One leg drill, stupid question.

[SaROCaM]

Stronger weight shift and brace come with more power. More power takes time.

It is possible to power through inefficiency. For example, strong lifters can overcome an awful bar path and complete the lift. However, increasing efficiency will lead to improved performance at the same level of strength. If you take that same lifter and improve their bar path, they will be able to lift more weight with the same amount of strength.

Simplified example: if you have 400' of power but are throwing with form that results in a 10% power leak, you will be throwing 360'. Take that same power and plug those power leaks in your form and suddenly you are throwing 400' without getting stronger or more powerful.

Opening up too early = power leak
Not bracing properly = power leak
Tipping over the top = power leak

So yes, you could take that same form that has 10% power leak and increase the power to 450' of power, giving you a 405' throw. But at that point you could be throwing 450' by plugging the power leaks, once again leaving distance on the table.

 

[RoDeO]

It is possible to power through inefficiency. For example, strong lifters can overcome an awful bar path and complete the lift. However, increasing efficiency will lead to improved performance at the same level of strength. If you take that same lifter and improve their bar path, they will be able to lift more weight with the same amount of strength.

Simplified example: if you have 400' of power but are throwing with form that results in a 10% power leak, you will be throwing 360'. Take that same power and plug those power leaks in your form and suddenly you are throwing 400' without getting stronger or more powerful.

Opening up too early = power leak
Not bracing properly = power leak
Tipping over the top = power leak

So yes, you could take that same form that has 10% power leak and increase the power to 450' of power, giving you a 405' throw. But at that point you could be throwing 450' by plugging the power leaks, once again leaving distance on the table.

There is no doubt I have power leaks. I know that when I throw. It's mostly due to just beginning and training the body and getting the timing correctly.
I feel that based on my progress so far, I shouldn't change things up too much. In general I feel the timing of my hips turning and the brace are pretty close. I'm most inconsistent with release.
My gains have been on a linear progression and mostly due to the muscles being conditioned and quicker.
Honestly, I'm just trying to duplicate the timing of the good throws and then add a bit more power to that when I feel it click.

Question is then- if my distance is steadily rising, and the throws are becoming more effortless, why would I try to alter the mechanics? I'm not sure it's broke and needs fixed.

 

[SaROCaM]

There is no doubt I have power leaks. I know that when I throw. It's mostly due to just beginning and training the body and getting the timing correctly.
I feel that based on my progress so far, I shouldn't change things up too much. In general I feel the timing of my hips turning and the brace are pretty close. I'm most inconsistent with release.
My gains have been on a linear progression and mostly due to the muscles being conditioned and quicker.
Honestly, I'm just trying to duplicate the timing of the good throws and then add a bit more power to that when I feel it click.

Question is then- if my distance is steadily rising, and the throws are becoming more effortless, why would I try to alter the mechanics? I'm not sure it's broke and needs fixed.

When you say your gains have been on a linear progression, does that mean you are tracking them and can state the rate of progression? If so, then you can evaluate whether your progress is truly continuing linearly.

Going back to a lifting analogy, beginning lifters often are on some kind of linear progression programming. At the beginning stages, linear progression is easy. Weights are flying up, things feel easier as movement patterns are established. Eventually linear progression stops, they hit a plateau, and something needs to change to continue progress. If they had been using good form/technique during this early period, then that's one less thing to fix.

In this situation, you are experiencing that early progression. People can get to 300' doing all kinds of things; there are many roads to that distance. Same with 350'; there are multiple roads to that distance; not as many as 300' but still many. As you go further, the roads to progress converge; there are less things you can get away with. There are clear roads to 450', 500'+. Sure, you can see if you can blaze a new trail to that same destination. But there are many such trails that have ended short of that destination.

If there are common identifiable issues that people have experienced leading to plateaus, wouldn't it make sense to fix those so you don't hit the plateau? Of course you can ride it out to see if you plateau. If you do, then at that point you will have to learn new mechanics, while unlearning old mechanics. If you can fix the mechanics up front you will have even more time committing them to muscle memory and won't have as much to unlearn. So if you believe that those common, previously documented issues don't apply to your particular situation, then yes, there's no reason to work on them.

The only way to find out is over time.

 

[RowingBoats]

When you say your gains have been on a linear progression, does that mean you are tracking them and can state the rate of progression? If so, then you can evaluate whether your progress is truly continuing linearly.

Going back to a lifting analogy, beginning lifters often are on some kind of linear progression programming. At the beginning stages, linear progression is easy. Weights are flying up, things feel easier as movement patterns are established. Eventually linear progression stops, they hit a plateau, and something needs to change to continue progress. If they had been using good form/technique during this early period, then that's one less thing to fix.

In this situation, you are experiencing that early progression. People can get to 300' doing all kinds of things; there are many roads to that distance. Same with 350'; there are multiple roads to that distance; not as many as 300' but still many. As you go further, the roads to progress converge; there are less things you can get away with. There are clear roads to 450', 500'+. Sure, you can see if you can blaze a new trail to that same destination. But there are many such trails that have ended short of that destination.

If there are common identifiable issues that people have experienced leading to plateaus, wouldn't it make sense to fix those so you don't hit the plateau? Of course you can ride it out to see if you plateau. If you do, then at that point you will have to learn new mechanics, while unlearning old mechanics. If you can fix the mechanics up front you will have even more time committing them to muscle memory and won't have as much to unlearn. So if you believe that those common, previously documented issues don't apply to your particular situation, then yes, there's no reason to work on them.

The only way to find out is over time.

Apparently, and bafflingly to the absolute limit of absurdity, people do fall into the category of obstinance that you describe.

 

[RoDeO]

When you say your gains have been on a linear progression, does that mean you are tracking them and can state the rate of progression? If so, then you can evaluate whether your progress is truly continuing linearly.

Going back to a lifting analogy, beginning lifters often are on some kind of linear progression programming. At the beginning stages, linear progression is easy. Weights are flying up, things feel easier as movement patterns are established. Eventually linear progression stops, they hit a plateau, and something needs to change to continue progress. If they had been using good form/technique during this early period, then that's one less thing to fix.

In this situation, you are experiencing that early progression. People can get to 300' doing all kinds of things; there are many roads to that distance. Same with 350'; there are multiple roads to that distance; not as many as 300' but still many. As you go further, the roads to progress converge; there are less things you can get away with. There are clear roads to 450', 500'+. Sure, you can see if you can blaze a new trail to that same destination. But there are many such trails that have ended short of that destination.

If there are common identifiable issues that people have experienced leading to plateaus, wouldn't it make sense to fix those so you don't hit the plateau? Of course you can ride it out to see if you plateau. If you do, then at that point you will have to learn new mechanics, while unlearning old mechanics. If you can fix the mechanics up front you will have even more time committing them to muscle memory and won't have as much to unlearn. So if you believe that those common, previously documented issues don't apply to your particular situation, then yes, there's no reason to work on them.

The only way to find out is over time.

Yes indeed. For me, having started throwing right, getting injured and then starting over and learni g from the left puts me in a whole different category than most people. I've completely removed the all arm aspect out of the equation.

I'm going to continue on the path I'm on. It's not new or novel, it's just the old school way thinking where you give things a chance and put max effort in. I honestly believe most people's "plateau" issues are lack of effort and belief- they give up too easy or the first sign of the perceived unclimable hill. I can guarantee you that the reason Eagle can throw so far is because he went out day after day and just threw the crap out of the disc. I look at most of the form critiques and the first thing that cones to my mind in general is they just need to be patient and pur more effort in- actually try to visualize their mechanics being more explosive and rhen be more explosive. Timing issues get worked out along the way.

It's interesting that walking and running requires a very complex set of mechanics and balance. But we don't teach kids how to walk or run, they do it on their own from trial and error.

 

[sidewinder22]

Interesting that where one sees almost exact similarities I see vast differences.

....

How To Evaluate A Golf Swing - The Right Way!
Tue Oct 23, 2012 by Lance Gill

First Determine Efficiency, Then Style:
At the Titleist Performance Institute we are fortunate to have more 3D biomechanical data on the best players in the world than anyone else in the industry. By studying their data, along with amateur golfers that participate in our programs, we are able to gather information that gives us an insight into how to effectively work with each golfer as an individual and not use a standard approach for all golfers.

Using several 3D applications we are able to film at over 500 frames per second and track the speed, direction and sequence the body is moving during the golf swing. When merging the findings from this technology with a comprehensive physical evaluation that is performed on each player, we can determine why each golf swing is as unique as their finger print. We can also determine what makes their swing efficient or inefficient, regardless of their style. This provides us as the coach and the student with a quantum leap in learning as our research is based on fact not theory.

It has been common practice in golf instruction to compare a student to a swing of a tour professional and then point out the faults of that individual based on that model. This approach can certainly be used to point out the differences in style's between two individuals, but it does not explain why one is more efficient than the other. I have seen some amateurs and tour professionals that have the worst styles you have ever seen but are very efficient golfers. Using our technology we can show you hundreds of golf swings that are winning money on tour every week, but will break any and every model or method ever put in print.

If I showed you the sequence of movement under 3D of Ernie Els, Davis Love, Vijay Singh, Jim Furyk, Ray Floyd and John Daly you would have a difficult time seeing any difference at all. The way they use their body's to get the club from the top of the backswing to impact is almost identical yet there styles are totally unique and different.

We have discovered a unique signature that all great players have regardless of their individual styles. This signature is known in the biomechanics world as the Kinematic Sequence. For simplicity sake we will break the swing into four simple segments.

Lower body, Torso/Trunk, Arms/Hands, and Club. On the best ball strikers in the world these segments work like a synchronized whip on the downswing, and as a result create an efficient repetitive swing. The average amateur golfer has one or more of these segments out of position and as a result has to manipulate the club in order to make contact with the ball. This results in a loss of speed and accuracy and an inefficient motion.

As stated earlier, the information we get from our 3D system is then compared to the physical evaluation and short game evaluation of each participant to come up with their individualized program of success. We feel this is the best way to get to the bottom of the problem, if there is one, and start the player on the road to success.

https://www.mytpi.com/articles/biomechanics/how_to_evaluate_a_golf_swing_-_the_right_way

In the beginning you can see the 4 different "style points" going into the backswing:


From the bottom of the backswing to the finish, it's easier to see the same meat and potatoes:

 

[sidewinder22]

....

The Linear Kinematic Sequence

"It is known that there is an efficient sequence of motion in a skilled golf swing called the Kinematic Sequence. It describes the proximal-to-distal sequencing of the rotation speeds of the body segments. Each body segment; pelvis, ribcage and arm sequentially accelerates and decelerates before impact, starting from the inner large body segments; the pelvis and ribcage, then progressing to the smaller outer segments; the arms, hands and club. Each successive segment peaks faster and later than the previous segment. This action causes the club to accelerate rapidly and reach its highest speed at impact. Figure 1 shows the graph of the rotational Kinematic Sequence of a world class golfer and includes images of his position at each peak speed point in the downswing.

It is also known that the golf swing is not only rotational; it has a linear component of motion as well. Therefore it would make sense that there is also a linear kinematic sequence during the downswing, and in fact there is. Figure 2 shows the linear Kinematic Sequence graph of a world class golfer. It shows the linear speed of his lead hip, lead shoulder, mid-hands and club head.

Look in the shaded gray area of Figure 2 and notice how, during the downswing, the lead hip accelerates (goes up) and reaches its peak speed first, then decelerates (goes down), followed by the lead shoulder, the mid-hands and finally the club. Notice that these accelerations and decelerations are all before impact and that the only segment that doesn't decelerate prior to impact is the club head. As we would expect, the club head accelerates during the downswing and reaches max speed at impact. Notice that each successive peak speed occurs later in the downswing than the previous one and is faster than the previous one.

In fact, it is not as important what the speeds of the joints are at impact but what their maximum speeds are earlier in the downswing. We expect their speeds at impact to be lower because of the deceleration phase of each joint as it passes energy to the next segment - each joint is slowed down by the interaction force of the next segment accelerating against it. Take for example the mid-hands curve. You see that its highest speed is 22.6 mph and its speed at impact is 19 mph. For the mid-hands curve, the deceleration is related to the explosiveness of the release. The faster the release of the wrists the more the deceleration and the slower the hands will be at impact. It is a nice example of the action-reaction law of motion; the force of the club releasing causes and opposite force on the hands causing the lead arm to slow down. This means that measuring hand speed at impact may be misleading. It's better to know what the peak hand speed was earlier in the downswing. From our research at TPI we have compiled a tour pro database and from this database, we have found that the average peak mid-hands speed in the downswing is 22.0 mph and the average mid-hands speed at impact is 17.6 mph."
© Phil Cheetham
https://www.mytpi.com/articles/biomechanics/the_linear_kinematic_sequence

Comments:
"Great job Phil In the linear swing the hips job is to swivel to accomidate the levers which produce most of the power in this swing, so yes there is rotation its just not the main force."
Glenn Deck(PGA Top 100 Instructor) 3/25/2014 11:49 PM

"Rotational is secondary to the linear component (per Mike Austin)"
Anonymous User 3/20/2014 2:06 PM

 

[sidewinder22]

Try comparing Paige Pierce to Paige Shue. They have the same first name and sometimes play together on the same card. Oh, they are both pros too.

Both are World Champs with nearly same technique. PP is taller and a lot more athletic and waits a little longer to start swinging.

 

[RoDeO]

Both are World Champs with nearly same technique. PP is taller and a lot more athletic and waits a little longer to start swinging.

