GD Question(s)

[rpumpire]

I do exactly what Brian says about getting out of the wide stance -- bring the right foot in to normal width and take off from there.

As for the comfort level in seeing the zone from that perspective -- it will come in time if you're working the stance correctly. When I switched to GD three years ago, it took about two or three games to really feel comfortable with seeing the zone from that view/perspective.

[Tim C]

Since I am a five yet vet of the stance:

I had the same problem. I have written about the issue extensively.

I find a way to get my feet clsoer together as soon as I can . . .

The bottom line:

I NEVER get as far down the first base line on a ground ball to the infield as I did when working "heal-to-toe" . . .

I am leaving the "Davis System" at the start of 2007. I am going back to basics.

Regards,

[GerryB]

Thanks for the responses. I'll give them a go.
T, were your writings on this side or the other side?
Thanks.

[Dave Hensley]

Originally Posted by Tim C

I am leaving the "Davis System" at the start of 2007. I am going back to basics.

Going back to the balloon?

[Carbide Keyman]

Originally Posted by Tim C

I am leaving the "Davis System" at the start of 2007. I am going back to basics.

Tim,

Why are you going back to basics ?



Doug

[socalblue1]

Originally Posted by PWL

IMO,

It gives you a bad view of the uncaught third strike. Just ask Doug Eddings.

The view from GD on an uncaught thrid strike is no different than other stances. Each has it's own advantages & disadvantages - go with what works best for you. I prefer GD because I call better game. If that means POSSIBLY having an issue on an uncaught 3rd strike so be it.

Not paying attention & poor mechanics caused the Eddings issue.

[LMan]

Originally Posted by Carbide Keyman

Tim,

Why are you going back to basics ?



Doug

You'll have to read "Strikes and Outs" for the answer

[pdxblue]

In 20 plus years of umpiring, I have seen a few norms come and go. One that I will be glad to see go is the GD stance! There are other great solutions to "staying stable" that don't require you to be 3' behind the catcher!!!

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by pdxblue

In 20 plus years of umpiring, I have seen a few norms come and go. One that I will be glad to see go is the GD stance! There are other great solutions to "staying stable" that don't require you to be 3' behind the catcher!!!

So what? No one says that you have to use the GD! I'll tell you what, since I went to the GD, I have a much better game and no where near as tired as before. And I too have over 20 years at the "dish".

[Tim C]

The "challenge" in people working the "Gerry Davis Stance System" is that few have real training.

We often see a ba$tardization of the stance and someone comments: "I work the GD."

They don't.

I see problems with working the stance when you are not a "top dog" (make that an MLB umpire) in that it is so far different than other stances it gives the "cheap seats" much fodder to use on you.

Being 3' or 4' back of the catcher is really not the problem. All of us that have used the stance for a number of years and have been trained know what we gain.

I am sure there were MLB umpirs that didn't want to give up the raft (hell, Durwood Merrill, a 'box' guy, gave Dale Scott crap about Dale working the slot -- "hey Dale, how can you see the outside corner from WAAAAAY over there?")

Times change and so do systems . . .

I am going back to basics mostly to eliminate the problem I have of getting out from behind the plate after a ball is hit AND to help eliminate perceptions that may hold my career back.

Regards,

[pdxblue]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

So what? No one says that you have to use the GD! I'll tell you what, since I went to the GD, I have a much better game and no where near as tired as before. And I too have over 20 years at the "dish".

Nope, nobody says I have to use the GD. I don't!

BBS's are for voicing opinions. Get over it.