Today's postings
- [Baren 23597] Re: to bevel or not to bevel (Charles Morgan)
- [Baren 23598] Re: to bevel or not to bevel (jack reisland)
- [Baren 23599] Re: to bevel or not to bevel (David Bull)
- [Baren 23600] Re: to bevel or not to bevel (Charles Morgan)
- [Baren 23601] Re: to bevel or not to bevel (David Bull)
- [Baren 23602] Re: to bevel or not to bevel (Myron Turner)
- [Baren 23603] Re: to bevel or not to bevel (Charles Morgan)
- [Baren 23604] Re: to bevel or not to bevel (David Bull)
- [Baren 23605] Re: to bevel or not to bevel (Julio.Rodriguez # walgreens.com)
Message 1
From: Charles Morgan
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 17:00:25 -0800
Subject: [Baren 23597] Re: to bevel or not to bevel
Send Message: To this poster
At 08:50 AM 12/14/03 +0900, you wrote:
>Charles, you seem pretty defensive about the Yoshidas in your post, so I
>must reiterate: nothing I said was in any way insulting or negative to
>them. They did what they wanted, in the way they wanted, because that was
>the way to reproduce the results they wanted. They didn't give a d#*m
>about the 'right' way to carve in the traditional sense that I used the
>word - for them (as it should be for all of us) the 'right' way is
>whatever way that gets the results you want.
Hmmm ... I did not think that asking questions was being defensive. You
have misread me on this one. Actually I was rather amused by your comments.
I must say that I find it a bit weird that the Yoshidas would travel the
world promoting wood block printmaking, write books about it, one subtitled
"A Handbook of Traditional and Modern Techniques" etc., but not mention in
their books that their "fine lines" were all the result of a completely
different technique not even using wood.
And I have never before heard anyone suggest that they did not know how to
carve a plate, or that their suggested carving technique was "wrong, wrong,
wrong". I am just very surprised!!!
My next question is: How were their zinc plates with the fine lines
produced? How were they inked and printed?
What about Rei Yuki, Toshi's co-author? He was certainly billed in the book
as a practicing print maker. Do you think that he, too, was ignorant of
"correct" carving technique?
By the way, Rebecca Salter, "Japanese Woodblock Printing" says the
following on page 71:
"The hangito is held almost upright with just the tip in the wood, and the
bevel side _facing_ [her emphasis] the area to be retained for printing
(see diagram page 68)."
I note that on page 6 she acknowledges with thanks her Japanese teacher.
But then maybe he too was one of those moderns who "just grabbed a knife
and stuck it in the wood" and was ignorant of the proper tradition.
It seems some carve one way, and from the evidence others have adduced,
some carve another way. I certainly can claim no expertise here ... just
sorting out what I have been taught and what I have read.
Certainly the bottom line here, as I said before, and you seem to agree, is
different strokes for different folks. Whatever works best for a person is
just fine; and no doubt everyone would do well to experiment a bit. One of
the books I have "Evolving Techniques in Japanese Woodblock Prints" states
that some of the Japanese artists use box cutters with snap off blades
because it is easier than sharpening all the time. And in that case, there
is not a bevel on just one side to worry about anyway!!!
So, Dave ... maybe you have a massive education project on your hands ...
teach all those Japanese carvers the "right, right, right" way to do
it!!! ;-)}}}
Cheers ..... Charles
>Charles, you seem pretty defensive about the Yoshidas in your post, so I
>must reiterate: nothing I said was in any way insulting or negative to
>them. They did what they wanted, in the way they wanted, because that was
>the way to reproduce the results they wanted. They didn't give a d#*m
>about the 'right' way to carve in the traditional sense that I used the
>word - for them (as it should be for all of us) the 'right' way is
>whatever way that gets the results you want.
Hmmm ... I did not think that asking questions was being defensive. You
have misread me on this one. Actually I was rather amused by your comments.
I must say that I find it a bit weird that the Yoshidas would travel the
world promoting wood block printmaking, write books about it, one subtitled
"A Handbook of Traditional and Modern Techniques" etc., but not mention in
their books that their "fine lines" were all the result of a completely
different technique not even using wood.
And I have never before heard anyone suggest that they did not know how to
carve a plate, or that their suggested carving technique was "wrong, wrong,
wrong". I am just very surprised!!!
My next question is: How were their zinc plates with the fine lines
produced? How were they inked and printed?
What about Rei Yuki, Toshi's co-author? He was certainly billed in the book
as a practicing print maker. Do you think that he, too, was ignorant of
"correct" carving technique?
By the way, Rebecca Salter, "Japanese Woodblock Printing" says the
following on page 71:
"The hangito is held almost upright with just the tip in the wood, and the
bevel side _facing_ [her emphasis] the area to be retained for printing
(see diagram page 68)."
I note that on page 6 she acknowledges with thanks her Japanese teacher.
But then maybe he too was one of those moderns who "just grabbed a knife
and stuck it in the wood" and was ignorant of the proper tradition.
It seems some carve one way, and from the evidence others have adduced,
some carve another way. I certainly can claim no expertise here ... just
sorting out what I have been taught and what I have read.
Certainly the bottom line here, as I said before, and you seem to agree, is
different strokes for different folks. Whatever works best for a person is
just fine; and no doubt everyone would do well to experiment a bit. One of
the books I have "Evolving Techniques in Japanese Woodblock Prints" states
that some of the Japanese artists use box cutters with snap off blades
because it is easier than sharpening all the time. And in that case, there
is not a bevel on just one side to worry about anyway!!!
So, Dave ... maybe you have a massive education project on your hands ...
teach all those Japanese carvers the "right, right, right" way to do
it!!! ;-)}}}
Cheers ..... Charles
Message 2
From: jack reisland
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 16:09:50 -1000
Subject: [Baren 23598] Re: to bevel or not to bevel
Send Message: To this poster
David Bull wrote:
>
>
> Most of their keyblocks (I have no idea what percentage - but it is
> _very_ high) are metal (not steel, by the way, but 'aen', which I
> believe translates as zinc.).
Yes, these key "blocks" are zinc plates, acid etched just like an intaglio
plate, only in relief. The plate is attached to the surface of a cherry
block, with the kento carved into it, and inked and printed just like a
traditionally carved block. I do wonder, though, if they had to make changes
to the ink since the zinc plate would not absorb any.
Jack R.
Message 3
From: David Bull
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 12:43:02 +0900
Subject: [Baren 23599] Re: to bevel or not to bevel
Send Message: To this poster
> I find it a bit weird that the Yoshidas would travel the world
> promoting wood block printmaking, write books about it, one
> subtitled "A Handbook of Traditional and Modern Techniques"
> etc., but not mention in their books that their "fine lines" were
> all the result of a completely different technique not even
> using wood.
Well, of course they knew what side their bread was buttered on.
'Woodblock print' has a certain meaning, and a huge tradition behind it,
and Hiroshi-san knew that that's what would sell, so he stuck with the
term - no reason really, for him to try and change it to anything else.
And we here on [Baren] do the same thing; plenty of the prints in our
exchanges are carved on lino. But whether you like it or not, their
prints are indeed, actually a 'mixed media' production.
> My next question is: How were their zinc plates with the fine lines
> produced? How were they inked and printed?
Production of the plates is simple - you just produce an image on a
sheet of paper, using whatever 'tools' you wish, brush, pen, you name
it. This is sent to the plate-making factory (there used to be plenty of
such places, but I now know of only one, in a suburb of Yokohama). They
use some kind of etching technology to produce a plate with the lines
left standing and the unwanted areas sunk down around 2mm. As Jack
mentioned, this is mounted on a stable surface, and then printed.
Either oil-base ink or water-base can be used, with quite differing
results. Oil-base ink is applied with a brayer in the normal fashion,
and prints basically 'clean' lines that match the etched plate.
Water-base ink _can_ be brushed onto such a plate, but the resulting
lines are quite 'watery', vague, and sometimes fuzzy. These are not
pejorative terms, but merely descriptive of the kind of
'impressionistic' style of many of the Yoshida prints, which sometimes
have so many overlaid colours that the key lines become completely
submerged in the washes of tone.
> So, Dave ... maybe you have a massive education project
> on your hands ... teach all those Japanese carvers the
> "right, right, right" way to do it!!!
Not at all ... I don't care in the slightest what they do. The technique
has obviously 'morphed' into something else over the course of the past
century, and the word 'right' has no meaning here whatsoever. (Whether
or not I put a 'smiley' on my post when I used that phrase yesterday I
don't remember, but I presume that people can recognize the intent
behind my words.)
But if the question 'flat or bevel against the line?' is asked again on
the forum sometime, I'll answer in the same way ... 'Flat, of course!'
Dave
Message 4
From: Charles Morgan
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 20:38:26 -0800
Subject: [Baren 23600] Re: to bevel or not to bevel
Send Message: To this poster
At 12:43 PM 12/14/03 +0900, you wrote:
>But whether you like it or not, their prints are indeed, actually a 'mixed
>media' production.
Of course it is not for me to like or not to like. I am just very
interested, given that I had never heard any of this before, and it
certainly is not mentioned in the books I have read.
>Well, of course they knew what side their bread was buttered on.
>'Woodblock print' has a certain meaning, and a huge tradition behind it,
>and Hiroshi-san knew that that's what would sell, so he stuck with the
>term - no reason really, for him to try and change it to anything else.
So your claim is that the Yoshida's did not know how to carve properly.
And that Rei Yuki did not know how to carve properly.
And that all those Japanese who have been teaching it for years and years
did not know how to carve properly.
And that all of these people are "wrong, wrong, wrong".
That these people who have written instructions to the contrary are all
ignorant of traditional methods and "just grabbed a knife and stuck it in
the wood".
Now, as I recall, you said you struggled with it for years before finally
coming to the "right" technique. So, in the course of your instruction and
study, how were you taught to do it? Where did you find out about the
"right" technique that most everyone else seems to have missed? Is there
some book or manual that we should have all been reading? Or was there one
particular instructor who revealed the proper technique?
Still curious ....... Charles
>But whether you like it or not, their prints are indeed, actually a 'mixed
>media' production.
Of course it is not for me to like or not to like. I am just very
interested, given that I had never heard any of this before, and it
certainly is not mentioned in the books I have read.
>Well, of course they knew what side their bread was buttered on.
>'Woodblock print' has a certain meaning, and a huge tradition behind it,
>and Hiroshi-san knew that that's what would sell, so he stuck with the
>term - no reason really, for him to try and change it to anything else.
So your claim is that the Yoshida's did not know how to carve properly.
And that Rei Yuki did not know how to carve properly.
And that all those Japanese who have been teaching it for years and years
did not know how to carve properly.
And that all of these people are "wrong, wrong, wrong".
That these people who have written instructions to the contrary are all
ignorant of traditional methods and "just grabbed a knife and stuck it in
the wood".
Now, as I recall, you said you struggled with it for years before finally
coming to the "right" technique. So, in the course of your instruction and
study, how were you taught to do it? Where did you find out about the
"right" technique that most everyone else seems to have missed? Is there
some book or manual that we should have all been reading? Or was there one
particular instructor who revealed the proper technique?
Still curious ....... Charles
Message 5
From: David Bull
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 14:15:32 +0900
Subject: [Baren 23601] Re: to bevel or not to bevel
Send Message: To this poster
> So your claim is that the Yoshida's did not know how to carve properly.
>
> And that Rei Yuki did not know how to carve properly.
>
> And that all those Japanese who have been teaching it for years and
> years did not know how to carve properly.
>
> And that all of these people are "wrong, wrong, wrong".
Charles, I'm sorry, I don't see what you are getting at by repeating
this. As I stated, the technique has 'morphed' over the years - the old
traditional guys carved a certain way ... the 'modern' printmakers carve
a different way. Are you still bugged by my use of the word 'right'?
Please let it go ...
> Now, as I recall, you said you struggled with it for years before
> finally coming to the "right" technique. So, in the course of your
> instruction and study, how were you taught to do it? Where did
> you find out about the "right" technique that most everyone else
> seems to have missed? Is there some book or manual that we
> should have all been reading? Or was there one particular instructor
> who revealed the proper technique?
For _me_ 'right' means "the way it was done in the old days". I want to
make prints of equivalent quality to the old ones ('quality' here means
technical quality). So if one has that goal in mind, then of course one
wants to use the techniques that were used to make such prints. Now as
it happens, in the hundred-odd years that have passed since the Meiji
days, both carving and printing methods have altered bit by bit,
probably with nobody even noticing it. The way current carvers work (and
I'm not speaking here of 'modern' carvers, but of people working in the
traditional field) is quite different from Meiji times. I have old
blocks here for study, and I can tell you, there is no man alive on this
planet who can do the kind of work I see in those blocks.
What I am saying is that there is no 'teacher' available for the student
who is on the course of study on which I am engaged. I didn't understand
this when I came here twenty years ago - I thought the men I saw working
away on ukiyo-e reproductions were 'carriers of the flame', working
_exactly_ in the old ways. I did what they told me, and followed their
methods, without understanding that actually, they weren't working that
way at all, but with an adapted set of methods.
This is not because they are lazy or careless, it is because the entire
society has changed over those years, and the concept of what a
woodblock print _is_, and the expectations of the market, have both
altered a great deal.
But for this guy here, the goal is quite strictly defined; I see those
incredible prints of the Edo and Meiji eras, and _that's_ what I want to
make. Many years back, I thought that I could do that with a good dose
of 'Canadian pragmatism' ... "Bamboo skin? Heck no, a plastic film
over the surface of the baren will make it operate smoother and last
longer ..." That sort of thing. Wrong, wrong, wrong. I learned,
through endless trial and error and trying to figure out what was going
wrong, that _given the goal of exactly reproducing a particular type of
print_, there was only one way to do it - reproduce exactly the methods
used to produce it. A no-brainer you may say, but that 'pragmatism' got
in the way a lot.
So you ask about 'books or manuals', or 'one particular instructor', but
no, those things just don't exist, as of course the old carvers and
printers didn't document what they did in the way that we do nowadays.
There are notes here and there, photos and sketches here and there, old
'tales' told by the craftsmen ... but most of all, there are the old
prints sitting there - _those prints_ are my teachers. I 'reverse
engineer' where I can, I 'trial and error' where I can, I study old
tools and blocks, and bit by bit, I get closer to being able to
reproduce what I see in front of me.
> the "right" technique that most everyone else
> seems to have missed?
Just they don't care to do things that way. Of course they don't. If
everybody just wanted to 'do it the old way' then where would we be?
Dave
Message 6
From: Myron Turner
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 23:28:21 -0600
Subject: [Baren 23602] Re: to bevel or not to bevel
Send Message: To this poster
At 08:09 PM 13/12/2003, you wrote:
>David Bull wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Most of their keyblocks (I have no idea what percentage - but it is
> > _very_ high) are metal (not steel, by the way, but 'aen', which I
> > believe translates as zinc.).
>
>Yes, these key "blocks" are zinc plates, acid etched just like an intaglio
>plate, only in relief. The plate is attached to the surface of a cherry
>block, with the kento carved into it, and inked and printed just like a
>traditionally carved block. I do wonder, though, if they had to make changes
>to the ink since the zinc plate would not absorb any.
>
>Jack R.
In commercial letterpress printing, zinc plates were used for all
illustrations, and the inks used for printing zinc plates with metal type
are compatible with wood . Metal type was (and still is) printed side by
side with wood blocks, but in particular with wood engravings, going
through the press in one pass, using the same inks. I think litho inks
would also give you good results.
Myron Turner
>David Bull wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Most of their keyblocks (I have no idea what percentage - but it is
> > _very_ high) are metal (not steel, by the way, but 'aen', which I
> > believe translates as zinc.).
>
>Yes, these key "blocks" are zinc plates, acid etched just like an intaglio
>plate, only in relief. The plate is attached to the surface of a cherry
>block, with the kento carved into it, and inked and printed just like a
>traditionally carved block. I do wonder, though, if they had to make changes
>to the ink since the zinc plate would not absorb any.
>
>Jack R.
In commercial letterpress printing, zinc plates were used for all
illustrations, and the inks used for printing zinc plates with metal type
are compatible with wood . Metal type was (and still is) printed side by
side with wood blocks, but in particular with wood engravings, going
through the press in one pass, using the same inks. I think litho inks
would also give you good results.
Myron Turner
Message 7
From: Charles Morgan
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 21:33:45 -0800
Subject: [Baren 23603] Re: to bevel or not to bevel
Send Message: To this poster
At 02:15 PM 12/14/03 +0900, you wrote:
>I 'reverse engineer' where I can, I 'trial and error' where I can, I study
>old tools and blocks, and bit by bit, I get closer to being able to
>reproduce what I see in front of me.
