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

[Sheep]

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.

Despite the disagreements in here, i think this whole thread has created a lot of good discussion at the same time.
We have a lot of good minds in here, new and old, throwing a lot of stuff on the wall to see what sticks.

Unfortunately the conveyance in text can be limited in some aspects, which is why I made a 20 minute video. It wasn't to say "this is it dead set in stone." But to illustrate differences in bandaids vs good technique and how while a bandaid works, its not actually correcting the issue.

And in the middle of all the silliness and the this and that in here, tons of good information has been put into text.
And if it takes me being the bad guy to help push this topic, so be it.

I have big shoulders and can handle the burden.

For us in here we easily get lost in the weeds on stuff because there is a lot of factors overall that can contribute to everything, but we also need to be able to take that information and translate it into something that is simple and digestible to everyone.
This overcomplicating of everything doesn't help people get better. nor does applying a bandaid to something that isn't right.

I keep thinking about "The power of posture" when I'm in this thread. And its as .. i forget who now said, a lot of this stuff is technique driven, not timing driven. Its about getting good technique and good posture that is complementary to your body build and flexibility.
You can rabbit hole and get really pedantic on details, or you can try and break things down into the simplest of simple things, and we should try and always look at the root issues that causes stuff.

I've been working on nose angle stuff for a number of years now trying to get as many answers as I could because its something I struggled with a lot.
And the answer is really to get a good grip and use a technique that complements your bodies abilities.
Thats as simple as I can make it.

I've moved on to some other stuff now in personal study that I'm enjoying far more. some of it is in that video but i didn't actually say what it was.
But the goal is to always be learning everything, right or wrong.
All opinions matter, but holding onto your opinion with emotional attachment can cause struggles in listening.

It's incredibly hard to accept things that you hold dear to yourself and not defend it emotionally.
I'm constantly accused of responding emotionally, and.. I'm not. But, it is what it is.
Bad guy title is fine.
Old man yells at cloud. hahaha

I was going to do a bit about me yelling at clouds on that video, but when i shot the video there wasn't a single cloud in the sky. hahaha

 

[RowingBoats]

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.

Ya that is a good concept. Its also basically the 'swim move' concept or at least intimately related.

 

[Sheep]

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

I can agree with that.
We need to not limp wrist for sure.
there are times for it, but different subject.

A standard issue with newer players is limp wristing.
The wrist is going to move somewhat. So, as i stated in the video, its important for us to set ourselves up to not provide off axis torque to the disc at the last second so our joints and motions are fluid onto the plane of the flight of the disc.

And I think chris is right, a lot of players do throw with a limp wrist.
But It's difficult for me to accept that there is no wrist movement. If were seeing it on high speed right after the disc leaves the hand, that means there is movement. If were seeing it long long after the disc has left the hand, then I would agree that there is no wrist movement.

But we also can know from chris's studies that the wrist doesn't really rotate. so, it still comes down to forearm position and shoulder position being complementary to the plane of play so things are in line.
Jerking your hand over or dropping your elbow abruptly isn't a solution when there are bigger issues already in play with your technique.

 

[RowingBoats]

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

Yes, I do agree that the wrist doesn't need to extend past around the neutral point, but I don't believe there is no movement in the extension direction at all during the swing at any point. Dunno though just my intuition/feels.

 

[Sheep]

Ya that is a good concept. Its also basically the 'swim move' concept or at least intimately related.

Very much so.

It's also an equal and opposite reaction setup as well.

Some dont like this explanation of the concept, but we have to match force with force in some extent.

When we pick something up off the ground we are forcing ourselves down while we pick the object up.
So if were throwing something in front of us, we need to oppose that force as well.

 

[RowingBoats]

Very much so.

It's also an equal and opposite reaction setup as well.

Some dont like this explanation of the concept, but we have to match force with force in some extent.

When we pick something up off the ground we are forcing ourselves down while we pick the object up.
So if were throwing something in front of us, we need to oppose that force as well.

For some reason I watched a 'double move' vid after your joke post the other day and they were saying things like the rear arm comes forward like pendulum and I almost died lol.

 

[Brychanus]

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?

Whips are interesting too because even if the "lever length" bottoms out at the molecular level, there is something like a "sliding window" of interactions above that level along the whip somewhat continuously.

Your visual stick game was nice. I think that in the real world for disc golf it does confuse people to ask whether the "stop" is "active" or "passive," in which case some time with your thought experiment is well-spent (IMHO).

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).

That's part of why I wanted to revisit this topic in the current context whether or not "whip it" is the best physical model - IIRC there are competing notions about how the posture-lever sequence interacts on the disc through the final part of the action (I will let the proponents discuss those details themselves for the moment).

In the whip case, I would love to hear from someone who actually understands their physics well enough to answer your length question there - I am aware that some models of whip mechanics are sequential levers. They also are usually designed with more mass at and nearer the handle than the end, which shares common assumptions with pendular models for the shoulder-arm leverage chain in pitching (where the body mass is more massive than the upper arm, which is more massive than the lower arm, which is more massive than the hand, in general). Applied whip advice around the internet suggests that "shorter whips are faster" but I am not sure if they are talking about the real end whip speed or the perceived speed - those large white windmills we see have tips moving up to 200mph but look slower at a distance at scale.

Who knows the best mass/length/speed calculation (not rhetorical - asking since we have some engineers floating around here)?

This is cool. This whip is long, massive, and segmented, and I think somewhat tapered at least toward the end. I had a guess about what was going to happen before he did it but I was still shocked at how significant (and frankly scary) the end effect was:


Hopefully I am not too far off-topic - at first impression, asking how the action fundamentally occurs still seems related to the "preferred" notion for end point effects, including nose angle.

 

[itlnstln]

I can agree with that.
We need to not limp wrist for sure.
there are times for it, but different subject.

A standard issue with newer players is limp wristing.
The wrist is going to move somewhat. So, as i stated in the video, its important for us to set ourselves up to not provide off axis torque to the disc at the last second so our joints and motions are fluid onto the plane of the flight of the disc.

And I think chris is right, a lot of players do throw with a limp wrist.
But It's difficult for me to accept that there is no wrist movement. If were seeing it on high speed right after the disc leaves the hand, that means there is movement. If were seeing it long long after the disc has left the hand, then I would agree that there is no wrist movement.

But we also can know from chris's studies that the wrist doesn't really rotate. so, it still comes down to forearm position and shoulder position being complementary to the plane of play so things are in line.
Jerking your hand over or dropping your elbow abruptly isn't a solution when there are bigger issues already in play with your technique.

Yes, I do agree that the wrist doesn't need to extend past around the neutral point, but I don't believe there is no movement in the extension direction at all during the swing at any point. Dunno though just my intuition/feels.

That's right, I think there's wrist movement in the extension direction. You need to stop it somewhere, and that's naturally where you're going to be strongest. I can imagine that better players have more tendon bounce/tension in the wrist than, say, me. So it may appear that they don't move as much. Just like how your lower arm swings out, your wrist will swing out, then the disc swings out.

I've also posited that some throwers (particularly those that follow through in extension), are actually trying to extend their wrist, but the disc's inertia keeps the wrist at neutral (the strong point) until the disc leaves, releasing the tension on the wrist allowing it to extend. This might be utter horsesh*t, though

 

[Sheep]

For some reason I watched a 'double move' vid after your joke post the other day and they were saying things like the rear arm comes forward like pendulum and I almost died lol.

its a result of teaching without expereince and understanding.
I don't think coach T is really a bad dude. he just thought that was the thing everyone was missing out on.
As you watch his video's over the years, his stuff is drastically changing as he learns more and more. He was into squish the bug and back leg disc golf.
And suddenly with some of his newer content he's starting to catch up tot the rest of us.
It's not a case of gatekeeping in the coaching community, or me or anyone being smarter than others. It's the case of being unwilling to listen to expereinced coaches and ask questions.
I've talked a ton privately to sidewinder before coming in on dgcr. he's corrected me so many times and helped me learn and grow.
Even when he thought I was an absolute nutter.
Oure failures help us grow and learn, but its being good enough to know youre going down the wrong path. and sometimes that's super hard.
I fell for it with the off arm stuff too. You watch players do it and it looks like the driving force, just like squish the bug.
Are they using their off arm? sure. I use mine too, but its not to drive the swing, its to balance the swing and anchor the swing.

It's really difficult for me to with years of bad habbits before i got smarter to get my arm close as well. i chicken wing on my off arm a lot which robs boatloads of power. (Pun intended)

 

[Sheep]

Whips are interesting too because even if the "lever length" bottoms out at the molecular level, there is something like a "sliding window" of interactions above that level along the whip somewhat continuously.

Your visual stick game was nice. I think that in the real world for disc golf it does confuse people to ask whether the "stop" is "active" or "passive," in which case some time with your thought experiment is well-spent (IMHO).



That's part of why I wanted to revisit this topic in the current context whether or not "whip it" is the best physical model - IIRC there are competing notions about how the posture-lever sequence interacts on the disc through the final part of the action (I will let the proponents discuss those details themselves for the moment).

In the whip case, I would love to hear from someone who actually understands their physics well enough to answer your length question there - I am aware that some models of whip mechanics are sequential levers. They also are usually designed with more mass at and nearer the handle than the end, which shares common assumptions with pendular models for the shoulder-arm leverage chain in pitching (where the body mass is more massive than the upper arm, which is more massive than the lower arm, which is more massive than the hand, in general). Applied whip advice around the internet suggests that "shorter whips are faster" but I am not sure if they are talking about the real end whip speed or the perceived speed - those large white windmills we see have tips moving up to 200mph but look slower at a distance at scale.

Who knows the best mass/length/speed calculation (not rhetorical - asking since we have some engineers floating around here)?

This is cool. This whip is long, massive, and segmented, and I think somewhat tapered at least toward the end. I had a guess about what was going to happen before he did it but I was still shocked at how significant (and frankly scary) the end effect was:


Hopefully I am not too far off-topic - at first impression, asking how the action fundamentally occurs still seems related to the "preferred" notion for end point effects, including nose angle.