Nearly by meaning they both throw backhanded.

 

[sidewinder22]

Nearly by meaning they both throw backhanded.

If you compared a typical Am you would see notable differences from either Paige.

What do you see that is completely different between the Paiges?

 

[RandyC]

So here is the thing Rodeo. Human body is a great piece of machinery which is suitable for many different tasks. It performs on an optimal level when you are doing the right task and the more you do it the better you get at it. Here your stubborness will definently reward you, as repetition is the key for success. The only problem you are facing is that you are doing the wrong task. You say that it feels like you are doing the right thing, you would be right if your task were to pull something, say a rope or a lawnmower cord. Your hips rotate to get your upper body out of the way of the pull and your upper body tips over to get some mass behind the pull, so you are not relying only on arm strenght. I belive the term used by golf industry would be "coming over the top".

 

[RoDeO]

If you compared a typical Am you would see notable differences from either Paige.

What do you see that is completely different between the Paiges?

Well, for starters their x step is different. Shue turns her footwork more, shows more initial back and has to thus pivot more on her axis.

 

[RoDeO]

So here is the thing Rodeo. Human body is a great piece of machinery which is suitable for many different tasks. It performs on an optimal level when you are doing the right task and the more you do it the better you get at it. Here your stubborness will definently reward you, as repetition is the key for success. The only problem you are facing is that you are doing the wrong task. You say that it feels like you are doing the right thing, you would be right if your task were to pull something, say a rope or a lawnmower cord. Your hips rotate to get your upper body out of the way of the pull and your upper body tips over to get some mass behind the pull, so you are not relying only on arm strenght. I belive the term used by golf industry would be "coming over the top".

The hips rotate to generate torque.

 

[SaROCaM]

I honestly believe most people's "plateau" issues are lack of effort and belief- they give up too easy or the first sign of the perceived unclimable hill.

While this may be true in some cases, in other cases it is simply that the laws of physics have exposed the limitations of their form at that time. You don't have a monopoly on effort and belief. Effort and belief alone will not beat out effort + belief + better mechanics.

I look at most of the form critiques and the first thing that cones to my mind in general is they just need to be patient and pur more effort in- actually try to visualize their mechanics being more explosive and rhen be more explosive. Timing issues get worked out along the way.

If this were true then a lot more people would be throwing 500' - think of how many people have been playing for several years and have been doing just what you say. If your mechanics are flawed, it doesn't matter how explosive they are. Again, physics affects everyone equally.

It's interesting that walking and running requires a very complex set of mechanics and balance. But we don't teach kids how to walk or run, they do it on their own from trial and error.

This analogy is flawed. Here are some reasons why:

1) Human bipedal locomotion has been evolving for millions of years. Adaptations that help with walking/running on two legs, such as thickening of bones, curvature of the spine, etc. have developed over that time, making the act of walking/running more natural. Throwing a disc backhand is not something that has undergone a similar process of adaptation.

2) We do teach kids to walk. We hold them by the hands, encourage them to do what is known as "cruising" on furniture, walking toys, etc.

3) Furthermore, we are not talking about simply throwing a disc. We are talking about doing so more optimally in order to increase distance. People can learn through trial and error, but when those trials and errors have already been documented, people who achieve greater mastery and performance are those who learn from others and skip those previous trials and errors.

Most everyone who has the ability to walk/run can do so. But why can some people walk/run faster than others, even accounting for effort? Part of it is genetics, sure. But even among those with optimal genetics, and similar levels of effort, they undergo stride analysis, learning how to run more efficiently and get more out of each stride.

Your approach is "if you want to run faster, then just run a lot and just run faster." The people who actually run faster are improving their stride mechanics in order to maximize efficiency of force transfer. They apply their effort and belief to better movement patterns.

 

[RoDeO]

While this may be true in some cases, in other cases it is simply that the laws of physics have exposed the limitations of their form at that time. You don't have a monopoly on effort and belief. Effort and belief alone will not beat out effort + belief + better mechanics.



If this were true then a lot more people would be throwing 500' - think of how many people have been playing for several years and have been doing just what you say. If your mechanics are flawed, it doesn't matter how explosive they are. Again, physics affects everyone equally.



This analogy is flawed. Here are some reasons why:

1) Human bipedal locomotion has been evolving for millions of years. Adaptations that help with walking/running on two legs, such as thickening of bones, curvature of the spine, etc. have developed over that time, making the act of walking/running more natural. Throwing a disc backhand is not something that has undergone a similar process of adaptation.

2) We do teach kids to walk. We hold them by the hands, encourage them to do what is known as "cruising" on furniture, walking toys, etc.

