What is Good Form??

[Widdershins]

36-24-36!!!

This may be well beyond good.

 

[rocthecourse]

"I know it when I see it" - Potter Stewart

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it

I believe it applies here, at least to some degree.

 

[Widdershins]

How is that a useful definition?

How did you quote me and simultaneously misquote me? The term "athletic motion" was not in my definition but somehow you added it. Shenanigans.

As to usefulness, it may be in the eye of the beholder. If you find usefulness only in the open field and not in the crafting of words which precisely conveys meaning then not at all.

Consider these questions. Can a player have good form which is non-traditional? Or weird looking? Or different from his buddies?

Can good form be judged only on result? Say a player drives predominately with an overhand wrist flick but shoots a very fine score? Good form?

Can ANY throwing motion qualify as good form or should it be restricted to whatever is viewed as proper?

 

[Widdershins]

"I know it when I see it" - Potter Stewart

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it

I believe it applies here, at least to some degree.

The original post referred to this famous quote on pornography (which btw, is a ridiculous legal standard unless a court is bent on suppressing sexual expression as it leaves a person who wishes to follow the law with inadequate guidance where the line exists between legality and criminal activity).

A gifted athlete (young, strong, coordinated) but newbie golfer may appear more graceful with form which is inherently flawed than an experienced less athletic golfer (old, portly, arthritic) with form which scores well. So how does the "eye" test work here?

As an experienced golfer yourself you can recognize obvious flaws but the general public would have no idea. So can good form be god or bad based on who watches it?

 

[JoshEpoo]

How did you quote me and simultaneously misquote me? The term "athletic motion" was not in my definition but somehow you added it. Shenanigans.

As to usefulness, it may be in the eye of the beholder. If you find usefulness only in the open field and not in the crafting of words which precisely conveys meaning then not at all.

Consider these questions. Can a player have good form which is non-traditional? Or weird looking? Or different from his buddies?

Can good form be judged only on result? Say a player drives predominately with an overhand wrist flick but shoots a very fine score? Good form?

Can ANY throwing motion qualify as good form or should it be restricted to whatever is viewed as proper?

Merely pointing out how generic and functionally useless your definition is. Are you a philosophy major or something? Your questions have virtually nothing to do with the particulars of disc golf.

 

[rocthecourse]

So can good form be god or bad based on who watches it?

No...

 

[Pwingles]

OK, Widder..

"Good" form is wholly subjective at a certain point. But, before you reach that point (which is unique to every individual so dont ask me for an amount of time)
There are ways of teaching shortcuts to the end result. (A situationally flawless throw would be the goal) These shortcuts are the numerous drills and videos of advice and relatively new terminology we've seen in the last few years.

Its not "a science" although its based in science. Some things being discussed are not quantifiable, such as "snap" or "good form". Rather, there are basic blueprints laid out in these instructional threads and videos that are there for the individual to take and manipulate into their own uniqueness.

How would you define walking? (not websters, not DictionaryDotCom, you)

something along the lines of "a form of transportation using your feet in alternating forward strides" or blah blah (not super important what your definition would be)

The point is, regardless of how YOU or I define it, theres not really a wrong way to do it as long as youre using your legs/feet to get somewhere one leg at a time, no matter how goofy it looks. Correct?

Well, there is no wrong way, provided youre using your feet and legs to travel from A to B. BUT....There are "better" ways. But, "better" is subjective to the person doing the walking. If the goal is to walk across the street for a person recovering from a sever spinal injury, it wont be of much use to teach them power-walking techniques right?

Please tell me you understand this because honestly im running low on examples relating walking to throwing a disc. ....



TL : DR

There is no definition....

 

[craftsman]

No expert here but ill share my view...

Imo, good form is the ability to throw any disc in your speed range on multiple lines. Great form would extend this ability to any disc.

To apply it to a real example, one with good form can throw any midrange and can pick which mold they prefer. One with not so good form may be limited in "what works for them".
One with good form can also take most any versitile mold and navigate a course with it. One with not so good is usually limited in use for even versitile molds.

Widdershins, why no comment on my response

 

[Widdershins]

Widdershins, why no comment on my response

Sorry I got distracted. I liked everything you mentioned but viewed it as an extension of a definition rather than a definition by itself.

Can a player have good form in one kind of throw but poor form in another? Of course, we might say. Good backhand, poor overhead. Good driver, poor putter.

Say a player has good form on his bread and butter shot, a backhand hyzer off a dry, flat tee pad with no wind. Is it really good form if he cannot adjust it to the many challenging variations we all deal with (lean out, side hill, backhand anhyzer tunnel with a strong tail wind, for example)?

Speaking of putting, as the most important shot in the game where does it fall in the good form perspective? Is good form important if you can blast solid chains? Or does consistently blasting solid chains prove your form must be good?

 

[Widdershins]

OK, Widder..

"Good" form is wholly subjective at a certain point.

***I tried to offer a definition which minimized subjectivity, moving it much closer to objective as it makes results the most important factor (notice there are no style points awarded). Consider the "Hiking a Football" style of throwing. Except for someone with a bizarre disabling injury could we ever say this form maximizes power, control and consistency?***


But, before you reach that point (which is unique to every individual so dont ask me for an amount of time)
There are ways of teaching shortcuts to the end result. (A situationally flawless throw would be the goal) These shortcuts are the numerous drills and videos of advice and relatively new terminology we've seen in the last few years.

***I am a big fan of practice and drills are designed to isolate and develop a particular skill. Videos are the fastest way to explain and teach motion since a picture is worth a thousand words and a video is thousands of pictures. A situationally adaptable form is an absolutely vital skill in our game. We don't shoot free throws.***

Its not "a science" although its based in science. Some things being discussed are not quantifiable, such as "snap" or "good form". Rather, there are basic blueprints laid out in these instructional threads and videos that are there for the individual to take and manipulate into their own uniqueness.

*** "Science" can be more or less advanced based on the topic but disc golf "science" is at times closer to opinion phrased in scientific jargon since some of its practitioners lack formal training and/or testing facilities and proper studies. It seems to me that much of disc golf teaching is based on the trial and error experienced by its instructors. This is no insult, merely description. I don't think much hard science has been focused on disc golf. Snap should be quantifiable and studies would already be published if the financial incentive existed (as in ball golf where rich people play it on country club courses and tournaments pay in the millions not the thousands). ***

How would you define walking? (not websters, not DictionaryDotCom, you)

something along the lines of "a form of transportation using your feet in alternating forward strides" or blah blah (not super important what your definition would be)

The point is, regardless of how YOU or I define it, theres not really a wrong way to do it as long as youre using your legs/feet to get somewhere one leg at a time, no matter how goofy it looks. Correct?

***Nah, I disagree. Goofy looking is not the problem, effectiveness is. Say your supporting points in "walking" were your left foot and your forehead and you only touched those body parts while shuffling forward. You would fail on every standard: power, control, consistency and injury.

If you insist on defining walking as using feet then another failure might be using only the outer edges of both feet. I'm guessing your knees wouldn't last long.***


Well, there is no wrong way, provided youre using your feet and legs to travel from A to B. BUT....There are "better" ways. But, "better" is subjective to the person doing the walking. If the goal is to walk across the street for a person recovering from a sever spinal injury, it wont be of much use to teach them power-walking techniques right?

Please tell me you understand this because honestly im running low on examples relating walking to throwing a disc. ....

***"Better" in your example is not so much subjective as it is "situational". The best way to type is probably using two hands and sitting upright but if you have no hands then it is toes or maybe a mouth holding a pencil to stab at the keys.

But I agree with the sentiment. A definition should not be rendered inaccurate based on a physical oddity***



TL : DR

There is no definition....

I am trying to figure out how to work responses to threads as clearly I am a noobie to this site. I used *** to delineate my comments. Could someone direct me to the instructions for computer dummies?

 

[Qbert]

I haven't read all the posts but it seems to me that form and consistency are being seen as synonymous. Top players are the ones that have both attributes as a part of their game. Form does encourage consistency but it does not guarantee it.

There are people that can throw a disc 800+ feet with perfect form yet they aren't the ones on the top of the rankings with Feldberg, Schuesterick(wrong spelling I'm sure), Doss, Locastro, etc... Those players are the ones that have exceptional form and are also able to repeat that form over and over and over with a variety of different shots and lines.

I see form as the foundation for a good golf game but it by no means guarantees one.

From what I have read the best definition that has been given is good form is efficient transfer of energy to the disc. Plain and simple. The higher the efficiency the better the form.

 

[Widdershins]

Merely pointing out how generic and functionally useless your definition is. Are you a philosophy major or something? Your questions have virtually nothing to do with the particulars of disc golf.

A definition is NOT meant as a direct teaching tool.

"Gee, say a player, I keep missing short putts." Well, says the instructor, "let's look at the definition of putting." Of course it doesn't work that way.

This website represents the intelligentsia of the sport. For solid teaching principles to exist there must be deeper analysis or else we would just say, "Use a 172 gram red Aviar because that works for me."

Principles must be based on a solid foundation. If we seek to understand good form then we should be able to generally agree on what this term means. What we do with that definition speaks to our own limits and why underestimate our potential?

JoshEpoo, you view this discussion as worthy of your time to respond so what does that tell you?

 

[Qbert]

The higher the efficiency the better the form.

Strike that, reverse it

 

[Widdershins]

I haven't read all the posts but it seems to me that form and consistency are being seen as synonymous. Top players are the ones that have both attributes as a part of their game. Form does encourage consistency but it does not guarantee it.

There are people that can throw a disc 800+ feet with perfect form yet they aren't the ones on the top of the rankings with Feldberg, Schuesterick(wrong spelling I'm sure), Doss, Locastro, etc... Those players are the ones that have exceptional form and are also able to repeat that form over and over and over with a variety of different shots and lines.

I see form as the foundation for a good golf game but it by no means guarantees one.

From what I have read the best definition that has been given is good form is efficient transfer of energy to the disc. Plain and simple. The higher the efficiency the better the form.

Good form allows good shots but does not guarantee it. Granted. Good form added to practice and innate athletic skills does not guarantee good shots either because our heads can get in the way.

But certainly good form affects more than raw power (energy transfer). The better the form the bigger the margin of error. So missed shots miss by less.

My proffered definition includes 4 factors: power, control, consistency and freedom from injury.

GOOD FORM ALLOWS A PLAYER TO MAXIMIZE POWER, CONTROL AND CONSISTENCY WITHOUT INJURY.

What here is inaccurate or left out or superfluous?

 

[Pwingles]

Would it be better maybe to try and achieve a compromise on what the definition for "ideal form" as opposed to "good"?

I realize to some degree its semantics but form itself is just one component (that is made up of several smaller elements) to a succesful throw , so i feel that defining it as THE thing is a mistake since, not only is it not THE thing but being that it is the sum of other parts it needs to be defined that way

 

[craftsman]

I get beat on the regular by a friend with "bad" form. He oats almost all of his shots, but not with roll over like todays noobs, he uses roll under like yesteryears noobs. He's been playing for 20 years and frisbeed before that. He dg's more then most and is extremeny consistant and accurate. I have seen him elbow his knee on the pad but no i.juries for the most part

 

[Uncle Dougie]

Can someone provide a comprehensive definition? Or are we left with a "you will know it when you see it" kind of vague and unsatisfying understanding?

Basically, it's everything everyone's told you in this thread but what it all boils down to is what you were quoted as saying in your first post...you will know it when you see it. While it does seem vague, it does happen to be that ah-ha moment most of us have when we finally do acheive (good) form. If that doesn't help you then I don't know what will. If sitting and watching how many pages this thread can rack up on form helps you, then good luck.

 

[Stud Muffin]

Of recent, discussions of Discing Down and Progression Theory (starting with putters to learn form before progressing to Mids and Drivers) has lead to me wonder: What is Good Form?

Thank you for pointing out a great hole in form hypothesis.

If someone gives a definition of 'good form', but it gives you 'bad results', then was the form good? Obviously not.

As I have said before, in the words of Ben Hogan, a ball golfer, when someone asked him where he got his swing, he said, "I found it in the dirt."

You have to practice.

Now if you watch enough professional disc golfers, you will notice some have very similar styles, but they all seem to do some very unique things. They do not all throw the same way, putt the same way, or even approach the game the same way. But they get very similar results, they zip the discs out long was with accuracy, they make long putts, and they score low.

So my advice is take whatever you want to work on, be it putter, mid range, or driver, take them to a field, and just throw. When you make a good throw, stop. Try to figure out what it is that made that disc fly longer, straighter, etc. Notice your grip, your balance, technique.

THEN, come back, and read what others have said on the subject. Once you have an 'experience', then you will more clearly understand what people are trying to get across on what works, and what helps.

For example, I kept hearing the term 'nose down'. While I understood the concept, I never really understood what people were trying to get across. Then, one day in a field, frustrated that my discs would go high, then fad over, going nowhere, I threw one aiming at the ground 15' in front of me. I ripped it, it had to go 75' longer than my other discs. When I felt that, I was able to then repeat it. Then I read on how people used grip, and the angle of their wrist to make it easier to keep the discs nose down. Now it is rare for me to have a disc fly up.

All this to conclude, the best form is whatever get's the disc ripped out the best for you. You have to find it, then you refine it.

 

[Uncle Dougie]

Thank you for pointing out a great hole in form hypothesis.

If someone gives a definition of 'good form', but it gives you 'bad results', then was the form good? Obviously not.

As I have said before, in the words of Ben Hogan, a ball golfer, when someone asked him where he got his swing, he said, "I found it in the dirt."

You have to practice.

Now if you watch enough professional disc golfers, you will notice some have very similar styles, but they all seem to do some very unique things. They do not all throw the same way, putt the same way, or even approach the game the same way. But they get very similar results, they zip the discs out long was with accuracy, they make long putts, and they score low.

So my advice is take whatever you want to work on, be it putter, mid range, or driver, take them to a field, and just throw. When you make a good throw, stop. Try to figure out what it is that made that disc fly longer, straighter, etc. Notice your grip, your balance, technique.

THEN, come back, and read what others have said on the subject. Once you have an 'experience', then you will more clearly understand what people are trying to get across on what works, and what helps.

For example, I kept hearing the term 'nose down'. While I understood the concept, I never really understood what people were trying to get across. Then, one day in a field, frustrated that my discs would go high, then fad over, going nowhere, I threw one aiming at the ground 15' in front of me. I ripped it, it had to go 75' longer than my other discs. When I felt that, I was able to then repeat it. Then I read on how people used grip, and the angle of their wrist to make it easier to keep the discs nose down. Now it is rare for me to have a disc fly up.

All this to conclude, the best form is whatever get's the disc ripped out the best for you. You have to find it, then you refine it.

Probably the best answer the OP will get. :hfive:


/THREAD

 

[Stud Muffin]

^ Part 2

Playing last week, ripping discs out low, with a lot of nose down, and throwing farther than I ever have before, I noticed my right leg was kicking up unusually high on the follow through.

At first, I thought nothing of it, but later I remembered, Ken Climo would kick his right leg up over his head on his follow through at times. It shows his full commitment to the shot.

Once I remembered, I would throw, and encourage my body to kick up my leg as high as it wanted, and it was freeing up a huge weight transfer happening in my throw, which of course, meant more power going into the throw.

NOW, if I told you to kick your leg up high on the follow through, the advice would be useless to you. You may not have that kind of delivery.

You have to find what works for you, and notice as much as you can about your body when you throw. You do not just mindlessly get up and throw. You need a plan, and that plan starts in the practice field.

ok, enough, I retire.