Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ted Williams and other great hitters
Posted by: Brian (
) on Wed Jun 4 19:49:43 2008
> Look JLB, we're more on the same page than we think here.
> I never once disputed Jacks theories.And, obviously, I don't dispute Epsteins quote.My point though and, obviously, I can only speak for myself, is that it becomes over kill.I just feel that Jack, as much as I respect the man as a person, more than anything,is preoccupied with telling the forum his latest physics discovery and, how it can be applied to baseball. Sure, Epstein can get technical, but to a point. Jack sounds like a physicist, that points out connections to baseball, Epstein sounds like a baseball guy, that points out connections to physics.
> I know I probably sound like an old fart sometimes and a baseball romanticist.
> I was watching clips on you tube last night of field of dreams, old Mantle footage, Dimaggio, Berra, etc..
> And what came to mind immediately and, maybe to better understand where I'm coming from, is that as much as technology has become such a large part of everyones life, it's still baseball.
> A game in my opinion, as I've said before, excluding the core elements of fundementals, is not a game that is played in the laboratory.
> Take care.
John: You may be right that the technical discussions here become information overload, but why? It might take a long response to explain, but the answer is because most of the discussions here were originally intended to dispute the old linear teachings and to explain why those teachings didn't work. The discussions on this forum are intended for those who study and distinguish the fine principles of batting mechanics, most of which would never be conveyed to batters.
If you own Jack's video, you know that he teaches hitters differently than what he writes on this forum. That is because this forum goes well beyond the information needed by most hitters, getting into the issue of why we should teach certain principles over other principles, why some mechanics work and others don't, the physics of how power is created in the swing, and so on.
Your type of commentary (that baseball shouldn't delve into physics principles) is exactly the thinking that caused the understanding of batting mechanics to remain in the stone age when virtually every other sport was advancing in the 1980s with new high tech video analysis equipment and people like Jack - probably namely Jack - conducting analyses and studies of the body and forces (like in golf).
Baseball was played with "fundamendals" (as you suggest) for decades, but it wasn't until the last two decades that people began to understand why some players hit well and others with similar abilities could not hit their way out of a paper bag. In the old days before there was such an extensive understanding, you had to be born a great hitter because it was believed that you couldn't become a great hitter. People like Jack are showing that this is nonsense, and he is doing it with an understanding of the physics of the swing and video analysis.
Finally, let me point out that Jack didn't grow up with a white coat in a physics lab, rather he grew up on the diamond. He rarely talks about his playing days, but Jack was a very good athlete, played baseball and other sports for many years, and had a fastball projected (before radar) to be in the mid-high 90s when he was being scouted by the St. Louis organization. He later actively coached baseball for many, many years.
But it was not until much later yet that he applied his physics and math knowledge to baseball when he undertook an extensive study of the swing. This forum simply happens to be the place where he shares the techinal info., but if you see him teach batting to his students, you would hear a whole different discussion.
Post a followup: