Disc Golf Course Review

Disc Golf Course Review (https://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/index.php)
-   Technique & Strategy (https://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   The Twitch of the Hips (https://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137717)

SaROCaM 10-20-2020 03:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RoDeO (Post 3646009)
The year my son graduated high school there were a half dozen pitching prospects in his class in our local area all throwing uper 80's to low 90's my son being one of them. Three of them were under 6 feet and the other 3 were all over 6'4". Of interest, all three under 6 feet threw harder than the taller ones and had better stats all through high school. Also of interest, the tall ones all got D1 college offers whereas the other 3, including my son just got small college offers because of their lack of height.

I've never believed that being extra tall gives one an advantage with velocity. This little debate started over whether Paul Oman, being tall has an inherent advantage with longer levers. And thus, because he is tall, he should be throwing much farther than 500 feet his mechanics must be bad or less than ideal? Let me just ask this- who in here, regardless of their height, can throw over 500 feet on the fairway during a tournament and get it within circle one? Let him be the one who critiques Oman. No one else has any business doing such.

1) At the higher levels, I agree that height shouldn't matter as much as it does when evaluating pitching prospects. If they can pitch, they can pitch. HS level is less certain. I'd be interested to know how much the velocity difference was, how long into a game they could keep throwing at/near the top of their velocity, what kind of competition they faced, etc.

2) When discussing levers, do you have any solid evidence that lever length doesn't matter? I'm talking about evidence that is based in physics, biomechanics, etc. (not personal beliefs or small sample size anecdotes)

The equation v=2piRF seems to say that longer levers would lead to greater velocity. Is that something you can speak to?

The texts/studies I linked above: can you refute them legitimately?

Also still waiting on your answers to these questions regarding levers:

Why is it easier to pry something with a longer bar?

Why is it easier to turn a nut/bolt with a longer wrench?

3) You are misstating the Paul Oman issue. It started when you stated "I think it perfectly does showcase the correct kinetic motion sequence." That was the initial point of contention. Then SW pointed out his mechanical advantage and some inefficiencies in his throw. Then, seemingly because you could not address these issues directly on their merits you started engaging in logical fallacy. What is wrong with pointing out issues? It doesn't make the 500' accurate throw any less impressive. It doesn't mean he can't throw far. It simply means that he can throw that far even with issues, which should give people hope that even if you don't have perfect form, you can still throw pretty far and accurately.

4) Why do you often avoid addressing arguments/critiques on the merits? If the standard you propose for acceptable critique/advice/credibility is based on who throws farther, then shouldn't you be posting less and reading more? Or does that standard only apply when you don't like the content of the post?

5) Under your proposed model of critique, Phil Jackson had no business coaching basketball legends such as Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant, for example.

6) Even under your fallacious model of who can critique/advise, there are those here in this thread who meet the criteria. Will you continue to ignore/disregard their critiques/arguments?

azplaya25 10-20-2020 09:15 AM

This thread reminds me of that crazy chick I dated in college. Made my head spin trying to reason with her, and I knew I should stay away from her, but for some reason I just kept texting her back...

RoDeO 10-20-2020 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SaROCaM (Post 3646025)
1) At the higher levels, I agree that height shouldn't matter as much as it does when evaluating pitching prospects. If they can pitch, they can pitch. HS level is less certain. I'd be interested to know how much the velocity difference was, how long into a game they could keep throwing at/near the top of their velocity, what kind of competition they faced, etc.

2) When discussing levers, do you have any solid evidence that lever length doesn't matter? I'm talking about evidence that is based in physics, biomechanics, etc. (not personal beliefs or small sample size anecdotes)

The equation v=2piRF seems to say that longer levers would lead to greater velocity. Is that something you can speak to?

The texts/studies I linked above: can you refute them legitimately?

Also still waiting on your answers to these questions regarding levers:

Why is it easier to pry something with a longer bar?

Why is it easier to turn a nut/bolt with a longer wrench?

3) You are misstating the Paul Oman issue. It started when you stated "I think it perfectly does showcase the correct kinetic motion sequence." That was the initial point of contention. Then SW pointed out his mechanical advantage and some inefficiencies in his throw. Then, seemingly because you could not address these issues directly on their merits you started engaging in logical fallacy. What is wrong with pointing out issues? It doesn't make the 500' accurate throw any less impressive. It doesn't mean he can't throw far. It simply means that he can throw that far even with issues, which should give people hope that even if you don't have perfect form, you can still throw pretty far and accurately.

4) Why do you often avoid addressing arguments/critiques on the merits? If the standard you propose for acceptable critique/advice/credibility is based on who throws farther, then shouldn't you be posting less and reading more? Or does that standard only apply when you don't like the content of the post?

5) Under your proposed model of critique, Phil Jackson had no business coaching basketball legends such as Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant, for example.

