Would someone be good enough to describe/define the Gerry Davis stance for me? Several posters say they prefer it, so I want to try it.

I tried the slot but could not get used to it. In that position, I simply cannot see the pitches right, especially on the outside, so I have consistently worked "over the top." That may be because I started with the outside balloon protector, which pretty much dictated the "over the top" position.

Go here. http://childress.officiating.com/ There are two articles about the Gerry Davis stance by Mr. Childress under Working the Plate.

The Stance
 

Your standing approximately 1 to 1.5 arm's lengths behind the catcher. Your feet are planted wider than shoulder width (when I experimented with the stance, I was about 8 inches more than shoulder width on each side). You keep your head straight forward, and put your hands on your knees.

In general, umpires like the stance because it gives you a good "still" view of the zone with nearly zero movement on your part (due to the hands on knees). The stance is quite similar to the one knee, in that you get the same 'look.'

Why my exposure to the Gerry Davis stance was only experimental?

I felt that it changed my strike zone (enough for coaches and players to notice in some cases). I also could not get the outside or low pitches the same; possible due to my neglect to really learn all aspects of the stance. Furthermore, I was hit with a substantial amount of foul balls because I was a greater distance from the catcher. I did a two-week study of the stance, and was hit with more foul balls on my hands/arms that I had in the previous four seasons.

I would NOT suggest this stance, however there are advantages.

Re: The Stance
 

yes, it is because of your neglect to learn about the stance, so your recommendation to not use the stance holds no water at all. im not even sure why you made it in the first place.

Re: The Stance
 

How many games during the two week study? I started using GD system at the end of the HS season in 2004 and did about 100 plate games that summer and fall. That was my evaluation period.

A senior umpire in our association tried it for PART OF AN INNING, said he felt detached from the game and for that reason, he would recommend that it not be used by any umpire in the association.

The Davis System
 

I have used the Davis system for about 3 years now, since being introduced to it by Gerry at a clinic. This is trully a "system" as opposed to just a stance. There are several keys to making it work.

1) You must work the slot in the GD System, there is no option. Besides, who doesn't work the slot anyway? Remember there is a difference between positioning and stances. If you try to use the slot with a balloon you will not see the low or outside pitches. Get rid of the balloon (highly recommended), or work over the top.
2) With the GD System, you must work higher and farther back from the catcher. This attracts the attention both of coaches and observers. They will get used to it.
3) The GD system puts your head at a consistant height from the first pitch to the last, because your arms don't change length during a game!!
4) This system provides a rock solid lock in mechanism for your head. If the hands on knee set works so well on the bases, why not the plate? Plus the fatigue factor is very nearly eliminated, you are consistant from beginning to end.
5) A hint if you have neck pain after the first game or two. Be sure to "drop your seat" as the pitcher is just about to release the ball. This does two things, it prevents that pain and it also brings the eyes up and allows a better look at the pitch. We have enough "pains in the neck" during the game, we don't want to give ourselves one.

Why do the coaches seem to notice your strike zone? Thats simple, because you have such a good view of the zone that you are calling strikes that you missed before.

As for UmpAndy getting hit by foul balls, its not because of being too far back. There are more than likely mechanical reasons, and a good evaluator, partner or clinic instructor will find out and fix it. I have found since using the GD System, I DO NOT GET HIT, period! Probably twice in 4 years. This is probably because I am doing higher level ball, but also because I am not moving around so much.

Sorry for the long post, but this is a subject that is near and dear to my heart.

Bob P.

Re: Re: The Stance
 

I cannot disagree with you there; maybe my neglect to actually learn and study the stance did have an effect on why it did not appeal to me. However, it was not simply the low/outside pitches, it was being hit so much.

Now, the only question I have (and it is a QUESTION, rather than an implication), how come few Major League Umpires use the Gerry Davis stance if it is so beneficial? AGAIN... that's a question, and a serious answer is greatly appreciated.

UmpAndy, don't worry, I'm a gentleman poster. Not like some around here who will jump your butt for asking a question. I understand you are asking a serious question.

First, why don't many MLB umps seem to be switching to the GD? Well, there are a few, and there seems to be a few that switch every season. Remember, these guy are AT the top, they aren't struggling to get there. They have little incentive to change something that has worked very well for them in the past. There are only two stances that MLB umps use, a box or a variant of that, or the scissors. Only two or three are using the knee.

So, for a long answer to a short question, if a MLB ump feels that he needs to "fix" his current plate approach, he may look at the GD. I think once they go GD they don't go back.

B. Patrino

I think as guys keep working with Gerry more of them convert. In the last two years at least Mark Carlson and Doug Eddings have switched, and I'm sure there are more I can't think of.

Thanks!
 

That's all I was looking for, and it does make sense. In other words, why would something that is not universal become universal overnight? Another example of this is the hockey masks (I know everyone hates this one). But, it isn't that the mask is neither good nor bad, but it is that these umpires have never worked with a different mask, and have no reason to change at this point in their career.

Thanks.

I was admiring the plate umpire's perfection of the Gerry Davis system last night in the final game of the NL series. Rock solid lock on every pitch, and he looked so comfortable. Then it dawned on me - it's Gerry Davis...

tee hee.

I was impressed with the solidity of the low strike, especially with Oswald painting the knee (if I can say that).

Davis, Barrett, and Rapuano love to work the knees when they are working the plate.

Ed and Ted work the same stance- and it is not the knee.

mbyron- In my first few years of umpiring I had a lot of problems with pitches near the knees. I switched to the GD and I can say that it has helped my sight of the knees incredibly...I get almost no cr@p about it anymore. I guess my point is that I can attest to your point from experience.

One problem I have seen from many umpires I work with is that they only call strikes where the ball is above the knee. The zone goes to the hollow beneath the knee, and any part of the ball can go through that line. So a ball that can appear to be below the knee can be a strike. Every coach who has seen me work will tell his players that I will call a low strike so be swinging. I guess they are right.

The problem with that wording, "hollow beneath...." is that many umpires and most coaches don't know what it means. It is not a point below the knee.

I was referring to calling strikes at the knees by Davis, Barrett, and Rapuano. Sorry for the confussion.

We wuz all confussed.

Ive used the Gerry Davis stance for the most part over the last approx three years. The only time I can remember getting hit a bunch was because I happened to be so far back. I would say I am closer than most that use the GD stance to the catcher (maybe 3/4 of an arm length away from the catcher). The only trouble I have right now is concentrating on the pitch down and away. It is the one pitch I truely have to work at. I do like the fact that I now have a great view of the pitch up in the zone.

I do find myself sometimes going back to the heel-toe stance when I am struggling with the GD stance since I sometimes have to "go back to basics" but for the most part the GD stance is a staple for me.

When I find that I get hit multiple times in a row it seems that I am to far back (as in almost 2 arm lengths or more) I also was working behind some less experienced (enter the words younger here) catchers at the time.

The worst hit I took on the arm was a tip that hit me right on the outside of the elbow. Bruised me up pretty good but as always that was just a freak thing.

If you'd been just a bit farther back, you wouldn't have been hit on that play -- the ball would have had time to move farther to the outside.

Conversely, if you were closer, you still would have been hit -- but in a different spot.

Looking *only* at getting hit -- if you are closer to the catcher (and more "behind" him), he will block more of the balls that might hit you. If you are further back, the balls will disperse more, and fewer will hit you.

My theory: An umpire tries out a new stance in a "lesser" game. For a LL umpire, that might mean trying the stance in an 8-9 yr. old game, not the Major championship game. For someone who works HS and college, he might try the stance in a JV game, but wouldn't likley try something new in his first D-I game.

The pitching and catching is of lesser quality in these games, so the umpire gets hit more. The umpire, who is focused on evaluating the stance, gets hit more -- and blames the stance.

Wrapping Hands Around Back of Thighs
 

I took up GD at the beginning of this season, and noticed an immediate improvement on the fatigue factor and back strain. But I have always been leary about foul tips or stray pitches catching my exposed slot hand.

So I begin experimenting with wrapping the hands back behind the thighs when the pitcher is in mid-delivery, at the same time "dropping the seat" so I would lose minimal, if any, head height.

How do I learn it?
 

I am a HS BB Umpire and training and clinics around here (SE Michigan) are few and far between.

Any hints on where I can learn this system?

Thanks.

Re: How do I learn it?
 

From an earlier post in this thread by Deleware Blue:

"Go here. http://childress.officiating.com/ There are two articles about the Gerry Davis stance by Mr. Childress under Working the Plate."

I learned how to work the Davis stance through the Childress article. Dispite the large amount of clinics here in Southern California, due to powers beyond my control I have not had formal training in the Davis stance. Hopefully that will change this weekend.

Dispite that... I feel this is the best stance/system I have ever used and will continue using it.

The Childress article notes that it is possible to use the Gerry Davis system with either the balanced or heel/toe stance, with a recommendation to use balanced.

I am a LL umpire, and in a recent fall game, I decided to try out the system, but did so with my usual heel/toe stance. I liked what I saw quite a bit. Keeping the same stance may make for a more natural progression for me.

Has anyone tried both the balanced and heel/toe stances with the system, and, if so, can you offer pros and cons?

Also, as Bob Jenkins notes above, I decided to try this in a fall game where the outcome mattered little. I did not get hit with any foul balls or miscaught pitches, but I found that I got a greater general awareness as to how shaky LL catchers are, in terms of catching mechanics. This forced me to really, really lock into the stance, so as to not get fidgety about balls coming through.

Frankly, I think GDS and "heel to toe" are mutually exclusive.

The principal argument for a "heel to toe" stance (non-GDS) is that it makes it possible to see the pitch into the glove with both eyes. This is not an issue with the GDS because you don't go monocular.

My first several games with GDS were a bunch of 13-year old AAU doubles with first year umpires. I did one half of an inning with my inside eye closed (right eye for right-handed batters) to see if I could still see the pitch. I could. Not necessarily all the way into the glove because you might not see that anyway. The point is that you can stand square without losing anything.

GDS instructions say to stand square and put your nose on the inside edge of the plate, which would be tough to do if you were pointed toward the second baseman. You want to be zeroed in on the inside edge of the plate because that becomes your reference if the catcher sets up inside and you lose sight of the plate.

In Carl Childress' second GDS article (http://childress.officiating.com/?d=Working+the+Plate&f=Gerry+Davis+Part+II.pdf), he offers a good reason for going with a balanced stance versus heel-to-toe, having to do with seeing the pitch better with both eyes as it arrives at the plate. He provides a reference (but, I think, no link) to an article regarding "The Monocular Vision Theory."

I've been using the balanced stance exclusively with GD. For me, keeping square to the pitcher seems more natural.

i have tried both the heel-toe and balanced, and i am definately more comfortable in the balanced davis stance. I am square to the pitcher, and can distance myself a bit further back from the catcher, allowing me to call a better low zone, as well as reducing the chance of a catcher running into me. The best part of it, however, is that there is less strain on my neck and back, keeping me up and ready all day

alex

I just saw Joe West get hit in the head by a bat on a backswing. I don't think that would happen with GD system because PU would be farther back.

I don't worry about getting hit. It's part of the job, and mostly unavoidable. I recall getting hit in the face mask one time this year with a fast ball in a 4A varsity HS game. It was not a foul ball, but the catcher did not get a glove on it. I tracked it right from the pitcher's hand to my mask, as I was locked in the GD. The mask leaped off my head and landed at my feet and I looked at the catcher and said "is that the best you can do?".

I also suffered my first broken bone this year, a broken pinky finger on my left hand. It was in the first inning of the first game of a college double header. Inside pitch the catcher did not get a glove on. This was in February before I had fully converted to GD.

I don't think I get hit any more or less in GD system than before. But I also don't worry about getting hit any more or less.

similar thing happened to me, except it was a college game last fall and i took an upper 80s fastball to the left bicep. i was locked in, ball came up and in, and F2 didnt get back over in time to catch it (he was setup way way outside). that felt great...

You don't have to worry about calling umpire's interference on yourself either.

The balanced vs. heel to toe discussion left me wondering what I do, in a game. When I stand in front of a mirror I am balanced, but I was not sure if this would carry over to a game. So tonight I had 2 games behind the plate and checked my feet out a number of times during the game. With RH batters I was consistently working instep (left foot) to toe (right foot), so I guess you can say I was "in-between" heel to toe and balanced. On LH batters I was working balanced.

I switched over to the GD Stance last year. I feel it is the best stance for all the reasons that have been stated.

Just think, an umpire using the GD Stance, wearing a Helmet ! You just can't get a better umpire !

(Just trying to get a few goats, and I know I did.)

You can't get goats with self-parody.

Re: The Davis System
 

You are definitely in greater risk of getting hit the GD stance, notwithstanding that you have NOT been hit. That's more luck than any direct correlation to the fact that you're using the GD stance.

And, the fact that you're calling higher ball suggests the risk of getting hit rests largely on the chance that the catcher will miss the ball.

In that regard, the GD stance is no more risky than any other stance. If the catcher can't catch, you're going to get hit - true.

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.

I think the GD stance *does* increase the accuracy of calls, but at the price of taking more foul tips off the body.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Sorry David,
 

"It also exposes your hands to a much higher degree."

Rather than taking cheap shots at you being a rat posting umpire information I will challenge this statement from your post.

Please explain to me were the "higher degree" comes from.

My version of Mythbusters would call "foul" on your generalization.

When I work the old heel-to-instep (consider we are talking about a RH hitter) I am in the slot. My right hand and arm are behind the catcher and my left arm is placed in front of my stomach just above my left knee.

When I work the GDS I am still in the slot and my right hand and arm are still behind the catcher. Since the catcher is still in front of me a ball would have to come off the bat and immediately go downward after passing the catcher (an impossibility) or it would have to go under the catcher and up and catch my arm after a bounce.

This means that my right arm is equally exposed in either stance.

Now in the Davis my left arm and hand, rather than horizontal, are nearly vertical. The same exact amount of arm is exposed and my hand slides effortlessly into the gap at the top of my leg guard.

Picture that my arms are not ridgid, my thumb is on the right side of my leg guard and my other four fingers are on the left side of the guard.

Since my leg guard is pointed squarely at the pitcher this means that my hands has little or no exposure to a pitch, deflected ball or foul BALL.

I don't understand your "cone" reference as the only "cone" I know of is the "Cone of Silence" from Get Smart.

I do not remember you posting that you worked the Davis Stance when you were posing as an umpire so I don't know how many games you have worked in the system.

All I can say, for about the thousandth time, I have worked the stance since late 1999 early 2000 through this last year and have been hit ONCE.

I'll stick with my research on this one.

Tee

I exprimented with GD for a couple years before going to it full time early this year, after getting a finger broken on my left hand. I did not feel it would be a good idea to get hit again while wearing a splint to straighten my finger out while the bone healed. In the GD my fingers are not exposed. I will never go back to my old stance because 1) not as likely to break a finger and 2) I love the look I get at the pitch.

Re: Sorry David,
 

No matter what stance you use, the arm/hand that is behind the catcher (assuming you are working a slot) is almost completely immune from being hit. It always seems the *other* arm/hand takes the shots.

Since an integral part of the GD stance is to lock yourself in with your hands as a support, there is no good place to put that exposed hand. In other stances, many umpires find places to put that hand, like behind the knee.

Also, standing further back *must* expose you to greater risk. It's pure physics. Once the ball comes off the bat on a foul tip, the ball is going to be within a certain cone. Depending on the nature of the pitch and the nature of the ball coming off the bat, the cone may be wide or narrow. A fast pitch barely tipped is going to have a very narrow cone, for instance. The point at which the ball leaves the bat is the tip of the cone and the cone only increases in diameter from there. The further away you are the larger the diameter of the cone, thus increasing the probability of the ball hitting you.

Let's face it, getting struck with a pitched ball off the bat is a relatively rare occurrence and it happens with such infrequency that it is difficult to attribute WHY one umpire might get hit more than another other than an inordinate amount of bad luck. So, if a GD stance umpire gets hit less than an umpire employing a different stance, that is hardly a conclusive database. It may be just one umpire is simply unlucky. Hell, why does one person get hit by lightning and another doesn't?

Having said this, I think the GD stance is probably superior to other stances. I particularly think a GD stance umpire gets a much better view of the low pitch that, in my opinion, is the mostly commonly missed pitch by umpires. I think many umpires tend to call a strike on a pitch that cuts the plate in two, but is on the low side, too often. And I think they miss that because they are TOO CLOSE to the pitch.

<IMG SRC="http://www.emerling22.com/baseball_stuff/cone_stance.jpg">

I realize that in the above photo the umpire is not employing the GD stance. That's not the point of the photo. It is simply to illustrate what I mean by "the cone". Perhaps if you had studied physics more instead of watching "Get Smart" you would have understood what I meant. :-)

I thought you retired from posting on internet forums?

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Edited by David Emerling on Oct 27th, 2005 at 01:02 AM]

I think you have the absolute right view of all this. Although I maintain that statistically, as a function of physics, you more prone to get hit in the GD stance, I do *not* think that should be an overriding concern since it would still be too infrequent to be an issue.

Like you, I believe getting hit by a pitch, on occassion, is simply part of the job. If an umpire compromises on the quality of his ball/strike calling based on his fear of getting hit with the ball, he should probably not even be umpiring.

Probably the biggest problem with the GD stance is this ...

If you are in a league where you are subject to evaluations and your evaluator does not understand or appreciate the GD stance, it will stunt your advancement. Also, many managers and fans will recognize the unorthodox style as "weak" umpiring.

You can talk until you're blue in the face about how much improved you are with calling balls and strikes, but it may well fall on deaf ears.

David Emerling
Memphis, Tn

Re: Re: Sorry David,
 

David,
It's the other way around. We're interested in the fraction of balls which will strike an umpire. The balls have the same angular distribution no matter where blue stands. But he subtends a smaller angle as he stands farther from the plate. And that smaller solid angle means that he intercepts fewer foul balls. The situation is complicated slightly by the shrouding effect of the catcher, and I suppose that a GD stance umpire who works very high might take more impacts to the mask or helmet.
BTW, Anybody else notice a correlation between use of helmets and use of the GD stance?
Dave

Re: Re: Sorry David,
 

David --

I think your physics is completely backwards. The forward umpire occupies, say, 100% of the cone -- he's guaranteed to get hit. An umpire standing at, say, the screen, might occupy 10% of the cone -- he's unlikely to get hit.

Still Sorry, David
 

I appreciate your "scientific" approach David, but the real "evidence" really should come from those who actually use the system. I have used the GD for about the same amount of time as Tee, with very similar results. I have been hit only ONCE on the hands or arms since 2000. I am still hit occasionally on the mask or chest protector, which happens regardless of stance or technique used.

Before GD I used any number of stances and was hit on the arms or hands, on average, once a week or more. I guess you would say I was "in the cone". I say the "cone of pain". Even Bill Nye the Science Guy would agree that was compelling evidence.

My evidence suggest that I never again return to the cone of pain, thanks for your input, but I'm staying GD.

BP

Re: Still Sorry, David
 

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 hear 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 <i>something</i> 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 your 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 had a 2-headed coin?

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Edited by David Emerling on Oct 27th, 2005 at 10:00 PM]

Re: Re: Re: Sorry David,
 

Also, standing further back *must* expose you to greater risk. It's pure physics. Once the ball comes off the bat on a foul tip, the ball is going to be within a certain cone. Depending on the nature of the pitch and the nature of the ball coming off the bat, the cone may be wide or narrow. A fast pitch barely tipped is going to have a very narrow cone, for instance. The point at which the ball leaves the bat is the tip of the cone and the cone only increases in diameter from there. The further away you are the larger the diameter of the cone, thus increasing the probability of the ball hitting you.

<IMG SRC="http://www.emerling22.com/baseball_stuff/cone_stance.jpg">

I realize that in the above photo the umpire is not employing the GD stance. That's not the point of the photo. It is simply to illustrate what I mean by "the cone". Perhaps if you had studied physics more instead of watching "Get Smart" you would have understood what I meant. :-)

I thought you retired from posting on internet forums?

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Edited by David Emerling on Oct 27th, 2005 at 01:02 AM] [/QUOTE]

David --

I think your physics is completely backwards. The forward umpire occupies, say, 100% of the cone -- he's guaranteed to get hit. An umpire standing at, say, the screen, might occupy 10% of the cone -- he's unlikely to get hit. [/B][/QUOTE]

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

I'll agree that the further back you stand you subtend less of "the cone". That part is obvious especially if you consider an umpire standing 50-feet behind the catcher. Clearly, he would have an extremely remote chance of getting hit.

The problem is that with the GD stance, the umpire is only slightly further back than the more conventional stances yet postures himself MUCH more erect. It's that erect stance, in my opinion, that catches more of "the cone." I probably didn't word it very well in my original post.

The picture above has the two umpires (one just being a clone of the other) using identical stances. I'll agree that two umpires, using identical stances, the one furthest from the ball has a lower probability of being hit *PROVIDED* all other things are equal as far as the frontal area of exposure remaining constant which is *NOT* the case for the GD stance. There's a reason everybody says it's easier on the back - it's because you're not squatting as much.

Like I said, I don't think it's a big issue. I just think it's true from a physics standpoint. I wouldn't discourage anybody from using the GD stance on this basis.

I was just bored and wanted to play Bill Nye the Science Guy. :-)

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

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!

Re: Re: Still Sorry, David
 

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.

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 <b>fine</b> stance.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Re: Re: Re: Still Sorry, David
 

That's good! :-)

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

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?

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.

you have wierd legs and/or chin

just kidding, had to point it out

Touche'

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

"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.

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