3) Furthermore, we are not talking about simply throwing a disc. We are talking about doing so more optimally in order to increase distance. People can learn through trial and error, but when those trials and errors have already been documented, people who achieve greater mastery and performance are those who learn from others and skip those previous trials and errors.

Most everyone who has the ability to walk/run can do so. But why can some people walk/run faster than others, even accounting for effort? Part of it is genetics, sure. But even among those with optimal genetics, and similar levels of effort, they undergo stride analysis, learning how to run more efficiently and get more out of each stride.

Your approach is "if you want to run faster, then just run a lot and just run faster." The people who actually run faster are improving their stride mechanics in order to maximize efficiency of force transfer. They apply their effort and belief to better movement patterns.

From what I've seen about those I talk to personally and play with- Most disc golfers don't really work exclusively on distance. They generally go out and play on the course and take very few max effort shots. When they do fieldwork for distance they don't really do it long enough to work through the perceived plateau. There's times where I will go out every day and throw and my distance seems about the same for several days or a week. But I just keep pushing and then the next week comes along and I will get one out just a bit farther. This cycle repeats but it isn't easy to keep getting gains. Like I have said previously, there's days where I will throw 3-4 hours just working on distance alone and quite a lot of them are max effort shots. I'm 47 years old and have always had hip and knee problems. There's days where my joints hurt so bad but I suck it up and throw anyway. I don't know of any disc golfers around me that practice their distance as much as I do. I have gone from struggling yo hit 175-200 feet off the tee pad to now overshooting 300 foot holes on a less than max effort shot. That's happened in less than 2 months.

I watch a lot of disc golf and watch others mechanics. Im always trying new things, just like everyone else. The reality is that everyone finds the path through trial and error. Many give up prematurely because they think they cant throw harder and it must be mechanic related. The reality is, from what I have witnessed firsthand, you can't throw farther if you cease putting in hard work and effort.

 

[timothy42b]

Practice makes permanent, musicians say.

There's a risk here, in that you could get really really good at something that is either wrong, or not really wrong but has a limit where you hit a wall and can't improve.

 

[SaROCaM]

From what I've seen about those I talk to personally and play with- Most disc golfers don't really work exclusively on distance. They generally go out and play on the course and take very few max effort shots. When they do fieldwork for distance they don't really do it long enough to work through the perceived plateau. There's times where I will go out every day and throw and my distance seems about the same for several days or a week. But I just keep pushing and then the next week comes along and I will get one out just a bit farther. This cycle repeats but it isn't easy to keep getting gains. Like I have said previously, there's days where I will throw 3-4 hours just working on distance alone and quite a lot of them are max effort shots. I'm 47 years old and have always had hip and knee problems. There's days where my joints hurt so bad but I suck it up and throw anyway. I don't know of any disc golfers around me that practice their distance as much as I do. I have gone from struggling yo hit 175-200 feet off the tee pad to now overshooting 300 foot holes on a less than max effort shot. That's happened in less than 2 months.

I watch a lot of disc golf and watch others mechanics. Im always trying new things, just like everyone else. The reality is that everyone finds the path through trial and error. Many give up prematurely because they think they cant throw harder and it must be mechanic related. The reality is, from what I have witnessed firsthand, you can't throw farther if you cease putting in hard work and effort.

1) Small sample size

2) A blind squirrel can find a nut through trial and error. But if another squirrel tells them where the nut is and teaches them how to get to where the nuts are, then that squirrel will have to do a lot less searching. The blind squirrel can then focus hard work and effort into learning the path to the nuts, rather than spending hard work and effort on finding dead ends and ruling them out.

 

[RoDeO]

Practice makes permanent, musicians say.

There's a risk here, in that you could get really really good at something that is either wrong, or not really wrong but has a limit where you hit a wall and can't improve.

True, but I've already surpassed my goal and so I'm in bonus land now.

Is 300 easy feet wrong for a person my age?

 

[RandyC]

True, but I've already surpassed my goal and so I'm in bonus land now.

Is 300 easy feet wrong for a person my age?

My dad is 70y and can hit 300ft somewhat easy.

 

[RoDeO]

1) Small sample size

2) A blind squirrel can find a nut through trial and error. But if another squirrel tells them where the nut is and teaches them how to get to where the nuts are, then that squirrel will have to do a lot less searching. The blind squirrel can then focus hard work and effort into learning the path to the nuts, rather than spending hard work and effort on finding dead ends and ruling them out.

I'm not in the dark, I watch lots of disc golf and pick up on things. I just see it a bit different than others. I like to think I have found the easier path to throwing without injury.