Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Flicking the wrists to contact

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

  • #76
    Rob

    A new posse member?

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by FlippJ
      Fungo22,

      I know the point you're trying to make here but using the clip you've used doesn't prove your point in my opinion. The angles of the clips are different so you really can't see what's happening with Bonds' front leg. On top of that there are several differences between the two (my son & Bonds) which makes instability in the front leg a little more possible in my son. One involves the wrapped barrel and another involves the position/posture each hitter is rotating from. In other words Brandon's problems with the front leg run deeper than how he's using his front leg in the clip you've posted.

      In the future if you choose to post that clip of Bonds I would appreciate it if you removed my son from the clip before doing so.

      Thanks!

      Jason
      I don't think he was making any comparison between the two hitters.

      He was simply stating what Bonds knee is doing (and asking how he does that) and I think it is on point.

      Comment


      • #78
        Fungo22,

        Disregard my previous post. I spoke with Sandman when I noticed you were just using his clip and he said he'd replace the clip with only the one of Bonds.

        Sorry to interrupt... Carry on.

        Jason

        Comment


        • #79
          Rob,

          If he/she has ingrained into him by coaches or just by human nature to go to the ball with your hands and has little or no power, do you think we should teach them to cok the bat with his/her wrists more, to flick the wrists at the ball?
          Your right man...but get this idea....it is easier to do the right thing with the hands so they WILL STAY OUT OF THE EARLY SWING than to try to make them stop using them....that is very hard. Just give the hands a different job at initiation. It works well and sets up a better sequence.

          The hand move now is first to the ball and it IS wrong. Just replace the bad hand move with the better hand move that is a negative hand move and it will get in sequence correctly and lead the load not the swing. Again I can tell you how to do it if you like....this really sets them off as they want you on a three year plan instead of a 3 minute plan

          That is what these bozos don't get.
          Last edited by swingbuster; 03-22-2006, 08:04 AM.

          Comment


          • #80
            lol

            What's next?

            Buster can name that tune in 2 bars............Joes Corner Bar and The Tap Room.
            Last edited by Ohfor; 03-22-2006, 08:21 AM.

            Comment


            • #81
              Buster can name that tune in 2 bars
              all relative to how any times you have heard it Ohfer

              Comment


              • #82
                Rob-

                It is a revelation to me that everyone already concentrates on what the hands do.

                Perhaps they concentrate on what they think the hands/arms should do or not do, but it is exteremly rare to see anyone concentrate on the actual universal arm action loading sequence common to both overhand throw and high level hitting.

                Hodge has described it well for throwing. Nyman has a good throwing model.Wolforth has operationalized things well, but still, the Hodge details are important not to lose sight of.

                I know it sounds like a big complex pain in the butt to think about throwing and hitting sequence together, BUT kids have to learn both well anyway to reach their potential and it's a lot easier than learning the "trainer's perpsective".

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by tom.guerry

                  I know it sounds like a big complex pain in the butt to think about throwing and hitting sequence together, BUT kids have to learn both well anyway to reach their potential and it's a lot easier than learning the "trainer's perpsective".
                  Tom,

                  What about the throw right hit left student or vice versa? What about the questions Scott asked you a week and a half ago that you said you would get back to with answers? Did I miss it?

                  How do you know what the trainer's perspective is? It doesn't appear that you train kids/anyone and you haven't seen the Trainer in action. You refuse to meet with the Trainer.

                  Rob,

                  It's far harder (impossible), as I think you know, to learn the Philosopher King, arm action, universal sequence, blend everybody with everything together, and pour it into a soup bowl, yummy yummy good method.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    4for4

                    Are we related?

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Tom your reference to "the trainers perspective " presumes that you know what that means. You do not .And you never will. To understand this perspecitive you would have to have a much better understanding of movement,ballistic training methods, sports biomechanics,all IN THE SPECIFIC CONTEXT OF WORKING WITH ATHLETES OF VERYING LEVELS OF ABILITIES.

