Why does an x-step add distance?

[RowingBoats]

I have put off even attempting to learn an x-step for my entire time in this sport, but I am starting to wonder if I am approaching my limit from a stand-still (probably not, I'm not claiming any kind of perfection here).

After I started groking the mechanics, I noticed that most people who do an x-step or any kind of run-up were pretty obviously sabotaging themselves with the action, but the best players do it well, so I know it does something effective...but what exactly is it for?

My stand-still is not just a flat footed delivery, I move my feet, I often prepare for a throw with what I imagine is a silly looking yaba-daba-doo back and forth motion...so is the x-step just a rhythm thing that kind of accomplishes what I'm doing when I do this? Does moving that 5mph and adding that to the disc make an actual difference?

Im just curious if anyone wants to throw some words out about how they feel, or share resources that might convince/dissuade me from opening this can of worms.

 

[NOStheBOSS]

It allows you to get your body in position to fully reach back and pull through while also gaining momentum thru the swing. Many people do it mainly for timing. You can eliminate it, there are players who either stand and deliver or use a one step swing, but your distance will be limited

 

[Brychanus]

I have put off even attempting to learn an x-step for my entire time in this sport, but I am starting to wonder if I am approaching my limit from a stand-still (probably not, I'm not claiming any kind of perfection here).

After I started groking the mechanics, I noticed that most people who do an x-step or any kind of run-up were pretty obviously sabotaging themselves with the action, but the best players do it well, so I know it does something effective...but what exactly is it for?

My stand-still is not just a flat footed delivery, I move my feet, I often prepare for a throw with what I imagine is a silly looking yaba-daba-doo back and forth motion...so is the x-step just a rhythm thing that kind of accomplishes what I'm doing when I do this? Does moving that 5mph and adding that to the disc make an actual difference?

Im just curious if anyone wants to throw some words out about how they feel, or share resources that might convince/dissuade me from opening this can of worms.

Adding more momentum - the x-step becomes more efficient the better it "traps"/transmits the force from the additional momentum from the additional steps/gravity assist. You can only ever "trap" so much which is why you'll still see people carry forward/diffuse the additional momentum:

Not sure how you move your feet, but Berkshire stomp is effective as long as you get your feet planted correctly before the throw:




Eagle McMahon adding a large runup (for him) with incredibly efficient follow through on his 700' park job:




Conversely you can think of it as an "effort-reducing" mechanism to achieve the same or somewhat greater distance (which can happen even when the mechanics are not perfect like I mentioned here - buyer beware).

Are you worried that your standstill will become worse by working on the x-step? Or are you still developing your standstill and wondering when it is "good" to proceed/add it in?

 

[Doofenshmirtz]

After I started groking the mechanics, I noticed that most people who do an x-step or any kind of run-up were pretty obviously sabotaging themselves with the action . . .

I'd love to see examples of this. I've seen players do an x-step, then come to a stop and then throw. It sort of defeats the purpose of the x-step, but not due to any momentum issue. Other just don't utilize it correctly, but I haven't noticed people hurting their throw by using it.

. . . but the best players do it well, so I know it does something effective...but what exactly is it for?

The x-step puts the hips in the proper position to begin the throwing motion. I don't think that you can turn your hips as much without the x-step as you can with the x-step. Indeed, the x-step pretty much forces you to turn the hips away from the direction of the throw to help in loading them up to twist forward ahead of your torso during the throw.

 

[RowingBoats]

I'd love to see examples of this. I've seen players do an x-step, then come to a stop and then throw. It sort of defeats the purpose of the x-step, but not due to any momentum issue. Other just don't utilize it correctly, but I haven't noticed people hurting their throw by using it.



The x-step puts the hips in the proper position to begin the throwing motion. I don't think that you can turn your hips as much without the x-step as you can with the x-step. Indeed, the x-step pretty much forces you to turn the hips away from the direction of the throw to help in loading them up to twist forward ahead of your torso during the throw.

