The Fundamentals of Form: Disc Golf Backhand

[jupiterboy]

I come from a book background, so I'm always thinking about this in terms of an outline and illustrations. How would you present this on a page, settled enough not to be overturned in three months.

It makes me think a bit about audio, and how mastering engineers, etc. learn to hear. Everyone can hear, yet you can sit a mastering engineer down with a speaker system or a recording and they can hear small changes, deficits, emphasis, and name it out by frequency. Few people have learned to hear with this precision. A great musician need not have this skill.

I'm not certain of much, but one thing I'm very comfortable stating is that there is a learned process of seeing video of throws. Some can see with much more specificity. I couldn't see very much when I started. Maybe the most humbling discovery was that I didn't know very much about the anatomy of a foot.

Maybe the in context of a book analogy, the point of instruction, in part, is facilitating people's learning to see the throw. Language comes along with that, as we describe what we see and/or feel. Seems one of the biggest head fakes is incorrectly thinking that a result cause by a movement is a movement itself. That's the part that has to be edited out.

 

[blayed]

"Anyone who cares to read it" is probably still the best reply for v 1.x.x. We aimed to be fairly clear that it was not a coaching guide, but coaches might become interested in thinking about it. The other current goals of the document are stated on page 2 in the Introduction.

I do appreciate the point of clarification in the beginning. I do think though that it will remain a sticking point virtually in perpetuity to the general public. My reasoning is that this guide is the theory of how the disc golf backhand works mechanically. But most people view form through the lens of coaching, meaning identifying cues and action items to align their swing into improved distance/accuracy/appearance to professionals. In theory this would be the background and then you as a coach (or if you are "coaching yourself") would turn the theory into action items/"cues."

 

[Brychanus]

I do appreciate the point of clarification in the beginning. I do think though that it will remain a sticking point virtually in perpetuity to the general public. My reasoning is that this guide is the theory of how the disc golf backhand works mechanically. But most people view form through the lens of coaching, meaning identifying cues and action items to align their swing into improved distance/accuracy/appearance to professionals. In theory this would be the background and then you as a coach (or if you are "coaching yourself") would turn the theory into action items/"cues."

This is a very interesting point and also points to part of/the importance of culture in disc golf. I'm curious what you think about the following:

I think I was a little hesitant to be so bold as to call what this paper offers a "theory" since that is usually a top-shelf word in my field (and physicists are even pickier, usually).

On the other hand, as this project tightens up further with feedback, it could more clearly look like a theory even at this level of description.

I think it's an entirely different and interesting/hard problem to get people to do the action items (coach), many of which I've encountered here or elsewhere. It probably makes sense for a theory to be informed by those and to inform those things (otherwise it wouldn't be a great theory), but it's not really the main thrust of it in its current form, I think.

One of the values of a theory is that we learn a lot when parts of it are a little or a lot wrong. So the better it does at that, the more good it could do (perhaps).

 

[blayed]

On the other hand, as this project tightens up further with feedback, it could more clearly look like a theory even at this level of description.

Really depends if you want to call it a "Theory" or a "Model," but IMO I think it certainly is a theory. From wikipedia:

"A theory can be a body of knowledge, which may or may not be associated with particular explanatory models."

Based on this definition I think it certainly qualifies. It is DGCR/SW22's theory of how the BH swing works. If you asked Chris Taylor he would have (and does have) a slightly different theory of how the swing works.

 

[Brychanus]

Changes underway for 1.0.3. Notes here w/ what prompted the changes).

Sidewinder, we can sidebar in any areas:

1. Add explicit Safety dimension to title page figure and tweak Introduction accordingly. Clarify that consistency is implicitly part of the swing theory (basically to avoid adding a 4th dimension to the figure) (exchange with blayed, sidewinder22)
2. Call what the project offers a "theory" (blayed)
3. Depersonalize and harmonize some language (sheep)
4. Safety: Add more injury case studies in relevant areas, esp. APT, and mention need for more data (sidewinder22)
5. Add mention of humeral abduction as potential large source of power (Coach Taylor*)
6. Integrate "get the plant leg as far out in front of you as possible" with dynamic balance theory. (Coach Taylor*, sidewinder22)
7. Clarify aspects of torque forces (Coach Taylor*, sidewinder22)
8. Clarify/mitigate instances of "lag" that may be problematic (e.g., confounded with Slingshot's intepretation).
9. Clarify ambiguity about wrist mechanics (Nick Carroll)
10. Tweak and change "smash factor" section to "snap factor" (Coach Taylor*, sidewinder22).
11. Add automatic page numbering for table of contents.

Phew! Might get to version 2.0 faster than I thought.


*I would like to hear what the data sources and biomechanical modeling is underway, and who is doing it. I have pending queries to speak with him. If he does not respond I'll do my best/leave it conditional in the document until data and methods are public.

 

[HyzerRoc]

I have read through parts of the document as I have used it when I struggle to understand mechanics. For example I struggled with the tilted spiral, so I went ahead and opened the chapter to it. Curious what would set me up for the tilted spiral I read the chapter before it as well which located the different concepts of the swing in a sequence, organising them. For me, skipping through the document and answering questions I have, seems to be a good way to use it. Reading through all 100 pages would just leave me confused.

