Re: Re: 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.
> > Sincerely,
> > BHL
> > Knight1285@aol.com
> Hi BHL:
> Let me correct your first statement, Jack Mankin is not trying to organize a debate. Nyman came to this site and challenged Mankin and a couple of others to a debate. Mankin accepted and asked Nyman to contact the others and set it up. We are unaware what efforts have been undertaken since then, but Mankin is willing to debate when he returns from vacation.
> To comment on the remainder of your post, you apparently have this ideological notion that since all coaches have an opinion about the swing that if we gather little pieces of the puzzle from all coaches, then we can understand the perfect swing. You suggest that the "cues" being taught are all congruent, which I completely disagree with. Nevertheless, the logical conclusion appears to be that we should hold hands and live happily ever after, rather than discussing/debating swing mechanics. I guess that you could say the same for politics, religion, or you name it.
> The problem is that there are differences of opinion being taught, not merely differences in cues. Many coaches teach flawed mechanics and flawed cues, which prevents the proverbial puzzle from being constructed.
> Approximately 10-15 years ago, well before BatSpeed.com opened, Mankin presented his views on other discussion boards and the consensus was that linear mechanics generated the best swing and was used by the best hitters. Many scoffed at the idea of rotational mechanics. Several years later, the same thing occurred when Mankin opened this site, but not quite to the same degree, as people were beginning to study the swings of pro hitters in frame-by-frame motion. You can read the archives on this board (the archives on most other boards no longer exist, possibly because the current viewpoint would not correspond with the past writings), but I can summarize: it took a lot of slow motion analysis, consistent discussions and debate by Mankin, Epstein and a few others to begin changing the tides in favor of rotational mechanics. Many coaches have come to the conclusion that rotational mechanics are used by the great hitters, but there are still significant differing viewpoints.
> To resolve these differing viewpoints, I am of the opinion that debate should and must continue. Although, when we debate, it is important to define cues and the effect that those cues have on the bat. Otherwise, you're right in that there is too much room for ambiguity and subjectivity.
Perhaps what I meant to say is that Mankin is an integrate part of the debate that might take place. Matt believes that Epstein and Hudgens do not want to expend any effort in defending their hitting mechanics; rather, these individuals want to provide the best hitting material that they believe should be available to the public on their sites. We should respect their opinions, since I believe their intent is to prevent facilitating an argumentive atmosphere that could lead to an exchange of hostile posts between "naturalized" clients, and individuals "immigranting" from other sites to debate a site. Both these individuals want order on their sites, and I respect their reason behind focusing on "hitting," rather than theory."
The most obvious candidate for debate, then, will probably be Nyman. As everyone knows, the relationship between batspeed.com and setpro.com is turbulent at the best at this point in time. I am also aware that Mankin believes that THT and BHT are forces that are necessary to assist "the acceleration of the bat-head into an arc"; however, Nyman argues that "since their is zero force applied by the hands at contact, there is zero torque, and that is why there is no such thing as either THT or BHT." It will be interesting to see the various viewpoints physicists with doctorates take, and might soften the antagonism between the two sites. If the debate results in bringing the two opposing sites closer together, then I am all for it.
My final suggestion would be to allow individuals to bring rotation "cues" from other sites onto this one, if, in their opinion, they feel it will help bat-head acceleration. I remember a month ago that instead of recommending individuals to "rotate the heel--rotate the bat head" to generate a CHP, I instructed them to do the following:
1) Open the front foot 90 degrees, and land on the toe.
2) Drop the heel.
3) Lift the back heel off the ground.
4) Turn the back knee down and in.
5) Turn the back hip around this axis.
I then tried both methods, and found that both are good for generating the lower body rotation necessary for generating CHP. However, because my cues were borrowed with Epstein, I was met with hostility. My intention was not promotion; it was merely to assist others who have trouble doing it "one way," and give them a "fresh alternative" of arising at the same conclusion. This is simulacra to telling a math student that "completing the square" is superior to to using the "quadratic formula" when solving hyperbolic equations, since both yield the same solution (s). Seen in this light, debate is a fine alternative, because I hope the hositility visited upon me a month ago by "do it my way" posters never has to be endured by another poster.
P.S. We ought to heed advice from Rich, and all be a little more understanding of other's comments.
Post a followup: