Coming from a book background, I think about this in terms of an outline and illustrations. Youtube, etc. needs constant content, and it also constantly cannibalizes itself. It doesn't have credibility as a medium because everyone knows that any content creator is in an endless loop to create content whether it is needed or not.
Part of the learning process is learning to see. Reminds me of how an audio mastering engineer can listen to a recording or speakers, etc. and know by frequency where something is off. A great musician need not be able to do this. I think the first part of learning and teaching a disc golf throw is learning to see what is happening. Seems the pros don't always know what it is they are doing.
Something about a book and ink on paper makes people really sort out what they are on about because you can't take it back, delete it, etc. Gotta wait until the second edition.
I don't know how the online coaching community establishes credibility. I'm pretty sure there are not enough different ways to teach the same thing to allow all contenders proprietary content.
Credibility is something I really struggle with when it comes to disc golf coaching. There are some of us that put in a LOT of effort to be good at what we do. Spend time going over theories, talking about our idea's with each other. Sharing and comparing notes to be better, challenging each other.
Someone just gotta jump on youtube and get , ooooh, what is he at now... 45.6k subscribers, and they are the foremost expert on disc golf form. But you bring Josh into here where we discuss things at length and everything will fall apart really quick.
But guys like Josh and Robby C and others wont take someone like me seriously because I'm not making youtube content all the time, I don't have a lot of subscribers. So they wont have the conversations, they wont have the discussions. Thus, refusing to confirm any level of credibility.
This sort of thing eats at my core as I spend so many hours watching content. I spend hours ruining my form to try these concepts to see if there is merit in them at all.
But nope, I'm a nobody, because I don't have a blue checkmark, or a big channel of subscribers. It's just like the whole idea that some people have with not listening to someone coach because they are not like 980 rated or some crazy stuff.
What does my ability to score good in a tournament have to do with my ability to make you a better player and instruct you?
Nothing, same as with my ability to make youtube videos.
Excuse me as I go make click bait video's to draw people in. "Throw 500 feet!" or some other bullcrap. I'm interested in gathering real data and working through the theories of form.
(there is the segue)
Because ALL of it is theory.
ALL of it.
Everything throughout history of sports is theory. It's all THEROY.
What do I mean by that?
Well, if any of it was in the realm of some level of "this is the way it is, there is no where to improve" there would never be any study and research. There would be the "this is the accepted way and this is it." And just our minor differences in body would give us those changes. But people find better ways to manipulate their body, safer ways, stronger ways, more powerful ways.
Insert that javelin thrower picture here brychanus likes to use.
The guy posts up like an atomic bomb.
You wanna tell me this is how they were doing it back in greek times?
No, everyone back then was trying to find the secrets to getting better then too. It's all theory.
What is the "Best" theory.
or what are the "running theories"
Practical applications sort of deal. Doesn't mean there is 1 way and 1 way only. You see this in a lot of the older golf lesson video's. I would teach what they called "natural golf" because it was SOOOO easy to teach new players interested in golf.
I cannot even remember the other ones.
But swing trainers, gidgets and gadgets and video's and methods and theories.
And what do we get?
Better equipment, limitations put on balls, guys able to swing clubs at MASSIVE speeds and power never thought of before all through technology and understanding of mechanics better and better.
And.. honestly, through our body and minds willingness to try try try again and sometimes things just click.
Pro's are fantastic athletes, but they honestly have 0 credibility when it comes to teaching for the most part.
Some of them are good teachers.
And Ulibari see's that he's not gonna be a champ and switched to coaching and is riding his credibility wave of being a "pro" but... from the clips and info I've seen. He's got no clue what he's talking about. Especially if one of your advertisement clips is you teaching "squish the bug" the showing you throwing and not squishing the bug..
Yeah, go get bent.
Credibility is about us in here discussing and trying to do things better and working together.
I don't have the mind space anymore to do what Brychanus did. I can provide my feedback though, or help work through some idea's that I see relevance in.
Credibility comes in the respect you give others even that you dont always agree with being willing to stand up for their ideas, learn and change. But not being afraid to talk with others and learn.
Credibility comes from not shutting others out and living in your false reality as you plug your ears and go "neenerneenerneener" or some crap.
You gain credibility by doing, learning and discussing.
Unfortunately, sometimes it's hard to show others you HAVE credibility, and you have Reputation.
Because some people are not willing to look for it, or talk with you to find out.
I have no idea where I was going with any of this.
But yes, Smacking your name on some sort of big document is a catch22. or a double edged sword.
Because you're putting your name on something, and idea's and thoughts change.
And I think that's one of the key points from Belayed about it being theory writing.
And even then, people will attack you, because they have no idea what "theory" means, or how things work. And they think everything is an actual, not an idea to be challenged. So, you gotta be wrong. (this is a huge issue in archeology)