I got blur part 2

[jbooth]

OK, here's what I believe to be better swings, and I did them with;

1. No pulling back early with the top hand
2. No using both hands to apply force in opposite directions between the hands
3. No twisting of the forearms or pinwheeling

My main concentration was to leave the bathead alone, and leave it above my head as long as I could. I just concentrated on keeping the hands back and rotating.

A .wmv of 3 swings from 2 views is below.

http://firstpickclub.com/video/blurnotht.wmv

No hand force to the bathead.
Hand force

So, can it be done either way? I think so. And it looks like a 5 frame swing to me.

[jbooth]

OK, here's what I believe to be better swings, and I did them with;

1. No pulling back early with the top hand
2. No using both hands to apply force in opposite directions between the hands
3. No twisting of the forearms or pinwheeling

My main concentration was to leave the bathead alone, and leave it above my head as long as I could. I just concentrated on keeping the hands back and rotating.

A .wmv of 3 swings from 2 views is below.

http://firstpickclub.com/video/blurnotht.wmv

No hand force to the bathead.
Hand force

So, can it be done either way? I think so. And it looks like a 5 frame swing to me.

No comments?

[callyjr]

I think were all tired of the discussion

[Slapper23]

Jim,

I gotta tell you, that is a nice swing. I mean it seriously, it is a nice swing, much better than the one from a few days ago. John (BM) you payin' attention?? I'm complimenting Jim on his swing...because it's pretty good and a hell of a sight better than yours, big boy.

Jim, I know you did not consciously think about hands or torquing with the hands, or turning the bat with the hands. But! You still appeared to turn the bat with your hands and arms in a torquing action. You did the replace the elbow thing very quickly and got your hands flat quickly..you got a running start and while coming out of the running start you torqued the bat in combination with great lateral tilt...all while keepnig the front shoulder from opening prematurely. It appeared you had better separation and you more or less rotated into toe touch/foot plant.

You whipped the bat out of running start and into the swing path. You were much closer to what I would call "immediate launch and spend." Remember, even if you were not thinking hands, just from the "swivel" of your arms/forearms in quickly changing the positions of the elbows you created a torquing action of the bat transmitted through the hands to the bat. In this case, the hands reacted to what you were doing with your arms.

I am seriously impressed. No pushing or pulling in this swing...you whipped the bat into rotation and connected to the turning torso led by hips first. Nice, nice, swing. Hell, I may even show this to my kids as an example of getting the hands flat quickly. Because I'll tell ya, I do not mention hand torque to my kids, but I do talk about getting the hands flat quickly and in replacing the elbows quickly. IMO, this accomplishes the torquing action which creates resistance as the hips lead the way, and keeps the hands back near the arm pit while stretch is created and at cusp the upper torso reverses and you have a connected immediate launch and spend swing. Pretty damn good for a 58 yo! You outdid yourself, Jim.

Great job,
Mike

P.S. I'm headed out of town to Indy for an AAU basketball tourney my 12 yo granddaughter is playing in, but I had to give you my response first.

[jbooth]

Jim,

I gotta tell you, that is a nice swing. I mean it seriously, it is a nice swing, much better than the one from a few days ago. John (BM) you payin' attention?? I'm complimenting Jim on his swing...because it's pretty good and a hell of a sight better than yours, big boy.

Jim, I know you did not consciously think about hands or torquing with the hands, or turning the bat with the hands. But! You still appeared to turn the bat with your hands and arms in a torquing action. You did the replace the elbow thing very quickly and got your hands flat quickly..you got a running start and while coming out of the running start you torqued the bat in combination with great lateral tilt...all while keepnig the front shoulder from opening prematurely. It appeared you had better separation and you more or less rotated into toe touch/foot plant.

You whipped the bat out of running start and into the swing path. You were much closer to what I would call "immediate launch and spend." Remember, even if you were not thinking hands, just from the "swivel" of your arms/forearms in quickly changing the positions of the elbows you created a torquing action of the bat transmitted through the hands to the bat. In this case, the hands reacted to what you were doing with your arms.