You described what I meant really. There are a lot of people who emulate what they think they see, but actually visibly lose power trying to perform the x-step. Clearly, people performing it correctly seem to have an advantage. I want to understand, mechanically, what the movement adds, and I just don't get it (probably will have to feel this like everything else, Im just intellectually curious about it).

The hips turning concept seems dubious to me. Looking at pros with good form, they are certainly not rotating their hips 180 degrees from the target at the important part of the swing. I can sort of see just having smooth movement into the final weight transfer being beneficial, don't get me wrong, not arguing...but purely from the rotational degrees of the hip engagement, I don't think the standstill prevents full range of motion.

 

[Brychanus]

. I want to understand, mechanically, what the movement adds, and I just don't get it (probably will have to feel this like everything else, Im just intellectually curious about it).

I might have misunderstood. Are you talking about something in addition to added momentum flowing into the throw? I.e., the specific "X" part of the step and why it's not something else, or hip mechanics, or something else/all of the above?

 

[Mocheez]

I played leagues with a guy that did the x-step backwards. I pointed it out to him and he was completely oblivious. He'd been playing for 10+ years and could throw 400+ so I told him to forget I said anything.

 

[sidewinder22]

Creates more stretch or longer swing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mpp7ZFLHK90#t=2m

 

[RowingBoats]

I might have misunderstood. Are you talking about something in addition to added momentum flowing into the throw? I.e., the specific "X" part of the step and why it's not something else, or hip mechanics, or something else/all of the above?

Bro I don't even really know what I mean haha

From some of what is being said, I think it might be fair to think of the benefits as mostly subtle. I can see how adding some momentum can smooth everything out conceptually.

Part of what I want to know is just how much extra power is the x-step adding, as a whole. I think its rare for someone to feel like they have an equally mechanically sound stand-still/one-step and x-step, so comparing the two seems difficult. I read people saying between 10-20% difference, but is this because of actual, mechanical forces...or is it largely due to being more comfortable with one method or the other? That is the kind of thing I want to understand.

 

[art_vandelay]

I've used standstill on just about every backhand shot for a long time. I can get it out to 325 accurately and even 350 when I need to and that's enough to keep me competitive on the courses I play and with the people I throw with. Never got the hang of the x step. I can throw a little further than that forehand because I have figured out how to do a proper run up but not every hole allows for that and I'm a little less accurate at distance with forehand. I'm also 61 and standstill is easier on the body, at least I think it is?

 

[Brychanus]

Bro I don't even really know what I mean haha

I feel you man, I'm just always trying to process stuff through conversation <3

From some of what is being said, I think it might be fair to think of the benefits as mostly subtle. I can see how adding some momentum can smooth everything out conceptually.

Part of what I want to know is just how much extra power is the x-step adding, as a whole. I think its rare for someone to feel like they have an equally mechanically sound stand-still/one-step and x-step, so comparing the two seems difficult. I read people saying between 10-20% difference, but is this because of actual, mechanical forces...or is it largely due to being more comfortable with one method or the other? That is the kind of thing I want to understand.

Creates more stretch or longer swing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mpp7ZFLHK90#t=2m

I'm interested in SW22's reply to this part specifically:
"I read people saying between 10-20% difference, but is this because of actual, mechanical forces...or is it largely due to being more comfortable with one method or the other?"

I've heard this gain potential too from multiple sources but would like data/analysis. If I take what you (SW22) say in your vid linked there, are you are conceptualizing the entire "swing" as "elongated" by the preceding drive step. Do you also mean all steps prior to the x-step?. Or just the backswing to the downswing component? I'd tend to think about "elongation" slightly differently if it includes all steps.

I don't want to overcomplicate the discussion so for the sake of simplifying it, you can beat up on this:

If the "swing" describes the mechanics from backswing to downswing (like a standstill), it's easy for me to think of adding momentum into that process. The x-step is a way to set up the correct posture & transfer the force from more and/or faster steps/hops. As long as the form is good and the plant leg/brace resist collapse against that swinging into the hit, you get more force into the disc like an Olympic Hammer Throw.

Am I close?

