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.

 

[disc-golf-neil]

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.

You won't even answer the question of what I am bandaiding by doing it. You say in the video it is a bandaid for being set up for failure in the form/posture which then forces you to end up pronating, but I can get nose down easily WITHOUT turning the key because I am NOT pronating. And I can get nose up easily by choosing to pronate. So, what is being bandaided, when removing the bandaid doesn't reveal a nose up problem?

This is a test of the completeness of your theory, it should be easy to answer.

 

[jupiterboy]

Could we have a thread where every single internet coach appears to burn their credibility at the same time. That would be great.

 

[timothy42b]

Sheep, thanks for the video. For your edification, having measured many big throwers, I have yet to see any go into wrist extension during a throw. 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.

(trying to interpret) So, the inertial force from CoM of the disc does not pull the wrist into a neutral line, unlike a golf club releasing curled forward. But it can only pull the disc itself in a pivot around the connection point. ???

That implies some easy ways to mess the throw we probably haven't thought about.

 

[BenjiHeywood]

[COLOR=var(--text-lighter)] The whip would be a system with joints of an infinite resolution (or in this case, no joints at all).[/COLOR]

For me, i think of the whip as having a large but (crucially) finite number of joints/levers (presumably the molecular-level connections within it). I think that we can learn something about how a whip transfers momentum by thinking about fewer and longer levers. I don't think that a whip would work if it truly had an infinite number of sections of zero length, because i think the rotation of levers with a non-zero length is the key thing.

I'm writing a much better-explained article on this, but here's a short explanation of what I'm thinking that the more technical folk on here should be able to understand.

Imagine this stick \ moving left to right across your screen, and then the bottom of it hits a barrier so it rotates to this / instead.

\\\\\\\\\\./

The centre of mass is about halfway up the rigid stick, well away from the point of contact, so the stick overall won't actually be slowed down much, it'll just go into rotation. But think what that means - if the stick as a whole (in particular it's centre of mass) is travelling roughly as fast as before, but one end has stopped, then the other end must be going faster than before! (Being further away from the point of rotation means it has a larger circle to traverse, in the same amount of time.)

For me, this is the key idea. If now we consider a series of levers connected to each other, and one of them rotates, then the far end of that lever will accelerate and will be pulling on the next lever in the chain. This is how momentum is transferred, and speed increases, along the whip (or along the throwing arm, though with far fewer levers). Each 'lever' pulls on the one behind when it rotates, which in turn pulls the next, etc etc.

Now, because each link rotates, it's all very non linear. If we imagine each link starts off horizontal (ie at the top of the loop, in that nice cartoon) and flips right over, 180 degrees, to be horizontal again (the other way up) then the very first 'pull' on the link behind that one is up, not forwards. And of course that pulled link is itself connected to those behind it, so the whip curls and curves, with links much further down the chain being pulled into the loop of the whip and doing some funky things well before it's their 'turn' to rotate. There's lots going on.

But for me the overall mechanism is that a rotating link in the chain accelerates the ones behind it (which, equal and opposite, decelerate that first link) and so as fewer and fewer links remain in motion, the speed of the later ones goes way up.

People often talk about momentum being conserved and applying to a smaller and smaller mass of remaining whip tip - which is of course correct, as far as it goes. But I've not really seen anyone describe exactly how the momentum is transferred from one place to the next. This rotational idea is my thinking, and why i think the whip analogy is more true than most people actually think. Everything is levers and rotation, even a whip.

Thoughts?

 

[Sheep]

(trying to interpret) So, the inertial force from CoM of the disc does not pull the wrist into a neutral line, unlike a golf club releasing curled forward. But it can only pull the disc itself in a pivot around the connection point. ???

That implies some easy ways to mess the throw we probably haven't thought about.

Yeah, I'm strugglign with this one as well.
Because we want to not let our wrist break for instance, but the wrist has to move somewhat. We want to transfer that energy into the disc with out getting our wrist "to" floppy.

But there is honestly ways to wrist pop shots too, so ... the info is really dependant on where and when. Because a lot of pro players over curl their wrist in the throw, and with that much force, it's almost impossible to keep that disc curled into the inside of your forearm while trying to muscle all these things .. etc.

but we dont wanna limp wrist. .. it's a neat thing to look at anyways.

I had some stuff in the high speed where I was trying to wrist pop, its quite amusing when you forcefully do it how different the disc comes out of your hand speed wise.

 

[itlnstln]

For me, i think of the whip as having a large but (crucially) finite number of joints/levers (presumably the molecular-level connections within it). I think that we can learn something about how a whip transfers momentum by thinking about fewer and longer levers. I don't think that a whip would work if it truly had an infinite number of sections of zero length, because i think the rotation of levers with a non-zero length is the key thing.

I'm writing a much better-explained article on this, but here's a short explanation of what I'm thinking that the more technical folk on here should be able to understand.

Imagine this stick \ moving left to right across your screen, and then the bottom of it hits a barrier so it rotates to this / instead.

\\\\\\\\\\./

The centre of mass is about halfway up the rigid stick, well away from the point of contact, so the stick overall won't actually be slowed down much, it'll just go into rotation. But think what that means - if the stick as a whole (in particular it's centre of mass) is travelling roughly as fast as before, but one end has stopped, then the other end must be going faster than before! (Being further away from the point of rotation means it has a larger circle to traverse, in the same amount of time.)

For me, this is the key idea. If now we consider a series of levers connected to each other, and one of them rotates, then the far end of that lever will accelerate and will be pulling on the next lever in the chain. This is how momentum is transferred, and speed increases, along the whip (or along the throwing arm, though with far fewer levers). Each 'lever' pulls on the one behind when it rotates, which in turn pulls the next, etc etc.

Now, because each link rotates, it's all very non linear. If we imagine each link starts off horizontal (ie at the top of the loop, in that nice cartoon) and flips right over, 180 degrees, to be horizontal again (the other way up) then the very first 'pull' on the link behind that one is up, not forwards. And of course that pulled link is itself connected to those behind it, so the whip curls and curves, with links much further down the chain being pulled into the loop of the whip and doing some funky things well before it's their 'turn' to rotate. There's lots going on.

But for me the overall mechanism is that a rotating link in the chain accelerates the ones behind it (which, equal and opposite, decelerate that first link) and so as fewer and fewer links remain in motion, the speed of the later ones goes way up.

People often talk about momentum being conserved and applying to a smaller and smaller mass of remaining whip tip - which is of course correct, as far as it goes. But I've not really seen anyone describe exactly how the momentum is transferred from one place to the next. This rotational idea is my thinking, and why i think the whip analogy is more true than most people actually think. Everything is levers and rotation, even a whip.

Thoughts?

Here's some more galaxy-brained musing to build off of this. What if the whip short-hand is simply incorrect at particular point. Sort of like gravity. In Newtonian physics, gravity is a force, and on a small enough scale, this works mathematically. At a larger scale, Einstein showed that gravity is really curved space and NOT a force and Newtonian physics breaks down.

If you're trying to short-hand and understand the arm motion in basic terms, a whip is fine analog. But your arm's not a whip, it's basically three levers (upper-arm, lower-arm, hand) plus maybe fingers, and the goal, to your point, Benji, is to get the far end of one lever traveling the fastest to be the base speed for the next lever to start from.

This is obviously why tall people have such an advantage speed-wise. I'm not a physicist, but I'm not sure if a longer whip can generate more speed, or it's just longer (it would certainly need more force to start the motion, though).

 

[Brychanus]

Could we have a thread where every single internet coach appears to burn their credibility at the same time. That would be great.

I had made the coach's lounge, which has mostly been quiet but could also be ceremonially burned to the ground, I'll leave it to the court of public opinion to decide.

This could be a valuable and productive discussion, even and especially where people disagree.

I personally value the completely 'free-spirited' and 'complete free speech' tolerance at DGCR.

But FWIW I would kindly make the plea that people consider Rapoport's rules again (I will generalize this plea, but any onlookers can judge which persons may benefit more than others, and I encourage each person to always revisit these themselves):

Rapoport’s Rules: How to Criticise Constructively

A reflection on Rapoport's Rules. It's the most effective way to criticise you've never tried (and probably for good reasons).

themindcollection.com

Rapoport didn't make it obligatory in those 4, but I'd at a 5th:

"Be polite."

