A Thought on Assessing Other's Work
I understand that Mankin is attempting to organize a discussion with Epstein, Nyman, and Hudgens. This implies that four different sites--who use different cues to maintain the common goal of executing rotational mechanics to perfection--will probably congregate. Unfortunately, there is a good probability that most patriots of one site will target the teaching "cues" of another site, rather than maintain an open mind, which is de facto in comprehend the "foreigner's" point of view. Nevertheless, as methodical thinking will show, doing so is absolutely ludicrous.
Suppose for a minute that Z is the final truth, and V, W, X, and Y are all legitemate ways that realization about hitting mechanics can be reached. Since no one method holds a greater value over the others, one might say that V=W=X=Y -->Z, or all different "cues" will yield the same result. Sure, some might hold a certain "cue" in higher esteem, and consider the other alternatives inferior, but that cannot be avoided, being the subjective nature of all humans. Clearly, the objective still remains in tact, and anyone who wants to reach perfection in rotational mechanics still has the other three choices at his or her disposal.
Let's take it a step further, and substitute Mankin for V, Epstein for W, Nyman for X, and Hudgens for Y, and call the final goal rotational perfection. If we plug in the necessary substitutions, the equation reads as follows: Mankin=Epstein=Nyman=Hudgen-->Rotational Perfection. It is becoming increasingly transparent at this point in time that, since all "cues" are congruent to one another, everyone can assist the hitter in achieving his or her desired outcome.
Finally, we can put the wquation into words, and argue that "cues" of all gurus are good, and lead to a good rotational mechanics. Put in this perspective, which choice a person selects is irrelevant. Please remember this when you debate.
P.S. You thoughts Rich?
Post a followup: