The Hips

[sidewinder22]

Yes. For me it is an easy reminder for crush the can. Can't rotate on the heel if the foot lands toe to target (horse stance).

The foot doesn't really need to pivot(or as much) if pointed more targetward.

 

[navel]

The foot doesn't really need to pivot(or as much) if pointed more targetward.

Kyle Klein opens up his front foot/leg more than other pros (on some shots at least) and still crushes.
I wouldn't recommend it as it might complicate a few things, but it's interesting.

 

[sidewinder22]

Kyle Klein opens up his front foot/leg more than other pros (on some shots at least) and still crushes.
I wouldn't recommend it as it might complicate a few things, but it's interesting.

It's all good as long you can still shift from behind. I think it's just harder to learn it being more open, so Crush the Can like most drills exaggerates things to help Feel the shift/catch from behind.

Crazy watching his arm roll under in the followthru.

 

[navel]

It's all good as long you can still shift from behind. I think it's just harder to learn it being more open, so Crush the Can like most drills exaggerates things to help Feel the shift/catch from behind.

Crazy watching his arm roll under in the followthru.

Agreed. Didn't really think about the arm rolling under though. Also very interesting. I hope we get to see more of him this season.

 

[crd 81]

 

[Brychanus]

Around here, we often talk about not focusing on the hips per se inasmuch as how they work in the context of the legs and posture and gravity. However, I've been finding it helpful to size up different forms and notice what all the big guns have in common that provide good visual memory for what signals good mechanics. It's also helpful to observe when things are working well as a unit even if some details could improve.

My current obsession is the relationship between drills like double can crush, ride the bull, and the torque force of the swing. Even if your swing is generating some horizontal and vertical force, generating an efficient torque force appears to be one of the separators for the tippy top throwers.

I still believe that the golf swing and hip mechanics are the right basis to think about how this force emerges in the DG swing. However, as many of us have encountered, it ain't easy to optimize and **** can really hit the fan once the feet start moving, and achieving relationship between golf hip mechanics and Paul's action in transition to the plant is not trivial:

I've become very interested in what separates good from very good form among 900+ rated, but not necessarily top players. Socradeez got me looking at a video of players and I realized it was a good example emphasizing the principal axes and orientation that the hips should be. The players (& ratings) are:

Staman: 997
Pecunia: 958
Bohan: 953
Vigil: 929


I clipped comparable shots of their hips in transition from here.

When I look around, very good (e.g., ~1000 rated plus) players who crush all tend to be more likely to end up with the hips in transition like Staman, who could perhaps nudge a thing around here and there such as his rear foot angle, but for the most part gets a process like Gibson on the left. You can see based on the image above that each of the lower-ranked players there have some relative deficiency in their east-west process (including stagger), south-north process (including stride length & orientation of the butt backswing to swing, and ground-sky process (elevation of rear hip to front hip). It looks like top form tends to converge on this balance between these processes to maximize what you get out of vertical, horizontal, and torque forces regardless of other details of the form. Maybe it's a little easier for Staman to achieve his very nice-looking action there due to his body type, I don't know.


IMO still one of the best discussions of these forces:

 

[sidewinder22]

I've become very interested in what separates good from very good form among 900+ rated, but not necessarily top players. Socradeez got me looking at a video of players and I realized it was a good example emphasizing the principal axes and orientation that the hips should be. The players (& ratings) are:

Staman: 997
Pecunia: 958
Bohan: 953
Vigil: 929


I clipped comparable shots of their hips in transition from here.

When I look around, very good (e.g., ~1000 rated plus) players who crush all tend to be more likely to end up with the hips in transition like Staman, who could perhaps nudge a thing around here and there such as his rear foot angle, but for the most part gets a process like Gibson on the left. You can see based on the image above that each of the lower-ranked players there have some relative deficiency in their east-west process (including stagger), south-north process (including stride length & orientation of the butt backswing to swing, and ground-sky process (elevation of rear hip to front hip). It looks like top form tends to converge on this balance between these processes to maximize what you get out of vertical, horizontal, and torque forces regardless of other details of the form. Maybe it's a little easier for Staman to achieve his very nice-looking action there due to his body type, I don't know.

Probably a poor hole choice to study with the massive downhill.

Pecunia is throwing a big hyzer while the others are throwing anhyzer so the stagger only appears to bad.

Stamon goes over top, not quite "pro form" IMO, but he still throws decently far.

 

[Brychanus]

Probably a poor hole choice to study with the massive downhill.

Pecunia is throwing a big hyzer while the others are throwing anhyzer so the stagger only appears to bad.

Stamon goes over top, not quite "pro form" IMO, but he still throws decently far.

Looks like there is no one tee shot where the shots and lines are perfectly comparable. E.g., Pecunia seems to prefer to throw on a steeper hyzer whenever possible and his form probably adapted to that.

In that case, rather than rechart it, here's one of the better holes for comparison. I'm finding this instructive if you'd like to weigh in!
https://youtu.be/XIt6higy2QA?t=996

Staman: here and in his other shots too you can see he gets pretty good "ground-sky" and "east-west" components relative to his line, but I'd downgrade his "north-south" to yellow or red. I can see his "over the top" swing and he gets jammed up a bit against the somewhat harsh brace, then everything spins out a little bit together in the follow through. It looks like maybe he doesn't get fully leveraged inside the rear leg in transition and he doesn't quite get on top of his plant leg ideally as a result. Kinda interesting because I bet he's still getting pretty good torque but leaving a decent percentage on the table. With a frame like that I be he has a high ceiling.

Vigil's action coming into the plant there still gets him a little jammed up from a different direction than Staman. The action looks decent but maybe he's landing with his weight too East of the plant there (?)

Bohan still looks like he has problems "ground-sky" and his leading hip is too high in the plant so his rear side has to swing out wide into followthrough.

Pecunia is interesting there. The action looks pretty good but the follow through also looks a little crowded. Minimally his top line/upper body looks maybe a little too flat relative to his legs compared to top throwers and he doesn't get a full swim move.

 

[timothy42b]

All four of them have both body slant away from target and shoulder tilt with throwing shoulder much lower in the backswing. (this is something I was looking for because even though my shoulders feel tilted the video proves otherwise)

But this is true for both hyzer and anhyzer angles. That's confusing.

 

[Brychanus]

All four of them have both body slant away from target and shoulder tilt with throwing shoulder much lower in the backswing. (this is something I was looking for because even though my shoulders feel tilted the video proves otherwise)

But this is true for both hyzer and anhyzer angles. That's confusing.

I think I can answer this:

You may be emphasizing something else, but in general I think you want the posture to maintain internal consistency regardless of the line and angle. E.g., here's Simon on hyzer, anhyzer, and baby hyzer:

His posture will load similarly in the backswing for each type of throw, but he adjusts how he rocks & shifts into the plant to hit different angles and lines.

img source

 

[blayed]

I don't know how correlated rating in the 950-999 range corresponds to form. In general compared to lower rated players they are rated as such not necessarily of their form but because of:

#1 with a bullet) They are making more putts
2) Regardless of the efficiency/power of their form they are generally hitting their lines/not shanking shots
3) Making dumb mistakes less often
4) They are able to execute increasingly more difficult shot shapes in order to put themselves in a position to score

The difference between a 1000 rated player and a 1020 rated touring pro, however, is night and day and at that level you do see great form consistently. I think a better correlation is the progression in form wrt distance: To reach 400ft max distance you can kinda throw however you like you can round, squash the bug etc. To reach 500ft you can have some pieces right and some pieces wrong if you're generally athletic. But not a single person throwing 600ft is doing so by rounding/squashing the bug/having sloppy form. There are of course ams with great form but lower rated due to deficiencies in other parts of their game.

 

[Brychanus]

I don't know how correlated rating in the 950-999 range corresponds to form. In general compared to lower rated players they are rated as such not necessarily of their form but because of:

#1 with a bullet) They are making more putts
2) Regardless of the efficiency/power of their form they are generally hitting their lines/not shanking shots
3) Making dumb mistakes less often
4) They are able to execute increasingly more difficult shot shapes in order to put themselves in a position to score

The difference between a 1000 rated player and a 1020 rated touring pro, however, is night and day and at that level you do see great form consistently. I think a better correlation is the progression in form wrt distance: To reach 400ft max distance you can kinda throw however you like you can round, squash the bug etc. To reach 500ft you can have some pieces right and some pieces wrong if you're generally athletic. But not a single person throwing 600ft is doing so by rounding/squashing the bug/having sloppy form. There are of course ams with great form but lower rated due to deficiencies in other parts of their game.

I'd buy that in general. Elsewhere I did an imperfect but kinda interesting post showing that in the 950-999 range the max distance variability was poorly correlated with rating. I'd expect more variability in form under 1000-rated in general. The people competitive enough to be 950-1000 and play tournaments & logging distance contests are probably making the most of what they've got form-wise.

I find the 400' mark pretty interesting because even with my body stats I hit that upper limit with 3 very distinct forms. I think what they had in common was that they got a lot of forward momentum with my substantial mass and all of them made use of a workable upper body kinetic chain, but they were inconsistent and pretty inefficient through the legs and hips. Seems like there's still a lot of variance there in the form critique threads if distance reporting is close enough to true.

The people consistently sitting (not just touching) 500' regardless of body type all seem to have very tight forms even if they have more to gain and/or have advantageous bodytypes or other perks. I'd be interested in studying that 1000-1020 range in particular.

I found the "1 mile challenge" some of the top guys did a couple years back really interesting because it showed that even very big arms are not always smashing 550+ and conditions and recency of using their distance forms mattered too.

The Birdman:


Brodie when his form was still very much a WIP:


GG:


Gibson on a calm day, impressively consistent:



Tamm is a funny dude and crushes.

Special props for showing a warmup, mentioning physical preparation, and that fabulous hair:

 

[timothy42b]

I think I can answer this:

You may be emphasizing something else, but in general I think you want the posture to maintain internal consistency regardless of the line and angle.
His posture will load similarly in the backswing for each type of throw, but he adjusts how he rocks & shifts into the plant to hit different angles and lines.

img source

Yes, that's what I meant. It looks like good throwers have a distinct shoulder tilt in the backswing, maybe 30 to 40 degrees, with the throwing shoulder lower.

It also looks like good throwers also have the same shoulder tilt on the follow through as well, with of course the throwing shoulder higher. Here's a recent image:

That suggests that that consistent tilt defines a plane on which the shoulders rotate. If I watch from behind, it does not appear that the disc follows a similar plane, either that one or a parallel one below it. It actually appears that the disc moves mostly horizontally though that may be camera angle or my misperception.

For ball golfers it looks to me like the hands do parallel the shoulder plane, below it somewhat.

 

[Hampejo]

Yes, that's what I meant. It looks like good throwers have a distinct shoulder tilt in the backswing, maybe 30 to 40 degrees, with the throwing shoulder lower.

It also looks like good throwers also have the same shoulder tilt on the follow through as well, with of course the throwing shoulder higher. Here's a recent image:

That suggests that that consistent tilt defines a plane on which the shoulders rotate. If I watch from behind, it does not appear that the disc follows a similar plane, either that one or a parallel one below it. It actually appears that the disc moves mostly horizontally though that may be camera angle or my misperception.

For ball golfers it looks to me like the hands do parallel the shoulder plane, below it somewhat.

https://youtu.be/0UoUKCqzjAw

 

[Sheep]

I think I can answer this:

You may be emphasizing something else, but in general I think you want the posture to maintain internal consistency regardless of the line and angle. E.g., here's Simon on hyzer, anhyzer, and baby hyzer:

His posture will load similarly in the backswing for each type of throw, but he adjusts how he rocks & shifts into the plant to hit different angles and lines.

img source

Feldberg touches on this with his big thing on footwork and it doesn't get much traction.

The middle frame there, Simon is throwing a roller.

So, if were to talk about Feldberg Technique when it comes to the feet, were going to move our feet around in the shot to help our body get out of the way and do what we need to do.

For a really really hard hyzer spike, you would step more inside, and for annies and rollers, you'll step more outside. Because you need to lean back on the annie/roller line like that, you need to let your body rotate onto the line, if you step to inside. Ehh, I dont feel like I can explain it really well.

You can clearly see that he's changed his plant as explained to a much wider plant to allow the hips and shoulders to change angles into the harder line.

The biggest issue with a lot of the stuff that we do is that the camera isn't always in line with the shot direction, so we dont get a huge feel for the little footwork that goes on.
And footwork is important. I think a bit more than we give it credit for.

I don't know how correlated rating in the 950-999 range corresponds to form. In general compared to lower rated players they are rated as such not necessarily of their form but because of:

#1 with a bullet) They are making more putts
2) Regardless of the efficiency/power of their form they are generally hitting their lines/not shanking shots
3) Making dumb mistakes less often
4) They are able to execute increasingly more difficult shot shapes in order to put themselves in a position to score

The difference between a 1000 rated player and a 1020 rated touring pro, however, is night and day and at that level you do see great form consistently. I think a better correlation is the progression in form wrt distance: To reach 400ft max distance you can kinda throw however you like you can round, squash the bug etc. To reach 500ft you can have some pieces right and some pieces wrong if you're generally athletic. But not a single person throwing 600ft is doing so by rounding/squashing the bug/having sloppy form. There are of course ams with great form but lower rated due to deficiencies in other parts of their game.

From my experience, being that I play with 850-1020 rated golfers here locally. And I'll throw out any of my rating rants here and just speak from general. Cause ratings do NOT reflect skill well at all. I digress.

The higher the rating, the more correlation with the shot placement in the throw is one thing.
But it's also not. Accuracy on the course can take you a LONG ways. Consistency takes you the next bit, and putting takes you the next bit.

Being that I play with high rated players, I generally value my skill at around 950 if were to use the broken scale. Why 950? Because when I play with 980-1000 rated golfers, I keep up with them, but I'll blow it on 1 to 3 holes to fall behind on the round.

The attributes that higher rated golfers have though is dependent on that golfer.
So, if I'm to look at DJ, a local here who was basically #1 for a long while, he was not the highest rated though. DJ hit all his lines, He hit all his puts, He hit all his gaps and he always was a picture of pure focus. Dude would hit puts and gaps that would make Simon's jaw drop. But DJ only throws 400 max. I've out drove him many times. Even more fun when he's your doubles partner. But last I checked, DJ is rated... 970? I forget. Then we got Logan bowers here who tours, he's rated in the 1020 range, and when he puts up a good round he crushes everyone. DJ busy playing on side by sides now and having more older adult fun and not practice putting anymore. Just casually playing seriously.

Logan might be rated 1020, but he's rated that because of hot rounds, and because of the broken ratings system. Because he tours a little, he gets a skew on his rating based on the tournaments he goes to. The better part of that though, he brings that skew back to here and makes our ratings numbers way out of wack too. Crap, I keep getting re-directed on the ratings thing.


Anyways, distance doesn't mean high rating. But putting together the 3 main things will get you there. Consistency, accuracy and putting.

Other factors that can be ratings influencing are Mental game, (but not in the "keep yoru poop in a group kind)
The mental game of how to attack the course is what I mean. Players who see more are able to shoot better. Most of your Pro golfers do not see lines at all. It has to be wide gaps over 15 feet or they complain about the course. You're a pro golfer, I expect you to hit 3' windows on command.

Hopefully that all makes sense.

Yes, that's what I meant. It looks like good throwers have a distinct shoulder tilt in the backswing, maybe 30 to 40 degrees, with the throwing shoulder lower.

It also looks like good throwers also have the same shoulder tilt on the follow through as well, with of course the throwing shoulder higher. Here's a recent image:

That suggests that that consistent tilt defines a plane on which the shoulders rotate. If I watch from behind, it does not appear that the disc follows a similar plane, either that one or a parallel one below it. It actually appears that the disc moves mostly horizontally though that may be camera angle or my misperception.

For ball golfers it looks to me like the hands do parallel the shoulder plane, below it somewhat.

When doing form checks with weird things going on, the follow through is one of the first things I check on. Some people have some amazing looking swings, but their follow through is what screwed the pooch.

The follow through, in theory, should follow the disc angle of release. if we try and change that, we are putting Off axis torque on the disc and wasting muscle use.

 

[sidewinder22]

I think I can answer this:

You may be emphasizing something else, but in general I think you want the posture to maintain internal consistency regardless of the line and angle. E.g., here's Simon on hyzer, anhyzer, and baby hyzer:

His posture will load similarly in the backswing for each type of throw, but he adjusts how he rocks & shifts into the plant to hit different angles and lines.

img source

Feldberg touches on this with his big thing on footwork and it doesn't get much traction.

The middle frame there, Simon is throwing a roller.

So, if were to talk about Feldberg Technique when it comes to the feet, were going to move our feet around in the shot to help our body get out of the way and do what we need to do.

For a really really hard hyzer spike, you would step more inside, and for annies and rollers, you'll step more outside. Because you need to lean back on the annie/roller line like that, you need to let your body rotate onto the line, if you step to inside. Ehh, I dont feel like I can explain it really well.

You can clearly see that he's changed his plant as explained to a much wider plant to allow the hips and shoulders to change angles into the harder line.

The biggest issue with a lot of the stuff that we do is that the camera isn't always in line with the shot direction, so we dont get a huge feel for the little footwork that goes on.
And footwork is important. I think a bit more than we give it credit for.

FYI it's Steve, not Simon although they do look somewhat similar. And Steve is throwing a roller there, but it's really still just a more severe anhyzer.

The follow through, in theory, should follow the disc angle of release. if we try and change that, we are putting Off axis torque on the disc and wasting muscle use.

Kind of, but there is shot shaping.

My best throws, I feel the disc pull me(my Cog in perfect balance) into the followthru straight down the trajectory.

 

[Sheep]

FYI it's Steve, not Simon although they do look somewhat similar. And Steve is throwing a roller there, but it's really still just a more severe anhyzer.





Kind of, but there is shot shaping.

My best throws, I feel the disc pull me(my Cog in perfect balance) into the followthru straight down the trajectory.

oh no's. I did a dumb!

And yes, The good balance throws seem to just feel so fluid.

My statements on footwork stand though.
But as mentioned. Feldberg method. Not all players do this. I know that simon does adjust his footwork for the throws.
Some more than others.

 

[Brychanus]

FYI it's Steve, not Simon although they do look somewhat similar. And Steve is throwing a roller there, but it's really still just a more severe anhyzer.

That's slightly embarrassing - form-wise from a profile view I really did mistake Steve for Simon at first look - thanks I better appreciate why you like his form each time I see him!

 

[Brychanus]

Happy Monday! While on a non-essential call...

I had begun to develop the suspicion that for any given body, there is probably a theoretically ideal action through the legs and hips that generates the most effortless throw power because of the way our legs also need to bear or own mass when they work against the ground. I'm still not sure how to actually test that without a lot of funds and experts, but in studying various old & young players and after doing countless drills, I remained curious.

Then a few players around here got interested in hips and braced tilt and how the legs might change with horizontal or vertical force. Imagine the skiier:

How much of the adjustment is the legs and hips, and how much of it is overall posture?

I returned to the best case example of an extreme vertical-to-horizontal transition that I'm aware of: Simon. Here again, I want to point out that modern Simon still drops into the plant even though he's much more horizontal now, just like Eagle here:

I'm serious, learn to drop into the plant and swing from the compression. Sing/do it with me!

Anyway, the important thing here is that even though Simon's form has changed superficially, and his modern upper body incorporates more lean directly against the frame, the legs and hips are almost entirely unchanged. Synced and scaled to roughly the same time & size:

This confirmed the lurking suspicion I had that what I was learning from the Door Frame Drills was basically the ideal way my body should shift and land to get maximum easy clearance and power through the legs and hips regardless of what else was going on. The trick for an X-hop is getting the move to work the same way regardless of where you are on the vertical-horizontal axis. If you like a higher hop or horizontal hop you need to figure out how to land and swing the way your lower body likes best. Door frame drills are gold for this IMO. Your lower body action should scale with the size of the shift, but the relative anatomical action should be roughly the same. Part of the difference between the skiier above and the disc golfers is the idea of expelling force out away from your body rather than just resisting the ground.

 

[RowingBoats]

I don't know how correlated rating in the 950-999 range corresponds to form. In general compared to lower rated players they are rated as such not necessarily of their form but because of:

#1 with a bullet) They are making more putts
2) Regardless of the efficiency/power of their form they are generally hitting their lines/not shanking shots
3) Making dumb mistakes less often
4) They are able to execute increasingly more difficult shot shapes in order to put themselves in a position to score

The difference between a 1000 rated player and a 1020 rated touring pro, however, is night and day and at that level you do see great form consistently. I think a better correlation is the progression in form wrt distance: To reach 400ft max distance you can kinda throw however you like you can round, squash the bug etc. To reach 500ft you can have some pieces right and some pieces wrong if you're generally athletic. But not a single person throwing 600ft is doing so by rounding/squashing the bug/having sloppy form. There are of course ams with great form but lower rated due to deficiencies in other parts of their game.

What kind of throws are we talking about with these distances? Just a useless toss into a field, or actual, deliberate golf lines? Because I really think I disagree with saying that a 500' throw is still halfway ghetto if its the latter.