Are we just making things up with nose angle stuff now?

[StupendousMan]

Thought someone might drop it in here. but ..
They didn't.
So. Here ya go.

I freaking loved this video. Granted there is 1000% some confirmation bias because a) My blue collar ass is in love with your garage. (I don't work a 'blue collar' job, but I'm very much a blue collar human haha) and b) the way you think about DG philosophically syncs up a lot with the way I approach biomechanics in coaching track and field (not to toot my own horn too much, but I'm reasonably accomplished in that regard). But I feel like I just watched my 3.5 years of DG in a single video in terms of learning. (and, much like you, I was throwing over 400 completely nose up). I know you rub a lot of people here the wrong way, and I try to respect everyone on this site. I respect you and I respect the people you rub the wrong way as well. This video was very valuable for me.

 

[Sheep]

I'm not trying to prove anything or contradict anything you are trying to convey. I'm just letting you know that from the 20 MPO/FPOs that I have captured in Mocap, I don't see any wrist extension (articulation) going into release (but it might be happening with ams) and that everyone is doing some combination of supination and external shoulder rotation going in to release. They have probably grooved it into their motion naturally. Others may take some some time.

I wasn't really sure "what" you were trying to point out. You're being very cryptic. You're also not really being very detailed about what your saying with this either.

We can clearly see pro's wrists flex after the throw in video. I can only assume you are suggesting that I was saying the wrist needs to flex through the hit. Which I never said. I said the wrist needs to be able to flex on the target line proper to not impart off axis torque into the disc.

Key point being, again, the body will take the path of least resistance. It will do everything it can to protect itself at all times. We know from all sorts of other sports as well as just really basic stuff with forehands in disc golf that actions "after" the disc leaves have an affect on the discs flight. Because the start of the motion was already there. This is why rolling your wrist after the throw in a forehand is still bad.

I don't know if you ... actually "play" disc golf. It's hard to tell sometimes when you talk about some things.
There are plenty of times in disc golf where you actually articulate the wrist on purpose. And what women did you motion capture that didn't? because there are very few women playing professionally that have form that would qualify as "good data." So it would be a bit hard for me to believe that you saw it with the ladies as well unless you're referencing someone like page or tattar.

 

[Sheep]

I freaking loved this video. Granted there is 1000% some confirmation bias because a) My blue collar ass is in love with your garage. (I don't work a 'blue collar' job, but I'm very much a blue collar human haha) and b) the way you think about DG philosophically syncs up a lot with the way I approach biomechanics in coaching track and field (not to toot my own horn too much, but I'm reasonably accomplished in that regard). But I feel like I just watched my 3.5 years of DG in a single video in terms of learning. (and, much like you, I was throwing over 400 completely nose up). I know you rub a lot of people here the wrong way, and I try to respect everyone on this site. I respect you and I respect the people you rub the wrong way as well. This video was very valuable for me.

Most people put some sort of emotional connotation over my words because I speak harshly when I type out words on the keyboard. So it's not necessarily that I'm being a bad person, they yearn to perceive me as a bad guy because they dislike what I have to say.
It's a complicated psychological thing. whatever.

The biggest thing people dont understand, especially new people trying to coach, is that a lot of us have spent LOTS of time trying all these dumb gimmicks, we've messed around with them to see what they are. We've tried grips, we've tried this tried that.
Went down this rabbit hole thinking it was the "way."

I had a time where I believed in a version of the double move. Nothing like he teaches it. What I really didn't understand was I was very missguided on my thought processes through it and with talking with sidewinder and just dropping my hubris and ego, I was able to understand how the off arm worked.

Basic bio mechanics are pretty easy.
Your joints only work certian ways, your body will do what it can to stop you from hurting yourself. So you have to play in "those" rules. Anything that is a jerk, or a herk or some sort of non natural movement is not good. Thats why this technique isn't "good."

I think the way chris taylor is trying to explain it above, but essentially what he's seeing is not turn the key, but the pro's lining their arm up through shoulder rotation to drive the arm through the plane of the disc properly in line.

Also, thanks for the shop stuff.
PM me, i'll send you a pano.

 

[Sheep]

Other things nobody is thinking about.



We can't lock down something as simple as "place disc here, bettween this number and that number" when peoples hands are built differently.

Such as I'm a number 3 here.
My middle finger takes most of the beating from throwing frisbee's, not my pointer.


We can study things and get the basic idea's of what is "good" but there is no recipe for success when everyone is built differently.

It's finding the way the body can move naturally through the throw and be successful with the lowest strain to the joints without any herky jerky movements.

 

[Sheep]

Overall good video for the masses and the average clientele seeking coaching--people who are new to DG and/or average in athleticism. But it's very one-sided for people interested in learning about the mechanic.

Seems like you define turn the key as "all of the cons and none of the pros", not sure if you do that intentionally because you are so worried about people running into the cons if they seek the pros, or if you just don't see that it has both pros and cons and it can both be used badly as a bandaid or be a well-integrated part of good form. When you show the exaggerated cue, you make it the comically bad exaggeration you can come up with, no shit that's bad, no one is saying that is good.