                      You would also have to have a much better understanding of what ,why ,and how I teach.

                      Bottom line here is that ---for what ever reasons ---you do not want to know.And my conclusion is that you are afraid to go from sipping wine and speculating at a computer ,to on the ground application with a 12 yr. old staring at you .

                      Based on your entire record ----going back over 5 years----of internet speculation and philosophizing ,you have essentially nothing to show or offer that indicates any understanding of helping young hitters,understanding young athletes ,understanding how to go about creating more efficient movement ,etc, etc.



                      And you do not have ONE SHREAD OF EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE TO MAKE A CASE FOR APPLICATION OF ANY METHODS.


                      And we have repeatedly ask you to show us your evidence ---in the form of before and after demonstration of either you or your students.

                      And you have refused.And my conclusion is that you have no evidence that you can point to to even remotely legitimize your many many many specualtions.


                      The only thing you can do is SPECULATE ,SPECULATE ,SPECULATE.

                      And sit at a computer and tell us how that 12-to 16 yr old hitters do not have the swing capability of elite hitters.

                      I take it that you are mad because I called you "ignorant" as regards application in the context of young hitters.

                      Ignorant does not mean that one is stupid----------it means that you lack knowledge about the subject matter in question.

                      In this case ,we and others are talking about your lack of knowledge [ignorance] with regards to application and teaching of young athletes.

                      I stand by that statement 100%.

                      And it is based not on some knee-jerk reaction----but it is based on my 8 years of teaching experience, my many years of "doing it" -----all of it matched up against your collective writing on the internet.

                      And your writings on the internet or mostly just a self-motivated attempt to search for some kind of unified theory of hitting/hitting theory.The search of which is almnost purely for your entertainment and which has very little to do performance enhancement [and the methods /research involved in this pursuit] of young athletes.

                      You have two main agendas Tom : One is to be the "philosopher king" of the internet .The other is to try to impugn my methods or my teachings [primarily because they have been informed by Setpro.].And a subtext is that Mike Epstein methods are better [even though you have not seen either my dvd or me in person teaching.In other words you compare that which you know with that which you dont know and proclaim effectively that "well I dont have to see what Steve teaches ,I know Mike is better."]

                      You attempts here to impugn what I teach is biased and the bias is transparent-----and based on ignorance in that you do not know [or understand what ,why ,how I teach.].


                      As I have said to you repeatedly ,if you want to mostly amuse yourself by seaching for unfied theories and "superficial kinematics " of 2-dimensional slo-mo video ,that's fine.

                      But when you attempt to go beyond that -----when you make arrogant proclamations about application and teaching----you are getting into subject matter that you are almost entirely ignorant about.

                      And there is only one way for you to prove me wrong here.

                      And that would be to start putting up demos of YOUR STUDENTS, YOUR SWING. Or show up in CA. next mo. and demonstrate TO ME what I teach.

                      And we can have a 12 yr.old for you to teach and we will tape it and show it .

                      Until then ----until you can demonstrate you know something about my teaching methods ----or ANY teaching of young athletes-----you have almost 0 credibility with me or anyone else.

                      As I have said repeatedly , doing, understanding ,and teaching ,are 3 distinct modes of knowledge.

                      You ,Tom ,have SOME understanding of the swing process.

                      But ,you have vey,very little understanding of teaching young athletes.

                      steve

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Golf has survived for years without trainer lingo.

                        Sure player's today are big on toning up, but that's a different issue from getting the optimal swing pattern/sequence learned.

                        The old time hitting greats didn't need the trainer's perspective either. They learned it naturally on the playground by starting young and emulating and being genetically fortunate to some degree.

                        They were even able to learn good arm action with the nondominant arm as back arm as evidenced by Williams. This has a higher degree of difficulty, but once learned means you are more resistant to the top hand dominance flaw/tendency going forward.