It reads like a compilation of the various threads about mechanics we have had in this forum, organised into a coherent form and well thought out explanations. The threads can at times be like fragments. There are a lot of good thought in them and the discursive nature of a forum produces great knowledge, but it can also get muddy.

To me it is great to have such an organised source of knowledge in addition to the discussions on the forum.

So far I do not have much feedback to add except that it would be great to have page numbers in the table of contents and clickable chapters to make skipping through it easier.

 

[Brychanus]

I have read through parts of the document as I have used it when I struggle to understand mechanics. For example I struggled with the tilted spiral, so I went ahead and opened the chapter to it. Curious what would set me up for the tilted spiral I read the chapter before it as well which located the different concepts of the swing in a sequence, organising them. For me, skipping through the document and answering questions I have, seems to be a good way to use it. Reading through all 100 pages would just leave me confused.

It reads like a compilation of the various threads about mechanics we have had in this forum, organised into a coherent form and well thought out explanations. The threads can at times be like fragments. There are a lot of good thought in them and the discursive nature of a forum produces great knowledge, but it can also get muddy.

To me it is great to have such an organised source of knowledge in addition to the discussions on the forum.

So far I do not have much feedback to add except that it would be great to have page numbers in the table of contents and clickable chapters to make skipping through it easier.

Thanks for the feedback, you are one of the people I hoped this would help - it's completely intended to let people hop around between sections with the hotlinks.

If you download the PDF, you should be able to click on the links in the current table of contents which will bring you directly to the section (let me know if that broke for some reason). I'm not sure how to get the hotlinks to work in a browser viewer or Google docs etc.

I usually write in LaTeX these days, but it looks like Word's table of contents page numbering can help. Added to the list for 1.0.3.!

 

[HyzerRoc]

If you download the PDF, you should be able to click on the links in the current table of contents which will bring you directly to the section (let me know if that broke for some reason). I'm not sure how to get the hotlinks to work in a browser viewer or Google docs etc.

I usually write in LaTeX these days, but it looks like Word's table of contents page numbering can help. Added to the list for 1.0.3.!

As a PDF this works, I didn't consider that there would be some kind of browser fuckery going on. Thanks for the tip!

I wondered why you would not use Word for an easy table of contents, but the document would probably explode in word with all the images.

Thanks for all the work you can sidewinder put into this

 

[Brychanus]

As a PDF this works, I didn't consider that there would be some kind of browser fuckery going on. Thanks for the tip!

I wondered why you would not use Word for an easy table of contents, but the document would probably explode in word with all the images.

Thanks for all the work you can sidewinder put into this

In my day job I mostly shifted to LaTeX for writing, but I actually did make this in Word so I could "drag and drop" images faster (and yes, it nearly exploded!).

Apparently all I need to do is add "headings" to autogenerate the ToC with page numbers and hyperlink it so that's what I'll do next!

 

[Sheep]

In my day job I mostly shifted to LaTeX for writing, but I actually did make this in Word so I could "drag and drop" images faster (and yes, it nearly exploded!).

Apparently all I need to do is add "headings" to autogenerate the ToC with page numbers and hyperlink it so that's what I'll do next!

This would really be best written in indesign.
i'm not familiar with Latex.

 

[Sheep]

Hmm. Latex is neat.
Looked it up a bit.

I should have been using that for process writing for years. Just... Been doing it in indesign though. hahaha

 

[HyzerRoc]

Apparently all I need to do is add "headings" to autogenerate the ToC with page numbers and hyperlink it so that's what I'll do next!

That is about the only thing word does well imo besides integrating well with Citavi. Glad you added it

 

[Brychanus]

That is about the only thing word does well imo besides integrating well with Citavi. Glad you added it

Ok, got the autohyperlink and page numbered ToC to work after some baffling maneuvers Word pulled with hidden formatting. Honestly it feels a little bit like learning to backhand!

Bonus - it looks like the hyperlinks might work automatically in browser now too, we'll see once I host 1.0.3.

Hmm. Latex is neat.
Looked it up a bit.

I should have been using that for process writing for years. Just... Been doing it in indesign though. hahaha

Yeah, at this point we would need either a volunteer or paid editor to make it look great. I'm unfortunately unable to add a 3rd full-time effort to do that myself so we'll be semi-amateurish looking for a bit here

 

[timothy42b]

Here are my recent thoughts, after I read the latest version this morning.

You're getting a lot of suggestions for tweaking it. I suggest resisting for several reasons.

One is that the present format and level of detail is pretty good, but already at the upper limit for a 101 level text. Better is the enemy of good enough. (personal motto) And let your photos tell the story - I continue to think having those in place are the best part of this.

The next is there are an infinite number of sections where more detail and explanation can be added. Don't do it. Let it simmer a bit and do a 201 version some day. You usually teach an athletic motion in gross outline, then refining the bullet points, etc., like writing a book from an outline. Engineers think that way; there's a term for it but I couldn't remember.

The third is that as you add detail, you risk adding either errors or points of disagreement. I found myself reading a few places today and thinking wait, are you sure about that? As you add detail, you add something I call "perceived certainty." And you miss possible alternate explanations.

