The Problems with Changing your Arm Path

If you define the pitching delivery in the two phases as labeled here in this article called, How to Throw Hard and even Harder, you will learn that when the arm is starting to apply the force to the ball which happens after external rotation of the throwing arm, the arm path is moving in a straight line towards the target. This means that when conventional wisdom says you should have a short arm path in the beginning of the delivery and a long arm path at the end, this changing of the arm path actually has no effect on the velocity of the ball. What this is doing is making a mechanical change to your delivery which is the why your velocity is changing.

If you look in Professional Baseball you find all different styles of arm path and no relationship with velocity. This is because velocity is based around stride speed or power and the relationship between the rotational pivots which are the hips and shoulders. Being that the arm is connected to the shoulders, it does have some control of the shoulder pivot but ultimately the shoulders are in control. Based on the 3X Mechanics velocity is mainly influenced by the relationship of the hips to shoulders at front foot strike. The arm path can go almost anywhere it wants, as long as the shoulders are closed while the hips are open at front foot strike. You could pitch like Tim Lincecum and put the arm down behind your back during your stride, or like Zach Outman who looks like he is stretching his throwing arm while he is striding, either arm path will have an effect on velocity if their other mechanics do not change.

The lesson learned here is never focus on arm path, it does not control the legs, core or shoulders and it will more than likely have a negative effect on your pitching velocity. If you want to learn good mechanics to increase pitching velocity then stay away from conventional wisdom and learn to implement the 3X mechanics which you can see here in this pitching 101 video.

Speed Mechanics:

Speed Mechanics is the act of accelerating the body, through the delivery, to produce more speed or velocity.

The reason I do not call it Velocity Mechanics is because when we think of Velocity, we think of throwing and when we think of throwing, we think of rotational forces. Speed Mechanics makes us think of momentum which is the point of the term.

To better understand Speed Mechanics you must understand momentum. The definition of Momentum, by Google, is the product of a body’s mass and its velocity. It is essential that to generate more speed or velocity you must continue accelerating your bodies momentum. This is where most young pitchers fail. Check your own delivery to see if your bodies momentum is accelerating. The most important time to check for acceleration is after your front foot lands. This is when low velocity pitchers slow down their bodies momentum and rotational forces take over. If both momentum and rotational torque do not meet at this point and continue increasing force to the ball, then velocity suffers.

Notice in the animated sequence of Tim Lincecum that when his front foot lands his head stays up above his shoulders and his momentum transfers from his legs into his chest. You can tell his bodies momentum is continuing to accelerate because his weight is still moving forward after front foot strike. There are no forces rotating down or across his body at this point. We can also tell his weight is moving forward because when he releases the pitch his back leg is flying forward over his head. This doesn’t mean after you release the ball to kick your leg over your head. This would be like using your hands to spin the wheels faster to speed up the car, just hit the gas and use the engine. Your engine when pitching is the muscles in your legs.

I originally brought the term Triple Extension from the Olympic lifting world into the pitching world to explain the mechanics of pitchers legs. Triple extension is the extension of the ankle joint, knee joint and hip flexor. This is anytime we push off of the ground. Like when we pitch or sprint. The reason for the picture above of Tim Lincecum and Jeremy Wariner, the USA Olympic sprinter, is to help illustrate Speed Mechanics. If it is the act of accelerating your bodies momentum to increase your speed or velocity, then this means as pitchers we should move like sprinters. Consider your stride as no different than a sprinters stride when he is up and running for the finish line. Both the pitcher and the sprinter are using the same tools to produce a similar outcome. The only difference is the pitcher is transferring his bodies speed into the ball. This is why after the pitcher’s stride he stops and the ball continues but after a sprinters stride, he continues and strides again. So just like the sprinter, if a pitcher wants to accelerate his bodies momentum to increase his speed, he must triple extend his back leg harder and faster.

The negative behind Speed Mechanics is that it is an advanced level of pitching and trying to learn this as a beginner could cause serious problems to your delivery. This is not for young pitchers or even older pitchers, it is for experienced pitchers who have been sitting at a plateau on their pitch velocity for a few years.  The reason for this is because learning Speed Mechanics before learning momentum transfer and hip to shoulder separation, is like learning how to pull the trigger on a double barreled shotgun before being taught how to hold and aim it. This means your delivery will be a train wreck if you do not learn momentum transfer before Speed Mechanics. So if you are still learning how to transfer your momentum into the ball efficiently and effectively then bookmark this article and come back to it later. It might not be valuable to you now but when you are ready for it, learning Speed Mechanics may give you those few miles per hour to get you over the 90mph mark. In the meantime, you should always train to develop more explosive power in your body.

Stodden DF, Fleisig GS, McLean SP, Lyman SL, Andrews JR. Relationship of pelvis and upper torso kinematics to pitched baseball velocity. Journal of Applied Biomechanics 17(2):164-172, 2001.

Matsuo T, Escamilla RF, Fleisig GS, Barrentine SW, Andrews JF. Comparison of kinematic and temporal parameters between different pitch velocity groups. Journal of Applied Biomechanics 17(1): 1-13, 2001.

Stodden, DF, Fleisig, GS, McLean, SP, Andrews, JR. Relationship of Biomechanical Factors to Basebal Pitching Velocity: Within Pitcher Variation. Journal of Applied Biomechanics 21(1): 44-56, 2005

Methods

In three published studies, Dr. Glenn Fleisig and Dr. James R. Andrews from ASMI worked with other researchers in studying many of the parameters that affect baseball pitch velocity. Two of the studies looked between different pitchers and one study looked at variations within each pitcher. Motions during delivery were analyzed using a high speed (200 frames per second) infrared three-dimensional motion analysis system.

Results

In the study by Matsuo and others, pitchers with higher ball velocity were compared with pitchers with lower ball velocity. Four significant differences were found between these two groups. Compared to the low ball velocity group, the higher ball velocity pitchers demonstrated less lead knee flexion velocity after front foot contact and greater lead knee extension velocity at the time of ball release. Extending the lead knee in this manner may provide stabilization allowing better energy transfer from the trunk to the throwing arm, and could be a critical factor in pitch velocity. Maximum shoulder external rotation and forward trunk tilt at ball release were also greater in the higher velocity group. Greater shoulder external rotation causes a stretch of the internal rotators allowing energy to be stored in these muscles, and creating greater internal rotation during the arm acceleration phase.

Two variations were found in the timing of events. Maximum elbow extension angular velocity and maximum shoulder internal rotation angular velocity occurred earlier in the motion of higher velocity pitchers. The maximum shoulder internal rotation angular velocity also occurred closer to the moment of ball release in the higher velocity pitchers. This optimal timing may aid in generating higher velocity pitches.

Another finding of interest is that early in the pitching motion, the two groups were dissimilar in the timing of their movements, while their later movement timing was much more similar. This implies that early trunk and torso movements are more varied among pitchers than late arm movements.

In the first study by Stodden and others (2001), pelvis and upper torso variables were studied in 19 elite baseball pitchers. The study found that when the arm was completely cocked back (that is, maximum shoulder external rotation, or “MER”), more “open” pelvis and upper torso orientation correlated with increased ball velocity. More open pelvis angle at the time of ball release (REL) also correlated with increased pitch velocity increased. Additionally, pelvis angular velocity from front foot contact to MER, and upper torso angular velocity from MER to REL increased with increased velocity.

The data indicate that a pitcher who is able to position himself properly, and rotate his pelvis and upper torso more quickly is able to generate greater momentum. Theoretically, this increase in momentum leads to greater velocity of the throwing arm and thus greater pitch velocity.

The most recent study by Stodden and others (2005) showed that for a given pitcher, increased elbow flexion torque, shoulder proximal force and elbow proximal force produced greater ball velocity. In addition, the maximum shoulder horizontal adduction occurred later and maximum shoulder internal rotation occurred earlier at greater ball velocities. Higher ball velocity also resulted in decreased shoulder horizontal adduction at foot contact, decreased shoulder abduction during acceleration, and increased trunk tilt forward at ball release.

Conclusion

A pitcher with increased shoulder external rotation, faster pelvis and upper trunk rotation, and greater front knee stabilization and extension will throw with greater ball velocity. Improved timing to maximize arm velocity closer to the time of ball release will also help ball velocity. Increased torque and force produced at both the shoulder and elbow will also lead to greater ball velocity.

Copyright © 2000, American Sports Medicine Institute
December 18, 2007

http://www.asmi.org/asmiweb/research/usedarticles/highlowpitches.htm

http://chrisoleary.com/projects/Baseball/Pitching/PitcherInjuryAnalysisProject/Patterns.html

It is always nice to find unconventional thinking when it comes to pitching instruction. I recommend you read his article. I was forced in my early career to overcome a serious shoulder injury, because I wasn’t taught this important piece of information. Ever sense my almost career ending injury, I have been coaching this theory, but never referred to it as the “Safe Zone.” I will now!

Here is another article from Dr. Harding at Wellington Orthopaedic, talking about the “Safe Zone.”

http://www.wellingtonortho.com/health/shoulder-safe.html

This theory of injury prevention, which you can read about in full detail in Chris’ article, is based around this picture of Mark Prior. Mark Prior suffered a rotator cuff injury after this picture was taken. What he is doing is “Scap Loading” with his elbows way above his shoulders. The problem here is he is impinging his supraspinatous muscle with this movement. Read my article on “How to prevent or overcome shoulder surgery?” to get more details on the rotator cuff and impingements. Chris recommends, in his article, that a pitcher should “Scap Load” with the elbows below the shoulders to prevent this impingement of the rotator cuff, which causes more wear and tear. I recommend this as well, because it not only will prevent impingement, it will increase “Separation” and create what I call the “Power Curve.” The “Power Curve” refers to acceleration in either a straight line or a curve. In learning about centripetal force, which I first studied for a science project in elementary school, you will find information about this “Power Curve.” I listed it here:

“The direction of an object in movement around a circle is changing; hence, its velocity is also changing and this in turn means that it is experiencing acceleration…..The acceleration of an object in rotational motion is always toward the center of the circle.”

This means that acceleration has more of an opportunity to increase when curving around a point in time, because velocity increases when either the direction changes or the speed of the object increases. If you have ever heard that old saying, “Thumb to thigh, then palm to sky” or “Get into the T position,” you have been coached to pitch like what Mark Prior is doing above. This also means, when your “Palm is to the sky,” the direction of the ball from that position to the release point, is more of a straight line. If you “Scap Loaded” in the “Safe Zone,” like Greg Maddux here, when the shoulders rotate and the elbow hits the “Wall,” your hand and ball is pulled behind your head like Tim Lincecum below. This means the path of the ball or the direction of velocity, is going to be more of a curve. Therefore more potential velocity and less wear and tear on the rotator cuff.

In conclusion, you must read Chris’ article because this will save your career and it questions these conventional thinking pitching coach’s about physics and how it applies to their coaching theories. Any questions please comment or post in the discussion board.

Speed Training

Implied in any linear speed discussion with a Strength and Conditioning Specialist, is the concept of resisted speed training strategies. Some professionals consider resisted speed training as the most efficient sprint training technique on the planet, while other consider it not as effective because of a biomechanical stand point. Different resisted speed strategies include, towing, uphill sprints, sand sprints, and weighted sprints. Tahachnik (1992) explained that towing of weighted devices such as sleds and tires is the most common method of providing towing resistance for the enhancement of sprint performance, although the use of parachutes has also been documented. In fact, resisted towing can involve an athlete towing a weighted sled, tire, speed parachute, or some other device over a set distance (Faccioni 1994).

The function of resisted towing is said to improve the acceleration or drive phase of a sprint. Acceleration is integral to successful performance in the various football codes, including Australian rules, rugby union, and soccer and is potentially decisive in determining the outcome of a game (Spinks et al. 2007). It has been said that resisted towing will increase muscular force output, especially at the hip, knee, and ankle. According to researches improved strength levels allow for the production of greater force and decreased ground contact time, leading to a possible increase in stride frequency. Increased stride length may be achieved by improved utilization of elastic energy during the support stage of the sprint cycle (Spinks et al. 2007).

Regardless of the many benefits of resisted towing speed training, the most effective type of resistant speed training for overall speed and acceleration remains for the most part uncertain.

Resistant Towing

Weighted sled towing is a common resisted sprint training technique even though relatively little is known about the effects that such practice has on sprint kinematics. Lockie, R.G., A.J. Murphy, and C.D. Spinks (2003) examined twenty men, which completed a series of sprints without resistance and with loads equating to 12.6% (load1) and 32.2% (load 2) of body mass. Through their findings the participants stride length was significantly reduced by 10% with a 12.6% load and lowered 24% with a 32.2% load. Stride frequency did not change from load 1 to load 2 and only dropped by 6% between the unloaded and loaded trials. In addition, sled towing increased ground contact time, trunk lean, and hip flexion in both loads but, more of an increase happened with load 2. As for the upper body, the results showed an increase in shoulder range of motion with added resistance. The heavier load generally resulted in a greater disruption to normal acceleration kinematics compared with the lighter load. Lockie, R.G., A.J. Murphy, and C.D. Spinks concluded that a lighter load is most likely best for use in a speed training program.

Letzelter et al. (1995) studied the acute effect that different loads had on performance variables with a group of female sprinters during sled towing. The research found that a 2.5-kg load resulted in an 8% decrease in performance over 30 m, and 10 kg resulted in a 22% decrease in sprint performance. Stride length was affected to a greater degree than stride frequency by the increased resistance. As the load increased, the stride length decreased which, accounted for the decrease in velocity speed. Increased loads also caused increased upper-body lean and increased thigh angle at both the beginning and the end of the stance phase. Regrettably, Letzelter et al. did not quantify towing loads relative to body mass or provide anthropometric data on the subjects. It is therefore complicated to relate the results found to earlier recommended loading guidelines.

Spinks C.D., Murphy A.J., Spinks W.L., Lockie R.G. (2007) did a study on effects of resisted sprint training on acceleration performance and kinematics and found that an 8 week resistant speed training group significantly improves acceleration and leg power but, is no more effective than an 8 week non resistant speed training program. Although the study did not find it more effective, how can an athlete increase force production and not increase speed, maybe longer research study should take place.

Both Lockie et al., Letzelter et al. and Spink’s et al. studies concluded that the athletes stride length decreased as the load increased. Mutually, both also found that stride frequency did not change much at all with the different loads. Although this is great information neither one of the researchers put any of this to the real test, “Can towing increase speed?” They both gave great information but what coaches want to see are results. A good number of coaches by now should know that your speed is only as good as your technique but, if a greater load can increase arm speed which both researchers agreed, and arm speed accounts for 15-20% speed how can both suggest a lighter load is better for speed training, more research is needed.

Other Types of Resisted Speed Training

Supplementary, to towing there are many other types of resistant training. Some other types of resistant speed training are weighted vest, uphill running, and sand sprinting.

A study by Bosco et al. (1986) looked at the effect of increasing body weight (7 to 8%) on sprint athletes over a three-week period, training 3 to 5 sessions per week. The added resistance through weighted vests was worn from morning to evening and the athletes were tested for jumping and running on a treadmill, pre and post experiment. The jump tests included squat jumps, countermovement jump, drop jump and 15 seconds continuous jumps on a resistive platform. The squat jump improved 4.5 cm which helped the hypothesis that the increased loading would have a positive effect upon force production and running speed. Another positive effect of weight vest is that the added mass would increase the vertical force at each ground contact; which would increase the stress placed on the stretch shortening cycle (reactive strength). This would improve the muscle’s capacity to tolerate greater stretch loads, store more elastic energy, and improve power output, which may increase in stride length. Although Bosco et al (1986). brings up great and valet points about the SSC, how does he know for sure if increasing vertical force in the ground is even beneficial as far as sprinting goes. Remember, your speed is only as good as your technique.

Uphill sprinting had a study conducted by Kunz & Kaufmann (1981) on sprint kinematics maximal sprinting up a 3% incline. They found the velocity to be slower than that of level ground running (8.35m/s to 8.85m/s) and that the subjects sprint kinematics had shorter stride lengths and longer ground contact times. Kunz & Kaufmann believe that uphill sprinting will increase the stress placed on the hip extensor muscle groups as the athlete will attempt to maximize stride length, therefore increasing this component on the flat surface. They feel this training method will develop a shorter ground contact time if the athlete emphasizes fast push off to conquer the effects of the positive grade. An incline of greater than 3% would still be beneficial in developing the forceful hip extensor movements required but will be less specific in the simulation of the specific technical movements of the sprint.

Sand sprinting had little to no research on it. The little research on sand sprinting concluded that it helped increase hamstring strength as well as its flexibility due to the sands unstable surface. Oviatt and Hemba (1991) wrote an article named Sand Blast and in it, stated that “Walking in the sand, however, is almost twice as costly (energy expenditures for physical activity) as walking on firm turf. It follows that sprinting in the sand will compound energy expenditures of a 50% increase. In other words, you can get twice the cardiovascular conditioning in half the time, which, is important because body fat between muscle fibers inhibit rapid contractions of the involved muscle.

Resisted Towing and Kinematics

Steven LeBlanc and Pierre L Gervais (N/A) researched the basic kinematics of sprinting under assisted and resisted conditions as compared to free sprinting in the acceleration and top-speed phases. Free Sprint and assisted sprint kinematics will not be discussed in this section only resisted kinematics compared to sprint start will be discussed because of resisted sprints have more of an impact on acceleration. LeBlanc and Gervais completed 3 trials of resisted sprinting, and a sprint start, using 1 female and 5 male track and field athletes from the University of Alberta. Each sprint was approximately 50m in distance, the participants were also filmed. The linear kinematic measures of interest included average running speed, stride rate, stride length, and ground support time. Angular kinematic measures of interest included average trunk angle, thigh range of motion and peak velocity. The resisted sprinting condition used a parachutechute approximately 1 m2 attached to a waist belt and subjects were given a 30m acceleration zone prior to the filming area to reach top running speed. For the sprint start condition, the blocks were setup 20m prior to the filming area. They established is that there were no significant differences in any of the kinematics being tested and that RS and SS were very similar in average running speed (8.74 m/s vs. 8.76 m/s), stride length (4.03 m vs. 3.92 m), and support time (0.122 s vs. .123 s). This suggests that resisted sprinting has similar kinematics to the acceleration phase of sprinting much more than the velocity phase.

Conclusion

Resistant speed training’s research on overall effectiveness indicated that all but sand sprinting decreased stride length and had little or no change to stride frequency. Most of the research confirmed that resistant towing is very similar to the acceleration phase of a sprint which is the start. However, there is no well-built indication any of these types of resistant training are better than the other.

From a coaching stand point many professionals today prefer towing because of the trunk position having a forward lean. An athlete cannot have that much of a forward lean with any other resistant speed exercise because of gravity. Sprinting uphill may come a very close second but still one cannot accomplish the lean of that with a weighted sled. Even with the weighted vest the research indicated that the force in the ground hit vertical meaning the athletes’ ground time was too long. The reason for this may be because the athletes in the research could not handle the weight of the vest and stood up tall to not fall over; keep in mind, many coaches look at a sprint as just a controlled fall. Sand sprinting is also a great resistant speed exercise but, there just is not enough research and data on this type of resistant exercise to put it at the top.

Resistant towing had the majority of the research in all the resistant training modalities but, all had the same conclusions decreased stride length and had little or no change to stride frequency and increased muscular force output, especially at the hip, knee, and ankle. In fact, Mero (1998) found a high correlation between force production in the start and in the velocity phase of the sprint. This indicates a high level of fast force production in top sprinters and reaffirms the importance of strength during the acceleration phase of sprinting which, one can get through resisted speed training.

In the future, there needs to be more research with resistant speed training. For instance, the Spinks (2007) study indicated that there was not significant increase in sprint performance comparing resisted sprint training and non resistant sprint training but, did they take sprint technique or start technique in consideration. As mentioned previous if an athlete can increase ground force through resisted towing as Spinks (2007) mentioned, how can the athlete not become faster with the proper coaching on the technique of sprinting. That is what wrong with the research, there is a lot of research but very little coaching in the research.

Issues in research for resistant speed training should compare different types of resistant training with proper speed technique coaching and see how they compare to overall speed improvement and kinematics. The reason kinematics is still important is because again an athletes’ speed is only as good as their technique. It is great to know from all this research what is happening biomechanically or muscularly but, the important outcome to all is which will help make you faster in the shortest amount of time. Coaches and athletes want to know the best modalities of resistant speed training and how they compare to each other, more importantly how they compare to overall speed improvement.

References

1. Bosco, C., Rusko, H., and Hirvonen, J. (1986). The effect of extra-load conditioning on muscle performance in athletes. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. 18(4), 415-419.
2. Faccioni, A., (1993) Resisted and assisted methods for speed development. Part 2. Strength & Conditioning Coach. 1(3), 7-10
3. Gervais, P., LeBlanc, J. S. (N/A). Biomechanical analysis of assisted and resisted sprinting. Faculty of Physical Education and Recreation, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 1-4.
4. Kunz, H., Kaufmann, D.A. (1981) Biomechanics of hill sprinting. Track Technique. (82), 2603-2605.
5. Letzelter, M., Sauerwein, G., and Burger, R. (1995). Resistance runs in speed development. Modern Athlete and Coach. (33), 7–12.
6. Lockie, R.G., A.J. Murphy and C.D. Spinks. (2003). Effects of resisted sled towing on sprint kinematics in field sport athletes. The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 17(4), 760-767.
7. Mero, A. (1988). Force-time characteristics and running velocity of male sprinters during the acceleration phase of sprinting. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 59(2), 94-98.
8. Oviatt, R. and Hemba, G. (1991). Oregon State: Sandblasting through the PAC. National Strength & Conditioning Association Journal. 13(4), 40-46.
9. Spinks C.D., Murphy A.J., Spinks W.L., Lockie R.G. (2007). The effects of resisted sprint training on acceleration performance and kinematics in soccer, rugby union, and Australian football players. The Journal Of Strength And Conditioning Research. 21 (1), 77-85.
10. Tabachnik, B. (1992). The speed chute. National Strength & Conditioning Association Journal. 14(4), 75- 80.

To understand the effects of Olympic weight lifting and velocity on pitchers, you must first understand how velocity is measured. I will use Newton’s second law of motion, along with the Catapult Theory, to explain pitching velocity.

Newton’s Second Law:

States that the acceleration (velocity) of an object in motion is dependent upon two variables – the net force acting upon the object and the mass of the object. As the force of propulsion acting upon the object increases, the acceleration of the object increases. As the mass of the object increases, the acceleration of the object decreases.

Newton’s 2nd Law of Motion

a = f/m (f = force, m = mass, a = acceleration)

Let’s put this into baseball terms. Newton’s second law of motion would state that to throw a baseball 90 mph would require 6.5 pounds of pressure applied to a baseball, with a mass of 5 ounces, for two tenths of one second (.20).

6.5 pp applied to a 5 ounce baseball for .20 seconds = 90 mph fastball

Therefore to increase an 80 mph fastball to 90 mph you must either increase the force applied or the application time. The application time is how long you hold on to the ball once the force is applied. Subtracting 25% of application time forces a pitcher to increase the applied force by 33%. Increasing the application time by 10%, increased to .22 seconds, would add 10 mph to an 80 mph fastball.

80 mph fastball + 10% more application time = 90 mph fastball

* If you desire to see the formula in more detail that explains Newton’s Second Law defining the velocity of a baseball in motion then refer to Dr. Mike Marshalls article at: www.drmikemarshall.com/ChapterTwenty-Nine.html To find info scroll down to “1. The Release Velocity Formula for Baseball Pitchers.”

Catapult Theory:

The Catapult is made up of three components: the pivot, the coil and the arm. Let’s add a ball to the end of the arm to represent a baseball. To measure the velocity of the baseball, after the arm is released and the ball is in motion, we use Newton’s second law as described above. The importance of the Catapult is its relation to a pitcher at his full range of motion before launch of ball (See picture of Nolan Ryan below). If the Catapult pivot is not stable and is moving forward during release of the arm, then this will decrease the force applied to the ball at launch. In return, poor velocity. Now, if we stabilize the pivot, meaning no movement, and continue to apply the same force to the ball. When the arm is released and the ball is launched, it will reach its potential velocity. To keep force applied to the ball consistent the coil must maintain pressure on the arm during the entire delivery process.

