I agree with your second point.
First, let me acknowledge that House was one of the guys who got me focused on the separation of the hips and shoulders, so I owe him that.
My biggest problem with a lot of his stuff, at least what he writes in his books, is that it either isn’t specific enough or isn’t as universal as he says. For example, Dynamic Balance is an interesting idea but isn’t really actionable as he describes it in his books. What can I as a coach do about it?
It may be that he’s holding stuff back and gives out better info in his DVDs.
I also think that House has absolutely destroyed his credibility by first saying that Mark Prior has perfect mechanics and then blaming Prior, rather than his mechanics, for his injury problems.
I think it’s intellectually dishonest.
My problem with longer strides is that they generally seem to make it harder for guys to effectively and completely rotate their hips.[/quote] more extreme HOGWASH at its best. 1- A longer stride can indicate more momentum into landing. 2- More momentum can equal a more powerful lower body rotation. Perhaps you should take another quick lession on dynamic balance instead as dissmissing it. A part of that just may help you understand HOW this can be possible. Than you may not have to totally butcher yourself with another useless unproven theory! Your theory may have some credence to it if the pitcher was anchored to the mound and not moving. That ole dynamic balance thing just flys in your face Chris![/quote]a longer stride can also create imbalance, which takes off velocity, it can create timing issues, which takes off velocity, also, are you going to have more speed with a short quick arm action, or one that is long, the short quick one will generate more power, thats kind of a timing issue, but the stride length is what creates it, its kind of like golf, a longer backswing is not as powerful as a shorter backswing because you have more energy from the shorter one, i dk, thats just how i see it, maybe im wrong