                        How is it that an expert trainer is unable to adequately describe the body sequence in the high level swing ? Or is the mistaken Dixon sequence not one of the things that is a take home lesson fron his "non-manual" ?

                        That is a much more important/higher level requirement than how many pelvic muscles are doing what.

                        Just like Nyman, this trainer stuff as discussed here is way down in the detail of the wrong theoretical silo. You can't overcome these high level theoretical errors no matter how much you try to keep drilling down into the minutia.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by tom guerry
                          The old time hitting greats didn't need the trainer's perspective either. They learned it naturally on the playground by starting young and emulating and being genetically fortunate to some degree
                          .
                          Then why are we wasting our time trying to develop better hitters?
                          Ship 'em to the playground. This is a big relief for me, no more hitting lessons, no more trying to help someone fix any detrimental swing flaws.
                          Whew.....Thanks
                          Athletes today are stronger, faster, quicker than the playground days. They DID need the trainer's perspective, it just wasn't as available as it is today.
                          Because you make some ridiculous statement saying they did not need it, doesn't make it so.
                          Now that there is more specialized training for atheletes, a trainers perspective is needed. Not only needed it is imperative. Probably just a "theory" on my part.
                          They were even able to learn good arm action with the nondominant arm as back arm as evidenced by Williams. This has a higher degree of difficulty, but once learned means you are more resistant to the top hand dominance flaw/tendency going forward.
                          So, turn natural righties to left handed batters?
                          While this does make some sense it is improbable.
                          How is it that an expert trainer is unable to adequately describe the body sequence in the high level swing ? Or is the mistaken Dixon sequence not one of the things that is a take home lesson fron his "non-manual" ?
                          Steve has stated over and over, "Try to describe function"------------ difficult, at best.

                          Once again you make a statement, "Unable to adequately describe,,,,,,,,etc. and yet you know not what he is instructing or how. I have witnessed it. You? How is it that so many believe he is "adequate"? Actually he IS WAY above adequate. You?
                          That is a much more important/higher level requirement than how many pelvic muscles are doing what.
                          Important to whom?

                          You can't overcome these high level theoretical errors no matter how much you try to keep drilling down into the minutia
                          Theoretical? Anything but...........

                          LClifton

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Use of the "trainers perspective" is all about shortening the learning curve. My daughter will not spend the time required to develop a descent level swing playing in the playgroup. With the "trainers perspective" however, she will be able to hit the crap out of the ball playing at a pretty high level while being able to IM and get her nails painted.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              I do believe the "party of 3", "the 3 musketeers", "the 3 amigos", (really 2 and their humanitarian), "the 3 blind mice", have their hands full against the growing posse.

                              Every week, after Steve's been somewhere, or Paul Nyman pisses someone off, the posse grows?

                              Why don't they grow?

                              Logic?

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by LClifton
                                .
                                Then why are we wasting our time trying to develop better hitters?
                                Ship 'em to the playground.

                                Athletes today are stronger, faster, quicker than the playground days. They DID need the trainer's perspective, it just wasn't as available as it is today.
                                Good points, LClifton. Couldn't have said it better myself. I don't understand how Tom can make such dumb-ass statements and not be embarrassed.

                                First of all, as LC has pointed out, the statement is false. They could have profitably used a "trainer's perspective" back in the days.

                                Second, even if it were true, it would be irrelevant. The issue is not whether you can develop a high-level swing without a "trainer's perspective." It is whether or not a "trainer's perspective" is better than charting body parts from watching video (while sipping a crisp, fruity Pinot Grigio). Similarly, it is whether a "trainer's perspective" is needed to really understand how and what muscles need to be engaged, trained and developed to swing a bat in the most efficient way. Mapping out a complex flow chart detailing the most minute bodily movements and their chronological sequencing misses the essence of what creates a high-level swing - both in understanding it, but especially in teaching it.

                                So your statment is both false and irrelevant at the same time. Two strikes, Tom. Care to take another hack?
                                Last edited by fungo22; 03-22-2006, 10:50 PM.

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X