Thread by @SteveEnglishbey

As always, Paul's comments are very thoughtful and relevant. I want to try to add some context here as regards how to effectively deal with this "disconnection" problem as a teacher.

https://twitter.com/setprosports/status/1181935132103647232

By "disconnection" I mean that the flawed movement that one is trying to change is a function of a movement pattern that has been done MANY times, and as such it has become AUTOMATED ,ie., not consciously derived/executed.

It may have initially been a function of some type of explicit instruction, eg., "stay back," "swing down", "make your hands quicker",etc., et al, but regardless as to the origin, eventually [via trial/error/repetition], the movement becomes tacitly expressed.

So, to make this less abstract, let's say that this is a hitter that comes to me and I assess this automated pattern as flawed. And let's stipulate that the basic flaw I see is that he has been taught to "get extension." And hit the ball "out in front."

Which has resulted in the hitter creating a movement pattern which essentially demands a contact point--- --and an apex of momentum----a foot in front of the lead foot.

I should add here that based on both empirical and biomechanical knowledge, this is flawed. BUT. The player suffers from the fact that he has no conscious [or conceptual]understanding of this flaw. AND the flaw is automated.

Now, from THE basic teaching perspective the MAIN question is: "How do I get this player to PHYSICALLY understand what I need to get him to understand?"

Now, it is true that if he has learned via bad instruction, e.g., "stay tall and swing down", yes one does need counter that kind of explicit [bad] instruction.

But. Based on long experience, THE first step in this process is along the lines of creating conditions wherein the hitter is physically confronted, so to speak.

In other words, first create physical CONSTRAINTS, that force the hitter to have to find alternative ways to swing.

For those who have been taught to "get extension out front" a very typical constraint I have used is to set up a tee.......aligned across from the body MIDLINE [navel to chin].

AND with the goal being: To create an upward ball trajectory ...about 10 ft. over the infield.

Without saying ANYTHING as to HOW to do this, that is the goal. Now having done this MANY times, I will say this: Those who have automated a swing based on a "get extension out front" will FAIL to obtain the goal [upward trajectory over the infield].

So. Without any explicit instruction [at this point] I have merely created a type of constraint [deep tee] and set an external goal [ball flight].

Now, once they begin to try to find ways to do this, I then begin to offer some "hints". For ex. a typical way that they will try to "solve the problem" is to....."lean back" [shift the trunk BACK towards the catcher] so as to create more time/distance to swing].

At this point I begin to explain ----in much more EXPLICIT WAYS [via demos/verbal explanations]-- as to what they are trying to do is wrong/ not optimal.

Eventually----after they have repeatedly failed------I then VERY EXPLICITLY explain/describe [again via physical demos and verbal explanations] as to how and why their AUTOMATED patterns are flawed.

And it is this basic teaching routine---one that combines a constraint based AND explicit knowledge----that I typically use to START the process of teaching a hitter as to how to "disrupt" the automated and flawed process.

And to begin the process of RE-learning how to swing in a more optimal manner. My MAIN point here is that I think that this re-learning process NECESSARILY [typically] requires both implicit [constraints] and explicit knowledge/instruction.

I say this especially in view of the fact that much of the new motor learning research seems to downplay the efficacy of explicit instruction.

Meaning that much of what I have seen in the literature is along the lines of .....explicit instruction tends to impede performance.

But of course this kind of summary judgement PRESUMES the performance is optimal!

Thus, THE question remains, how does one effectively address FLAWED movement patterns. Over the last 10 or so yrs. of looking at motor learning research, I have seen VERY little [none really] that tries to directly address this very important question.

If anyone can provide input from motor learning research, please do so.

@threadreaderapp unroll