GD Stance
 

Does anyone have any diagrams/pictures of the Gerry Davis stance?

Dan:
 

Go to the home page of this website. Find the Carl Childress Archive Section and there is a two part srticle with pictures on the FREE portion of the site.

Regards,

And here is a pic of Mr. C working the GD himself:

http://www.umpire.org/modules.php?na...r=asc&start=15

Nice socks T.

Good Lord, those are his Carlucci shinguards. Did you really think Tee would wear royal blue socks with his uniform?

Another fargin amazing post.

Thanks guys i found them. Also yeah the blue shins look funny as hell :D

He must have a hard time calling the lower part of the strikezone. From the picture (and it could be the angle) but it looks like he can't see anything lower the belt and if he's lined up on the inside corner he has to be guessing on the low outside corner.

~Sigh~
 

Yet again someone who doesn't understand the GDS and criticizes without merit.

Expected considering the source.

Carlucci Blue leg guards match my Carlucci CP and my mask. Just one of my more favorite fashion statements.

The dolts are in charge of this sight, how sad.

Regards,

HAHAHAHA

Tim, for someone who criticizes others so quickly and harsly, you look like a friggin moron.

What a joke.

Without getting "snarky", I thought I asked a legitimate question.

From the picture provided, the angle from your eyes over the catcher is at best belt high. Assuming you're lined up on the inside corner how can you make the low outside corner call??

It would appear that anything below the belt is in your blindspot because of the catcher. I setup exactly the same way you do but much closer to the catcher so I can see the strike zone.

tibear:
 

You're right I reacted to "who" made the post rather than talk to what was actually asked.

When an umpire criticizes the stance without ever using it it is disconcerting.

"From the picture provided, the angle from your eyes over the catcher is at best belt high. Assuming you're lined up on the inside corner how can you make the low outside corner call??"

This confuses me as most think GDS forces the umpire to work "higher" -- my opinion is that my eyes are basically just above the catchers head . . . when a cathcer work high I also work higher.

"It would appear that anything below the belt is in your blindspot because of the catcher. I setup exactly the same way you do but much closer to the catcher so I can see the strike zone."

There is no more of a blind spot working GDS as toe-to-instep. I would respectfully comment that even when you are closer to the catcher you cannot see the outside corner (famous Harry Wendelstat quote when told he couldn't see the outside corner: "I don't NEED to see it I know where it is!" -- that reference is only noting that all (except for the box) stances have "blind" spots.

Guys many of us now work the GDS and many of us are criticized even in our local area. It is my opinion that we are criticized "mostly" because we are doing something "different" and change is hard for some people to accept.

That is human nature.

And I apologize for the tone and words of my original post.

Regards,

"The Moron"

T,

By sitting on the inside corner and being nice and high I'm able to see the entire strike zone. Granted, by being on the inside corner, I'm not able to see exactly where the outside corner is because my eyes are on the other side of the plate, but at least I see the pitch all the way across the strikezone and simply have to guess about the outside corner.

I like the GDS because of the stability it gives you and I guess it works for you being that far from the catcher. However, if I saw an umpire that far from catcher, I would question the strikezone. Of course, I wouldn't say anything because you'd toss me but inside I would be thinking, "How can you call something when you can't see ball cross the plate?"

Perhaps with enough experience you can extrapolate where the ball is going without actually seeing it. If it works for you, great.

Hmm,
 

tibear:

I'm sorry as I just don't understand "why" you think I cannot see the ball.

You actually get a "longer" look at a pitch and that is one of the +'s of the stance.

See I am on the inside corner . . . "slot" . . . I am solid (head height the same every time) and I can look "down" and see the whole plate.

Also I ask you to remember that I am not the only person using this stance. While it is my picture in this thread many, many others use the stance successfully.

"However, if I saw an umpire that far from catcher, I would question the strikezone."

This is the EXACT reason that I am considering going back to the traditional stance. tiBear it is the same with any "new and coming thing" when people first saw the horseless carraige they scoffed and said it would never work . . . maybe this stance is the "horseless carriage" of umpiring.

