When Theory and Physics Collide......

[BoardMember]

I've decided to move this to a new thread because it no longer deals with the original topic in which this subject arrose.

Lets make it clear I'm writing this to form discussion around what we do to cause the bat to turn to contact, and not to focus any particular person, place or theory........NOTE: in order to facilitate an understanding, I may use examples of differing theories and implied mechanics floating around the hitting community as a whole.

When is a Lever NOT a Lever...........

When it is an "orange among apples" (BoardMember 2008)

IF a rigid object (lever) is either "clampled" or "bolted" or "pinned" in such a way that neither end is freely movable, IE clamped in a vise, the physics of mechanical advantage are lost. And thus what was a lever used for mechanical advantage becomes simply a rigid object being moving in space.

The value of a lever in physics is its ability to cause mechanical advantage, or ability to mutiply the mechanical force from input effort to output load.

Why is this important to understand?

When simulations like a weight on the end of a rope are used to identify certain principles of swinging a bat, they are also subject to identifying the flaws of the principle itself.

In the case above, the principle that rotational energy by itself can be used to effect the physics nessessary to move a bat (lever) some 90 to 120 degrees from launch to contact using 90 degrees of rotation AND produce the energy required to complete the task is impossible.

IMO, the weight on the end of the rope simulation only proves that IF rotational forces are allowed to progess over a period of 270 degrees, that force will overcome the force of gravity and allow the theory to progress.

This of course is NOT possible in the real world of hitting.

This brings us to the "requirement" of mechanical advantage to effect the goal, and how it actually works..........

Enter the Lever, and the principles of Leverage as it reacts to input force, vs. Torque as a part of a formula to measure output energy..........

When is a Lever a Lever...........

When it is an "apple among apples" (BoardMember 2008)

Finally, I'll leave you with this quote:

if people are going to use science/physics/whatever discipline to argue their case then the language or should I say the specific application of the language becomes important. At least it does to me....

I look forward to discussion on this topic from everyone.........

[tom.guerry]

BM-

I think this levrage thing is a big distracting waste of time.

The Mankin torque and CHP mechanical model plus the xfactor stretch/kinetic link model work fine.

CHP alone does not work because it is not like a ball onstring until late in the swing after the initaial "flail" which is controlled by handle torque.

Leverage does not work becasue there is no stable fulcrum without pushing the swing and ruinging cusp.

Hands are applying opposing forces, AKA torque BEFORE shoulders turn.

Shoulders tilt to support handle forces and to adjust spine angle/tilt as hip action synchs.

It is similar to double pendulum with running start, but more exactly a blend of double pendulum/ball on string as bat lines up with lead forearm.

The elastic properties of soft tissue springiness and musle reflexes and force production enhance these basic mechanics tremendously which is part of the answer to Nyman Jr ("JJA")'s big question about how such tiny little torquey forces make such a difference.

JJA does not appreciate the effect of the "cusp".

It is easiest to think of this in terms compared to golf. You don't teach golf with some fancy physics model.

You teach by pattern, cues, feel and feedback.

I would recommend Jim Hardy, PLANE TRUTH FOR GOLFERS - MASTER'S CLASS as a foundation for how to approach the swing.

I would recommend Wolforth's throwing program and Nyman's throwing model to teach throw and swing together, IF your goal is the MLB pattern.

Hodge's info gives the missing pieces of the Nyman throw model. Nyman could not figure these details aout and abandoned his upper/lower body mechanics model for the ridiculous and ineffective PCRW functional/inductive middle out there is no suc h thing as good mechanics approach, AKA "snipe hunt".

Too bad.

Throwing and swinging are both somewhat separate upper and lower body motor programs where the ends synch and the action merges.

This is not a middle out one thing deal.

Throwing and swinging are best taught together.

If your girls are incapable of a high level overhand throw, then emulating SteviE via PCR rather than trying the MLB swing can be a good fallback.

[virg]

If you don't mind getting it in Olde English...
At a point in the circle when the top hand overtakes the bottom hand, (a few degrees before rollover), the bat accelerates mechanically. Leverage points also shift and a new possibility opens. At that moment, force applied by the top hand can boost that naturally occuring speed burst. One guy calls it force-coupling. Some once called it tophand. Someone else says wrist. You want something extra to whip the bat around that turn.

If the bottom hand is too far away from the torso (elbow too straight), top hand action is impaired and boost can't happen. And so, the prehistoric cue "keep your hands in". Meaning keep them in (elbow bent) until time for combined extension to it, and the top-hand speed boost .

[BoardMember]

First about the "infamous" Torque".

Torque is a byproduct of "force(s)" directed in such a way that it causes something turn in a circle around an axis (or rotate), and is technically a measurement of that force, not the actual force itself causing the action of circular motion, like pushing, pulling and twisting. Pushing, pulling or twisting is force, and may or may not create torque.

An example would be the old cross lug wrench. When you stick one end of the cross on a lug nut, and pull with one hand and push with the other on the perpendiclur handles, it generates a "circular force at the nut". That force that makes the nut spin in a circle on the bolt is measured as torque.

Another would be a single leg wrench. You stick one end on a nut, and push or pull on the other end, to cause a circular force on the object you're tightening. That force at the nut is called "torque".

In either case, leverage is the input force, not torque........

So the bottom line is "torque" is a measurement of forces directed in a circular motion around an axis.

The question then becomes are we causing the bat to move in a circle around its own axis at launch?

My assertion is NO, we are not.

Now to the lever, and leverage.

Leverage is a input multiplication factor. When force is applied to one end of a lever it is used to create mechanical advantage.

So, in a nut shell, torque is a measurement of circular force output. Leverage is an input multiplication factor.

The next part of the formula is important to understand, and possibly why we don't see/feel torque at launch.

When a system of forces acting on an object produces no motion at the pivot point, the system is said to be in static equilibrium. The result of this is ZERO torque because there is no movment of the object about the pivot point or axis.

Also, when a Lever's fulcrum is located outside the input forces, (ie, bottom hand or knob vs. between the hands) the rotation is not around an internal axis, so torque is not measurable on the handle.

Regarless Tom, at launch, when the knob is chasing away from the bat head, and the lever is NOT ROTATING around itself, there is no measureable torque generated on the handle. ZERO TORQUE is the result.

There is ONLY leverage causing the resistance load to move faster then the input load............

This is the way I understand the sequence reacting to the forces of hands on the bat.

It would take someone beside you and Mankin to change my opinion.......

BM-

I think this levrage thing is a big distracting waste of time.

The Mankin torque and CHP mechanical model plus the xfactor stretch/kinetic link model work fine.

CHP alone does not work because it is not like a ball onstring until late in the swing after the initaial "flail" which is controlled by handle torque.

Leverage does not work becasue there is no stable fulcrum without pushing the swing and ruinging cusp.

Hands are applying opposing forces, AKA torque BEFORE shoulders turn.

Shoulders tilt to support handle forces and to adjust spine angle/tilt as hip action synchs.

It is similar to double pendulum with running start, but more exactly a blend of double pendulum/ball on string as bat lines up with lead forearm.

The elastic properties of soft tissue springiness and musle reflexes and force production enhance these basic mechanics tremendously which is part of the answer to Nyman Jr ("JJA")'s big question about how such tiny little torquey forces make such a difference.

JJA does not appreciate the effect of the "cusp".

It is easiest to think of this in terms compared to golf. You don't teach golf with some fancy physics model.

You teach by pattern, cues, feel and feedback.

I would recommend Jim Hardy, PLANE TRUTH FOR GOLFERS - MASTER'S CLASS as a foundation for how to approach the swing.

I would recommend Wolforth's throwing program and Nyman's throwing model to teach throw and swing together, IF your goal is the MLB pattern.

Hodge's info gives the missing pieces of the Nyman throw model. Nyman could not figure these details aout and abandoned his upper/lower body mechanics model for the ridiculous and ineffective PCRW functional/inductive middle out there is no suc h thing as good mechanics approach, AKA "snipe hunt".

Too bad.

Throwing and swinging are both somewhat separate upper and lower body motor programs where the ends synch and the action merges.

This is not a middle out one thing deal.

Throwing and swinging are best taught together.

If your girls are incapable of a high level overhand throw, then emulating SteviE via PCR rather than trying the MLB swing can be a good fallback.

[jbooth]

First about the "infamous" Torque".

Torque is a byproduct of "force(s)" directed in such a way that it causes something turn in a circle around an axis (or rotate), and is technically a measurement of that force, not the actual force itself causing the action of circular motion, like pushing, pulling and twisting. Pushing, pulling or twisting is force, and may or may not create torque.

An example would be the old cross lug wrench. When you stick one end of the cross on a lug nut, and pull with one hand and push with the other on the perpendiclur handles, it generates a "circular force at the nut". That force that makes the nut spin in a circle on the bolt is measured as torque.

Another would be a single leg wrench. You stick one end on a nut, and push or pull on the other end, to cause a circular force on the object you're tightening. That force at the nut is called "torque".

In either case, leverage is the input force, not torque........

So the bottom line is "torque" is a measurement of forces directed in a circular motion around an axis.

First, I want to say that I'm on your side of this discussion/debate, but to be fair, I'm going to be Devil's Advocate for a moment.

The bolt through the bat in my demo is a point at which torque could be applied. If I hold the bolt with my top hand and use leverage force to pull the knob toward my body, torque can be measured at the bolt. If I hold the bolt with my bottom hand and push the bat away from me, torque again is at the bolt. If I hold the bat with both hands and push and pull at the same time my hands are working on the bolt as you described a lug wrench turns a wheel's lug nut, and torque is applied at the bolt with simultaneous opposing leverage forces. End of Devil's Advocate part.

There IS that type of leverage action in the swing, but it occurs as I showed in the overhead of Frank Robinson. It happens just before contact.

At swing launch, there is very little leveraging going on with the hands. Initially, the two hands in unison, move the knob without any "between the hands" leverage/torque.

Due to Newton's Law, the bat HEAD wants to stay in its original position even though the knob is moving. In my PVC box demo, if I did not put that "stick" that Tom and Richard point out, the "hands" have to move a long distance before the bat HEAD will move to catch up, and the head gets to contact very late and without optimum acceleration.

By using the stick, it simulated what happens in the live demo where the bat is against my shoulder. When I move the knob, the bat HEAD wants to stay put, but the shoulder acts as a fulcrum point as the movement of the knob becomes a leveraging force, which moves the bat HEAD off the shoulder and into a path that can follow the knob sooner.

In a real swing, the top hand acts as the fulcrum point early in the swing. As the back elbow drops and you keep the hands near the shoulder, and hold their 90 degree position, the top hand acts as the fulcrum point and the change of direction of the knob due to rotation and leverage from the bottom hand, force the bathead to break inertia early and get into the arc.

The top hand isn't applying a leveraging force toward the catcher, it is acting more as a fulcrum point early, and then it applies a leverage force (torque) to the imaginary bolt, in a direction TOWARD THE BALL. The top hand NEVER applies a leverage force (torque) to pull the bathead backward.

Nyman had a "aha" with his simulation where he discovered that the top hand needs weight and applies force. I just think he incorrectly analyzed what he discovered. The weight is necessary to provide the fulcrum point (and some leverage force, "toward the ball) AFTER shoulder rotation has begun. The weight and force of the top hand make the bathead break its inertia and get going.

As you pointed out, with a ball on a string you can't get the ball into an arc until after a lot of rotation. That's because there is no fulcrum point or rigidity to cause the ball to change direction. It wants to follow the leader, it doesn't want to go in an arc. The fact that the bat is rigid and leverage is applied around the hands acting as the fulcrum point, is what causes "the blur", and gets the bathead going in an arc. The bat head, unlike the ball on a string, cannot directly follow the knob, so it has to arc out and around. It is NOT due to leveraging the bathead rearward early with the top hand that gets the bat head into an arc, it is the leverage from the bottom hand and the rigidity of the bat, and the top hand acting as a fulcrum point (that is also moving.)

[Stealth]

See the ball hit the ball.

Or as John Daly says (at the 19th hole) - "just grip it and rip it!

How many students care about all of this nonsense!

[jbooth]

See the ball hit the ball.

Or as John Daly says (at the 19th hole) - "just grip it and rip it!

How many students care about all of this nonsense!

Not many, and it IS ridiculous to have to get to this level. Yeah, grip it and rip it is good, as long as you grip it and rip it the way the pros do. Some people believe that they grip it and rip it by pulling the bathead backward with the top hand, and others believe that they don't.

So, how are we supposed to resolve the belief differences?

Pros have talked about turning the hips, pulling the knob and whipping the bathead at the ball for 100 years. None have ever mentioned pulling the bathead back to get it going, so without getting into science, and just going by the teaching of those who have done it at the highest level, might resolve the issue for many. For others, that isn't good enough.

Until several pros state that they pull the bathead back, I will keep MY belief, which is; you turn the hips, pull the handle in synch with body rotation and snap the head into the ball, and you lag the head behind early on with no early force applied to it.

You're entitled to your beliefs, but don't tell me I'm wrong unless you can prove it.

[Go Cardinals]

Jbooth, dusty baker taught a push pull system that includes early bat speed.

[jbooth]

Jbooth, dusty baker taught a push pull system that includes early bat speed.

I don't think you understand what BM or I are describing, or you wouldn't make that comment, and I have no idea what a "push - pull" system is, and I read Baker's book, and I think it's a joke, so to think what I am saying is anything like what Baker teaches, shows that you don't understand.

[tom.guerry]

Trashing Dusty again

Dusty has a LOT of good advice drills.
Dusty IS describing the MLB pattern.

He was actually the first Box guy which can be an Ok cue and he is dead set against "deadstop hitting".

He was smart enough to avoid the big rush to dead hands no-stride.

Los to learn from Dusty.

Who else you guys going to trash ?

