"he ate more than his share of ballpark franks."
And washed em down with copious amounts of beer....
I think, in a way all methods of instruction are belief based...If you ain't buyin what they're sellin it don't matter if Issac Newton OR Mike Marshall made the course. I think that right at this moment in time, our learning is so based on "science" that society has no use for it, unless it (Whatever method) uses jargon aimed to make the student believe unless it is based in heavy scientific research, well it is subject to criticism or just plain invalid, I also love to point out that we all used to believe that we got flies from rotten meat (You could get burned at the stake if you said other-wise, same for the world being round...Da Vinci almost became a soot stain due to that "unscientific" thought).....Someone used to use an old Mazzoni quote about making something as simple as throwing a ball a science experiment. I think that would be the Babes angle. Roger our "Ideal" athlete, person..whatever changes all the time, Babe was just fine as an athlete of his time, likely the peak, just like it was thought that fat/big women were beautiful just as the century turned from 18 to 1900. Heck, Mantle and Martin and Ford and Pepitone used to see just how wasted they could get all the time and were considered the finest examples of athletes in the 50's.
We know better now....or so we think, if I live to see the mid-century mark it'll be interesting to see just what is "Ideal" then.
I will also point out that the "new" cutting edge of pitching theory has started to address more stuff than just physical conditioning and mechanical purification.........so the pendulum swings.
But thanks for accusing me of being right...I'll have just a little more spring in the old step for the rest of the day