So as I understand you, what you are saying is that the only way YOU can
reproduce those prints is by carving in the way you describe. I do find
that interesting.
But I guess I fail to see that as historical documentation of what methods
were used a hundred or more years ago, or the justification for saying that
the current artists are not following traditional techniques because they
do not carve the way you do.
As for the carving technique itself .... that may be something else to
experiment with.
I just found your statements that all those others were doing it "wrong"
and that they "just grabbed a knife and stuck it in the wood" to be
surprisingly strong and was wondering what your justification might be. Now
I know.
Certainly etching zinc plates is not a traditional technique for Japanese
wood block print, and we can all agree on that. It was VERY interesting to
hear that the Yoshida's were using etched zinc plates; as I said, I had
never heard that before about their work.
Thanks for the discussion. I hope we did not bore everyone else to tears.
Cheers ...... Charles
>I 'reverse engineer' where I can, I 'trial and error' where I can, I study
>old tools and blocks, and bit by bit, I get closer to being able to
>reproduce what I see in front of me.
So as I understand you, what you are saying is that the only way YOU can
reproduce those prints is by carving in the way you describe. I do find
that interesting.
But I guess I fail to see that as historical documentation of what methods
were used a hundred or more years ago, or the justification for saying that
the current artists are not following traditional techniques because they
do not carve the way you do.
As for the carving technique itself .... that may be something else to
experiment with.
I just found your statements that all those others were doing it "wrong"
and that they "just grabbed a knife and stuck it in the wood" to be
surprisingly strong and was wondering what your justification might be. Now
I know.
Certainly etching zinc plates is not a traditional technique for Japanese
wood block print, and we can all agree on that. It was VERY interesting to
hear that the Yoshida's were using etched zinc plates; as I said, I had
never heard that before about their work.
Thanks for the discussion. I hope we did not bore everyone else to tears.
Cheers ...... Charles
Message 8
From: David Bull
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 14:46:37 +0900
Subject: [Baren 23604] Re: to bevel or not to bevel
Send Message: To this poster
> But I guess I fail to see that as historical documentation of what
> methods were used a hundred or more years ago, or the justification
> for saying that the current artists are not following traditional
> techniques because they do not carve the way you do.
Well, it's certainly not just me who knows about this 'flat side against
the line' stuff ... This aspect is well documented, and indeed it's what
the traditional guys working here still do for the most part. So looking
at just that single point, there is a very clear division between what
traditional carvers do and what modern carvers do, and I think for the
most part, each side knows about the other, but chooses not to follow
that route ...
> Thanks for the discussion. I hope we did not bore everyone else to
> tears.
Thanks for forcing me to try and sort out my thoughts and get the points
clear!
Dave
P.S. But ... :-)
Reading your paragraph there makes me realize that all the way through
these conversations, we are using some of the same words in very
different ways. 'traditional Japanese technique' for example.
For me, that phrase clearly refers to the type of work done up until the
mid-Meiji period. But I think for most [Baren] members, indeed for most,
if not all, modern woodblock printmakers, that phrase just means 'the
water-based Japanese techniques'. So to me, the modern men aren't using
traditional techniques at all, but for you, men like the Yoshidas, etc.,
are perfect examples of 'traditional Japanese printmakers' ...
Words, words, words ...
Message 9
From: Julio.Rodriguez # walgreens.com
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 01:56:18 -0600
Subject: [Baren 23605] Re: to bevel or not to bevel
Send Message: To this poster
Not sure if anyone has brought it up but I think the historical facts are
important. Someone correct me if I go off base.
Prior to the turn of the last century with the arrival of the sosaku hanga
artists and their idea (I believe influenced by european artists) that
they must do the design, carving and printing themselves....for the most
part...there were PRINTERS and there were CARVERS....not so much "artists"
as in our modern terms but more like specialized craftsmen. Their system
of apprenticeship was a hard and long one.....those that survived and
stayed the course became master printers or carvers......but you could
never have physically achieved mastership both as a printer and as a
carver.
Modern day printmakers juggle the holy trinity......design, carving &
printing....and sometime also put on their hats as publisher,
businessperson, etc........my point is that no way someone could possibly
excel to a high degree in all these facets of printmaking....at least not
to the level of the old masters. Shortcuts and adaptations creep in.