At a certain point when those fail, I would suggest that a Moderator's role can be to consider "ground rules" for the discourse, and enforcing them.

 

[Sheep]

For me, i think of the whip as having a large but (crucially) finite number of joints/levers (presumably the molecular-level connections within it). I think that we can learn something about how a whip transfers momentum by thinking about fewer and longer levers. I don't think that a whip would work if it truly had an infinite number of sections of zero length, because i think the rotation of levers with a non-zero length is the key thing.

I'm writing a much better-explained article on this, but here's a short explanation of what I'm thinking that the more technical folk on here should be able to understand.

Imagine this stick \ moving left to right across your screen, and then the bottom of it hits a barrier so it rotates to this / instead.

\\\\\\\\\\./

The centre of mass is about halfway up the rigid stick, well away from the point of contact, so the stick overall won't actually be slowed down much, it'll just go into rotation. But think what that means - if the stick as a whole (in particular it's centre of mass) is travelling roughly as fast as before, but one end has stopped, then the other end must be going faster than before! (Being further away from the point of rotation means it has a larger circle to traverse, in the same amount of time.)

For me, this is the key idea. If now we consider a series of levers connected to each other, and one of them rotates, then the far end of that lever will accelerate and will be pulling on the next lever in the chain. This is how momentum is transferred, and speed increases, along the whip (or along the throwing arm, though with far fewer levers). Each 'lever' pulls on the one behind when it rotates, which in turn pulls the next, etc etc.

Now, because each link rotates, it's all very non linear. If we imagine each link starts off horizontal (ie at the top of the loop, in that nice cartoon) and flips right over, 180 degrees, to be horizontal again (the other way up) then the very first 'pull' on the link behind that one is up, not forwards. And of course that pulled link is itself connected to those behind it, so the whip curls and curves, with links much further down the chain being pulled into the loop of the whip and doing some funky things well before it's their 'turn' to rotate. There's lots going on.

But for me the overall mechanism is that a rotating link in the chain accelerates the ones behind it (which, equal and opposite, decelerate that first link) and so as fewer and fewer links remain in motion, the speed of the later ones goes way up.

People often talk about momentum being conserved and applying to a smaller and smaller mass of remaining whip tip - which is of course correct, as far as it goes. But I've not really seen anyone describe exactly how the momentum is transferred from one place to the next. This rotational idea is my thinking, and why i think the whip analogy is more true than most people actually think. Everything is levers and rotation, even a whip.

Thoughts?

it's been a long time since i watched the video i posted and the extended content on that, but i believe destin goes over all of that.

it's also why i think people should really look at KJ and emmersons ability to impart leverage into the disc with short levers vs long levers.

we know that people with longer arms can more "easily" gain power, longer levers.

So its interesting how KJ can still put a good amount of force behind the disc, same with pp and tattar. evolina.

One of my students who quickly went way beyond my knoweldge base explained it like this, cause he likes the whip thing, it works in his brain, he throws 650.
And he's a bit autistic so he focuses on stuff really neat.

He said to think of your shoulders as the whip handle.
And then when it comes to anchoring think of which shoulder is where you were to place your hand on the whip, are you anchoring on the off shoulder, or are you choking up on the whip and leveraging from the drive shoulder.

 

[itlnstln]

Yeah, I'm strugglign with this one as well.
Because we want to not let our wrist break for instance, but the wrist has to move somewhat. We want to transfer that energy into the disc with out getting our wrist "to" floppy.

But there is honestly ways to wrist pop shots too, so ... the info is really dependant on where and when. Because a lot of pro players over curl their wrist in the throw, and with that much force, it's almost impossible to keep that disc curled into the inside of your forearm while trying to muscle all these things .. etc.

but we dont wanna limp wrist. .. it's a neat thing to look at anyways.

I had some stuff in the high speed where I was trying to wrist pop, its quite amusing when you forcefully do it how different the disc comes out of your hand speed wise.

My "occam's razor" thought to this is that we need to stop the wrist to transfer energy to the disc. Your wrist is weak in extension, so your wrist stops in it's strongest position which is right around neutral somewhere