Aiming at that tree/gap

[ChrisWoj]

Originally Posted by Steve West

There is empirical support for the idea of aiming for that tree. On page 4 here you can see that the densest grouping of throws is about 2 degrees right or left of center, with way fewer than expected throws hitting dead center.

Question about page 5 relative to a training setup.

I've set up my nets at home with a gap that, when thrown at from 25' is the equivalent to a 10' gap at 100'/20' at 200'/30' at 300/etc.

This would indicate that, assuming my angle control and disc selection are accurate, I want to be hitting that gap at minimum 76% of the time if I want to be equivalent to a 1050 rated player?

Of course - I say at minimum because once you assume that I'm not perfect with angle control/disc selection, the rate truly should be even higher. But the question is assuming those are accurate.

Here's the training setup in question: https://youtu.be/l7X9jsCio-I (nets on sides to catch errant throws, net in middle is the target)

[Steve West]

Originally Posted by ChrisWoj

Question about page 5 relative to a training setup.

I've set up my nets at home with a gap that, when thrown at from 25' is the equivalent to a 10' gap at 100'/20' at 200'/30' at 300/etc.

This would indicate that, assuming my angle control and disc selection are accurate, I want to be hitting that gap at minimum 76% of the time if I want to be equivalent to a 1050 rated player?

Of course - I say at minimum because once you assume that I'm not perfect with angle control/disc selection, the rate truly should be even higher. But the question is assuming those are accurate.

Here's the training setup in question: https://youtu.be/l7X9jsCio-I (nets on sides to catch errant throws, net in middle is the target)

The paper is about corridors, not naked gaps. The difference is you have to hit the gap, AND avoid going 5 feet right or left along the way. That's more difficult than taking any line you want to the gap. Set up a lot of sticks 10 feet apart and do that 76% of the time.

[ChrisWoj]

Originally Posted by Steve West

The paper is about corridors, not naked gaps. The difference is you have to hit the gap, AND avoid going 5 feet right or left along the way. That's more difficult than taking any line you want to the gap. Set up a lot of sticks 10 feet apart and do that 76% of the time.

I'm aware of that. I think my qualifying statements should have made that obvious. The question was about a minimum - with the assumption that if the interpretation is correct, then to translate it to a corridor my accuracy would have to necessarily be much better than the 76% number. I am limited by space to the use of a gap vs a corridor, but it is a useful baseline for release-point focus, for the purpose of drilling.

It sounds, from what you said about the sticks, that my interpretation is correct.

[BillFleming]

Originally Posted by Steve West

The paper is [B]about corridors, not naked gaps[\B]. The difference is you have to hit the gap, AND avoid going 5 feet right or left along the way. That's more difficult than taking any line you want to the gap. Set up a lot of sticks 10 feet apart and do that 76% of the time.

Commenting about the part I bolded. Hmmmm, I have trouble hitting gaps that I should be able to make. Maybe I'm going about it the wrong way. I see the gap a bit down the fairway and try to get my disc through it. Maybe I need to envision it as a corridor from the tee box to the gap and keep my disc in the corridor.

Now I want to get off work and head to the course to try that out. But it's going to be a few days before I can get back out on the course.

[Steve West]

Originally Posted by BillFleming

...Maybe I need to envision it as a corridor from the tee box to the gap and keep my disc in the corridor.

....

No, that makes it harder.

Let the disc take its natural flight path whenever the other trees allow it.