Ted Williams and the Myth of Modern Swing Theory: Why Clean Rotation is Overlooked

Introduction: The Misinterpretation of Compensation

Elite hitters often demonstrate movements that are compensatory in nature. The scissor kick, for example, is a common feature in many high-level swings, but it isn’t necessarily an inhibitor to performance. Plenty of great hitters use it while still maintaining an efficient rotational sequence. The key distinction, however, is that while compensatory moves like this can exist in elite swings, they are not the reason for their success.

The problem arises when these compensations are misinterpreted as hidden secrets to power rather than what they actually are—workarounds for other inefficiencies. The scissor kick, when performed without a linear shift off-axis, isn’t something that needs to be “fixed” because it doesn’t necessarily disrupt rotation. But that doesn’t mean it should be taught as a fundamental movement. It’s a byproduct of a deeper mechanical reality, not a requirement for success.

At the heart of this misunderstanding is an intuitive yet flawed belief about power generation:

• Many assume that power requires forward movement, so they emphasize weight shift toward the front leg.
• At the same time, they recognize that stability is necessary, so they emphasize a strong front-side “break” to stop forward drift.

This creates a contradiction—a battle between trying to move forward for power while simultaneously trying to stay rotational. The result? A mixture of linear and rotational mechanics that forces hitters into compensations like the scissor kick, the back-foot drag, or an exaggerated front leg block. These movements don’t enhance the swing; they allow the hitter to remain rotational despite a flawed attempt to integrate linear force.

This is where modern hitting instruction goes wrong. Instead of identifying these movements as workarounds, they are miscast as fundamental keys to power. Coaches see elite hitters scissor-kicking and assume it must be a cause of power rather than a reaction to other mechanical factors. The emphasis then shifts to teaching these compensations as if they are universally beneficial, rather than recognizing that they only exist because of an underlying inefficiency.

The cleanest swings don’t require these adjustments. Ted Williams, Barry Bonds, and Aaron Judge all demonstrate efficient rotation without forced compensatory movements. They don’t fight to balance forward movement with rotation—they eliminate unnecessary forward movement altogether.

The difference between compensation and optimization is what separates an efficient swing from an unnecessarily complex one. The question is not whether a hitter can succeed with compensatory mechanics—many do. The question is whether they are needed at all.

?

Ted Williams is widely recognized as one of the greatest hitters of all time. His approach to hitting, both in execution and philosophy, has been dissected endlessly. His book, The Science of Hitting, remains a staple for players and coaches alike. Yet despite all the praise he receives, one of the most critical aspects of his swing—his clean, uncompensated rotation—is often ignored in favor of modern, flawed interpretations of elite hitting.

The Reality of Ted Williams’ Swing

Williams’ swing was a masterclass in rotational efficiency. His rear knee did not drive forward in a linear motion; instead, it moved diagonally, allowing his pelvis to turn without obstruction. His back foot remained stable rather than dragging forward or scissoring out in an attempt to clear space. The result was unimpeded rotation, effortless power, and precise bat control.

This movement pattern wasn’t just aesthetically pleasing—it was functionally superior. It eliminated unnecessary tension, ensured consistent barrel delivery, and maximized the transfer of rotational energy into the bat. Simply put, it was the most efficient way to swing a bat. Williams, like other elite hitters, used his weight to generate torque rather than as a direct power source. The stability of his center of mass allowed for maximum rotational efficiency without unnecessary forward movement.

Modern Misinterpretations: Compensation as Preference

Despite Williams’ success, modern hitting instruction often misinterprets elite movement patterns. Many players today intuitively initiate their rear knee forward rather than diagonally, allowing it to rotate. This seemingly small difference blocks the pelvis from turning freely, forcing the back leg to become an obstruction.

When this happens, the batter must find a way to clear the blockage, which is why high-level hitters often resort to compensations such as:

• The scissor kick – The rear leg kicks behind the front leg to free the pelvis.
• Dragging the back foot forward – The hitter forces the back foot to clear space so the hips can finish rotating.

The belief that dragging the back foot forward is an exhibition of power is a fundamental misunderstanding of rotational mechanics versus linear force application. While the bat and hands move forward relative to their launch position, the hitter’s axis of rotation remains stable—unlike in pitching or golf, where weight shift is necessary for force production. Many assume that because the body moves forward, this must contribute to the force of the swing. This misconception stems from a locomotive perspective—people instinctively associate movement with force production, not realizing that hitting is a rotational event, not a linear one.

In Newtonian terms, force is generated in the direction of acceleration. In a linear system, like sprinting or throwing, forward motion contributes to force because the object being propelled is moving in the same direction as the energy being applied. But in hitting, the bat is not being propelled forward like a thrown object—it is being rotated around a fixed axis.

Because the bat is swinging around the hitter rather than being driven through space in a straight line, forward movement of the body does not add force to the bat in the way many assume. Instead, any excessive forward motion disrupts the rotational sequence by introducing instability, making pure, uncompensated rotation less efficient.

When a hitter’s back foot drags forward, it is not contributing force to the swing—it is simply a reaction to other movements in the body. If the rear knee moves forward rather than rotating diagonally into a semi-circle, it obstructs the pelvis from turning freely. The only way to clear that obstruction is for the foot to drag forward to re-establish balance and allow the turn to finish. The movement is not a power source—it’s a consequence of improper sequencing.

Power in the swing comes from torque applied through the body's rotational axis, not from shifting mass forward. If forward movement were a primary driver of force, the most powerful hitters in history—Williams, Bonds, Judge—would all demonstrate significant linear drift. But they don’t. Their swings are rotationally efficient, proving that forward movement of the body, especially the back foot, is not a contributor to force but an exhibition of inefficiency.

These compensations are often labeled as “elite movement patterns” because they are common among high-level hitters. But compensation is not optimization. Just because a move appears in MLB hitters does not mean it is an efficient or ideal way to swing. It’s a workaround for a problem that should not exist in the first place.

Why the Ted Williams Model is Overlooked

If Ted Williams was the greatest hitter of all time, why are his clean rotational mechanics not prioritized in today’s coaching? The answer lies in misguided perceptions of power and movement.

Linear Force Fallacy Many believe that moving weight forward generates more power, leading to an overemphasis on linear weight transfer rather than rotational acceleration. This misunderstanding creates the very obstructions that force compensatory movements.

Aesthetic Bias Coaches and analysts often focus on what looks powerful rather than what is functionally efficient. A scissor kick or aggressive weight shift appears dynamic, but it may be masking an inefficiency rather than enhancing the swing.

Lack of Understanding of Rotational Movement True rotational movement is often misunderstood in hitting instruction. Many mistake linear movement for power, not realizing that true bat speed comes from an unobstructed, rotational turn, as Williams demonstrated.

The Availability Heuristic: Why Coaches Teach What They See Most Often

The availability heuristic refers to the tendency to rely on readily available examples when making judgments. In hitting, this means coaches and analysts default to what they see most frequently, rather than what is actually most efficient.

Today, many elite hitters demonstrate scissor kicks, back-foot drags, and linear weight shifts, so these movements are assumed to be fundamental to a high-level swing. The reality, though, is that these movements are compensations, not optimal mechanics. But because they are highly visible in MLB hitters, they become reinforced as best practices, even if they are just workarounds for deeper movement inefficiencies.

Confirmation Bias: Justifying What Already Exists

Confirmation bias compounds the problem. Once a coach or analyst believes that a certain movement is elite, they seek out examples that confirm their belief and ignore counterexamples.

If they believe the scissor kick is a sign of explosive rotation, they will point to Mike Trout as proof—without considering that he might be compensating for an obstruction caused earlier in the sequence.

If they believe linear movement generates power, they will cite Charlie Lau’s back-to- forward momentum philosophy, overlooking the fact that most of Lau’s disciples subconsciously ignored some of those movement tenants, resulting in a more hybrid rather than pure interpretation of them.

Meanwhile, hitters like Ted Williams, who had clean, uncompensated rotation, are largely ignored because his movement does not align with what coaches expect to see in today’s hitters.

The Impact on Hitting Instruction

The combination of availability heuristic and confirmation bias has led to the institutionalization of flawed mechanics.

• Movements that are compensations become coaching cues.
• Elite hitters who don’t compensate (like Williams) are viewed as exceptions rather than the model to follow.
• Inefficiencies become normalized, and young hitters are trained to move in ways that create problems rather than eliminate them.

Breaking the Cycle

To correct this, hitting instruction needs to:

• Analyze movement efficiency objectively, not anecdotally. Just because elite hitters compensate doesn’t mean it’s optimal.
• Recognize that compensations are not innate preferences but solutions to unnecessary problems. Ted Williams didn’t need a scissor kick because his movement was clean from the start.
• Stop assuming common movements equal best movements. Availability does not equal efficiency.

Until these biases are addressed, hitters will continue to be trained to overcome self-imposed obstructions rather than eliminating those obstructions in the first place.

Breaking Down Greg Rose’s Errors in Hitting Mechanics

Greg Rose, a biomechanics expert from OnBase U and TPI, has made a career applying golf movement principles to other sports, including baseball. The problem? Golf and baseball are fundamentally different in their mechanical demands. The concepts Rose promotes—particularly regarding weight shift and ground reaction forces—misrepresent how elite hitters generate power. Unlike pitching, where linear force is essential for velocity, and golf, where weight shift stabilizes a stationary strike, hitting requires rotational efficiency against a moving target. The axis of rotation must remain stable to ensure consistent barrel delivery and adjustability.

The Flawed Argument in Greg Rose’s OnBaseU Tweet

In a now widely circulated tweet from OnBaseU, Greg Rose makes a case for weight shift in hitting, using a GIF of Edgar Martinez as his primary example. The caption reads:

“Batters who don’t transfer weight to their lead side leave power on the table. Watch Edgar’s back foot move towards the pitcher here. Not only does he transfer his weight, but the rotation of the hips actually pulls the…”

This statement, and the example used, expose the fundamental flaws in Rose’s analysis of hitting mechanics.

The Problem with Using Edgar Martinez as the Example

Edgar Martinez was a great hitter, but his swing mechanics were not the model of rotational efficiency. He exhibited compensatory movements—his back foot moving forward or sometimes scissoring, being those—because his lower body rotational mechanics created obstructions that had to be cleared to complete his turn. Instead of recognizing this as a workaround for an inefficiency, Rose presents it as a necessary movement for generating power.

If weight shift into the lead leg were essential for power, it would be universal among elite hitters. But that’s simply not the case.

The Clear Contradiction: Williams, Bonds, and Judge

Compare this to hitters like Ted Williams, Barry Bonds, and Aaron Judge, all of whom demonstrate superior rotational mechanics without forcing their back foot forward or scissoring. Their swings are models of efficiency, and none of them exhibit the forced weight transfer Rose claims is necessary.

• Williams’ back foot remains stable throughout his rotation, with no forced forward movement. His power comes from clean rotation, not weight shift.

• Bonds rotates explosively while staying centered, never needing to drive his back foot forward to create space. His back foot moves forward only after his swing has completed.

• Judge, despite his size, maintains rotational efficiency without an exaggerated weight shift.

If weight shift were essential, these hitters—three of the most dominant power hitters in baseball history—would not be able to generate their elite-level force without it. Yet they do, proving that forced forward movement is not a key to power, but a consequence of inefficient movement.

The False Conclusion of the Tweet

Rose assumes that because Martinez’s back foot moves forward, it must be a necessary movement for generating rotational force. But the reality is the opposite:

• The back foot moves forward because of a restriction in Martinez’s rotation that needs to be cleared.
• A better swing does not require this compensation because there is no obstruction to rotation in the first place.
• The best hitters in history—Williams, Bonds, Judge—do not move this way, contradicting Rose’s claim entirely.

Instead of proving his argument, the GIF accidentally exposes the flaw in Rose’s understanding of rotational mechanics. It highlights the very thing that should not be happening in an optimized swing but is being passed off as an ideal movement.

If the goal is efficiency, then hitters should be learning from clean rotators, not from compensators.

Misapplying Weight Shift to Hitting: The Pitching and Ground Reaction Force Errors

Greg Rose attempts to justify weight shift in hitting by comparing it to pitching mechanics and ground reaction forces (GRF). These comparisons fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the swing.

• Pitching and golf have more in common with each other than either does with hitting. Both pitching and golf involve open kinetic chain movements, where force is generated through a combination of linear momentum and rotational acceleration.
• Hitting is a closed-chain rotational movement, where excessive weight shift disrupts angular momentum rather than enhancing it.

In pitching, the pitcher’s drive leg pushes off the rubber, initiating forward movement, and the stride leg lands to create a braking effect. This shifts the center of mass (COM) forward off its original axis point before release, transferring energy from the ground up through the kinetic chain. Similarly, in golf, the golfer initiates a backswing, shifts weight forward, and rotates into a planted front leg, transferring energy through the club at impact.

Both pitchers and golfers can afford a full center-of-mass (COM) transition forward because their motion is directed toward a fixed target—the plate or the golf ball.

Hitting is fundamentally different.

• Unlike in golf or pitching, where movement is initiated through linear force, batting requires a stable rotational axis to efficiently transfer energy into the bat.

• If a hitter’s COM shifts forward while they are swinging, it interferes with and reduces angular momentum, dissipating power and reducing rotational efficiency.
• A pitcher or golfer can continue moving forward without disrupting their mechanics and energy transfer—a hitter cannot.

A pitcher driving forward off the mound has zero relevance to a hitter’s ability to rotate efficiently while reacting to and initiating their swing against a moving pitch.

Rose’s Misinterpretation of Ground Reaction Forces

Rose is correct in saying that GRF from the front leg contributes to rotation, but he misinterprets how it is generated. He mistakenly suggests that a hitter shifting their back foot forward increases GRF in the front leg. The reality is that:

• Williams, Bonds, and Judge generate equal or greater GRFs as Martinez without shifting their back foot forward. Their lead leg still stabilizes force just as effectively, proving that the back foot’s position is irrelevant to GRF production.
• Martinez’s back-foot movement is a compensatory action, not a power source. He initiates with a linear movement first, rather than a diagonal one, which requires a recovery movement to free up rotation.
• Weight shift does not create rotational velocity—it creates obstructions that force compensations like scissoring or dragging the back foot.

Rose is not describing an optimized movement pattern; given his background and field of expertise, he is attempting to apply a golf swing template onto a baseball movement he doesn’t fully understand, mistaking a mechanical flaw for an essential movement. Martinez generates power despite his back foot movement, not because of it.

The Fundamental Error: Weight Shift Does Not Create Power

Rose’s entire argument assumes that forward movement contributes to rotational force, but the best hitters in history prove otherwise.

• Weight shift does not create rotational velocity—it introduces obstructions that require compensations.
• Ground reaction force is not maximized through unnecessary movement—it’s maximized through efficient rotation.
• Ted Williams demonstrated pure rotational acceleration without excessive weight shift.

If Rose’s theories were correct, Williams' swing shouldn’t have worked—but it did. This proves that pure rotation, not forward weight transfer, is the foundation of elite hitting.

The bottom line: Golf and pitching mechanics should not be setting the standard for baseball movement. Applying weight shift principles from a vertical-plane swing to a rotational movement like hitting only disrupts angular momentum rather than optimizing power.

Friction-Free Rotation: The Hallmark of Clean Mechanics

One of the most overlooked aspects of elite hitting mechanics is the ability to rotate without being anchored by friction. Many hitting coaches emphasize "staying connected to the ground" as if force production is dependent on excessive contact with the surface. In reality, the best rotational hitters in history—Ted Williams being the gold standard—demonstrate friction-free movement that allows for an unimpeded, explosive turn.

Rotating Without Resistance: A Demonstration of Clean Rotation

A close look at this demonstration reveals a critical detail—the rear foot does not remain fully planted throughout rotation. Instead, as the pelvis turns and the rear knee rotates first diagonally, the back foot pivots to the toes and, in some instances, lifts off the ground entirely.

This is not an indication of lost power; it is a sign of rotational efficiency. When rotation is executed cleanly:

• The center of mass remains stable, rotating around a controlled axis rather than drifting forward.
• The rear knee moves diagonally, preventing obstructions that would otherwise force compensatory movements.
• The back foot lifts momentarily due to the lack of resistance, not because of any forced weight shift forward.
• All movements transition cleanly, eliminating the need for obstruction removal or recovery adjustments.

This directly contradicts the claim that power requires a firmly planted back foot or a forced forward shift. The demonstration proves that when rotation is pure, ground interaction is minimal—the body rotates freely without unnecessary friction slowing it down.

The Takeaway

Power in the baseball swing does not come from forcefully pushing off the ground—it comes from a pure, uncompensated rotational turn. The idea that a hitter must force weight transfer forward is a misconception rooted in flawed interpretations of movement, reinforced by misapplied examples like Edgar Martinez. While compensatory motions can exist in elite swings, they are not the source of power; they are workarounds for inefficient mechanics.

The reality is that the most efficient and powerful hitters in baseball history—Williams, Bonds, and Judge—have demonstrated friction-free movement, where rotation is clean and unimpeded by artificial shifts in mass. These hitters generate force not by battling against their own forward motion but by allowing torque to dictate movement, keeping their center of mass stable while maximizing rotational acceleration.

The cleanest swings do not fight friction. They move through it effortlessly, allowing energy to be transferred efficiently into the bat without unnecessary obstructions. Understanding this distinction is critical in breaking away from outdated weight shift paradigms and moving toward a more precise, objective model of power generation.