At least you acknowledge "if it's working for you..." but that hardly acknowledges the full picture. I get if it's an intentional choice to not mention any of it's utility to try to minimize the risks of people trying it, but I tend to think it's better in that case to inform and warn instead of omit.

I made a 20 minute video explaining WHY turn the key works and is a bandaid/gimmick. I gave you the reasons why.
And yes, it gives the appearance of correcting poor form/technique, however it doesn't fix the poor form/technique.
It's a gimmick/bandaid.
Fix your form.

This is why we have a problem communicating. I can actually explain both sides of the equation , you cannot.
Your reply is basically you still trying to stand on turn the key as a thing defending it. It's a gimmick to bandaid bad form.

The difference is I can knowingly sit here and be okay with someone doing something I don't believe in if it works for them and it makes them happy, that's cool.
The problem I stand on is people teaching a gimmick/bandaid as "good form" when its not. Thats why we make fun of the double move, and we make fun of squish the bug, and we make fun of spin and throw.
All these techniques "work" but they are not correct. Are you able to understand this? Just because something works doesn't mean its "correct." and its part of your job as a coach to understand and differentiate between bad technique and good technique. Also to understand when and where to employ bandaids and gimmicks to help students learn proper technique.

If its stupid and it works is something I generally stand by as a thing. But you always have to remember its "if you're doing something stupid and it works, thats fine, but don't teach it to others as something thats correct."

Such as the ole lean back throw annie technique people tend to teach new golfers.
There are golfers out there played for 15-20 years and they STILL throw like this.
And they STILL teach new players to throw like this.
It's stupid but it works. But its not good or correct.

The amount of golfers out there who throw force annie forehand chops. It's stupid and works, but its far from correct.
This is identifying bad technique. Bad technique "can" work, it doesn't mean you should do it. Like driving down the road with the lugnuts loose, it's going to work, for a bit. But eventually things are either going to go wrong, or you can only go so far with your game.

 

[Brychanus]

If they start with a deeply curled (flexed) wrist, they may uncurl a few degrees into release but I have yet to see anyone get back to a neutral position. Most stay in a slightly flexed position similar to a wrist position you might use if you were doing a chin up on a bar. Also from a briefcase position in the power pocket, everyone will have to supinate their forearms and externally rotate their shoulders in order to get back to a neutral (flat) nose release.

We only talked briefly about this before, but it seems timely here and perhaps some others would benefit from it:

I am wondering the extent to which you currently think the "whip" metaphor applies to the action, especially in the context of your observations here. There are several major differences between anatomy (which is segmented, has ball and socket joints, forearm rotation etc. as you described) and a whip, which makes the concept even more interesting to me.

The whip analogy (if it is specified at the mathematical level, not just the colloquial way people use it) is usually that the process "unfurls" somewhat like a whip, which accounts for the relative deceleration of the whip immediately more proximal to the body, and the relative acceleration of the whip immediately more distal to the body all the way down the line. I like this cartoon because it linearizes the concept. The whip would be a system with joints of an infinite resolution (or in this case, no joints at all).


The entire analogy still interests me, but today what makes me curious is the details of the very end of the action and force transfer. For instance, in an anatomical system you can aim to maximize the horizontal component through adduction, which is part of what we discussed and upstream to the wrist. Now that I am thinking more about the wrist specifically due to what you said above - do you think that fundamentally there is still something valuable about the whip comparison and it is functioning similar in that context, or do you think it is fundamentally different?

This question likely relates to some of the other discussions we've had, so it will help me think about it.

 

[HyooMac]

Other things nobody is thinking about.

View attachment 344946

We can't lock down something as simple as "place disc here, bettween this number and that number" when peoples hands are built differently.

Such as I'm a number 3 here.
My middle finger takes most of the beating from throwing frisbee's, not my pointer.


We can study things and get the basic idea's of what is "good" but there is no recipe for success when everyone is built differently.

It's finding the way the body can move naturally through the throw and be successful with the lowest strain to the joints without any herky jerky movements.

<smacking palm to forehead>

This is something I never thought about.

Turns out I'm a #3 (by about half a centimeter, so maybe I'm just a #2 with #3 envy...).

And this might be the reason that trying to grip more with my back fingers feels weird, but possible (that is, tightening up with the ring and pinky while also relaxing the pointer and middle a bit). I think I read somewhere (here?) that will help with nose angle.


I'm pretty amazed that I've lasted 28 pages on this thread, despite all the defending and insisting that crowds out the explaining and demonstrating. This post, and the most recent video, are useful and great. Thank you.

 

[disc-golf-neil]

Other things nobody is thinking about.

View attachment 344946

We can't lock down something as simple as "place disc here, bettween this number and that number" when peoples hands are built differently.

Such as I'm a number 3 here.
My middle finger takes most of the beating from throwing frisbee's, not my pointer.


We can study things and get the basic idea's of what is "good" but there is no recipe for success when everyone is built differently.

