact?
Post a followup: