The $10,000 Swing Challenge: Is Rich Schenck Ready to Prove His Claims?

Richard Schenck, known for his outspoken confidence in his HLP swing philosophy, has put his money—and reputation—on the line a number of times, even challenging ex-pros to beat the clock. With bold cash offers and public challenges, Schenck claims that HLP is the superior approach, boasting of its unmatched quickness and efficiency. But amidst the hyperbole, one question remains: IS quickness actually the ultimate prize, or is there some tradeoff? Is Rich ready to once again put his money where his mouth is and accept this challenge governed by objective rules and fairness for all?

It’s easy to issue challenges when you set the challenge up to favor your methods, but this time, let’s expand the challenge and take a more objective approach that focuses on not only who’s quickest, but sets its sights on overall swing efficiency and output. Using the xFactor Tempo Trainer, Swing Time Calculator, and Ball Flight Distance Calculator, coupled with a Rapsodo launch monitor, we propose a comprehensive evaluation of his swing philosophy. By measuring Time to Impact (TTI), like exit velocity and flight distance, this challenge will strip away rhetoric and focus solely on results.

The setup is straightforward: a batting tee, standardized conditions, and the tools to measure every aspect of the swing. No ambiguity, no excuses. If Schenck truly believes in the superiority of HLP’s rearward launch, it’s time for him to demonstrate it—not through words, but with action. Each swing will be analyzed down to the millisecond, with flight distance projections ensuring a complete picture of performance.

This challenge isn’t about debating philosophies—it’s about verifying claims. Will Rich Schenck step up to the plate and prove his swing can match his words? Or will this challenge expose the limits of his approach? Only data will decide.

Setting the Stage

This setup evaluates the efficiency and power output of different swing philosophies, including HLP (High-Level Pattern) and power-oriented swings, within the constraint of pitched ball event time. By comparing Time to Impact (TTI) across swing types and correlating it with pitch velocities, the goal is to determine the optimal swing approach under high-level game constraints.

1. Pitch Location Simulation

• Use batting tees to simulate specific pitch locations in the strike zone (e.g., inside, middle, outside).
• All participants are tested at the same fixed pitch location to eliminate variability.
• Batters position themselves relative to the tee, ensuring alignment with their swing philosophy and optimal contact depth.
• All Batters use the same bat model, weight and length

2. Simulated Timing Cues

• Utilize the xFactor Tempo Trainer to issue precise stride and swing alerts, simulating timing demands in a game scenario. This is a technology equivalent of the “command” or “go” drill.
• These alerts create a controlled event time, ensuring consistency across batters and trials.

3. TTI and Swing Metrics Capture

• Employ the xFactor Swing Time Calculator to measure: Swing Time: The total time from swing initiation to contact. Swing Delay?: A metric that captures mechanical lag and inefficiencies in the swing. This is the equivalent of the HLP “LQ” metric. TTI (Time to Impact): A comprehensive measure that combines Swing Delay? and mechanical swing time.

4. Launch Metrics and Power Output

• Use a launch monitor, such as Rapsodo, to capture launch metrics, including: Exit Velocity: A measure of power output. Launch Angle: Determines the trajectory of the hit.

• Input these metrics into the xFactor Ball Flight Distance Calculator to estimate the ball's projected flight distance, incorporating all relevant variables (e.g., exit velocity, launch angle, spin and drag).

5. TTI-to-Pitch Velocity Correlation

• Use the xFactor Swing Time Calculator to correlate TTI values with simulated pitch velocities (e.g., 85, 90, 95 mph).
• Assess the ability of each swing philosophy to handle high pitch velocities efficiently, measuring whether power is sacrificed for quickness or vice versa.
• Extrapolate results to game conditions to evaluate the practical application of each swing approach.

6. Analysis and Comparison

• Efficiency vs. Power Trade-off: Compare TTI values and launch metrics to determine whether quicker swings (HLP philosophy) or power-oriented swings perform better in overall output.
• High-Level Pitching Constraints: Evaluate the sustainability of power swings under the time constraints imposed by higher pitch velocities.
• Data Visualization: Use graphical comparisons of TTI, pitch velocities, and power metrics (e.g., exit velocity and flight distance) to illustrate trends and differences between swing philosophies.

Key Goals of the Test

1. Quantify Efficiency: Determine if HLP’s emphasis on quickness provides a measurable advantage in handling high-velocity pitches.
2. Assess Power Sustainability: Test if power-oriented swings maintain competitive performance despite the constraints of event time.
3. Establish Optimal Philosophy: Objectively evaluate which swing philosophy is better suited for individual batters at high-level play.

Expected Outcomes

• Support for HLP: Quicker TTI values may lead to better performance at high velocities without a significant drop in power, supporting HLP claims.
• Support for Power: If power swings achieve better results in exit velocity and ball flight distance while maintaining reasonable TTI, it challenges the purported dominance of HLP.
• Balanced Approach: The results may reveal a balance where a blend of quickness and power optimizes performance, suggesting a hybrid approach as ideal.

?

Grading System

While I do not subscribe to the belief that swing decisions are purely automatic—where hitters can only choose not to swing—this grading system has been designed to reflect Rich Schenck's philosophy. In the interest of fairness and objectivity, we will use metrics that align with his perspective to evaluate the outcomes of this challenge.

By relying on measurable outputs such as Time to Impact (TTI), swing delay, exit velocity, launch angle, and flight distance, this system ensures that the results remain grounded in data, irrespective of differing beliefs about swing decision-making. Since Schenck’s philosophy drives this challenge, it is only fitting that his assumptions frame the criteria for success.

The grading system for this challenge is based on the constraints of a 94 mph fastball, accounting for realistic conditions including drag. Using an initial velocity of 94 mph, the event time to contact over 54 feet is 408 milliseconds. This baseline reflects the precise timing constraints hitters face in live game scenarios.

1. Baseline Event Time Swings are evaluated against the 408ms event window, from recognition to contact. The ability to execute a swing efficiently within this timeframe is critical.
2. Time to Impact (TTI) The primary metric for efficiency is the hitter’s Time to Impact (TTI). The hitter with the most excess time remaining—delaying their swing to allow the ball to travel closer to the plate—demonstrates superior quickness and decision-making.
3. Power Metrics Beyond timing, power will be evaluated using exit velocity and projected flight distance, calculated with the xFactor Ball Flight Distance Calculator. The combination of high exit velocity and long flight distance indicates power without compromising efficiency.
4. Winning Criteria The winner will be the hitter who: Leaves the most excess time within the 408ms event window, demonstrating elite swing quickness. Produces the highest exit velocity and flight distance, showcasing superior power output.

Example

?

The grading challenge and criteria to win in this context are designed to strike a balance between quickness (timing efficiency) and power (exit velocity and launch distance). Since these aspects can reflect different preferences based on swing philosophy, the winner depends on how the weighting system evaluates their combined contributions

By aligning the grading system with real-game constraints, this challenge ensures an objective evaluation of swing efficiency and power. The results will definitively determine which philosophy best meets the demands of high-level competition.

?