And if there is an alternative explanation for something, that implies we know the what but not the why. And IMO the fact is there is a good bit of disc golf where the why is still unknown.

 

[CoachChris]

Changes underway for 1.0.3. Notes here w/ what prompted the changes).

Sidewinder, we can sidebar in any areas:

1. Add explicit Safety dimension to title page figure and tweak Introduction accordingly. Clarify that consistency is implicitly part of the swing theory (basically to avoid adding a 4th dimension to the figure) (exchange with blayed, sidewinder22)
2. Call what the project offers a "theory" (blayed)
3. Depersonalize and harmonize some language (sheep)
4. Safety: Add more injury case studies in relevant areas, esp. APT, and mention need for more data (sidewinder22)
5. Add mention of humeral abduction as potential large source of power (Coach Taylor*)
6. Describe & reconcile tension between "get the plant leg as far out in front of you as possible" with dynamic balance theory. (Coach Taylor*, sidewinder22)
7. Clarify aspects of torque forces (Coach Taylor*, sidewinder22)
8. Clarify/mitigate instances of "lag" that may be problematic (e.g., confounded with Slingshot's intepretation).
9. Clarify ambiguity about wrist mechanics (Nick Carroll)
10. Tweak and change "smash factor" section to "snap factor" (Coach Taylor*, sidewinder22).
11. Add automatic page numbering for table of contents.

Phew! Might get to version 2.0 faster than I thought.


*I would like to hear what the data sources and biomechanical modeling is underway, and who is doing it. I have pending queries to speak with him. If he does not respond I'll do my best/leave it conditional in the document until data and methods are public.

*Bry, you can contact me at anytime at coachchristaylor at gmail

 

[Brychanus]

*Bry, you can contact me at anytime at coachchristaylor at gmail

e-mailed you from aceitdiscgolf at gmail

 

[Brychanus]

Here are my recent thoughts, after I read the latest version this morning.

You're getting a lot of suggestions for tweaking it. I suggest resisting for several reasons.

One is that the present format and level of detail is pretty good, but already at the upper limit for a 101 level text. Better is the enemy of good enough. (personal motto) And let your photos tell the story - I continue to think having those in place are the best part of this.

The next is there are an infinite number of sections where more detail and explanation can be added. Don't do it. Let it simmer a bit and do a 201 version some day. You usually teach an athletic motion in gross outline, then refining the bullet points, etc., like writing a book from an outline. Engineers think that way; there's a term for it but I couldn't remember.

The third is that as you add detail, you risk adding either errors or points of disagreement. I found myself reading a few places today and thinking wait, are you sure about that? As you add detail, you add something I call "perceived certainty." And you miss possible alternate explanations.

And if there is an alternative explanation for something, that implies we know the what but not the why. And IMO the fact is there is a good bit of disc golf where the why is still unknown.

I really appreciated this right now, thank you.

I think I am going to address some of the areas I mentioned above with a "light touch" in 1.0.3. just for clarity rather than adding any additional depth. I also will avoid taking the overall theory too far past its skiis into controversial territory. I think it already does a pretty fair job mentioning the space of controversial areas save for a few.

It is also true that we keep hearing about data and modeling, but most of it has not been shown and subjected to peer review. Since I'm a scientist I have a very high standard for what counts as a "good study" in general, but I do not have doctoral-level expertise in sports medicine or biomechanics or kinesiology etc. In that regard, I would especially like to avoid premature "perceived certainty."

 

[Nick Carroll]

For what it's worth, it reads as highly conversational, which I appreciate immensely.

 

[Sheep]

Yeah, at this point we would need either a volunteer or paid editor to make it look great. I'm unfortunately unable to add a 3rd full-time effort to do that myself so we'll be semi-amateurish looking for a bit here

I don't have a working copy of indesign anymore, the one I had was on my laptop and it barely runs it.
If I did, it would be pretty easy to move the data over and make it look pretty. The program is super east to use. Thanks college. hahah, learned something there I guess.

 

[Sheep]

Here are my recent thoughts, after I read the latest version this morning.

You're getting a lot of suggestions for tweaking it. I suggest resisting for several reasons.

One is that the present format and level of detail is pretty good, but already at the upper limit for a 101 level text. Better is the enemy of good enough. (personal motto) And let your photos tell the story - I continue to think having those in place are the best part of this.

The next is there are an infinite number of sections where more detail and explanation can be added. Don't do it. Let it simmer a bit and do a 201 version some day. You usually teach an athletic motion in gross outline, then refining the bullet points, etc., like writing a book from an outline. Engineers think that way; there's a term for it but I couldn't remember.

The third is that as you add detail, you risk adding either errors or points of disagreement. I found myself reading a few places today and thinking wait, are you sure about that? As you add detail, you add something I call "perceived certainty." And you miss possible alternate explanations.

And if there is an alternative explanation for something, that implies we know the what but not the why. And IMO the fact is there is a good bit of disc golf where the why is still unknown.

This is really good suggestions.
I think the main thing is focus on clarification and not expansion.

If anything, reductions would be better.