Is good form inevitable?

[JR]

I don't wonder about the misperception that distance is emphasized in this forum. In reality we try to cover each aspect of the sport from tap ins to max D to accuracy and consistency for each distance, head game, health and training, hole management, bag building, shot and disc selection and so on and so forth. There are plenty of TDs and other volunteers doing various things to make the sport better and acting as all round ambassadors of the sport to outside parties.

 

[Smigles1]

To hegemony and all the others who answered the topic with "no", good form is not inevitable, please realize the question was not whether GREAT FORM is inevitable, merely good form. And even then, admittedly, graduation from weak form to good form depends mostly on exposure to good form in others and a desire to get better.

I think we can all agree that people who start to throw will improve in some sence. Just by throwing, no matter how bad, you learn more than by not throwing.

For deeper discussion, we need to define where bad form stops, where good form starts and where it turns into great form... And I think that we wont find a common ground in that discussion.

But from personal experience I can say that almost the entire squad of master-players in switzerland have been playing together for 20+ years, are all about evenly good, have great battles and all have TERRIBLE form. You can name any topic that comes up regularely here in the technique section and they will all constantly do it wrong. The torque, they strong arm, the toe turn, whatever you want. I passed them all within a year just by reading around in the technique section here for a week and then taking what I read to the practice field...

I think you can find occasional players who have a athletique knowledge and can apply it and become good without help from others. Most people without help only get to the 300-feet strongarming stage and will probably not see a rating over 900.

( And to come back to the original question about definitions, to me good is not 900 rated. Good starts at 950, great at 1000. )

 

[sidewinder22]

I think you can find occasional players who have a athletique knowledge and can apply it and become good without help from others. Most people without help only get to the 300-feet strongarming stage and will probably not see a rating over 900.

( And to come back to the original question about definitions, to me good is not 900 rated. Good starts at 950, great at 1000. )

I disagree with equating rating to form.

 

[Hegemony]

To hegemony and all the others who answered the topic with "no", good form is not inevitable, please realize the question was not whether GREAT FORM is inevitable, merely good form. And even then, admittedly, graduation from weak form to good form depends mostly on exposure to good form in others and a desire to get better.

Look at the lifers (long time players) who fail to get to a 900 handicap rating. I'm guessing 900 is an attainable goal for any guy under 50 with a modicum of athletic skills or decent motivation, is this fair? Anyway most of them play with the same group of buddies week after week, year after year, who are also lifers and also not very good.

I play in a lot of local leagues and watch the progress of many new players. Because my leagues also attract many established players in the Pro to Am 1 range, newbies get to see a lot of good shots and good techniques. This leads to good form through mere mimicking of what they see. I actually think it is difficult for a player to regularly play with good players and not become good himself. Or herself, of course.

Mark,

I meant "good" not "great" as well. Look at the DG criteria I stated: under 35 years of age, in good health, playing for 10+ years, still can't throw 300ft, and still can't get past mid pack in AM2 at a local C-tier. That's not a high bar, and there's lots of people (at least in the tournaments I play) that meet all those criteria and aren't over that bar. Are they better than when they started? Yeah. Is their form "good?" No.

Also, going back to the article... The times the women improved to were roughly 36 minute 5K times. In the world of running, that's the equivalent of a 650ish rated round (possibly lower.) The kid who wins your local HS county cross-country meet (i.e. a locally competitive amateur) probably runs 15-18 minute 5K times, just over 5 minute miles or almost 12 mph for 3.1 miles (great.) This runner may not be competitive at the state level or higher.

Middle of the pack is probably 22-24 minutes, 7-8 minute miles or roughly 8mph. This is what i would consider "good." People who can run this speed are skilled and practice regularly. Few people who don't run regularly can achieve this level of performance. However, at this skill level are likely never going to come in 1st in any competition against other skilled competitors at a county level or higher and are unlikely to even qualify for state competitions.

36 minute 5K times are roughly the equivalent of 6mph. So these women are "running" at less than double average human walking speed. This isn't "good" in the world of running. It's just better than where they started. Could people that perform at this level rise to the level of "good" by sheer repetition? Obviously some can, but it's not a guarantee and thus not inevitable.

Long story short... when you put the data from the linked article into context, it doesn't support the claim that "good" skill levels are inevitable. And that's before you try to make any parallels between running and DG.