From such a small movement it compounds as leverage compounds causing acceleration. thats my guess anyways. wrong kind of enginerd for that.

I just saw a video earlier today I found fascinating cause >.. my dumbass didn't think of this all the times i had this issue.
But he was talking about ropes over tree branches.
You sit there and try and flip the rope to get it to move.
No, make a coil and throw the coil up and over. It doesn't take much, but the physics does the rest and the coil rolls up the rope and over the branch.

 

[itlnstln]

I am aware that some models of whip mechanics are sequential levers

I wonder if this is similar to "area under the curve" in calculus where you're basically breaking the curve into as many little trapezoids as you can. At some point you lose a bit of "resolution."

 

[Sheep]

I wonder if this is similar to "area under the curve" in calculus where you're basically breaking the curve into as many little trapezoids as you can. At some point you lose a bit of "resolution."

I've said a lot in my life to others. that almost everything can be defined in a triangle mathamatically. its kinda creepy when you look at everything your doing that way.

 

[Sheep]

This isn't the best explained, but i tried to keep it short.

Just a lot of weird simple physics going on that's ab it easier to convey in video format than on text.

 

[disc-golf-neil]

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

Could it be that the in a throw with good form the disc rips out before you can even get back to neutral or beyond neutral, even if you tried to (*on a hard throw, on soft throws you can extend the wrist)

 

[itlnstln]

Could it be that the in a throw with good form the disc rips out before you can even get back to neutral or beyond neutral, even if you tried to (*on a hard throw)

That sounds like a half-hit, or simply a bad throw. You're trying to control the point where it rips out for maximum energy transfer.* Sheep's video a post or two up does a better job of explaining it, I think. If it's not ripping out when you want it to, that's a half-hit at best. More likely, you're throwing too hard too early

*ETA that this control is also how you aim. As Dave Dunapace would say, "you aim with the weight of the disc." This weight is the inertia you're trying to control at the hit

 

[RowingBoats]

Could it be that the in a throw with good form the disc rips out before you can even get back to neutral or beyond neutral, even if you tried to (*on a hard throw, on soft throws you can extend the wrist)

It's an interesting thought and I don't actually know, but images of the disc at the final moment of contact don't ever seem to show the wrist in a state of flexion.

So I'd say yes, but not full hitting.

 

[RowingBoats]

That sounds like a half-hit, or simply a bad throw. You're trying to control the point where it rips out for maximum energy transfer. Sheep's video a post or two up does a better job of explaining it, I think. If it's not ripping out when you want it to, that's a half-hit at best. More likely, you're throwing too hard too early

Haha, exactly this would be what my feeling is.

 

[itlnstln]

I can hit in extension, and may even do so on, say, a short up shot. The challenge here is that extension is weak. Flexion is also a little weak, but stronger than extension. Neutral is strong.

This is probably not completely accurate but...

In Flexion, the muscles that flex the wrist forward are tense. In extension, the opposite is true. When your wrist is neutral, both sets of muscles are tensed (or can be tensed). If you're throwing, say, max distance, you'll need the strongest control of the wrist - around neutral. You want to control the disc swinging out, so your wrist needs to swing out some from flexion, but you also don't want your wrist swinging out to extension, either, as that will rob energy transfer to the disc

 

[disc-golf-neil]

That sounds like a half-hit, or simply a bad throw. You're trying to control the point where it rips out for maximum energy transfer.* Sheep's video a post or two up does a better job of explaining it, I think. If it's not ripping out when you want it to, that's a half-hit at best. More likely, you're throwing too hard too early

*ETA that this control is also how you aim. As Dave Dunapace would say, "you aim with the weight of the disc." This weight is the inertia you're trying to control at the hit

This was a throw from my wrist curl test, I tried to get extra curl into the pocket and tried *thought* about uncurling it out of the pocket, the disc ripped out before the wrist went into extension. 60 mph and 1300 spin walkup which is a 100-200 more spin than usual for me.
[COLOR=var(--text)][/COLOR]

When I try to pre-curl the wrist and don't think about uncurling it, I don't get any better stats than this. Might be good to test again though trying to curl extra into the pocket and then try to hold the curl to see what happens.

 

[Sheep]

I can hit in extension, and may even do so on, say, a short up shot. The challenge here is that extension is weak. Flexion is also a little weak, but stronger than extension. Neutral is strong.

This is probably not completely accurate but...

In Flexion, the muscles that flex the wrist forward are tense. In extension, the opposite is true. When your wrist is neutral, both sets of muscles are tensed (or can be tensed). If you're throwing, say, max distance, you'll need the strongest control of the wrist - around neutral. You want to control the disc swinging out, so your wrist needs to swing out some from flexion, but you also don't want your wrist swinging out to extension, either, as that will rob energy transfer to the disc

thats basically what i was trying to get at without going into the weeds.
There are times where we throw where we want way more wrist.

Watch paul and simon throw 200-300 ft putter shtos. THere is a LOT more wrist involvement thanwhen you're smashing.