RowingBoats, a while ago I remember us talking about SlingShot's technique, and SW22 pointed out a few mechanical problems in his leg action (and upper body, but focusing on legs here). I'm only bringing that up because at the time Slingshot claimed 500'+ distance with his huge, running x-step but only 250' from a standstill. So that's one of the more extreme cases I'm aware of with a visible mechanical problem in the lower body and ~100% distance increase from the "x-step" (or at least "long running approach ending in something like an x-step into a leaky backswing & downswing").

In any case, I too am interested in the difference in distance potential and the variables/mechanics that contribute to that.

 

[RowingBoats]

I was actually about to post something very similar to what you asked above. I do feel like I am able to get a very thorough stretch in my backswing, and I don't 'think' that I am going out of balance to make this happen. I am starting to see how you might be able to stay in better overall balance bringing in the momentum from an x-step though, eliminating that movement entirely.

This is probably touching on the 'leave the disc behind' concept. Perhaps the x-step makes this process more fluid, and my stand-still version is more forced.

 

[sidewinder22]

I'm interested in SW22's reply to this part specifically:
"I read people saying between 10-20% difference, but is this because of actual, mechanical forces...or is it largely due to being more comfortable with one method or the other?"

I've heard this gain potential too from multiple sources but would like data/analysis. If I take what you (SW22) say in your vid linked there, are you are conceptualizing the entire "swing" as "elongated" by the preceding drive step. Do you also mean all steps prior to the x-step?. Or just the backswing to the downswing component? I'd tend to think about "elongation" slightly differently if it includes all steps.

I don't want to overcomplicate the discussion so for the sake of simplifying it, you can beat up on this:

If the "swing" describes the mechanics from backswing to downswing (like a standstill), it's easy for me to think of adding momentum into that process. The x-step is a way to set up the correct posture & transfer the force from more and/or faster steps/hops. As long as the form is good and the plant leg/brace resist collapse against that swinging into the hit, you get more force into the disc like an Olympic Hammer Throw.

Am I close?

RowingBoats, a while ago I remember us talking about SlingShot's technique, and SW22 pointed out a few mechanical problems in his leg action (and upper body, but focusing on legs here). I'm only bringing that up because at the time Slingshot claimed 500'+ distance with his huge, running x-step but only 250' from a standstill. So that's one of the more extreme cases I'm aware of with a visible mechanical problem in the lower body and ~100% distance increase from the "x-step" (or at least "long running approach ending in something like an x-step into a leaky backswing & downswing").

In any case, I too am interested in the difference in distance potential and the variables/mechanics that contribute to that.

The % will vary with your speed and efficiency/smash factor. If your standstill is spot on then about 30% is about max extra you can get with running full speed. Most don't run full speed, so it's typically closer to 10-20% on your typical x-step/hop.

You still have forward momentum on a standstill and gravity which accelerates you. X-step/hop is just adding more momentum which creates more stretch/coil/load from your CoG/torso and disc lagging/inertia in the backswing. Your pressure shift/ground reaction force will also increase and can create longer moment arm/lever between CoP and CoG to sling or whip the torso harder.

 

[RowingBoats]

The % will vary with your speed and efficiency/smash factor. If your standstill is spot on then about 30% is about max extra you can get with running full speed. Most don't run full speed, so it's typically closer to 10-20% on your typical x-step/hop.

You still have forward momentum on a standstill and gravity which accelerates you. X-step/hop is just adding more momentum which creates more stretch/coil/load from your CoG/torso and disc lagging/inertia in the backswing. Your pressure shift/ground reaction force will also increase and can create longer moment arm/lever between CoP and CoG to sling or whip the torso harder.

I was just playing with this concept in ridiculous ways, like literally running pretty fast then doing a ghetto x-step, not throwing a disc just trying to feel power differences.

The stretch is the actual mechanical difference then isn't it? In a run-up/x-step you can stretch out while still moving forward, you don't have to artificially create it.

 

[sidewinder22]

I was just playing with this concept in ridiculous ways, like literally running pretty fast then doing a ghetto x-step, not throwing a disc just trying to feel power differences.

