Originally Posted by RoDeO (Post 3645745)

BTW, I think it's ridiculous to think anyone's mechanics aren't good when they are throwing 500+ feet and competing with the best disc golfers on the planet.

Originally Posted by SaROCaM (Post 3645759)

BTW, I think it's ridiculous for someone with a flawed understanding of biomechanics and physics and who throws in the 300s to be making unqualified proclamations about form and technique.

If you had knowledge in those disciplines, but throw in the 300s, then that would be fine.

If you didn't have that knowledge, but throw far, then that's fine too.

But to have neither of those qualifications, it puzzles me how you can say the things you say with such conviction.

Originally Posted by SaROCaM (Post 3645755)

Who said they aren't good? You keep talking about perfection; I'm saying it isn't perfect.

Ever heard the phrase "good is the enemy of great?"

If someone is throwing 500' and that is their "good," then they aren't reaching their full potential. If they are satisfied with the "good" then that's fine, it is their choice. But to point out room for improvement is not taking away from their "good," it is observing that they have the potential for "great."

Originally Posted by RoDeO (Post 3645771)

So, what you are saying is that until I am throwing in the 400's everything I say doesn't mean anything or that it's even wrong?

So what happens next year when I am throwing in the 400's and am still preaching the same things? Are you goung to move the goalposts and say I have to be throwing in the 500's?

Originally Posted by RoDeO (Post 3645775)

To be quite fair, 500 feet is a great distance. What world are you living in?

Originally Posted by SaROCaM (Post 3645812)

It's funny you should mention moving the goalposts since you frequently sidestep points that you can't refute and bring up unrelated things.

I'll try and break it down for you:

If you say something that is wrong, then people are going to point out that it is wrong, and some of them will also explain why it is wrong. Whether you listen or not is up to you. Doesn't change that it is wrong. (For example: "lever length doesn't matter")

If you have demonstrated knowledge of biomechanics and/or physics, then it would be more likely that what you say about form has actual value for those seeking to understand/improve because it would be more likely that what you say is correct based on a sound foundational knowledge.

But when you say things like, for example, that lever length doesn't matter or talking about a "glutimus" (doesn't exist) it undermines your credibility. You sound like you don't know what you are talking about, so it is more likely that you don't know what you are talking about.

If you throw like Paige or Ricky or Simon or Kevin, then even if you don't have the technical knowledge, you would at least have the "in the trenches" knowledge of what they are striving to do. If you throw 450' then you have actual knowledge of the road to 450' rather than just projections. Right now you are projecting you'll be throwing in the 400s. But you don't, so how do you know the path you are on will lead there? It could just as easily lead to a plateau.

Answer this: if you were looking for advice on, say, home construction/renovation, who would you listen to?

Someone who has an engineering/construction background and/or has successfully constructed/renovated houses;

OR

Someone who doesn't know how to frame a house but has watched a bunch of youtube DIY videos and built a shed in their backyard?

Right now you are like the latter, while people like SW22, bsammons, RandyC, etc. are the former.

Could you get to be more like the former? Sure, you could. But you aren't there yet, and it shows.




500 feet is great if you are throwing 300 feet. If you are throwing 600 feet, then it isn't so great. That is why I put "good" and "great" in quotation marks. It is all relative to the thrower, their potential, their goals, etc.

Being 1000 rated is great if you are 900 rated. But if you are a top pro, then 1050+ is great, and 1000 is "good." Does that make sense?

If you are making $70,000/year, then $150,000 a year might seem "great." But if you are used to making $250,000/year, then $150,000 is a down year. Do you see what I mean?

Originally Posted by RoDeO (Post 3645821)

Lever length doesn't equate to more power or increased velocity in a big sense. It may have a very slight advantage at best. We see this all over in disc golf- small short arm players throwing just as far as taller and longer arm players. You see that in baseball too. Pitchers who are 6'1" throwing as hard as 6'5" tall pitchers. Paige Pierce is what? 5'5" and throwing over 450 feet?

Originally Posted by RoDeO (Post 3645821)

The funny thing to me is you have internet instructors in here not throwing 500 feet at will teaching others how to do such and critiquing those who do throw farther than them as having poor mechanics. Thats like the pot calling the kettle black isnt it?

Originally Posted by SaROCaM (Post 3645838)

Two different levers can get to the same result, but the one with shorter levers has to overcome the mechanical disadvantage somehow. That is the point: longer levers make it easier. If you apply the same amount of force to different levers, you will get different output forces.

That is why if one has longer levers, they can get away with some amount of inefficiency, because it doesn't take as much input force for them to result in the same output force. So the 500' thrower with longer levers can be less efficient than the 500' with shorter levers. Yes they are both 500' throwers, but the lever length makes a difference in what it takes for them to throw 500'.



Under this line of reasoning you are disqualifying yourself.

On top of that, you are also not listening to the 500' throwers, so how much does that really matter to you?

Originally Posted by RoDeO (Post 3645870)

The lever advantage is minimal if anything at all. When I coached baseball I read all kinds of studies that tried yo correlate arm length to velocity and injury. A player with a longer lever doesnt have to throw as fast with arm speef to throw as hard as someone shorter armed. However, a shorter armed player has the advantage of throwing at higher velocities in arm speed because of less mass and an easier leverage to accelerate. So, its a tradeoff- slower arm speeds by longer lever due to more mass to leverage yet same finger velocity as shorter arm who has faster arm speed due to less mass to leverage. The big reason taller pitchers are chosen isn't because they can throw faster than pitchers shorter than them- they can't, it is because of angles and release points closer to home plate make it harder to pick the pitch up and hit.

Originally Posted by RowingBoats (Post 3645890)

Are you legit going to start making arguments against known, proven physics now?