Tech disc test driven development

[Brychanus]

I don't know anything, about stuff in general.

These pictures are 3-4 year olds and in the absolute beginning of my disc golf journey (where I barely threw any BH).

A new destroyer or a wraith (can't remember). Guess the flight?

Flat with a baby turn and it sure didn't look like that out of the hand.

I'm not sure how the tech disc measure the angle, it must be on release, right?

I would believe that what we classify as a "flat release" when we throw, are much more on a hyzer angle than we think

You could be friends with these fellas

 

[disc-golf-neil]

I think the answer here is experimentation. It's interesting that we can get this data from tech disc, but at the end of the day, it's the target shot shape, our biomechanics, and our bag. Tech Disc isn't going to give us that answer on its own.

I'm not trying to disparage TD by any means. There's so many more variables that go into a shot that TD can't help with.

TD does have a flight simulator so you can see how less hyzer or more speed increases flip and turn and how nose angle affects turn and how more turn often requires a higher launch angle to not reduce your distance. You can see how with the right combination of angles to go with the nose angle a -1 degree nose up and a -4 degree nose down can go very similar distances.

 

[RowingBoats]

TD does have a flight simulator so you can see how less hyzer or more speed increases flip and turn and how nose angle affects turn and how more turn often requires a higher launch angle to not reduce your distance. You can see how with the right combination of angles to go with the nose angle a -1 degree nose up and a -4 degree nose down can go very similar distances.

Is there any info about how they created this simulator? I am very skeptical of its accuracy.

Im not trying to be negative either, Im just curious how they actually attempted to model all of this.

 

[itlnstln]

Is there any info about how they created this simulator? I am very skeptical of its accuracy.

That's a great question. It's going to have gaps, to be sure, but if it's relatively close it can be useful in net training situations. I'm sure at the edges, it loses fidelity such as disc wear, PLH, and other manufacturing variability. At that point, that's where bag familiarity kicks in and understanding what specific discs will do when married with form improvements (hopefully) from net training

 

[RowingBoats]

That's a great question. It's going to have gaps, to be sure, but if it's relatively close it can be useful in net training situations. I'm sure at the edges, it loses fidelity such as disc wear, PLH, and other manufacturing variability. At that point, that's where bag familiarity kicks in and understanding what specific discs will do when married with form improvements (hopefully) from net training

For sure. My Dad just got his tech disc and Im super stoked to use it for specific things. For what I want, the numbers don't really matter as long as they are actually measuring what they say they are, and have consistent output given the same swing. I want it for measuring consistency only.

I can't think of any reason I personally would look at the simulator. I will be applying any form changes that lead to more consistency to real discs to confirm whether it has a benefit or not.

 

[itlnstln]

@disc-golf-neil, does TD show comparison from throw to throw? For example, maybe the exact spin rate numbers of 950 or 1150 RPM doesn't have specific meaning to me, but if I knew than increasing or decreasing spin rate by ~20% has x effect on flight, that could be better internalized

 

[disc-golf-neil]

FWIW I'll get back to a practical comment again.

One thing I learned from the recent discussion is that I guess my brain/body works somewhere between Neil and Jaani's (I think):

1. I can simultaneously be more precise in what I say, measure, or think (Neil's point, and why I tend to mark up diagrams-plus I find it fun) and

2. Be totally comfortable with what works for me and KISS (Jaani's point).

It's surprising to me how many people seem to just be unable to imagine an analytical person can move between analytical mode and KISS mode.

I can walk up to a tee and choose a disc and throw with 0 prep on any level just fine if I feel like or am rushed for time.

Or I can do an in between and walk up to a tee and in less than 10 seconds look at 3 gaps and imagine a few shot shapes for each gap and then go through 10 checklist items mentally (wind, disc stability, general hyzer amount, launch amount (Y aim point), X aim point, general nose amount, speed amount, runup speed, runup angle, plant location, tee traction) and then just throw freely after that since the checklist is complete and it wouldn't be obvious that I was being that analytical. For an analytical person, running through a checklist like this routinely is the fastest way to ingraining it into intuition to where it becomes second nature, imo.

Or, I could spend a long time if I want to more exhaustively analyze things if I feel like it. Say for example I've messed up a particular hole multiple times when I didn't used to, I can spend extra time considering many factors as to why that may have happen and brainstorm some ideas to address try to address the issue in a different way than the first few easy thoughts that I had already tried after the couple previous mess ups.

I don't want to end up being someone who is reduced to having to say "idk, I just do it", that's very unsatisfying to me and is also typically a very unsatisfying answer to most people.

@disc-golf-neil curious what you intend with S curve since I have seen that apply in different ways. I usually thought "S shot" was to used to describe a hyzer that starts on the left side of the fairway, flips and pans right, and then fades back at the end (my favorite shot).

Here is Innova's glossary of terms. Don't need to treat that like a holy book obviously, just know you like terms.

Glossary of Disc Golf Terms - Innova Disc Golf

New to Disc Golf? If you're new to the sport and don't understand the terms used in disc golf, you've come to the right place. Here you can find

www.innovadiscs.com

I said "S curve" and not "S shot" because I wasn't using a shot name but was focusing on the shape. I could've been more clear by adding the word "shape" or flight path in there.

I only briefly looked at the glossary once early on then noticed everyone was very liberal with the terms and didn't re-reference it to commit to all to memory.

What's confusing is how a shot SHAPE become a shot NAME (S Shot) but the definition says an S shot is with an understable disc, despite the fact that the S shape can be done with OS, S / neutral, and US discs. So then there is "Flex shot" which is an Overstable disc S shape flight. So then when someone throws an S shape using a neutral / stable (not OS) disc, it gets shoehorned into one of the two definitions and blurs the lines.

There's no easy way to be more precise because in person the disc flips so fast on hard throws so most of the time the first most prominent thing noticed is that it's turning (so it's labeled as anhyzer release) unless watching very actively and not passively. So people can't easily more accurately definite it as hyzer release S shape | flat release S shape | anhyzer release S shape. With those 3 categories there's still confusion though, because a hyzer release S shape could either be overpowering the speed of an OS disc released on hyzer so that it flips and turns (as seen in distance comps), or it was a US disc thrown closer to it's speed rating released on hyzer and that's why it flipped and turned.

 

[RowingBoats]

I don't want to end up being someone who is reduced to having to say "idk, I just do it"

I can understand the rationality here, but the reality is that most people who are truly top athletic performers are exactly in that category.

 

[disc-golf-neil]

@disc-golf-neil, does TD show comparison from throw to throw? For example, maybe the exact spin rate numbers of 950 or 1150 RPM doesn't have specific meaning to me, but if I knew than increasing or decreasing spin rate by ~20% has x effect on flight, that could be better internalized

Yes

TechDisc

techdisc.com

go to the settings gear and change it to the field so you don't hit trees

You can see me here comparing how changing certain stats on one of my throws changes the flight shape and distances at 6:54

I didn't adjust spin but it goes further with more spin and I turns less from what I've seen before.

 

[disc-golf-neil]

For sure. My Dad just got his tech disc and Im super stoked to use it for specific things. For what I want, the numbers don't really matter as long as they are actually measuring what they say they are, and have consistent output given the same swing. I want it for measuring consistency only.

I can't think of any reason I personally would look at the simulator. I will be applying any form changes that lead to more consistency to real discs to confirm whether it has a benefit or not.

You can change the flight numbers in the sim to get a more realistic flight for what kinds of discs you would normally throw on those angles.

I linked an example in the previous reply.

 

[RowingBoats]

You can change the flight numbers in the sim to get a more realistic flight for what kinds of discs you would normally throw on those angles.

I linked an example in the previous reply.

I do understand that part, but HOW did they model the difference between -1 and -4 nose angle, etc? That is what Im just generally curious about because that sounds like a beast of an undertaking to do legitimately.

 

[Kennets]

You could be friends with these fellas

View attachment 338688

The resemblance is remarkable! Can't even tell who the amateur is..

 

[Brychanus]

It's surprising to me how many people seem to just be unable to imagine an analytical person can move between analytical mode and KISS mode.

I can walk up to a tee and choose a disc and throw with 0 prep on any level just fine if I feel like or am rushed for time.

Or I can do an in between and walk up to a tee and in less than 10 seconds look at 3 gaps and imagine a few shot shapes for each gap and then go through 10 checklist items mentally (wind, disc stability, general hyzer amount, launch amount (Y aim point), X aim point, general nose amount, speed amount, runup speed, runup angle, plant location, tee traction) and then just throw freely after that since the checklist is complete and it wouldn't be obvious that I was being that analytical. For an analytical person, running through a checklist like this routinely is the fastest way to ingraining it into intuition to where it becomes second nature, imo.

Or, I could spend a long time if I want to more exhaustively analyze things if I feel like it. Say for example I've messed up a particular hole multiple times when I didn't used to, I can spend extra time considering many factors as to why that may have happen and brainstorm some ideas to address try to address the issue in a different way than the first few easy thoughts that I had already tried after the couple previous mess ups.

I don't want to end up being someone who is reduced to having to say "idk, I just do it", that's very unsatisfying to me and is also typically a very unsatisfying answer to most people.


I said "S curve" and not "S shot" because I wasn't using a shot name but was focusing on the shape. I could've been more clear by adding the word "shape" or flight path in there.

I only briefly looked at the glossary once early on then noticed everyone was very liberal with the terms and didn't re-reference it to commit to all to memory.

What's confusing is how a shot SHAPE become a shot NAME (S Shot) but the definition says an S shot is with an understable disc, despite the fact that the S shape can be done with OS, S / neutral, and US discs. So then there is "Flex shot" which is an Overstable disc S shape flight. So then when someone throws an S shape using a neutral / stable (not OS) disc, it gets shoehorned into one of the two definitions and blurs the lines.

There's no easy way to be more precise because in person the disc flips so fast on hard throws so most of the time the first most prominent thing noticed is that it's turning (so it's labeled as anhyzer release) unless watching very actively and not passively. So people can't easily more accurately definite it as hyzer release S shape | flat release S shape | anhyzer release S shape. With those 3 categories there's still confusion though, because a hyzer release S shape could either be overpowering the speed of an OS disc released on hyzer so that it flips and turns (as seen in distance comps), or it was a US disc thrown closer to it's speed rating released on hyzer and that's why it flipped and turned.

Yeah, you know I like to get into this stuff too and you and I have a lot in common in terms of analytic-KISS switching.

I guess first thoughts:

1. I am also now an example of an analytic/KISS "alternator," and also someone who started so analytic it got in the way of learning to move at first. Then I started to get more and more relaxed and move, but it was because I had let go of old beliefs, moved, drilled, and thrown (a lot) more. So the space of KISS expands for me as I move better and gain more on course experience, which is one pathway to how "intuition" is formed like you are saying (this is well-studied in psychology). Then as I change how I move and throw differently, I have a new space to explore and I tend to start a bit more analytic until it is intuitive. And so it goes. I'm personally very open to data sources because (1) I like data, (2) sometimes I learn from it and (3) I like thinking about what I can and cannot take away from it given the experimental design. It's not a coincidence that it's literally part of my day job lol. If I have thrown a hole a lot before, KISS. I have a preferred shot and disc. If I haven't and the line is weird, the analytic brain comes out for longer somewhat like yours.

2. "IDK I just do it" - I hear you and that was definitely the opposite of my own backhand development and why there is a 100pg document out there (that will surely need revision someday). Part of what I realized from you & this thread was how little I understood parts of arm mechanics once you started getting into it with TechDisc. Then I realized I had developed my putt and upshots without much "cerebral" analysis, so I am staying tuned

3. INNOVA glossary and terms - Yes, I find it (or other similar lists out there) lacking in a few ways too. Part of why I got interested in your data and the Aerodynamics thread. I hear you on the "S" confusion because the real dynamic space is bigger than the typical labels imply in principle and actuality. "Shape" is challenging too probably because if I understand (I may not), the aerodynamics that lead to S-like shapes for OS discs and launch angles and trajectories are different in interesting ways to the traditional "S-shot" definition (right?). So the space of possibly shapes is hard to taxonomize well. Maybe that's why various simple heuristics emerged. And yes, I had noticed that players often only see the disc after its early flight characteristics early on and then develop beliefs about the release angles they throw them on. I actually developed a relationship with one of my friends who functions like an "angle spotter" behind me sometimes after I mess with my form a lot to help me connect my shot intent to how I'm actually moving on tees on the course. It helps.

I can understand the rationality here, but the reality is that most people who are truly top athletic performers are exactly in that category.

I think this is probably true too. Neil appears more athletic than me in ways that matter for throwing.

 

[disc-golf-neil]

I can understand the rationality here, but the reality is that most people who are truly top athletic performers are exactly in that category.

That's true, but the ones that are best at explaining and understand things are not in that category. Also, a lot of them learned as kids when their analytical abilities weren't strong enough so it's much more likely to fully rely on developing intuition.

I think the highest potential comes when you have both a high-level detailed understanding and gifted athletic ability + the discipline to train hard. You can still be at the top without the high-level detailed understanding intuition is so powerful, but it's harder to pinpoint how things went wrong and how to correct them when you rely fully on mysterious intuition, imo.

Currently, the best men's pickleball doubles team is are the Johns brothers who are both engineers and by far the most analytical, people jokingly refer to "The Algorithm" when talking about Collin Johns because they have the flow of the strategy analytically mapped so well but also have the intuition and athleticism and they are able to play safe and consistent but still dominate, interestingly. They have their own dictionary of terms for nearly every play pattern, and they have a book of detailed notes on every opponent they've played, their habits, strengths, weaknesses, etc.

They would still probably be #1 if they weren't nearly as analytical, but I think they squeeze every last drop of advantage they can by doing that.

 

[disc-golf-neil]

[super subjective take comin' through]

I think the thing I struggle with re: Tech Disc is that I'm not entirely sure how I use this information on a course in real time. It doesn't really matter to me what angle and speed I'm actually throwing as much as knowing I can hit the line and distance to my target as well as what disc and arm speed I need to achieve that. Hell, when I started playing we didn't even have range finders (or weren't really available/used back then).

Part of my perspective is shaped by intuitiveness that's either natural or developed. Also, TD data is an output vs. an input, so on a course, if I had one on a disc, I wouldn't have that data until after I throw vs. information I need to know going into the throw. Range finders, OTOH, provide input data. IMO, being familiar with your bag, proper wind reads, and trained body control/form are going to get more consistent outcomes than knowing if your hyzer angle is 15 deg. or 17 deg. I'm not even too sure I'd be able to dial in that kind of precision in real time (but perhaps it could be trainable!)

Where I think it can be very helpful is simulations when throwing into a net in off season practice, especially in form development where I would like to know the flight outcome of a form tweak that I wouldn't get by throwing into a net. For example, if I'm having nose-up issues, I can see that in the flight of the disc, but I wouldn't be able to tell if I'm correcting it properly throwing into a net. I can definitely see the training/development use cases, and through intentional, data-driven training, one can develop the feel that might be more useful on the course

Good point about the range finder being input data.

However, the output data builds up your ability to translate it into an input. Perfect example is Simon being able to throw speeds on command. If you actually know what the speed feels and you can replicate the speed pretty well, on command, imagine being able to walk up to a hole and know that "when I threw 55 mph I parked this hole" and being able to then throw 55 mph again.

Of course there are more factors, wind, how much hyzer did you throw last time and are you consistent at that? But again, if you can learn to throw speeds on command due to getting the instant feedback, you can learn to throw a few hyzer angles on command more easily with the instant feedback and develop more consistency. The more I use the tech disc the more I can hit these angles on command and the more I'm able to tell on the course, what speeds and angles I threw, because I get better at know what the angles and speeds feel like so my perception of making fine tuned adjustments becomes more granular. You can develop a granular ability to make fine tuned adjustments, but adding an additional dimension onto it makes it more holistic. Like how associations can make it much easier to remember things, you are building up a stronger association by synthesizing an extra dimension of data onto things.

 

[disc-golf-neil]

Is there any info about how they created this simulator? I am very skeptical of its accuracy.

Im not trying to be negative either, Im just curious how they actually attempted to model all of this.

I don't think there's a lot of info, but if you email them they will reply quickly. I'd recommend asking how accurate it is and see what they say. I bet they'd admit it's not perfect but it's pretty good. It's probably a lot better than an human trying to guess on the spot if given the data or even a visual of the throw happening but then pausing so they can't see flight and have to guess.

The TD can also be thrown without a net, so they've definitely collected real flight data which most likely was used to reinforce and enhance the accuracy of the simulator model.

 

[HyzerRoc]

Agree about data. What was the Dickerson shot? Couldn't get the timestamp to work.

FWIW I relate to your short shot experience. Since I build most of my driving mechanics on hyzer, I had to change strategies for versatility in upshots and putts. Watching coverage helped a lot for me. My upshot chain of action is very similar to my backhand drives, but I had to watch a lot of Simon in the woods to help visualize those anny lines better. Brinster also uses a lot of big tilts in the whole body that were easier for me to pick up for whatever reason. The way my arm and wrist work are probably subtly different than my driving but I stopped paying too much attention to it when it started working for me. It's also easier (for me) to control a true anhyzer weight shift and release from a standstill stagger stance. I'm not sure if it's the same for everyone. I also usually bring one OS slow disc which either comes out when I need the harsh flex or mid-flight fade if my Simon-y touch shots are coming out a little sloppy that day.

I was mentioning on Neil's thread that the power mechanics on short shots can be hard for some people- it took a while before my short range shots tapped the same power sources as the bigger driving chain. Every once in a while my shortest shots still "disconnect" the chain like RowingBoats mentioned and the power drop is dramatic. So I just kept training the same(ish) chain in every action from putts to drives.

there you go for the Dickerson shot.

Yeah I can relate to your experience pretty well. I tried doing upshots with a more open stance and I couldnt get the disc out more than 20 meters because it ruined my whole chain. Now I just try to find a way to downscale a full chain from more than 20 meters while doing everything inside of 20 meters with a putting motion. However I usually juice the shots a bit too much and end up overshooting with the downscaling. The downscaling is also a bit weird as my posture is flatter and my arm swings a bit differently. I like the suggestion of watching some Simon in the woods, gives me a good excuse to watch more Simon stuff I really like watching Brinster play but having his form in mind as a swing thought didnt do me any good so far. When I feel like Simon it usually works out the best.

Are you talking about your venture into putting mechanics starting on page 13? Or was there something else?
About the chain in putting: as my drives get better my putting improves as well because it gets easier to notice when a throwing motion connects and when a weight shift contributes to the speed of the disc.

 

[Brychanus]

Yeah I can relate to your experience pretty well. I tried doing upshots with a more open stance and I couldnt get the disc out more than 20 meters because it ruined my whole chain. Now I just try to find a way to downscale a full chain from more than 20 meters while doing everything inside of 20 meters with a putting motion. However I usually juice the shots a bit too much and end up overshooting with the downscaling. The downscaling is also a bit weird as my posture is flatter and my arm swings a bit differently. I like the suggestion of watching some Simon in the woods, gives me a good excuse to watch more Simon stuff I really like watching Brinster play but having his form in mind as a swing thought didnt do me any good so far. When I feel like Simon it usually works out the best.

Are you talking about your venture into putting mechanics starting on page 13? Or was there something else?
About the chain in putting: as my drives get better my putting improves as well because it gets easier to notice when a throwing motion connects and when a weight shift contributes to the speed of the disc.

Thx for link, now I see. Dude can standstill rip that true Anny. Looks even more anhyzer relative to the teepad sloped down.


Putting/downscaled shots: we had a fun discussion including Rowing starting around here:

Form critique request

Nice. Yeah, I think what I want to pay attention to next is how much the camera angle/parallax play into it vs. their motion. I'm not sure what it will teach us yet but I find it fun 😊 22:43 (AB goes last) 36:09 for the Simon and Calvin spike hyzer AB's low hyzer vs spike hyzer: On still 3...

www.dgcoursereview.com

 

[itlnstln]

Good point about the range finder being input data.

However, the output data builds up your ability to translate it into an input. Perfect example is Simon being able to throw speeds on command. If you actually know what the speed feels and you can replicate the speed pretty well, on command, imagine being able to walk up to a hole and know that "when I threw 55 mph I parked this hole" and being able to then throw 55 mph again.

Of course there are more factors, wind, how much hyzer did you throw last time and are you consistent at that? But again, if you can learn to throw speeds on command due to getting the instant feedback, you can learn to throw a few hyzer angles on command more easily with the instant feedback and develop more consistency. The more I use the tech disc the more I can hit these angles on command and the more I'm able to tell on the course, what speeds and angles I threw, because I get better at know what the angles and speeds feel like so my perception of making fine tuned adjustments becomes more granular. You can develop a granular ability to make fine tuned adjustments, but adding an additional dimension onto it makes it more holistic. Like how associations can make it much easier to remember things, you are building up a stronger association by synthesizing an extra dimension of data onto things.

[piping hot subjectivity coming through]

I think it's the measurement I have a quibble with. I have absolutely no idea what my arm speed is, and I honestly wouldn't have a strong frame of reference if I did. I do know that I can throw a DD3 at 100% around 425' - that's useful to me. Similarly, I can throw a P3x ~300' at 90-100%. Knowing that I'm throwing that DD3 around 60 mph doesn't give me a ton of info unless it ties back to effort, but at that point the speed starts to become irrelevant. Tell me to throw a disc at 30 mph, and I would have no frame of reference for that, nor would most people I imagine. Tell me to throw at 50% effort, and I easily understand what to do.