It's finding the way the body can move naturally through the throw and be successful with the lowest strain to the joints without any herky jerky movements.

People are and have thought about this. This came up when I first brought up the disc alignment. The thing is, the alignment can still be the same relative to the palm and the wrist generally even with the varying finger lengths.

Of course the varying finger lengths will have some kind of impact, but you can still weather you are #1 #2 or #3 you can still align the disc starting from between the index and middle finger and down through the center groove of the palm and that grip will maintain the same disc orientation relationship to the forearm regardless of finger length. Now #3 will of course have the hardest time with the index finger reaching around a wide rim with that disc-grip alignment and so they may only be able to do it up to 7-9 speeds or something which is also overall hand-size dependent.

This is definitely a good thing to try to test and consider but much harder to test but I would put money on the alignment of the disc through the palm being the bigger factor than this or having exceptionally long fingers overall being a bigger factor than this.

 

[Sheep]

We only talked briefly about this before, but it seems timely here and perhaps some others would benefit from it:

I am wondering the extent to which you currently think the "whip" metaphor applies to the action, especially in the context of your observations here. There are several major differences between anatomy (which is segmented, has ball and socket joints, forearm rotation etc. as you described) and a whip, which makes the concept even more interesting to me.

The whip analogy (if it is specified at the mathematical level, not just the colloquial way people use it) is usually that the process "unfurls" somewhat like a whip, which accounts for the relative deceleration of the whip immediately more proximal to the body, and the relative acceleration of the whip immediately more distal to the body all the way down the line. I like this cartoon because it linearizes the concept. The whip would be a system with joints of an infinite resolution (or in this case, no joints at all).
View attachment 344948

The entire analogy still interests me, but today what makes me curious is the details of the very end of the action and force transfer. For instance, in an anatomical system you can aim to maximize the horizontal component through adduction, which is part of what we discussed and upstream to the wrist. Now that I am thinking more about the wrist specifically due to what you said above - do you think that fundamentally there is still something valuable about the whip comparison and it is functioning similar in that context, or do you think it is fundamentally different?

This question likely relates to some of the other discussions we've had, so it will help me think about it.

This is the main video I referenced in the video so people understood more of what was happening. They do motion tracking of the whole whip action in this.

The idea, in my head, is its a built kinetic chain that explodes.

The arm unfurling, yada yada.
Conceptually as I was trying to demonstrate in the video.

If our posture/technique is correct, the arm can unfurl on the target.
If our posture/technique is poor, the arm will take the path of least resistance.

 

[disc-golf-neil]

I made a 20 minute video explaining WHY turn the key works and is a bandaid/gimmick. I gave you the reasons why.
And yes, it gives the appearance of correcting poor form/technique, however it doesn't fix the poor form/technique.
It's a gimmick/bandaid.
Fix your form.

This is why we have a problem communicating. I can actually explain both sides of the equation , you cannot.
Your reply is basically you still trying to stand on turn the key as a thing defending it. It's a gimmick to bandaid bad form.

The difference is I can knowingly sit here and be okay with someone doing something I don't believe in if it works for them and it makes them happy, that's cool.
The problem I stand on is people teaching a gimmick/bandaid as "good form" when its not. Thats why we make fun of the double move, and we make fun of squish the bug, and we make fun of spin and throw.
All these techniques "work" but they are not correct. Are you able to understand this? Just because something works doesn't mean its "correct." and its part of your job as a coach to understand and differentiate between bad technique and good technique. Also to understand when and where to employ bandaids and gimmicks to help students learn proper technique.

If its stupid and it works is something I generally stand by as a thing. But you always have to remember its "if you're doing something stupid and it works, thats fine, but don't teach it to others as something thats correct."

Such as the ole lean back throw annie technique people tend to teach new golfers.
There are golfers out there played for 15-20 years and they STILL throw like this.
And they STILL teach new players to throw like this.
It's stupid but it works. But its not good or correct.

The amount of golfers out there who throw force annie forehand chops. It's stupid and works, but its far from correct.
This is identifying bad technique. Bad technique "can" work, it doesn't mean you should do it. Like driving down the road with the lugnuts loose, it's going to work, for a bit. But eventually things are either going to go wrong, or you can only go so far with your game.

You only explained how it functions as a bandaid, you didn't get into how the mechanic functions when the underlying problem that is being bandaided is not present. It seems like you can't bring yourself to think about that side of the equation for some reason, while I can admit that it can be used poorly as a bandaid and warn about the negative side of it without any hesitation (added complexity, risk of strain, timing, temptation to over rotate the shoulder externally).

 

[Sheep]

You only explained how it functions as a bandaid, you didn't get into how the mechanic functions when the underlying problem that is being bandaided is not present. It seems like you can't bring yourself to think about that side of the equation for some reason, while I can admit that it can be used poorly as a bandaid and warn about the negative side of it without any hesitation (added complexity, risk of strain, timing, temptation to over rotate the shoulder externally).

I'm not going to continue to play this game any longer.

Your lack of experience overall and attachment to the concept is blinding you from understanding.

I'm tired of trying to explain it any longer.