Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Old syle hitting technique vs Now a days Hitting styles

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Old syle hitting technique vs Now a days Hitting styles

    With hitting styles as unusual as Ty Cobb holding the bat with an inch or two between each hands.. and many players starting out with the bat close to their belt.. and then with hitting styles Now a days anyone could see the change between them... What do you guys think.. were the old style swings better?

  • #2
    were the old style swings better?
    generally speaking---yes-----

    Comment


    • #3
      Back then the HR wasn't as big of a part of the game as it is today. It was more about putting the ball into play.

      Comment


      • #4
        If you're talking pre-1920, you're dealing with a dead ball, so there was no point in swinging for the fences -- you weren't likely to reach them. Since then, swings have grown better. We know a lot more about physics and kinesiology now then we did then, so the MLB swings are more efficient and more uniform.

        Quick challenge question to MarkL: If yesteryear's swings were bettter, why does no one adopt them now?
        sigpicIt's not whether you fall -- everyone does -- but how you come out of the fall that counts.

        Comment


        • #5
          Here's when the balls and subsequently many of the swings changed:

          MLH.jpg

          Look at the increase in 1920
          "He who dares to teach, must never cease to learn."
          - John Cotton Dana (1856–1929) - Offered to many by L. Olson - Iowa (Teacher)
          Please read Baseball Fever Policy and Forum FAQ before posting.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Ursa Major View Post
            If you're talking pre-1920, you're dealing with a dead ball, so there was no point in swinging for the fences -- you weren't likely to reach them. Since then, swings have grown better. We know a lot more about physics and kinesiology now then we did then, so the MLB swings are more efficient and more uniform.
            If kinesiology is so much better now.. than how come mickey mantle was capable of hitting 600+ foot bombs with ease back then and now a days no one even comes close?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by baseballplaya92 View Post
              If kinesiology is so much better now.. than how come mickey mantle was capable of hitting 600+ foot bombs with ease back then and now a days no one even comes close?
              Kenisiological advancements have allowed us to better understand the swing - This deeper understanding does not detract from those who had great swings years ago. The game participants at the highest level are bigger, stronger, faster. With that the understanding needed to excell becomes greater. The real great players of yore would have no problem competing in today's game - the average players of yore might.
              "He who dares to teach, must never cease to learn."
              - John Cotton Dana (1856–1929) - Offered to many by L. Olson - Iowa (Teacher)
              Please read Baseball Fever Policy and Forum FAQ before posting.

              Comment


              • #8
                If kinesiology is so much better now.. than how come mickey mantle was capable of hitting 600+ foot bombs with ease back then and now a days no one even comes close?
                Becasue now a days, people actually measure the distance, rather than believing apocryphal stories.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Jake, you knew I'd love that graph didn't you. Make it yourself?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Sorry Virg,
                    I got this from A Graphical History of Baseball found at: http://home.istar.ca/~mbein/baseball.html Pretty cool site.
                    "He who dares to teach, must never cease to learn."
                    - John Cotton Dana (1856–1929) - Offered to many by L. Olson - Iowa (Teacher)
                    Please read Baseball Fever Policy and Forum FAQ before posting.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by baseballplaya92 View Post
                      If kinesiology is so much better now.. than how come mickey mantle was capable of hitting 600+ foot bombs with ease back then and now a days no one even comes close?
                      Im sure the pitching has changed more then batting.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Quick challenge question to MarkL: If yesteryear's swings were bettter, why does no one adopt them now?
                        ooooh a "challenge question"....

                        The best one's do "adopt them now".....They look like-Ruth-Dimaggio-Williams-Mantle-Musial-Fr. robinson-Jimmy Foxx-Gehrig-McCovey---on and on

                        They don't eliminate athletic movement and they DON'T just hold on to the bat and turn....

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          The best players figure out how to do the things they need to do to win. When power is rewarded the top players develop powerful swings. When bat control was rewarded the top players used different techniques which increased the ability to make contact.

                          My guess is that separating the hands helped give the batter better control. When you are trying to bunt you don't keep the hands together on the bat. Instead you move your hands wide apart, sacrificing all power for maximum control over the placement of the barrel. Another issue is the heavy bats used back then. Batters then, focusing on making contact, probably were unwilling to use a thinner bat which would reduce the hitting area. If you make a bat with the maximum size barrel and normal length there is almost no way to make it much under 40 ounces in weight. The players of that time (generally smaller, less muscular) may have found it necessary to keep the hands apart in order to control such a heavy bat. Today's players use lighter bats of less than the maximum diameter and swing as fast as they can.

                          I would argue that today's swings are not "better", although they are more powerful. The unstated assumption is that today's game is better and so the techniques today are better. I believe it is more of a response to the conditions of the game today. If the deadball returned so that power hitting was no longer effective the players would alter their swings for increased control.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            The main difference I think I observe is in shoulder tilt vs knee bend on low pitches. Currently, more of the former. More of the latter in the past.

                            http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=71624

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Stevebogus:

                              My guess is that separating the hands helped give the batter better control.
                              Cobb sometimes split the hands (I have clips where he does, and clips where he doesn't). When he did, it was allegedly a mechanism for adjustment to inside / outside pitches. For an outside pitch, he adjusted by sliding the bat through the top hand to close the gap in the grip and effectively make the bat longer. For an inside pitch, he slid the bat through the bottom hand to close the gap in the grip (he ended up with a fairly standard choked-up grip) and effectively made the bat shorter.

                              Obviously, whatever he did worked, against the pitching of the day. .367 speaks for itself.



                              The unstated assumption is that today's game is better and so the techniques today are better.
                              I've really gone back and forth on this. In EVERY sport where performance can be directly measured - swimming, track, etc., athletes perform remarkably better today than 50 years ago. Johnny Weismueller won Olympic Gold and went on to Hollywood fame by swimming 100 yards in under a minute. Today, girls in Jr High swin 100 METERS faster. Much of that progression in these sports is due to athletic training and the enhancement of "technique."

                              http://trackfield.brinkster.net/Logon.asp

                              In EVERY sport where acomplishment is not measured, but is easily observed, the same is true (ice skaters do quads instead of doubles; gymnasts have incredibly more difficult routines; Bob Cousy dribbled behind his back to the delight of the crowd - Kobe does a little more than that; etc.). It seems illogical - at least on the surface - to assume that baseball would be exempted from this progression of enhanced athletic accomplishment. But the argument on the other side is pretty persausive, too. Namely, that hitting a baseball is absolutely a trial-and-error based learning endeavor, and it takes a huge number of repetitions to get good at it. And kids in the "golden era" hit a baseball on the sandlot - all day, every day - as they grew up. Many, many swings against live pitching every day. Today's youth hitters have far more formal practices and lots of formal instruction. But far less repetition in "live" situations.

                              On balance, I personally come down on the side that believes hitters today ARE better - if for no other reason than I think pitchers are better too, and yet the statistics have remained pretty consistent. But there is sure room for argument on the other side.

                              Regards,

                              Scott
                              Last edited by ssarge; 03-30-2008, 10:03 PM.

                              Comment

                              Ad Widget

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X