Within this it says that ..."the value of the extension torque is quite small." IF you have an understanding/appreciation of the the complexities of ballistic/dynamic THIS statement is VERY revealing.
Here on twitter [and on my cite in much greater detail] I have talked about the very important concept of "interaction or motion dependent torques" wherein joint actions at joint A or being driven by joint actions that are NOT anatomically connected.
Understanding this is, I think, one of THE most important considerations that one needs to understand in terms of REALLY being able to accurately assess and ultimately effectively TEACHING movement development.
I think this understanding is crucial in terms of being able to really grasp the how muscle actions and postural dynamics are both cause and effect of MOMENTUM processes.
Processes which are utterly instrumental in either optimizing or degrading the potential to create high level movement in the specific context of being able to create very precise/ballistic loading/unloading.
In this overall context I want to again cite the comments from Mel Siff as regards the research from Gordan and Zajac some yrs, back
I could write ALOT about the following, but for twitter, suffice it to say that along with much of the Setpro info, the following article [with Mel's comments] forever changed how I think about ballistic dynamic movement.
Note in his initial comments:
"I felt it appropriate to repeat here, because
we often encounter spectacular claims about the magical power of some rather
dogmatic methods of ‘muscle testing."
He's hinting here as to a somewhat skeptical assessment as to the accuracy/utility of so-called "muscle testing" [and I would include here the notion of "functional movement screens].
This argument is for another day, but I would for now simply say that the comments from Gordan, Zajac, and Siff certainly I think yield insight as to the inherent problems with these applied assessments in the context of dynamic/ballistic movement.
I want to make a few comments about "those who studied House [circa 2000]". I was most certainly around when Paul started critiquing some of House's info starting around 2001.
I bought Tom's bk. [1st ed.] on pitching mechanics. So, I am VERY aware of Tom's concepts such as "find the balance point" and "pause at the top." What struck me in these pgs. was an example of ---allegedly --- being ..."out of balance."
An ex., in other words of some type of inefficient postural/loading dynamics. The ex. he cited was Ron Guidry. Now, for the uninitiated Guidry was maybe 5'11" and 160 lbs. And he topped out at....98MHP!!
I've known Justin since he was about 14. I have worked with him via my website as well as a number of times in person. A VERY good student, i.e., very focused, willing to listen, highly motivated to improve, and works at it in smart ways.
"Very focused". I saw this the first time I worked him in person. Prior to actually hitting, he did a dynamic warm-up routine with the kind of seriousness, focus, and precision that you almost never see from athletes. I said to myself, "this guy's gonna be fun to work with!!"
Though not a big guy, he definitely was [and is] a guy who you know has the intent to swing hard. I worked with him over these yrs. to develop slightly more precision of movement and he has worked at this well I think.
Let me add here as to the dubiousness of the concept of "riding the back leg" the fact that I have been talking about "cues vs. reality" for over 15 yrs.
The quote of "cues vs. reality" comes from Paul Nyman around 2001. That's about when I first ran across his website. He caught my attention with 2 articles. One was entitled: "Momentum is the most misunderstood thing in all of sports." And: "Cues vs. Reality."
In which he argued that the cues that many instructors use do NOT really describe what hitters/pitchers are ACTUALLY doing, i.e., the cues do NOT describe the actual "underlying realities" that actually create high level movement.
A few yrs. back I was working with a young hitting instructor in the context of trying to help him become a more effective instructor. He was working with a hitter and he kept saying to this hitter..."you need to sit more."
I stopped the instruction and ask the hitter: "Do you actually know what he means?" And the hitter said: "No, I really don't." I then ask the instructor to SHOW the player what he meant.
And what the instructor showed him--from my vantage point of someone who was THE guy who originally defined this term yrs. ago in detail [based on empirical observation AND thousands of hrs. of personally practicing movements],was NOT an accurate description of "sitting."
First let me say that I agree that the bottom clip is a better swing. Simply put it's more efficient. What do i mean by this? Simply put, it's quicker from initiation to contact. Then the question is why is this the case?
To put it into a basic context I have used to analyze elite level hitters: They do 2 things well:1] they create very good bat/body alignment from initiation to contact and;2] they rotate the trunk really well.
Paul Nyman recently cited this as regards how many typically tend to interpret/analyze information: exploringyourmind.com/only-hear-want…
You should read all of it. But I'll cite a few excerpts.
"The information we choose through our attention mechanism doesn’t always have to be the most valid or relevant. We rather try to pay attention only to the things that confirm our beliefs or opinions."
...." we look for environments that reinforce our beliefs. Since everyone around us thinks the same way we do, we believe our opinion is the one that’s right."