[jbooth]

Trashing Dusty again

Dusty has a LOT of good advice drills.
Dusty IS describing the MLB pattern.

He was actually the first Box guy which can be an Ok cue and he is dead set against "deadstop hitting".

He was smart enough to avoid the big rush to dead hands no-stride.

Los to learn from Dusty.

Who else you guys going to trash ?

I don't see ANY MLB hitters swinging the way Baker teaches in his book "You Can Teach Hitting"

If he teaches something different now, I'm unaware of what that is. Name ANY pro at any level (minors to majors), or ANY pro instructor at any level (minors to major) that teaches you to pull the bathead back with the top hand.

I've spoken with 3 guys with MLB experience, and none ever remembers any instructor or teammate from their "A" ball days, up through their MLB teams, (each played for more than one organization), ever even mentioning such a thing as getting the bathead moving early or pulling the bathead backward. Are you and Richard the only people to know this magical element, that no pro has ever thought about, or heard of?

[Go Cardinals]

I don't see ANY MLB hitters swinging the way Baker teaches in his book "You Can Teach Hitting"

You said...

Pros have talked about turning the hips, pulling the knob and whipping the bathead at the ball for 100 years.

Bakers team with hank Aaron. I remember dusty clearly stating that hank was push/pull... Dusty's giants... same thing... yet bakers' system promotes the back hand action that I see.

[Stealth]

You're entitled to your beliefs, but don't tell me I'm wrong unless you can prove it.

Jbooth - you assume way too much. Let me just tell you that you are wrong in your assumption on what I believe. See the ball hit the ball is not a bad approach after reading all of this stuff.

[jbooth]

You said...


Bakers team with hank Aaron. I remember dusty clearly stating that hank was push/pull... Dusty's giants... same thing... yet bakers' system promotes the back hand action that I see.

I still don't know what you're talking about, and I don't know what you "see."

[BoardMember]

Jim, we're obviously on the same page. When I use the term "resistance leverage", that's exactly what I mean. Something must resist the enertia of the bat head from collapsing inward due to rotational forces starting.

Yesterday, I showed my kid what would happen if I place almost NO force on the bat and began rotation. Exactly what said would happen, happened. The bat head literally smacked me in the neck. Actually harder then I was ready for, and it gave me quite a shock. The bat head wanted to move forward instead of following the arc of my hand path. The leverage I speak of is leverage against this inertia.

The entire point of my thread to show there is no "torque" on the handle. There is resistance leverage early. It isn't "pushing anything". It's keeping the bat head from collapsing inward at the start of the swing.

I've tried to explain that this "mystery force" can't even be called "torque" because "torque" is a measurement of rotational force. It isn't even an action. It's a measurement of an action that isn't occuring early in the swing.

Leverage is occuring during the entire sequence, and can result in torque as the knob turns back on itself.

What I said is "as long as the knob is chasing away from the bat head, there can be no measureable torque on the handle because there can be no pivoting of the bat on it's axis".

What I also said is "when the sum of all forces acting acting on the object are in balance, IE the top and bottom hand creating force that equals inertia, and the object isn't rotating about itself, the NET TORQUE is ZERO. This isn't my assumtion.

Until the knob turns back on the lever, torque is not an option.

See if we can see here when torque could be said to occur.



The other point I made is that no matter how many times someone repeats himself regarding "torque", nothing changes in the physics of the matter.

Mankins picture is wrong. There is a force acting on the bat from the hands, but it isn't torque........Nor is it a "move" toward the catcher with one hand.

The theory that a bat is a lever is NOT my theory. It is a fact of mechanical physics. I've now posted 2 references that clearly state the a bat IS a third class lever in it's mechanical use.

Thanks for the input Jim........

Stealth, I completely agree with you......So does my wife!......

One can only stand so much of "the world is flat" nonsense before attempting to prove otherwise. It's human nature. Ask Columbus........

Not many, and it IS ridiculous to have to get to this level. Yeah, grip it and rip it is good, as long as you grip it and rip it the way the pros do. Some people believe that they grip it and rip it by pulling the bathead backward with the top hand, and others believe that they don't.

So, how are we supposed to resolve the belief differences?

Pros have talked about turning the hips, pulling the knob and whipping the bathead at the ball for 100 years. None have ever mentioned pulling the bathead back to get it going, so without getting into science, and just going by the teaching of those who have done it at the highest level, might resolve the issue for many. For others, that isn't good enough.

Until several pros state that they pull the bathead back, I will keep MY belief, which is; you turn the hips, pull the handle in synch with body rotation and snap the head into the ball, and you lag the head behind early on with no early force applied to it.

You're entitled to your beliefs, but don't tell me I'm wrong unless you can prove it.