|
Re: Is "stance" important?
Very cool.
John |
Re: Is "stance" important?
2 Attachment(s)
Vintage American Racing 200s "Daisy" 15x7 with Goodyear Bluestreak 600-15
|
Re: Is "stance" important?
Sharp Bigmoe! [img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/biggthumpup.gif[/img]
|
Re: Is "stance" important?
Off-the-wall cool Jeff. Congrats on the well-deserved ink. [img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/biggthumpup.gif[/img]
|
Re: Is "stance" important?
|
Re: Is "stance" important?
Love the Nova and the early iron too. Where in NJ?
|
Re: Is "stance" important?
Gotta love the white Trans Am. We had one like it at the Norwood Reunion last July. Show killer.......
|
Re: Is "stance" important?
This is the 'Stance' we've been working on for the past 8 months! [img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/grin.gif[/img] Age 12, 5' 7", 130 #'s, and lowest grade on his report card in 6 years is a 97 - he was meant to play Baseball! He's got it down now, and after a monster 3 run HR a week or so ago - he is walked about 42% of the time, and a lightning rod for being hit-by-pitches. [img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/rolleyes.gif[/img]
Since nobody will pitch to him, he wants to go racing and work on the stance of his '69 Nova SS. [img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/biggthumpup.gif[/img] http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h6...ps6054df62.jpg |
Re: Is "stance" important?
Good stuff M!
|
Re: Is "stance" important?
Nice stance. A little wide, but his weight transfer looks good with it being on his back leg. Swing, and push through with the back leg to drive the ball.
He's not crowding the plate, so it's not an issues of to close on the beanings. Seems way back in the box. Are they throwing that fast to be that far back? At twelve most pitchers have control issues. In a couple of years, he'll be up against pitchers who can move the ball around, and set up the hitter. He'll see better curve balls, and sliders. Continue to work on hitting the marginal strike zone pitches. Low and high on the corners. That's where good control pitchers work. I love youth baseball. Truly enjoyed coaching. Especially at the Pony, and Colt age. You guys are in for a good time. |
Re: Is "stance" important?
Yes, a wide stance with knees bent - very good for even weight distribution and good bat speed. I have special software on my phone so I can video him and then slow it down and analyze - his hips turn before the bat moves [img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/biggthumpup.gif[/img]
Some kids do throw very hard, so he's back in the box. He doesn't crowd the plate, but has the longest bat possible at 32" so he can reach across.... It's a blast, but we hope to get some time on his '69 Nova soon.... |
Re: Is "stance" important?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Schonyenko2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">At twelve most pitchers have control issues. In a couple of years, he'll be up against pitchers who can move the ball around, and set up the hitter. </div></div>
Ken you'd be surprised at the scary good off-speed stuff that 11/12/13 year olds have in their arsenals nowadays. Travel ball starts around here now at 8U and by the time they are 10 they pretty much play year round so they are developing skills at 10-12 that nobody even thought of teaching until High School years ago. In the last 5 years the travel leagues have pretty much gutted the local park district/little league/youth recreational leagues of any reasonable talent around here. Not saying that is a bad thing but it is what is happening. Now back to the original topic of the thread........ Jake |
Re: Is "stance" important?
question for you guys as your in it now, there was much debate years ago that teaching them all these moves so young they were damaging their arms before they had a change to fully develop....any truth to that or what do you think?
curious as it was a hot topic in area when I was coaching. |
Re: Is "stance" important?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: budnate</div><div class="ubbcode-body">there was much debate years ago that teaching them all these moves so young they were damaging their arms before they had a change to fully develop....any truth to that or what do you think?
</div></div> I think there is definite truth to that. Jake |
Re: Is "stance" important?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RPOLS3</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: budnate</div><div class="ubbcode-body">there was much debate years ago that teaching them all these moves so young they were damaging their arms before they had a change to fully develop....any truth to that or what do you think?
</div></div> I think there is definite truth to that. Jake </div></div> Yep, I concur! I use to have one hell of a fastball before I learned to drive. Pops wouldn't let me throw any junk (cept for a wicked knuckleball). He could have pitched pro ball if it weren't for Uncle Sam.I could throw hard in the 80-90 MPH range, but that's about it. Now, I'd be lucky to hit 60.. [img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/rolleyes.gif[/img] BIG |
Re: Is "stance" important?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: budnate</div><div class="ubbcode-body">question for you guys as your in it now, there was much debate years ago that teaching them all these moves so young they were damaging their arms before they had a change to fully develop....any truth to that or what do you think?
curious as it was a hot topic in area when I was coaching. </div></div> Absolutely!! Some say the kids do that to get surgery to be able to throw even harder... My Benjamin is a good ball player, especially since he got in 'late' (having spent ages 5-8 in soccer), but his best asset is between his ears! I don't care how good he can play, I'm not steering him towards anything professional. Plus, he needs to work on the stance of that '69 Nova SS languishing in the shop... [img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/grin.gif[/img] http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h6...inWelding1.jpg |
Re: Is "stance" important?
Jake I know what you're saying. Parents, and school sports programs are pushing the travel teams to get in as many games as possible. Some play well over a hundred a year. I believe that is detrimental to young kids physically, and mentally. There is little doubt that throwing hard, and junk at a young age tears up arms. And it burns out a lot of kids. You loose the fun factor, and it becomes an issue of coach/parent politics as to who plays, and who sets.
High school programs almost demand that a kid play travel ball in order to get a look down the road. Now, if your from a family that can't afford the money to travel, or the parent/s have work commitments, you probably won't get much of a look at down the road. I cringe to think of the kids who may never get an honest chance to play at a higher level due to the economics of it. I think too, that parents/coaches forget that these are pre pubescent boys. Some are very good at a young age while others get better later on as they get older. To cull the heard early leaves out a lot of dedicated players who would mature into better ball players given the chance. Besides, at about 14 boys really start to think about 3 other things. Cars, (Benjamin's got that covered) girls, and beer. Makes life interesting for a parent. Sorry to rattle on. But I watch the kids play in the "new" system and many don't seem to have real fun. Maybe I'm just getting to old. Keep Benjamin weldin on that car. I want to see" the stance" when he gets her done. |
Re: Is "stance" important?
|
Re: Is "stance" important?
besides my own car :), I think this is hands down, the best looking camaro (w/stance!) on the planet. I never get tired of looking at it:
http://i358.photobucket.com/albums/o...ps450aa5c3.jpg |
Re: Is "stance" important?
^^^That is one of my favorite Camaros. Bill Thomas 427 conversion. Just perfect.
|
Re: Is "stance" important?
Here is that silver car with a wheel change. Looks like he brought the rear tire in a bit with a different offset (does not go past wheel lip, hard to tell). Even looks a bit different in front (lowered?). I like the slot look just as much actually.
http://i358.photobucket.com/albums/o...ps226979eb.jpg |
Re: Is "stance" important?
Very good looking Camaro, however it is not a 427 Conversion.
Story and photos by Geoff Stunkard Guys like Don Yenko and Dick Harrell ignored GM’s notorious “under 400-cid” rule to make 427 beasts out of Camaros, Chevelles and Novas. Bill Thomas, who spearheaded Nickey Chevrolet’s supercar program on the west coast, laid hands on the car you see here, but curiously it isn’t a 427. In last month’s MaxChevy, we recounted Tom Billigen’s unconverted COPO 9737 Yenko Camaro. Unlike Billigen’s Camaro, this car was sold new with an L35 396 (325-hp), to a Long Beach, CA, couple. The husband was a performance enthusiast with a small-block road-racing Corvette. The Camaro was for his wife, who really dug the Seafrost Green factory paint. Bill Thomas Race Cars (BTRC), in Anaheim, CA, was one builder who’d stuck around following the GM racing ban of 1963. He built and marketed his nasty, flyweight, Corvette-powered Cheetah competition sports cars, partnered with Dick Harrell on several mid-1960s racecars, and was known as one of the masters of performance during this era. After the wife’s new Camaro was soundly beaten in a street race by a 390 Mustang, they asked Thomas about a solution. The obvious would have been the full-tilt Nickey-style treatment by BTRC, with a crate-fresh 427, but the budget wasn’t hefty enough to make that happen. Thomas agreed to increase the capabilities of the month-old 396ci F-body with the idea of beating any other “stock” street car. He began with a solid-lifter cam, 3.73:1 gears, and a tachometer. Out on the boulevard, though, it wasn’t quite enough grunt, so back to Thomas it went. Here's What's New! Tweaked iron oval-port heads, tube headers, and big Holley on a single-plane Offenhauser intake manifold were put on top and Thomas’s crew reworked the TH400 with stronger internals and a high-stall B&M converter. The Camaro was moving from grocery getter to ticket collector. Still, the yen prevailed. It returned to Thomas for its grand finale – aluminum heads, another Offy intake with two Carter AFBs, and a 4.56:1 rear. Ancillary to the nearly un-streetable driveline was a fiberglass hood and bigger sway bars for better handling. The owner later admitted that the 396 mover was “dangerously fast, almost too fast and that…it would have cost the same to swap in the 427.” Parked in the early ‘70s when the OPEC mullahs first tightened the oil spigot, the Camaro was like a lot of golden age street machines: the owner kept it garaged and finally let it go, in 1984. Its new owner held unto it until 2000, knowing nothing about its heritage, and offered it for sale simply as a numbers-matching SS396 Camaro with spare parts. Troy Criscillis bought it and planned to restore it to stock condition at his shop in Maryville, TN. “There was lot of interesting stuff on the car, but I didn’t know what it was until I began trying to find the first owner,” says Troy. “Luckily, at that time, Bill Thomas was still able to identify some of the cars he had worked on.” "Here's What's New! Troy sent a cover letter and several photos and got a polite call back from Thomas soon afterward. There was no paperwork on the cars that he had converted himself, so he was interested in seeing some more photos of the car and the parts on it. After double-checking the details, Bill Thomas agreed that his shop had made the changes, basing his decision on several factors. First, the background story from the original owner, that Thomas faintly remembered and one he knew could not have been faked. Second, some of the special parts would not have been chosen without Bill’s suggestions or the customer specifically requesting them, especially the 1.25-inch front and 1.0-inch rear anti-sway bars. More importantly, there were small changes and identifying marks that Thomas said were on this car but had never been divulged in print. Troy’s Rat Pack Restorations began a full-tilt procedure. After he and Don Johnston fixed up the bodywork, they took the car Twin City Collision (Alcoa, TN) for the final paint. The interior, a deluxe version with a Strato-back front bench seat (RPO AL4), plus power windows and wood grain steering wheel, needed only a carpet and rear package tray to finish it off. The Stewart-Warner instruments originally installed by BTRC were left right where they were. While this was going on, a package arrived from Thomas. It contained a die-cast Camaro drag car autographed by Bill to Troy’s son Tyler, who is autistic. Bill also enclosed original BTRC decals. When Troy asked him about the price of the model car, Bill replied, “That is Tyler’s car. You’ll have to talk to him!” When asked how much for the decals, Bill said, “Nothing, just don’t put any of those Nickey emblems on there.” As the job progressed, Troy consulted with Bill about the engine. They decided to use the original iron heads from the parts stash in place of the worn L89-style aluminum versions and put the twin Carter/Offenhauser set-up between them. They also used a Comp Cams camshaft with specs similar to the one Thomas had originally installed. Fresh Hooker headers feed into the replicated Bill Thomas exhaust system, which Broadway Muffler assembled with removable race pipes. BTRC went through the driveline as well, swapping in those NOS Bill Thomas traction bars for the Thomas rear sway bar, and using NOS US Indy slotted mags wheels instead of the Torq-Thrust versions the car had worn in its glory days. Rat Pack Restorations finished the car in 2004, and it has been shown occasionally since, with its latest award being a Top Five Mighty Muscle pick at 2006 Shades of the Past and Hot Rod Round Up in Pigeon Forge. " Geoff Stunkard. |
Re: Is "stance" important?
Great info on that car. Never knew that til today. I remember when I got my 65 vette, I bought a book off ebay that was about steps Bill Thomas used to get 500HP out of a stock L78 396 by just blue printing, and doing nothing else. I bet that 396 was pushing way north of that after Bill Thomas was done with it with the twin carbs and the headers....
|
Re: Is "stance" important?
WOW!
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: black69</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here is that silver car with a wheel change. Looks like he brought the rear tire in a bit with a different offset (does not go past wheel lip, hard to tell). Even looks a bit different in front (lowered?). I like the slot look just as much actually. http://i358.photobucket.com/albums/o...ps226979eb.jpg </div></div> |
Re: Is "stance" important?
http://i358.photobucket.com/albums/o...ps226979eb.jpg Every once in a while you run across a car that literally stops you in your tracks. This is one of those times. That is hands-down the best looking 1st gen Camaro I've ever seen... [img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/worship.gif[/img] |
Re: Is "stance" important?
I agree...a simple straight forward muscle car...they got it right!
wilma |
Re: Is "stance" important?
I cant tell what kind of tires those are on the back. They play into making the stance perfect, not too tall like sportsmans, not so thin, like mickey thompsons N50s....
I would want that exact set up. |
Re: Is "stance" important?
Stunning car. One of the nicest 67's IMO.
Here again, this link provides all of us some of the best looking and "stance displays" on the 'net! Keep posting guyz and galz. |
Re: Is "stance" important?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ss427copo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Stunning car. One of the nicest 67's IMO.
Here again, this link provides all of us some of the best looking and "stance displays" on the 'net! Keep posting guyz and galz. </div></div> It's a 68, and it is indeed period perfect. That guy nailed it. |
Re: Is "stance" important?
Big fingers.........
|
Re: Is "stance" important?
Great back story on that '68. Thanks for posting Stefano.
|
Re: Is "stance" important?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: black69</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here is that silver car with a wheel change. Looks like he brought the rear tire in a bit with a different offset (does not go past wheel lip, hard to tell). Even looks a bit different in front (lowered?). I like the slot look just as much actually.
http://i358.photobucket.com/albums/o...ps226979eb.jpg </div></div> The best looking 1968 Camaro I have ever seen. Color, Wheels, Tires, No spoilers. It does not get any better than that |
Re: Is "stance" important?
I agree, that '68 is crazy cool! If it were mine, I'd tone down the polish on those TTs to reflect period wheels.......and silver chevys RULE!!
|
Re: Is "stance" important?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jer</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I'd tone down the polish on those TTs to reflect period wheels....... </div></div>
Isn't beryllium the original finish? |
Re: Is "stance" important?
Anyone one here have any idea as to how I could find out what the wheel specs are as well as the tire sizes on that '68 silver car?
It certainly appears that the front and rear wheels are different diameters - but I'd like to know what the rear wheel backspacing is and just what size those rear tires are as mounted in the picture. Not a whole lot of clearance for sure there though.. Great looking stance and colour for sure! Thanks Randy |
Re: Is "stance" important?
Garage floor power washed and Ol Yeller sittin pretty.
http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r...psc4032ea1.jpg |
Re: Is "stance" important?
Looks great Jeff!
|
Re: Is "stance" important?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: realzed</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Anyone one here have any idea as to how I could find out what the wheel specs are as well as the tire sizes on that '68 silver car?
It certainly appears that the front and rear wheels are different diameters - but I'd like to know what the rear wheel backspacing is and just what size those rear tires are as mounted in the picture. Not a whole lot of clearance for sure there though.. Great looking stance and colour for sure! Thanks Randy </div></div> I found out those are T70 american wheels on this car, front and back. 15". It should get you going with some ideas of offset options that came on those wheels with a little research if you want that benchmark 'stance' look. |
Re: Is "stance" important?
Since I did most of my photography back in the day with Kodachrome slides, I just came upon a slew of circa 1985 pics. This one with my then 4 year old son Michael posing by his dad's Camaro. I think it qualifies as a "stance photo". I'd like a vote from you all if I should have the car wrapped in her " NHRA SS/DA War Colors..........
http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r...ps45a2d350.jpg |
Re: Is "stance" important?
That, sir....Is an awesome pic! I vote for the wrap!
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 07:56 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.