6) Even under your fallacious model of who can critique/advise, there are those here in this thread who meet the criteria. Will you continue to ignore/disregard their critiques/arguments?

1) The three kids under 6' were the go to studs for their teams, my son was one of them. All three could pitch whole games (7 innings) and didn't lose any velocity. They were regularly in the upper 80's to lower 90's by the 4-5th innings. They were reserved for only the best teams and were all considered their teams ace on the mound. Two of them, including my don played SS when they weren't pitching, the other played 3rd. These kids grew up together often playing on the same teams or against each other on elite travel teams. By HS they were all the starting pitchers as Freshman on their teams. My son had a MLB quality slider that sat in the mid 80's that was just devastating to batters. The shortest one (and our main HS rival) had the best velocity and usually sat in the low 90's. He was 5'10". We went to prospect games with scouts and they would talk about our kids as infield prospects only because of their height. Wouldn't even care what they looked like pitching because they lacked the height. The 6'4" and up kids they raved about even though the fastest one was only topping out around 87-88 and usually sat in the 83-86 range. Height is king with going anywhere as a pitcher- a stigma thats been around for decades.

2)https://www.drivelinebaseball.com/20...ies-mechanics/

Levers are unique in that it's about moving mass. As levers extend further out in an arc they gain in mass. That increased mass takes greater force or torque to turn. It's why a person with a longer arm doesn't really have a velocity advantage and why the numbers actually show that shorter pitchers throw basically the same velocity as their taller peers.

Speaking of levers, it's not really the same as using a partner with pitching or throwing discs. They aren't prying something against a fulcrum so to speak. They are rotating mass at the end of a rotating appendage and so its not really the same thing at all.

3) This is really the main issue. Im not sure what distance Sidewinder throws, I'm assuming in that 450 range from everything I gather. So, what makes him the authority on mechanics? Who is to say that Oman doesnt actually have superb mechanics?

4)I give advice just like anyone else. If you will note, I don't give advice on how to throw farther than what I myself throw. I'm not giving advice to others on how to throw 500 feet. Big difference.

5) Phil Jackson isn't coaching mechanics, he was managing egos. Big difference.

6) I get lots of advice in these forums, I just don't always respond.

SaROCaM 10-20-2020 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RoDeO (Post 3646157)
They are rotating mass at the end of a rotating appendage and so its not really the same thing at all.

Seems that v=2piRF would address this. It is found in the Driveline post you linked, which I had read previously to get the formula in the first place.

From that analysis, combined with the graphs describing arm speed (arm speed kinematics, internal rotation angular velocity, displacement speed) it follows that the longer lever does make a significant measured difference in speed. So longer levers do make a measurable difference in terms of "arm speed."

However, it goes on to say that efficiency of arm speed is a real factor that equalizes the athletes with different lever lengths.

The takeaway: lever length makes a difference in terms of arm speed, but efficiency of that arm speed affects the application of the arm speed.

This fits in with the Paul Oman discussion. A thrower with longer levers has potential due to the greater arm speed they can generate, but the efficiency/inefficiency with which they apply it can explain how a thrower with shorter levers can match them in terms of velocity.

So it is possible that a long levered thrower with less efficiency can end up throwing the same as a shorter levered thrower who is more efficient. Which is essentially what SW was saying.

The unknown then is how can efficiency be measured.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RoDeO (Post 3646157)
Who is to say that Oman doesnt actually have superb mechanics?

Someone with the requisite knowledge of biomechanics could say that.

One could easily ask, "Who is to say that Oman has the perfectly correct kinetic sequence?"

What qualifies you to proclaim it such and reject anything to the contrary?

Quote:

Originally Posted by RoDeO (Post 3646157)
If you will note, I don't give advice on how to throw farther than what I myself throw.

You keep talking about how your approach will get you to 450' even as soon as sometime next year as if it is a certainty. But you don't throw 450' so how can you be so certain of that to the point that you reject what people who throw 450'+ are pointing out?

mjdepue 10-20-2020 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RoDeO (Post 3646157)
3) This is really the main issue. Im not sure what distance Sidewinder throws, I'm assuming in that 450 range from everything I gather. So, what makes him the authority on mechanics? Who is to say that Oman doesnt actually have superb mechanics?

Sidewinder is not an authority--he is making analytical judgments based on a variety of evidence (video, experience, biomechanics, etc). What people find compelling about his work is that he is able to coherently explain the fundamentals of a throw in a way that takes into account top pros (e.g. what are the basic moves that people who throw 500 share) and actually helps non-professionals progress. He does all this despite having a bit of an idiosyncratic way of communicating (sorry SW, I love your stuff but it sometimes takes a bit to decipher your engineer speak). He is also extremely generous with his time--breaking down random people's form videos on the internet with diagrams and comparisons.

