I've tried to be brief and failed miserably.
JR said:
I don't know how often people here have asked top throwers about how they do this and that and the response is mostly i don't know.
Asking them what they think they do is pretty irrelevant in my experience. What they ACTUALLY do is what matters.
JR said:
Oops i replied in the wrong thread about wanting to see Dan's current form in a top down movement. There are older vids of Dan floating around about which he said that some parts of form have deteriorated. And he has since them corrected those issues. The same problem of threads mixing with the correction to your misunderstanding. I vote for using only proficient players as a test group for commonalities in throws not noobs who don't know anything.
I never said new players counted for the commonalities. I've specifically said that it has to be common among the game's best (and a differentiator - which means the poorer players don't do that particular thing). Controlling the disc's plane upon release is common to all great disc golfers. Beginners do not control the disc's plane well.
JR said:
And if you look at his top down views in Climo Mando Minute and The Champion's way DVD he stops the head rotation left to right for a while. Feel wise i think i stop for a longer time but that ain't the point. Stopping the head rotating is needed for the eye sight to focus because it is slow and if you swoosh the head left to right without stopping there is a good chance that your sight is not clear or focused at all until after the disc has left
That's one guy. These guys aren't looking anywhere near their targets and the disc has already left their hands:
http://f.cl.ly/items/0p2A2c30243n3n2s2K0S/Analyzr%20Image%20Export.jpg
http://f.cl.ly/items/210X0j151o1S0F3X2B3N/Analyzr%20Image%20Export%202.jpg
JR said:
I would not ditch a key before gathering data.
JR, a video of Ken Climo is one data point. I've just posted three more that contradict that data (and there's probably video of Ken Climo contradicting that data too).
JR said:
Here i refer to my earlier point about the need to research properly using proper scientific methods not discarding the conclusions of others before you've looked at their evidence.
I've got degrees in two scientific fields. I'm good with doing research. But if something is ruled out as a Key, if you can quickly see that it's not a true commonality among the game's best and that's one of the criteria, what's the purpose in doing more research? The images above and several others are compelling evidence that a good number of top players are not looking at the target when they throw, n'est-ce pas?
JR said:
You act like you know enough now to be able to judge what is a key withing your own criteria which might not even be the best possible criteria IDK for some goals.
I don't know squat. That's one of the main reasons I'm undertaking this. In the end it's just a big thought experiment. If I thought I knew "enough" at this point I'd have said "Here are the Keys. No debate." Yet here I am debating, and asking you what YOU think the Keys should be, and WHY, and then asking you to show me that they ARE a Key.
Now, obviously I defined the requirements (commonality, measurable, achievable) for something to be a Key, and I've also said several times now that
perhaps the same methods for applying Keys won't work in disc golf.
They might not. But until I'm convinced of that, I'm going to keep pursuing it that way. If it turns out there's only three Keys that can fit within those requirements, and they're kind of common sense Keys anyway, then the criteria were likely not good in the end and the whole thing could be thrown out.
I've asked tons of questions. I've continued to discuss this with you. Yes, I've been applying MY definition of whether something can be a Key or not, again based on: achievable, measurable, and nearly absolute commonality. Perhaps, AGAIN, those criteria won't really work in DG as they do so well in golf. Those might not be the best criteria. But that's the criteria I've got and the criteria I'm working with.
I assure you I do not feel I know much at all, and that's why I'm doing this. Just as 5SK helps to simplify things for golfers and help them focus on EXACTLY the things that will make them better, I'm trying to do the same for my own DG improvement. I know very little right now. I'm just trying to build a structure so that my learning, practice, etc. will form a clearer picture. And if it helps others too, great. If it's trash, well, it will have forced us to think, and that's rarely a bad thing in my opinion, either.
JR said:
And not being sure what your goal is after defining the keys leaves me hanging on that front and unable to show an alternative.
Same goal as with 5 Simple Keys in golf - to break down the thing to the core things you need to do to play your best. That's it. To make it simple and provide some structure.
- Why do I need to grip the club this way? Because it affects your ability to control Key #5, Clubface Control.
- Why do I need to push my hips forward on the downswing? So that you can get Key #2, Weight Forward.
- Why do I need to keep my head steady? Because it makes it easier to strike the golf ball solidly, turn your shoulders in a circle, and it doesn't mess with your vision requiring re-calculations on where the ball is in 3D space.
That's the goal. I think I've mentioned it before, but it could easily have been lost in all of the text here.
JR said:
I ask you to recognize that there are people who know more about disc golf than you do now so please take that into account before you start dismissing replies.
Quite honestly I feel quite misunderstood if that's what you think. I'm asking questions, playing devil's advocate, and trying to learn. I know next to nothing, and this is how I learn about things. If I'm wrong about something, by all means tell me, but then show me why. Show me evidence.
When simple evidence contradicts what I'm being told by you, someone I respect as having a LOT of knowledge, a thousand times more than I have, I ask questions. The questions don't mean I think I'm smarter. The questions simply mean "please explain this." And sometimes, when the evidence seems to be awfully compelling, yes, I flat out reject it. I could show you lots of evidence that the earth is flat, but you'd not need a mountain of evidence to prove it's not.
I don't get offended when people point out that I'm wrong. It's science, it's not personal. But evidence and scientific data is very different than "this guy says that's what he does."
JR said:
Also you should recognize that you lack enough data to see the whole so before having that base to push off from your conclusions are frankly not in line with reality at times.
I don't mean this to sound the wrong way, but this isn't helping the discussion. I'm quite likely wrong about a ton of things, but you might be wrong about a few things too, no?