Pretty soon these modifications are passed on to the next generation of
students. Some well known artists have always recognized this weakness and
have their designs printed by experienced professional printers....I am
talking here about printmaking in the USA and Europe.
I have read all those books published in the late 50's and 60's promoting
"modern" woodblock printmaking in Japan and their up & coming
artists....wonderful stuff...wonderful stories about each artist and their
adapted techniques and use of modern materials...but the underlying story
is that most of these guys could not carve very well...some could not
carve at all !.....they also could not find good teachers as even back in
the 60's the "old" ways had started to disappear.
So they adapted...they changed things....they made do.....you don't see
much fine line carving in the prints of that period. One of the founders
of the new movement...an "old timer" called Unichi Hiratsuka was trained
to carve in the old ways...he had learn at the turn of the century from an
old guy who was one of the last true Meiji era masters....years
later...many of the sosaku artists from the 40's-60's would come to
Hiratsuka to learn the very basics of carving. Funny how Hiratsuka's own
work (he of the large b&W prints) turned away from fine line.
Remember...by the time Hiroshi Yoshida came along, the old ukiyo-e ways
were pretty much dead...there was not much work for master carvers and
printers.....Hasui, Yoshida, Jacoulet and all the other artists from that
area kept the flame alive by putting a twist and bringing european
influences into their designs and their printmaking....they also got a big
boost from the exporting of their prints to American and European
markets.....
Anyways...dunno about boats...but I am a baseball coach, a pretty decent
one according to some folks around here, but I am sort of a general type
of baseball guy...when a parent asks me to give pitching lessons to their
teenage son, I politely decline and I recommend a good 'pitching'
coach...someone who specializes in this most difficult aspect of the game
at that level.
Julio Rodriguez (Skokie, Illinois)
important. Someone correct me if I go off base.
Prior to the turn of the last century with the arrival of the sosaku hanga
artists and their idea (I believe influenced by european artists) that
they must do the design, carving and printing themselves....for the most
part...there were PRINTERS and there were CARVERS....not so much "artists"
as in our modern terms but more like specialized craftsmen. Their system
of apprenticeship was a hard and long one.....those that survived and
stayed the course became master printers or carvers......but you could
never have physically achieved mastership both as a printer and as a
carver.
Modern day printmakers juggle the holy trinity......design, carving &
printing....and sometime also put on their hats as publisher,
businessperson, etc........my point is that no way someone could possibly
excel to a high degree in all these facets of printmaking....at least not
to the level of the old masters. Shortcuts and adaptations creep in.
Pretty soon these modifications are passed on to the next generation of
students. Some well known artists have always recognized this weakness and
have their designs printed by experienced professional printers....I am
talking here about printmaking in the USA and Europe.
I have read all those books published in the late 50's and 60's promoting
"modern" woodblock printmaking in Japan and their up & coming
artists....wonderful stuff...wonderful stories about each artist and their
adapted techniques and use of modern materials...but the underlying story
is that most of these guys could not carve very well...some could not
carve at all !.....they also could not find good teachers as even back in
the 60's the "old" ways had started to disappear.
So they adapted...they changed things....they made do.....you don't see
much fine line carving in the prints of that period. One of the founders
of the new movement...an "old timer" called Unichi Hiratsuka was trained
to carve in the old ways...he had learn at the turn of the century from an
old guy who was one of the last true Meiji era masters....years
later...many of the sosaku artists from the 40's-60's would come to
Hiratsuka to learn the very basics of carving. Funny how Hiratsuka's own
work (he of the large b&W prints) turned away from fine line.
Remember...by the time Hiroshi Yoshida came along, the old ukiyo-e ways
were pretty much dead...there was not much work for master carvers and
printers.....Hasui, Yoshida, Jacoulet and all the other artists from that
area kept the flame alive by putting a twist and bringing european
influences into their designs and their printmaking....they also got a big
boost from the exporting of their prints to American and European
markets.....
Anyways...dunno about boats...but I am a baseball coach, a pretty decent
one according to some folks around here, but I am sort of a general type
of baseball guy...when a parent asks me to give pitching lessons to their
teenage son, I politely decline and I recommend a good 'pitching'
coach...someone who specializes in this most difficult aspect of the game
at that level.
Julio Rodriguez (Skokie, Illinois)