If I give up the stance it will be ONLY because it cannot be "sold" to the coaching and evaluator masses.

Thanks for your points.

Regards,

T,

I think you misunderstood my position on the GDS.

I also use the stance, exactly as you do BUT I'm much closer to the catcher and higher so I can see the entire zone. From this location, on virtually every pitch, except for the ones where the catcher jumps up, I can see the pitch from the release right into the glove of the catcher.

From looking at the picture, I find it hard to believe you can "look "down" and see the whole plate." unless the catcher is setting up on the outside corner.

If the catcher is setting up inside can you really see the plate or are you going with the "I know where the plate is" theory?

I have tried the GDS a couple of times and I find that the catcher's head blocks my view of the outside of the plate. I like the fact that I have more time to see the ball, but just feel uncomfortable that I can't see part of the plate.
Any suggestions?

I've been using the GDS for about 3 years and I get the same crap from other umpires (who do not use the GDS) and our evaluation people (who refuse to use the GDS). Personally, I couldn't care less what anyone else thinks about the GDS.

1. It is comfortable for me.

2. I have never been more consistent in over 20 years.

3. My timing is much better.

4. Most important - I get a longer look at the pitch (as Tee stated).

I've had a couple of coaches in HS have a comment about setting up farther back than other umpires. When they have a wise remark, I just tell them to ask their catcher how I'm doing! Never another word!

So Tee, who gives a rat's rear end what anyone else thinks? Hell, I'm old enough to retire and D1 or MiLB umpiring is just not in my future anymore! :D

You're not using the Gerry Davis stance. Sorry, no cigar.

Gentlemen,

Just as a point of information....

I'm the one who took the pictures that Tim posted on the ABUA website that were linked in an earlier post on this thread, and I watched the entire game. During the game, I saw exactly one pitch that I thought Tim missed the call on (though Tim was a bit harsher in his own self-critique following the game).

As I recall, the pitch I thought he "missed" was a breaking ball that started high and inside & then broke late over the middle of the plate. This was the only pitch that drew any kind of negative reaction (which was fairly mild) from the coaches, players, or fans the entire game. Nobody had any negative reaction to pitches in the "at the knees, outside corner" area the whole game. They looked like good calls to me. And, as you know, since I'm a coach I have somewhat "superhuman" abilities in terms of being able to call close pitches from a perspective where there is really no angle or view to accurately judge.;)

Now I've never even tried the GD stance/system in a drill, so I don't know whether Tim really had a good view of those pitches or not - but it sure seemed like he did.

Just my $.02.

JM

tibear:
 

AS you are aware Davis teaches the stance to be from 3' to 4' back from F2. If you have problems his suggestion is always: "Go Deeper, go even farther back."

When you work higher -- and I am considerably higher -- you look down and see the dish (true catchers that work REALLY close to the dish can obstruct parts of the plate at time -- but from the normal slot you are also blocked).

And yes, I get comments often about being so deep -- those however usually come from the true experts -- the lady in the fourth row on the third base side.

Regards,

For what it's worth
 

Trying explain or teach the GD stance in a post is not possible. I began to experiment with the the stance in the hope of prolonging the use of the knees I was born with (I'm a wimp when it comes to going under the knife). After reading articles and looking at photos I set out to master the stance....I had some problems :) It wasn't until I worked with an umpire who had used the stance for several season that I was taught the proper way to use the GD stance. It made ALL of the difference in the world......I'm now a 'true believer' in the stance.

It's true that some coaches/evaluators may view the GD stance with skepticism at first but if you have a good consistant strike zone their fears will soon disappear.

Well I must say that from the pics Tc does seem to be a long way back as I also use the GD SYSTEM and I also do not setup that far back. As we all know the F2 could at times be a real headace in blocking pitch view, but over the course of the game I feel I am more consistent with my calls using the GD but not that far back.

Looking at the pictures of Tim C., that is where I set up using the GD.

The instructors in the GD urge students to err on the side of getting further back. Take your stance where you believe you should be and then take a step back.

BTW, a coach questioned the distance factor last year, I told him that the fans behind the backstop are further away than I am and they haven't missed a call yet!

Then you're doing it wrong, and eliminating the main benefit you gain from this stance.

For the record, and I think Tee just doesn't wish to say, but I do believe he has actually had his stance evaluated by Gerrry Davis, and told his positioning is spot on. So I think GD might be right on the mechanics of his very own stance.

I don't think anyone is saying that T is doing the GDS wrong, we're simply questioning the positioning. Just because GD says it is right doesn't mean that improvements can't be made to the stance.

tibear:

Please share with us......what improvements have you made to make the GD stance better?

better is a subjective term.

What I was commenting on was that simply because GD said this is how the stance is done, doesn't mean that that others can't make slight adjustments to the stance which they feel works better for them.

but Tim C., why would any umpire wear "blue" shins? It sticks out totally. ive only seen Black and the greyish shin guards. just my 2 cents

tibear:

I think that the point was made that IF you are not using the GD stance the way it is taught then it is no longer truely the GD stance......it becomes the tibear stance.

Of course each of us can make adjustments to our stance but don't try to compare it to or call it the GD stance, obviously it is different.

You can get "any" color when you get them custom made by Cece Carlucci. He is "known" for his royal blue color.

Save your 2 cents. I know several umpires who use blue shin guards (and they aren't Carlucci either). What's wrong with blue? They call us "Blue" all the time. It's been fairly traditional for gear color, as in chest protectors and mask frames/pads. So blue shin guards only seem logical as well.

ok then, that means if i ever get new shins im going to ask for bright pink ones? :p

Justme,

Perhaps using an analogy of the Fosbury flop in the high jump would help.

Dick Fosbury was the first person to try the high jump in this manner but over time, people tried using different approaches and arms techniques in conjunction with the new technique. However, it is still called the Fosbury Flop.

And just like the flop took some time to be accepted in the track and field circles, I think the GDS stance will have the same problem within the baseball circles. Especially with the (perceived or real) obstructed strikezone issue.

Anyway if the biggest problem we have is that you think I should change the name of the stance, so be it.

Seems like they's be a perfect fit you you. :rolleyes:

Here is some gear I have selected especially for you:

http://www.adstarr.com/store/images/lgw79apro.jpg

And you can complete the look with these:

http://www.adstarr.com/store/images/cpw79apro.jpg
http://www.adstarr.com/store/images/mvppink.jpg

This thread has gone places it never should have gone.

The "GD stance" is really the Gerry Davis System. Proper performance includes the distance from the catcher Gerry prescribes and Tee demonstrates.

I think if Gerry says it's right, it's right. If you want to make changes, feel free, but as has been said, it will not be the Gerry Davis System.

1. Not only can't you write, you apparently can't read. Re-read SDS's post and see if you can find rationale for your post.

2. As non-traditional as it would be, I am beginning to believe that bright pink would be appropriate for you.

You're right, but then they're not using the Gerry Davis System™, they're using something that works better for them.

I would follow the recommendation of Gerry Davis before I used what worked for somebody else, and for the same reason many folks here emphasize the proper stance and positioning for the Gerry Davis System™.

Edited to add: I should have read Garth's post first...

Aug, I'm scared! Why so you have web sites that carry pink gear in you favorites list? :eek: :eek: :eek:

Hee hee hee!:D

They also carry standard umpire gear, as well as a great selection of baseball supplies and equipment. A. D. Starr. I got my humongous Schutt gear bag for $25 bucks from there.

Hehehe,
 

As I read this I wonder a little:

If someone works "almost" the "heal-to-instep" do we comment?

I REALLY liked the Fosbury anology since I am from Oregon . . . we NEVER know when "the coming thing" is legit . . . and therein lies the issue:

I believe that you work Davis, period . . . the review, referred to by 3 apples, was that the only thing pointed out was my chin position (something I worked on immediately) was bad . . .

We have several people that have commented "my version" . . . that only means you are not using the classic "Davis" system.

BTW, I have sent an e-mail to Scott Ehert and asked if some time soon I can have
extended" teaching . . . that may help us all.

Regards,

"The Moron"

You will look just dandy!