Posted by: Thorpe Facer (tfacer@yahoo.com) on Fri Nov 23 10:06:34 2001

Does anyone have a succesful communication style when talking to hitting "experts" who have not been exposed to rotational hitting? I take my son weekly to a group practice at a local hitting/baseball indoor facility. I'm often asked to coach the boys on hitting. As a recent convert, I cannot in good conscience continue teaching linear hitting techniques. The owner of the facility is visibly shaken by the concepts I'm sharing with the boys.
> > > > >
> > > > > This week he gently tried to steer me straight by stating that I was teaching the boys a "long" swing, and that eventually it would catch up with them, and as they got older it would be hard for them to catch up to a 90 mile fastball, and also more difficult for them to change back to the "correct" swing.
> > > > >
> > > > > He was especially struggling with pointing the bat towards the pitcher and sending the hands out in a motion perpindicular to the ball's path rather than straight at the pitcher. I was perplexed at how to answer. My 12 year old son was right behind him in a 50 mph cage at 35 feet crushing ball after ball towards deep left and down the line. It seems to me that power comes from bat speed, and thus a batter crushing the ball down the 3B line is getting the bat around pretty quick. He is a very well-meaning guy, so I don't want to alienate him, and (being very excited about the swing mechanics) I genuinely would like to share it with him. He is very technical, and does routine video analysis and training on local kids, using current "accepted" teachings. Any ideas?
> > > >
> > > > In trying to get a person to believe what you are teaching or minimal understand it you need to back it up with something a little more concrete, something visual. Taking mechanics you are teaching comparing them to pictures of the MLB players that demonstrate those same concepts in the stages of the swing. One can't argue with just words you need some evidence for it to stand up.
> > > > Good luck
> > >
> > > Tell them to check out this site.
> >
> > ddavies,
> >
> > Did you buy Jack's vedio? Hehehehehe
> >
> > FJ
>
> I'm thinking that if you show them Jack's video without suitable preparation they are liable to go into mental meltdown, hold up a cross and back slowly away from you. lol
>
> Just too long of a jump mentally. Better start them out with Mike's first video since it has all that stop action video comparisons of the hitting greats and then once you get them on your side, show them Jack's video.
>
> Mark H.


A difficult question! Learning is progressive. I started twelve years ago as a concerned father who wanted to make sure his son didn't learn the 'wrong' thing. Dusty Baker's book was my starting point. Since then I have read and used Dave Hudgens' material, watched Tom Emanski's tape, read Lau and Lau Jr., Schmidt, Williams, etc., etc., etc. Twelve years ago I wouldn't have known enough to intelligently evaluate Mike Epstein or Jack or Paul Nyman. The same might be true of just two or three years ago.

The instructor may not be able to evaluate and absorb some of these concepts. Each person learns what they are able and ready to understand. A discussion of cues v. reality is a good starting point that helps those involved understand where the others are starting from. If used in conjunction with video or computer analysis, cues v. reality is a helpful place to start. Also, the concept that Mike articulates well of the difference between style and technique has to be discussed or else you will spend pointless hours on parts of the swing that just don't matter much.

Good luck.