Just went to grab the 6th edition again to look something up and had to fight myself and say no let's look at the 7th instead- believe me after 24 years of grabbing the same book- that was a big time change to make!
Anyway, page 222 he had a really nice addition "Replace any inclination toward "Component Position and Location Feel" with "Component Alignment and Relationship Feel"
That's a little more light on the difference between Alignment golf and Position Golf. And also reflects some of his writing traits- one of which is the rhyming play on words that he leans more to in the later additions- which I like.
Just went to grab the 6th edition again to look something up and had to fight myself and say no let's look at the 7th instead- believe me after 24 years of grabbing the same book- that was a big time change to make!
Anyway, page 222 he had a really nice addition "Replace any inclination toward "Component Position and Location Feel" with "Component Alignment and Relationship Feel"
That's a little more light on the difference between Alignment golf and Position Golf. And also reflects some of his writing traits- one of which is the rhyming play on words that he leans more to in the later additions- which I like.
Yet to get the seventh but there was "Alignment Golf" - Feel from Mechanics in the sixth. Still trying to understand the difference between "employed" and "used" as in Plane Angle Variations. Maybe he just wanted us to question and spend more time in the "armchair."
Another great topic. It is interesting to me that this concept of alignments has not traditionally been a more substantive part of the discussion among my students in regards to Hitting in particular. Hitting is absolutely fascinating in the sense that while the very term makes it seem like a simplistic approach, in some ways it is even more complex - particularly when it comes to alignments. I've tried to analogize it this way - if I'm running with a wheel barrow in front of me, I am responsible for both applying power as well as controlling direction. If I am pulling the wheel barrow it will "automatically" fall in line behind me - I don't really have to manually control direction. With Hitting, my students find alignments to be paramount (particularly pp #1 and #3) or the alignments tend to be very finnicky, along with the resulting direction control.
I spoke recently with a GSED who knew Homer who said that Homer thought Swinging was so easy that it was almost like cheating! I wonder if this alignment issue may be part of the reason for this statement?
The lesson for me has been that just because Hitting carries some seemingly "simple" aspects (i.e. Single Wrist Action, "no roll" feel to the Hinging, etc.) it is intriguingly complex and difficult to harness.
Any experinces out there that ring true to this?
Thanks in advance...
I spoke recently with a GSED who knew Homer who said that Homer thought Swinging was so easy that it was almost like cheating! I wonder if this alignment issue may be part of the reason for this statement?
Yes, "alignment issue" is part of the answer.
Also, there's more muscular effort involved with Hitting.
Another great topic. It is interesting to me that this concept of alignments has not traditionally been a more substantive part of the discussion among my students in regards to Hitting in particular. Hitting is absolutely fascinating in the sense that while the very term makes it seem like a simplistic approach, in some ways it is even more complex - particularly when it comes to alignments. I've tried to analogize it this way - if I'm running with a wheel barrow in front of me, I am responsible for both applying power as well as controlling direction. If I am pulling the wheel barrow it will "automatically" fall in line behind me - I don't really have to manually control direction. With Hitting, my students find alignments to be paramount (particularly pp #1 and #3) or the alignments tend to be very finnicky, along with the resulting direction control.
I spoke recently with a GSED who knew Homer who said that Homer thought Swinging was so easy that it was almost like cheating! I wonder if this alignment issue may be part of the reason for this statement?
The lesson for me has been that just because Hitting carries some seemingly "simple" aspects (i.e. Single Wrist Action, "no roll" feel to the Hinging, etc.) it is intriguingly complex and difficult to harness.
Any experinces out there that ring true to this?
Thanks in advance...
Love the wheelbarrel analogy. Really cool. And get your point on alignments. But keep in mind, the hitter and manipulated swinger both have alignment concerns.
I actually heard it different - while Homer felt most would be inclined to swing due our feel for centrifugal force - I think he also felt hitting was more dependable and easier once mastered (versus manipulated swinging, not true - not that I heard a clarification - I didnt, but true swingers dont seem to have the worries hitters/man swingers do). I think I can actually hear him.....
paraphrase....
'The thing is, once you learn how to hit, its so darn easy'.
Hybrid Mode