I am seriously impressed. No pushing or pulling in this swing...you whipped the bat into rotation and connected to the turning torso led by hips first. Nice, nice, swing. Hell, I may even show this to my kids as an example of getting the hands flat quickly. Because I'll tell ya, I do not mention hand torque to my kids, but I do talk about getting the hands flat quickly and in replacing the elbows quickly. IMO, this accomplishes the torquing action which creates resistance as the hips lead the way, and keeps the hands back near the arm pit while stretch is created and at cusp the upper torso reverses and you have a connected immediate launch and spend swing. Pretty damn good for a 58 yo! You outdid yourself, Jim.

Great job,
Mike

P.S. I'm headed out of town to Indy for an AAU basketball tourney my 12 yo granddaughter is playing in, but I had to give you my response first.

Well, I do appreciate the compliments, but I have to tell you, how you think I did it is WAY far from what I was consciously trying to do, and what I feel in doing it. Plus, you better be careful in complimenting me. Your buddy Richard, saw the same swing and has posted on eteamz that it's NOTHING even close to the MLB pattern, yada, yada, yada, a horrible swing. Quote; "Your shift is killing you."

If you look objectively at these photos, is it really THAT far off?

What's wrong with the bat arc, that Richard says is still not close to MLB?

Am I hugely, drastically, far different from Bonds? Not suggesting I can swing like him, but do you see MAJOR differences, or minor ones?

[Slapper23]

Jim,

I told Rich I liked your swing. I think if Rich and I compromised on what we saw in the swing, it would still be a pretty good swing. I think you're pretty close to the comparative clips of Bonds. He is obviously leaning back more and trying to lift the ball more than you, therefore the higher lead elbow at contact. But otherwise, I liked it. I know you didn't think or feel hands, but nonetheless it is the hands which grip and control the bat, and therefore transmit force to the bat handle. IMO, when you quickly replace the elbows by a quick swivel of the arms/forearms in combination with lateral tilt, you are applying a torquing action to the bat. How much? I have no idea. YOu are making the bat turn quickly into the swing path...you are whipping the bat into the swing path. It's quick and powerful.

As I said, I don't even whisper hand torque to my kids....why muddle their minds? Instead, I tell them to do what you did...get the hands flat right now by replacing the elbows while tilting. To me this accomplishes what I and others say hand torquing the bat handle accomplishes. Even if you don't think hands, your hands are still reacting to the forces the arms transmit to the hands to the bat by changing angles. But I also think if you think hands during this action you may get a bit more whip...but I'm not for sure. You should try to repeat your last swing, but this time think hands and see what happens. It may degrade the swing and you may be better off not thinking hands but still doing what you did in the last clip...and accomplishing the same result.

Again, nice job. (Damn, I got to get to bed! It's hard to run with you West Coasters!)

Mike

[hiddengem]

No comments?

Nice swing Jim, you old Salty Dog.

[Encinitas]

I will jump in. I have no problem with how Jim teaches hitting or what Slapper has to say about replacing elbows. So to that extent I like the swing. And despite Richard's eteamz post he does have some good things to say about the swing too.

Now, in terms of whether this meets the criteria of "rearward blur" I have to say no. It doesn't pass the mouse test. That is at "go" you put your mouse pointer on the hands and check the path of the barrel. I think the key thing you are missing is the arc of the barrel must travel a path that is further back than where the hands are at go. Now, you don't have to agree with this, and I am sure you don't, but I am just explaining where it is that there is still not agreement.

So while this is a good swing for a guy old enough to be my dad, it doesn't seem to pass the same type of blur Richard speaks of. Like he said it does blur but doesn't blur rearward.

In terms of critique one thing I am looking at your finish and notice you are closer to the waist than up around the shoulder. Maybe a little more jut in the front elbow?

[jbooth]

I will jump in. I have no problem with how Jim teaches hitting or what Slapper has to say about replacing elbows. So to that extent I like the swing. And despite Richard's eteamz post he does have some good things to say about the swing too.

Now, in terms of whether this meets the criteria of "rearward blur" I have to say no. It doesn't pass the mouse test. That is at "go" you put your mouse pointer on the hands and check the path of the barrel. I think the key thing you are missing is the arc of the barrel must travel a path that is further back than where the hands are at go. Now, you don't have to agree with this, and I am sure you don't, but I am just explaining where it is that there is still not agreement.

