Gerry Davis stance

[ozzy6900]

Well, I must be doing something wrong here. I've been using the GD stance since the end of last season (2004). My hands are placed on my thighs just above the knees. I do not move them when I drop my butt. I set up about an arm's length (maybe a bit more) behind the catcher. So tell me, why am I not part of the "my hands are exposed, so they might get hit" crowd?

I've taken a couple of hits to the chest protector, but these are fewer than when I used the scissors stance. When in the GD stance, it seems that the FOUL BALLS don't find me as often as they used to. They either drop to the ground or scoot off to one side or another.

Please advise me as to how I need to change the GD stance so that I can get hit in the hands and other unprotected areas! I feel left out of these threads!

[bkbjones]

Originally posted by David Emerling

My point was never to emphasize that the GD stance should not be used because of the enhanced chances of getting hit. In fact, I think the huge gain in accuracy of calling balls & strikes far outweighs the miniscule increase in the chance of being hit due to the more erect posture associated with the GD stance.

I experimented with the GD stance only once and liked it very much. What I *didn't* like was some of the comments I could heard from fans noticing and murmuring about how far back I was standing. It was a very low level game - just a bunch of 13-yr-olds so I really didn't care.

I didn't get hit once while in the GD stance. But, on the other hand, I don't ever recall getting whacked at all that season. So I'm not sure what kind of database that provides.

Listen, I don't want to argue the point. It's really rather pointless, in my opinion. But it just seems that whenever discussions of the GD stance come up, somebody always seems to mention that it's "safer" or "more dangerous" or something along these lines. I was just pointing out that a more erect stance is going to provide a larger target and subtend a larger "cone" thus, statistically, increasing you odds of getting hit. Whether those statistics play out for any one individual is hard to say or predict.

If you flipped a coin 10 times and it came up heads each time would you conclude that you have a 2-headed coin?

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

No, but I would say that if it's a 13-year-old game and you're most worried about what the fans are saying, the only cone you should be subtending is an ice cream cone from a truck with tinny speakers while wearing a funky hat.

[David Emerling]

Originally posted by ozzy6900
Well, I must be doing something wrong here. I've been using the GD stance since the end of last season (2004). My hands are placed on my thighs just above the knees. I do not move them when I drop my butt. I set up about an arm's length (maybe a bit more) behind the catcher. So tell me, why am I not part of the "my hands are exposed, so they might get hit" crowd?

I've taken a couple of hits to the chest protector, but these are fewer than when I used the scissors stance. When in the GD stance, it seems that the FOUL BALLS don't find me as often as they used to. They either drop to the ground or scoot off to one side or another.

Please advise me as to how I need to change the GD stance so that I can get hit in the hands and other unprotected areas! I feel left out of these threads!

I'm just saying it's a statistical point based on the geometric exposure area. Whether you ultimately get here or there is basically going to be a crapshoot, that's why I keep reiterating that it should not be deciding issue on whether to used the stance or not.

I have used various stances over the years and have NEVER been hit in the hand, under ANY condition.

What should I conclude - that I don't have hands???

Here's my point: The hand behind the catcher is pretty much impossible to hit, no matter which stance you use. Only the "slot hand" is in jeopardy. In the GD stance, there is no attempt to "hide" the hand since where you put your hands is an integral part of the stance. That's not the case whether other stances where the umpire has a range of choices of where to put his "slot hand".

I happen to use the box and I drape my "slot hand" in the hollow behind my knee. Some umpires who do not use the GD stance don't bother hiding their "slot hand" and, in those cases, they are just as likely to get hit in the hand than an umpire using the GD stance. But that risk is by choice.

I guess I'm having a little fun tweaking you GD stance devotees. As a group, you're kind of funny because you're like a bunch of Branch Davidians.

Relax, I think the GD is a fine stance.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[David Emerling]

Originally posted by bkbjones


No, but I would say that if it's a 13-year-old game and you're most worried about what the fans are saying, the only cone you should be subtending is an ice cream cone from a truck with tinny speakers while wearing a funky hat.

That's good! :-)

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[LMan]

David wrote:

"But the GD stance increases the cone at which you are liable to be hit by a tipped pitched. There can be no question about that. It also exposes your hands to a much higher degree."


..and he also wrote:

"The illustration was only to explain to Tee what I even meant by "the cone", nothing more."

(emphasis mine)


...so which is it?

[gordon30307]

I use the GD Stance. I was taught by Gerry at one of his camps. My hands are on my knees with my elbows locked. However, most of my hand is to the side of my leg the rest of it is hidden behind my chin pads. My elbow is not exposed. While noone wants to get hit as long as it doesn't hit bone you shouldn't be seriously injured. The worse hit that I've taked is when my catcher completely missed the ball and I got hit on the left forearm. Couldn't move my fingers for a couple of innings. I iced it between innings and I was able to finish the game with no problems.

IMHO this is the best stance there is. Head height never varies and it's not tiring. Small batters widen your stance tall batters narrow your stance.

[briancurtin]

Originally posted by gordon30307
most of my hand is to the side of my leg the rest of it is hidden behind my chin pads.

you have wierd legs and/or chin

just kidding, had to point it out

[gordon30307]

Originally posted by briancurtin

you have wierd legs and/or chin

just kidding, had to point it out

Touche'

[Carbide Keyman]

I took very few "hits" in the last two seasons I've used the GD stance. But I broke two bones in my left hand on a foul tip and broke my right knuckle on a catcher's miss.

I believe both of those injuries to be categorized as freak in nature (though painful none the less).



Doug

[gotblue?]

"IMHO this is the best stance there is. Head height never varies and it's not tiring. Small batters widen your stance tall batters narrow your stance."

Gordon,

I have just begun trying this stance/system. I am having trouble understanding what you say here about head height never varying. I am reading what follows as a recommendation to change your head height to adjust to the height of the batter by widening or narrowing your stance. When you say that your head height never varies, do you mean "for each batter"?

I had thought that you were supposed to maintain the same head height and stance width for the entire game, season, remainder of career... I have been trying to do this, and since I do LL games, I have wondered if I would do better getting wider when the smaller batters are up. Can you please clarify?

P.S., I worked the balanced stance last night (previously had been doing heel/toe), and couldn't really tell much difference. The BIG difference to me is in the rest of the system. I will continue to work with the balanced stance, however, as that is what most on here seem to be recommending.

[gordon30307]

Originally posted by gotblue?
"IMHO this is the best stance there is. Head height never varies and it's not tiring. Small batters widen your stance tall batters narrow your stance."

Gordon,

I have just begun trying this stance/system. I am having trouble understanding what you say here about head height never varying. I am reading what follows as a recommendation to change your head height to adjust to the height of the batter by widening or narrowing your stance. When you say that your head height never varies, do you mean "for each batter"?

I had thought that you were supposed to maintain the same head height and stance width for the entire game, season, remainder of career... I have been trying to do this, and since I do LL games, I have wondered if I would do better getting wider when the smaller batters are up. Can you please clarify?

P.S., I worked the balanced stance last night (previously had been doing heel/toe), and couldn't really tell much difference. The BIG difference to me is in the rest of the system. I will continue to work with the balanced stance, however, as that is what most on here seem to be recommending.

Generally speaking I have a wide stance. I find that this works best for me especially for strikes at the knees. If I have to adjust because of the batters height, catchers set up etc. I simply adjust the width of my stance. Probably would be more correct to say "your head height never varies (because your elbows are locked) if your feet are planted the same distance apart.

[mrm21711]

Tee wrote an excellent article on "working wide" a while ago. Its a good read......

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by mrm21711
Tee wrote an excellent article on "working wide" a while ago. Its a good read......

Here's the link to Tee's article:
http://baseball.officiating.com/x/article/4380