Where's your evidence that pros visually aim and that I've found the only three examples in the world who don't? What about your evidence regarding pushing off with the back foot when so many top pros seem to have the foot in the air or with the knee bent and on their toes throughout much of the throw? I'll happily admit I'm wrong, but you telling me that I'm wrong isn't "evidence" or "science."
I'd LOVE to be shown wrong about some of these things. Absolutely love it - because then I'm that much closer to getting it RIGHT.
If you think I'm arguing because I think I know stuff, you've got me pegged wrong. I'm arguing because I want to draw out information. I'm arguing because I'm seeing conflicting data and evidence. I'm arguing as a means of getting to the kernel of truth beneath it all.
I've thrown out some Keys. I've added some. Heck, only three survive right now, and I haven't even looked at the "Weight Forward" Key in depth because it seems obvious to me and nobody's suggested it's wrong. And the torque one is in hot water because the name sucks and it might be too broad.
JR said:
I talked of bias earlier and you seem to be comparing everything to golf.
Though it may seem that way, I'm simply trying to use golf as a means of understanding some things, and I'm trying to avoid any direct comparisons to the motions as they're different. I'm the guy who points out how, for example, the golf swing and the baseball hitting motion are indeed very different, so while I bet what you say is accurate a little, I am trying to avoid doing it too much. FWIW, your bias seems to include thinking the disc golf motion is "more complex" than golf.
JR said:
I am not so sure about golf having more movements but not knowing enough about it and not having enough time now i can't compile a list of DG movements.
I wouldn't ask you to, nor do we have to in golf to demonstrate that the 5SK work in golf.
Heck, playing the piano might require more motions than disc golf or a golf swing for all I know - but the complexity is only relevant if it speaks to the idea that there are NO Keys at all because there's no commonalities. Yet within the disc golf throwing motion, there are commonalities, so relative complexity to other activities aside, it's probably NOT too complex to bake into Keys.
As I've said, "Weight Forward" is a Key in golf, but the complexity of HOW to get the "Weight Forward" and do it properly (which includes not only positions but timing and forces and sequencing) is there. Keys aren't "ALL" there is to know about disc golf (maybe that's why you keep talking about how it'd be book-length). It's just a simplification.
I've used this example I believe: "Controlled Disc Plane" is currently a Key I think can stand the test of time and so on. Good players control the plane of their disc, bad players might not. But obviously what goes into "controlling" the plane of the disc is quite complex - wrist angles and motions, grip style and strength, arm patterns, elbow bending sequencing, and on and on and on.
So knowing ALL of the motions is somewhat irrelevant. If you're doing that, you're just building a SINGLE throwing motion. The Keys in disc golf should account for ALL of the throwing motions used by the game's best. That's where the "personality" or quirks come in.
JR said:
I know my lack of knowledge about a golf swing limits my understanding of what all moves in there but you discarded a short off the top of the head list of DG wrist movement example too so your record is tarnished and that is a big no no for judging anything.
I'm not judging anything and I'm not sure why you keep saying I dismissed your list of wrist motions. From my perspective I simply listed several wrist motions made in the golf swing because you made the comment that the disc golf throwing motion is more complex than a golf swing.
I'm not sure I even read your list of wrist motions in the disc golf throw. Why? Because I don't care about which is more complex, or how complex something is. It doesn't further the discussion?
JR said:
You have already made mistakes in the keys list
I don't even have a Keys list!?!
JR said:
and i think you started off with the wrong foot and armed with too little data.
I didn't start off with too little data, I started off with NO DATA. That's kind of the point - to throw out the pre-conceived notions, boil it down to the TRUE keys. Do this by applying the three rules for what is a Key and what's not (and as I said before, maybe those same criteria don't apply well to DG, but until that's proven, I'm going with it), and see where you end up. It's exploration.
You keep talking about data, but what it really sounds like to me is that you think you a lot (and I'm sure you do) and you're not open to being shown that any of your data is actually wrong. You keep talking about how you need to push off with your left leg or how you need to visually aim, and yet the most rudimentary of data (pictures) shows that quite a few top players don't do those things.
That's not personal. It's not me being stuck with the "wrong data." It's me hearing what you said and trying to see if it matches up with reality and the available data.
JR said:
My point is we need a list of golf vs disc golf movements and the difficulty of pulling each off to see how the total taxes the brain in guidance requirements and what that means to form in practice and in competition and i know that the parts after the list go at least partially beyond my knowledge.
I disagree and don't know what point that would serve. This isn't a battle of which is more complex.
JR said:
I'm pushing the idea that the keys need to result in something beneficial.
SO AM I!
That's almost their sole purpose. As I've said, if you're a student, improving at a Key should improve or benefit your motion. It eliminates a bunch of wasted time and lets you focus in the core things that will make you better because you're focusing on something that actually matters, not something someone thinks matters because one guy they like does it or says he does it.
JR said:
That list requires a laboratory and qualified researchers so many researchers would need to learn a lot more to be able to pull off such a study even in one sport.
I disagree that it's required. We've already built 5SK for golf. It's working quite well.
JR said:
Compare long jumpers to the requirements of triple jumpers.
I can't, and I'm not sure you can either... nor am I sure what the point of that would be.
I'm not trying to piss anyone off, and so if that's how this is going, then I'm done. I'll probably continue to mull this over in my head, but will refrain from posting here about it as I clearly cannot put things in a way that avoids confusion and misunderstanding, or makes me sound as though I think I know more than I do when in reality I'm incredibly aware of how little I know and in fact started down this road to help me learn some things.
Thank you.