So while this is a good swing for a guy old enough to be my dad, it doesn't seem to pass the same type of blur Richard speaks of. Like he said it does blur but doesn't blur rearward.

In terms of critique one thing I am looking at your finish and notice you are closer to the waist than up around the shoulder. Maybe a little more jut in the front elbow?

OK, this is an honest question. How is Bonds' blur any different from mine?

And, the only difference I see is that his pitch is about 4 inches higher and he was swinging for a HR so his path is more up. I was looking to hit the ball on a line drive double type flight path.

Also, the lowness of my hands after contact is due to me not letting the arms extend in my follow-thru. I pull the front elbow in and down because it hurts my shoulder to let the bat go, but everything up through contact is the same.

Where are the MAJOR differences here? His front elbow is higher because he is hitting it up. Mine would have been higher if I was aiming up. His back elbow is away from his side a bit more than mine, and it moves forward more as he drives through the ball better than me. I honestly don't understand this "rearward blur" that you're talking about.

[BoardMember]

Jim,

John (BM) you payin' attention?? I'm complimenting Jim on his swing...because it's pretty good and a hell of a sight better than yours, big boy.

You've never seen my "swing" Mike. You saw a demo of a low-out exagerated (ankle high) clip. You are a [email protected]#t disturber. Continue your rhetoric all you want. When you post a swing of YOU swinging the bat, I'll let you know if you have a clue........

Ok Jim. I told you on Eteamz it's a connection test. THATS ALL IT IS.

You will never past the test when you disconnect from the shoulders in the 2nd frame of launch.

Watch what happens to your hands in the second frame of launch. The hands move severly forward in front of your arm pit after 1 frame.

There are plenty of MLB hitters who do this, and CAN'T pass the connection test. That's why Richard had to "disqualify" hitters either because the hands disconnect early or the swing is "to steep" to measure with this rudamentary test.......

I can't believe people "gauge the quality" of the swing using this.......

Pujols hands stay connected to the rear shoulder for 2 frames of rotation. So do these girls.....So what.......This must mean "swivel and rearward blur" for these ladies because they "pass the test".......BS......

Neither one has ever heard the term swivel, torque, or "rearward"........



Connection Jim...........Just connection.......

How is Bonds' blur any different from mine?

Is it? Watch........He can't pass the swivel test either.......



I'll PM you a game clip of mine. You'll see the difference.......

P.S. Here's a guy we like. He can't pass the test. Watch his hands at the 2nd frame of launch:



I would put too much stock in the test.......

[Slapper23]

Jim,

Don't let John (BM) rain on your parade. Yeah, you could have kept the hands back longer sure, but it's still a very good swing, especially considering your age. I stand by my analysis and if you look clsely, you'll see your last swing is A LOT better than the first...you whipped the bat head out of running start.

John's just a little jealous because you come much closer to what Bonds is doing than John does, when you compare his attempt at hitting the low and outside pitch vs. Bonds. You show a little disconnection maybe...John disconnects badly. You don't push the knob of the bat at the ball, you swing the bat. As HG said, "nice swing."

Mike

[Drill]

jbooth, drill here and yes I will take the tongue out of my check. Sometimes I just kid to much.

I see things in a swing at my low level of knowledge, I will admit I am a noobie when it comes to the small parts of a swing the the body has to do in micro seconds. But this blur thing is mixing me up to the point I just don't know what the heck you are talking about or trying to get across, so please be patient with this self acknowledged old man here trying to learn new tricks of the swing so that I may impart a little understanding to what the heck swing coachs at a higher level are talking about.


respectfully yours,

drill

[jbooth]

Jim,

Don't let John (BM) rain on your parade. Yeah, you could have kept the hands back longer sure, but it's still a very good swing, especially considering your age. I stand by my analysis and if you look clsely, you'll see your last swing is A LOT better than the first...you whipped the bat head out of running start.

John's just a little jealous because you come much closer to what Bonds is doing than John does, when you compare his attempt at hitting the low and outside pitch vs. Bonds. You show a little disconnection maybe...John disconnects badly. You don't push the knob of the bat at the ball, you swing the bat. As HG said, "nice swing."