How does Olympic lifting come into this equation?

First reason, it is the only type of lifting in the weight room that trains triple extension.

What is triple extension? This isn’t something new to the sports world. Olympic lifters have been using the term “Triple extension” for a long time. Triple extension occurs when the ankle joint extends, the knee joint extends along with the extension of the hip flexor. Visualize a long jumper in mid air like above (Notice left leg in triple extension). Also notice, in the picture to the right of Nolan Ryan, his right leg has triple extension. You can see his ankle, knee, and hip flexors in full extension. There is no weight lifting that trains the body pushing off of the ground as a single unit better than the Olympic Lifts. Triple extension plays in every sport that involves pushing off of ground.

Second reason, notice the lifter doing a split jerk at the top of the article. This is a very similar movement to pitching. More similar than any other weight training exercise. Studies have shown that athletes get better when training within their sport. This is called sport specific training.

This lifter is using triple extension to drive the weight up. Just like the pitcher driving the ball to the plate. The only difference here is the consequence of error. If the lifter losses momentum in the hips, he will drop the weight. If the pitcher losses momentum in the hips, he will throw a home run to some lucky batter.

If you want to learn about the Olympic Lifts and what they are, follow this link and watch the instructional video.

Coach Gayle Hatch Instructional Videos.

Now, how does triple extension increase velocity?

In all ways described in the Catapult theory above and Newton’s Second law, it adds both application time and force applied to ball.

First let’s explain how it increases application time, which is the most efficient way to increase velocity. Maximum application time comes from full range of motion. Example, Nolan Ryan has 180 degrees range of motion in picture above. This is the maximum possible. This means the Catapult is set to its potential, arm all the way back. For this to occur with a pitcher the hips must be pushed under the shoulders. The only way to push the hips under the shoulders is extending the back leg ankle, knee and hip flexor, also called Triple Extension, at the perfect time. With hips all the way under the shoulders, the pitcher now has reached his full range of motion, therefore increasing the application time to build or maintain force to the ball.

If the hips are lagging, the chest is leaning forward and the arm is leading the body, then minimal application time has occurred. Less range of motion therefore less potential to create more velocity.

Triple extension adds force to the ball because it aids in the momentum originally generated from the lift leg along with gravity. This only aids the momentum, if triple extension occurs, just before front foot strike. If it happens to early and the hips have not moved down the mound, then the hips open too soon. This kills the purpose of good momentum and it also kills full range of motion.

With chest out and hips under shoulders, chest and chin must remain up until launch of ball to keep pivot stable through entire delivery.

More benefits of Olympic lifting!

Not only do these lifts train Triple Extension better than any other style of lifting but it specifically trains fast twitch muscle fiber. This is what makes an athlete explosive. For pitchers and baseball players, getting stronger in the weight room has been forbidden, until the steroid area came into fruition. Now everyone is lifting. This isn’t a trend. This is because it works!

The last benefit of Olympic lifting for the pitching delivery occurs during stabilization of the front leg. Like described in the Catapult Theory, stabilization must occur to prevent decreasing force applied to ball. Therefore if the pitchers landing leg moves forward or gives away, then force is decreased to the ball. In return poor velocity. Notice Nolan Ryan in the picture here. His front leg almost triple extends. This means he is preventing instability in his front leg by holding and even extending it back into his hips. This is why he reached his top velocity.

So how do I get started?

In the weight room but first find a professionally certified Olympic Lifting Coach. These lifts take a lot of training to perform correctly, so to prevent injury. I do not recommend performing these lifts with out a proper coach supporting you. Please check with your physician before performing these lifts and remember weight is not important. Your form in the weight room and on the field is all that matters. Always sacrifice weight for good mechanics.

If you have any questions about this information please post your questions on the discussion board.

View footage of Nolan Ryans delivery in slow motion.

Weight Training and Velocity

Olympic lifting isn’t the only lifts in the weight room that will enhance performance and increase pitching velocity. They are the best lifts in the weight room for velocity but not the only ones. The Fusion system, which is the strength and conditioning program in the 3X Pitching Velocity program, includes the Olympic Lifts but also other effective lifts and exercises in the weight room for increasing velocity.