While I can train myself to create frames of reference for speed vis-a-vis effort, it still comes back to effort. It's way easier to know how much effort I'm putting into a shot and how a disc behaves when thrown at that effort. I can dial my effort on command and understand the likely outcome thereof, but while the exact speed might be interesting, it's kind of irrelevant. It becomes sort of a translation table in your head: 100% effort = 60 mph, 90% = 54 mph, etc. Even in commentary, we hear more references to levels of effort than quantified speed and it's an indication of how even pros think about dialing in shots. Usually, when speed is referenced in commentary, it's to draw attention to how ludicrously fast AB's 100% effort is.

Where I would find speed useful is in understanding baseline and measuring improvement in training. As I'm making tweaks to form, is that showing up in faster speeds, and I can use the quantification as a measure of how much improvement I am or am not making? I'm just not sure what I do with that number on the course. The useful output is that I can now throw a DD3 ~450'-475' at 100% effort, and that information ends up being what I take to the course. I would also imagine that I could start to dial in more granular effort levels. A new player might understand 10%, 50%, and 100% effort. Over time, they can probably dial in increments of around 10%. Top pros, are probably dialing in effort levels in increments of 1-5%

For us DG and data nerds, there's a ton of interesting and useful stuff we can garner. Data-driven improvement has to add efficiency and specificity to how we focus our training. I think where I'm personally finding a limit to quantification is how to operationalize it on the course

 

[disc-golf-neil]

[piping hot subjectivity coming through]

I think it's the measurement I have a quibble with. I have absolutely no idea what my arm speed is, and I honestly wouldn't have a strong frame of reference if I did. I do know that I can throw a DD3 at 100% around 425' - that's useful to me. Similarly, I can throw a P3x ~300' at 90-100%. Knowing that I'm throwing that DD3 around 60 mph doesn't give me a ton of info unless it ties back to effort, but at that point the speed starts to become irrelevant. Tell me to throw a disc at 30 mph, and I would have no frame of reference for that, nor would most people I imagine. Tell me to throw at 50% effort, and I easily understand what to do.

While I can train myself to create frames of reference for speed vis-a-vis effort, it still comes back to effort. It's way easier to know how much effort I'm putting into a shot and how a disc behaves when thrown at that effort. I can dial my effort on command and understand the likely outcome thereof, but while the exact speed might be interesting, it's kind of irrelevant. It becomes sort of a translation table in your head: 100% effort = 60 mph, 90% = 54 mph, etc. Even in commentary, we hear more references to levels of effort than quantified speed and it's an indication of how even pros think about dialing in shots. Usually, when speed is referenced in commentary, it's to draw attention to how ludicrously fast AB's 100% effort is.

Where I would find speed useful is in understanding baseline and measuring improvement in training. As I'm making tweaks to form, is that showing up in faster speeds, and I can use the quantification as a measure of how much improvement I am or am not making? I'm just not sure what I do with that number on the course. The useful output is that I can now throw a DD3 ~450'-475' at 100% effort, and that information ends up being what I take to the course. I would also imagine that I could start to dial in more granular effort levels. A new player might understand 10%, 50%, and 100% effort. Over time, they can probably dial in increments of around 10%. Top pros, are probably dialing in effort levels in increments of 1-5%

For us DG and data nerds, there's a ton of interesting and useful stuff we can garner. Data-driven improvement has to add efficiency and specificity to how we focus our training. I think where I'm personally finding a limit to quantification is how to operationalize it on the course

I think you would be even more in tune with your effort levels if you also connected speed to it, especially because the effort level is more subjective and you can get stronger or weaker over time, or some days you have to put more effort to get the same speed. If you warm up with a tech disc and a portable, you start off before your round understanding your usual effort levels are a bit weaker or stronger and can be more calibrated from the start just as you would recalibrate as you see how how your throws weren't going as far as usual for that effort level with that particular disc.

In the same way that seeing the distance your disc went and using that to inform yourself by connecting it to the effort level and disc thrown, knowing the speed is just another way to add more clarity to this and bring more objectivity to your subjective feelings.

If I had to boil it down to a few questions:
1. If you could magically instantly know the distance your disc went on every throw after it landed, in the long run, on average, would this be more likely to benefit your game, have no impact, or harm your game?
2. Same as #1 except add more data like speed, release angle, launch angle, etc.

If you think #1 would be more likely to benefit your game, I think it's safe to say #2 would do the same.

We can't magically instantly know this for every throw, but, regularly throwing a tech disc to regularly calibrate and recalibrate your effort levels to the speeds they result in and other calibrations for the other angles is on the spectrum of the hypothetical questions.

I think this is so uncontroversial it's surprising to me how averse people seem to be to this idea.