The stretch is the actual mechanical difference then isn't it? In a run-up/x-step you can stretch out while still moving forward, you don't have to artificially create it.

The mechanics are the same IMO. Shift forward during backswing - which has it's own momentum or inertia.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5xfv9jPqZs#t=7m17s

 

[Waddball]

I'm also 61 and standstill is easier on the body, at least I think it is?

I used to think this, but I've been doing a lot of alternating rounds lately, one standstill, one x-step, and I think in general the x-step is easier on my body (I'm 53).

To get the equivalent (or near) throw from a standstill requires more twisting and a really hard plant. Whereas all of that is more fluid and "natural" when stepping through. It's just easier to leave the disc behind and create a longer stretch away from it into the plant. And thus easier to get lag (and easier to screw up the sequence and balance as well; everything has a price).

Anyway, I think you might be surprised about the wear and tear aspect. In a sense, the x-step is letting your mass and gravity do more work "for free". At least that's been my experience.

 

[sidewinder22]

I'm also 61 and standstill is easier on the body, at least I think it is?

I used to think this, but I've been doing a lot of alternating rounds lately, one standstill, one x-step, and I think in general the x-step is easier on my body (I'm 53).

To get the equivalent (or near) throw from a standstill requires more twisting and a really hard plant. Whereas all of that is more fluid and "natural" when stepping through. It's just easier to leave the disc behind and create a longer stretch away from it into the plant. And thus easier to get lag (and easier to screw up the sequence and balance as well; everything has a price).

Anyway, I think you might be surprised about the wear and tear aspect. In a sense, the x-step is letting your mass and gravity do more work "for free". At least that's been my experience.

I'd say it depends.

 

[art_vandelay]

It's true. The standstill is a compact, hard pull, weight shift and hip twist...follow through. What I'll say is that for me, when I do it smoothly and in a fluid motion, it feels and sounds like releasing and arrow. When I'm choppy, clumpy and bumpy and off balance it is hard on my hip and shoulder because of the extra oomph you have to put into a standstill and the "stomp the can" motion it requires.

 

[txmxer]

The % will vary with your speed and efficiency/smash factor. If your standstill is spot on then about 30% is about max extra you can get with running full speed. Most don't run full speed, so it's typically closer to 10-20% on your typical x-step/hop.

You still have forward momentum on a standstill and gravity which accelerates you. X-step/hop is just adding more momentum which creates more stretch/coil/load from your CoG/torso and disc lagging/inertia in the backswing. Your pressure shift/ground reaction force will also increase and can create longer moment arm/lever between CoP and CoG to sling or whip the torso harder.

So I ran some basic numbers on this. If your standstill or say one step comes out at 50 MPH and you then move to a run/walk up at say 5 MPH. If you are 100% efficient between standstill and just add the additional motion, then your throw would come out at 55 MPH. All things being equal, that 5 MPH is 35 to 50 feet(?)

Other than a few rarities like Conrad, 5 MPH would be pretty quick moving across the tee.

Following your last paragraph, I think that's the key. The runup is about creating fluidity to throw--if done correctly. You actually get a lot more out of it than just a few MPH because you are in motion.

 

[RowingBoats]

So I ran some basic numbers on this. If your standstill or say one step comes out at 50 MPH and you then move to a run/walk up at say 5 MPH. If you are 100% efficient between standstill and just add the additional motion, then your throw would come out at 55 MPH. All things being equal, that 5 MPH is 35 to 50 feet(?)

Other than a few rarities like Conrad, 5 MPH would be pretty quick moving across the tee.

Following your last paragraph, I think that's the key. The runup is about creating fluidity to throw--if done correctly. You actually get a lot more out of it than just a few MPH because you are in motion.

This was kind of my rudimentary thinking also, but I think there is more to it. I think people end up gaining more than that 5mph. Accelerating out of moving at 5mph is going to be more effective than accelerating from 0mph.

I can't think of a reason it would be fundamentally different from accelerating the hit. Interesting stuff. Ugh, Im gonna have to learn this now I guess.