Obviously, you're allowed to disagree, but you also shouldn't be surprised when you meet pushback especially because you are not offering anywhere near the same level of analysis or breadth of explanation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RoDeO (Post 3646157)
I give advice just like anyone else. If you will note, I don't give advice on how to throw farther than what I myself throw. I'm not giving advice to others on how to throw 500 feet. Big difference.

This just isn't how teaching works. Lots of pros will describe what they do incorrectly (e.g. every "palm up, elbow in" sidearm workshop). What you feel you are doing with your body does not necessarily match what you are actually doing and for those of us who didn't accidentally fall into throwing 500, the best thing to do is actually become aware of what you are doing and work from there.

klodkrawler05 10-20-2020 02:15 PM

527 posts since a July 2020 join date.

I bet rodeo could already throw 450' if he spent as much time practicing as he does posting.

RoDeO 10-20-2020 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SaROCaM (Post 3646198)
Seems that v=2piRF would address this. It is found in the Driveline post you linked, which I had read previously to get the formula in the first place.

From that analysis, combined with the graphs describing arm speed (arm speed kinematics, internal rotation angular velocity, displacement speed) it follows that the longer lever does make a significant measured difference in speed. So longer levers do make a measurable difference in terms of "arm speed."

However, it goes on to say that efficiency of arm speed is a real factor that equalizes the athletes with different lever lengths.

The takeaway: lever length makes a difference in terms of arm speed, but efficiency of that arm speed affects the application of the arm speed.

This fits in with the Paul Oman discussion. A thrower with longer levers has potential due to the greater arm speed they can generate, but the efficiency/inefficiency with which they apply it can explain how a thrower with shorter levers can match them in terms of velocity.

So it is possible that a long levered thrower with less efficiency can end up throwing the same as a shorter levered thrower who is more efficient. Which is essentially what SW was saying.

The unknown then is how can efficiency be measured.



Someone with the requisite knowledge of biomechanics could say that.

One could easily ask, "Who is to say that Oman has the perfectly correct kinetic sequence?"

What qualifies you to proclaim it such and reject anything to the contrary?



You keep talking about how your approach will get you to 450' even as soon as sometime next year as if it is a certainty. But you don't throw 450' so how can you be so certain of that to the point that you reject what people who throw 450'+ are pointing out?

A longer lever takes more torque- more power, to rotate at the same speed around am axis as a shorter lever. Besides, keeping the mass closer to center allows it to rotate easier. So, it really comes down to strength. That is precisely why Bob Feller could throw as hard as Chapman despite diffetent lengths of levers. They were both putting in the same force which is right at the brink of what the human body is capable of.

dreadlock86 10-20-2020 04:05 PM

haha, you pinned him on the Oman thing so now he's arguing about levers again

SaROCaM 10-20-2020 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RoDeO (Post 3646236)
A longer lever takes more torque- more power, to rotate at the same speed around am axis as a shorter lever. Besides, keeping the mass closer to center allows it to rotate easier. So, it really comes down to strength. That is precisely why Bob Feller could throw as hard as Chapman despite diffetent lengths of levers. They were both putting in the same force which is right at the brink of what the human body is capable of.

You are contradicting your source.

Hopefully bsammons or someone with similar knowledge will weigh in.

RocHucker 10-20-2020 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SaROCaM (Post 3646296)
Hopefully bsammons or someone with similar knowledge will weigh in.

Mechanical engineer here, though I am plateaued at 375ish ft of max RHBH golf distance.

Assuming that one end of the "lever" is fixed at the center of rotation (what we're discussing as an approximation of our arm during the disc golf throw, though I suspect not an exactly accurate one):

A longer lever will translate to a faster linear speed of the disc *assuming an equivalent rotational speed*.

HOWEVER, I'm not sure that we can assume equivalent rotational speeds between short lever throwers and long lever throwers. In part because it takes more energy to accelerate the longer lever in this scenario, due to the fact that the Rotational Inertia (a measure of the amount of energy it takes to increase rotational speed) of an object increases as you move mass further from the center of rotation. I'm guessing that this is why the bent elbow backhand throw (like McBeth) has greater distance potential than the swedish style (like Feldberg). Bent elbow style keeps mass closer to center of rotation to make it easier to accelerate rotation, but then extends the elbow at the last moment in order to maximize the lever arm (increasing linear velocity of the disc).

All that being said, I'm not entirely sure that this is a very relevant discussion. It's pretty easy to maximize lever length (extend the arm) and I don't think that anyone is arguing against a long arm at the point of release. The difficult part, and the part that Rodeo is constantly at odds with the rest of the community on, is how to best achieve rapid rotational acceleration (how to spin really fast). Ultimately, the physics say that that *is* what is needed in order to throw far. And those in this community who have demonstrated that they can do this successfully have repeatedly said that the way to achieve that rapid rotational acceleration is by making a linear shift and then bracing against the front leg.

Now if only I could do that correctly :wall:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:07 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.