Mike

I think one of us is misinterpreting BoardMember's post. I think he was being sarcastic. I THINK he is saying that Richard's "test" or criteria of "rearward blur" is bogus, total BS. He showed Bonds and HG not passing the so called "test", and not meeting Richard's criteria.

Re-read what he said. I edited it to help make it more clear as to how I think he meant it.

"Watch what happens to your hands in the second frame of launch. The hands move severely forward in front of your arm pit after 1 frame.

There are plenty of MLB hitters who do this, (move the hands forward) and CAN'T pass the connection test. That's why Richard had to "disqualify" hitters either because the hands disconnect early or the swing is "too steep" to measure with this rudimentary test.......

I can't believe people "gauge the quality" of the swing using this.(stupid criteria)

Pujols' hands stay connected to the rear shoulder for 2 frames of rotation. So do these girls.....SO WHAT!?.......This must mean "swivel and rearward blur" for these ladies because they "pass the test"? (sarcastic remark) .......BS......


I don't think he was raining on my parade. I think he was noting that Richard's gauge of what is necessary to have a good swing is baloney. I agree.

[BoardMember]

EXACTLY JIM....... You already know what I think of your swing. We've discussed it on the phone......Another good job you've done.......

Now to call a spade a spade.........

Propaganda is a concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of large numbers of people. Instead of impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense presents information in order to influence its audience. Some propaganda presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the cognitive narrative of the subject in the target audience.

Lets look at Mikes complimentary, yet very loaded message........

But! You still appeared to turn the bat with your hands and arms in a torquing action. You did the replace the elbow thing very quickly and got your hands flat quickly..you got a running start and while coming out of the running start you torqued the bat in combination with great lateral tilt[/B]............I would call "immediate launch and spend." Remember, even if you were not thinking hands, just from the "swivel" of your arms/forearms in quickly changing the positions of the elbows you created a torquing action of the bat transmitted through the hands to the bat. In this case, the hands reacted to what you were doing with your arms

In otherwords Jim, Great job is swinging just like Richard told you to........

Get it?.........

"Fun Stuff" as Mike would say........

I think one of us is misinterpreting BoardMember's post. I think he was being sarcastic. I THINK he is saying that Richard's "test" or criteria of "rearward blur" is bogus, total BS. He showed Bonds and HG not passing the so called "test", and not meeting Richard's criteria.

Re-read what he said. I edited it to help make it more clear as to how I think he meant it.

"Watch what happens to your hands in the second frame of launch. The hands move severely forward in front of your arm pit after 1 frame.

There are plenty of MLB hitters who do this, (move the hands forward) and CAN'T pass the connection test. That's why Richard had to "disqualify" hitters either because the hands disconnect early or the swing is "too steep" to measure with this rudimentary test.......

I can't believe people "gauge the quality" of the swing using this.(stupid criteria)

Pujols' hands stay connected to the rear shoulder for 2 frames of rotation. So do these girls.....SO WHAT!?.......This must mean "swivel and rearward blur" for these ladies because they "pass the test"? (sarcastic remark) .......BS......


I don't think he was raining on my parade. I think he was noting that Richard's gauge of what is necessary to have a good swing is baloney. I agree.

[jbooth]

In otherwords Jim, Great job in swinging just like Richard told you to........

Get it?.........

Yeah, except that Richard watched the same swing, and says I'm not doing anything right.

Kind of funny two guys who believe the same thing, and one says I'm doing it HIS way not MINE. And, the other says I'm not doing it right. Go figure.

All, I can say is; I didn't do it thinking of what he says below, nor did I execute it that way.

He said, "You still appeared to turn the bat with your hands and arms in a torquing action."

Appeared; is the key word. It may "appear" that I torqued the bat, but I can GUARANTEE, that I applied no torque whatsoever.

And to this;

"Remember, even if you were not thinking hands, just from the "swivel" of your arms/forearms in quickly changing the positions of the elbows you created a torquing action of the bat transmitted through the hands to the bat. "

There is no "swivel" of the forearms. He is correct that the elbows quickly change position, but there's no forearm swivel. And, after the change of position the rotation pulls the knob at the ball, and the bathead unhinges.

No torque was used to set the bathead on plane, and no twisting of the forearms, or THT, arced it around.