• Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
    It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)

Are we just making things up with nose angle stuff now?

Re: lever lengths (from back before all the climbing talk lol)

In one sense, lever length is irrelevant. If the centre of mass is roughly halfway along the lever, and we stop one end, causing rotation, then the speed at the other end of the lever is roughly double what it was before - regardless of lever length.

Circumference of the circle traversed by both the center of mass and by the tip is just 2 pi * the radius. Double the radius and you double the circumference. The tip is at double the distance from the pivot point as the CoM is, so it travels twice as far (in the same time, so twice as fast).

So on that simple model, the length of levers is irrelevant, it would just be the number of levers that mattered. But in the real world, as i said before, it's not a sequential thing where one lever rotates exactly 180 degrees and then the next one does the same. Every lever is pushed and pulled off the straight, and by different amounts depending on how many links are pulling and how many links are behind it and resisting the pull. As we saw in the slow motion whip video, once there is relatively little remaining whip, the last few 'links' barely bent at all and rotated almost as a unit, because the inertia of the remaining whip-tip wasn't strong enough to overcome the stiffness within the whip.

So - it's complicated. Levers rotate about a moving pivot, not a stationary one, since the previous lever hasn't stopped moving. And every lever faces a slightly different situation due to its different position in the chain. And presumably, different lever lengths (and in particular different ratios between the various lever lengths within the system) would have big effects on the specifics of how the motion develops.

It does seem, anecdotally, like longer levers allow for more speed, but - if true - i don't think it's entirely simple to work out why.
Wouldn't it be this simple?

If two players are doing the right pec drill and player 1 has an 18" forearm while player 2 has a 24" forearm, if both players move their arms at the same speed measured 1" from the elbow, player 2's arm will be moving measurably faster at the wrist.

Once you add in the rest of the kinetic chain, the taller player's lever length provides a significant advantage. It's complex to measure but not so much to comprehend. The longer the lever, the easier the work. This is why I feel like a trebuchet is a better analogy than a whip
 
Wouldn't it be this simple?

If two players are doing the right pec drill and player 1 has an 18" forearm while player 2 has a 24" forearm, if both players move their arms at the same speed measured 1" from the elbow, player 2's arm will be moving measurably faster at the wrist.

Once you add in the rest of the kinetic chain, the taller player's lever length provides a significant advantage. It's complex to measure but not so much to comprehend. The longer the lever, the easier the work. This is why I feel like a trebuchet is a better analogy than a whip
I dunno that 'longer levers make easier work' when there isn't a fulcrum, or if the fulcrum were in the middle. The advantage of leverage is the ratio of lever-length on one side of the fulcrum to lever length on the other side.

I suspect there might be some effect going on in the throwing motion where your levers actually do create real leverage in the usual sense, against gravity and or inertia, but i don't think it's as obvious or simple as you suggest. I could be wrong though.
 
Last edited:
In that simple scenario, the important point is the 'IF both at the same speed near the elbow'. Longer levers will be heavier and require more effort to get up to speed, and more torque to get rotating. So it's not necessarily comparable.
 
I dunno that 'longer levers make easier work' when there isn't a fulcrum, or if the fulcrum were in the middle. The advantage of leverage is the ratio of lever-length on one side of the fulcrum to lever length on the other side.

I suspect there might be some effect going on in the throwing motion where your levers actually do create real leverage in the usual sense, against gravity and or inertia, but i don't think it's as obvious or simple as you suggest. I could be wrong though.
I think this is where you're losing me :)

Isn't the fulcrum the elbow? At some point (if not in the whole motion, depending on the style) the upper arm is stationary and you're leveraging the disc out with the forearm.

My opinion that we over-complicate things even if the math/physics underneath isn't quite that simple.
 
One of the things that interests me is the off arm involvement in the throw. I tend to think of it as the first part of the whip, then the shoulders, through the rest of the arm to releasing the disc.

Some people like Jakub Semerad put that off arm by their side early on, so don't really use it that way. Others like Niklas Anttila uses the off arm in tandem with the throwing arm, so they are more in sync. In those cases the shoulders might be the start of that "whip" action. But most pros tend to precede the start of the swing (from the peak of the backswing) with the off arm.

Obviously the kinetic chain starts lower, like at the feet, and moves upward, even for many standstill throws. But I wonder if the use of the off arm accentuates that whip movement. Or is just coincidentally involved. I don't know the answer, so I'm throwing it out there for others to consider.



Here isa video of him throwing.
 
Well just to play "Idiots Advocate"....

I find off arm movement helpful. I use a tight swim move on my off arm to start my rudimentary FH. It forces my throwing shoulder into moving.

I do not however like my off arm for putting, ideally I tuck it behind my back. It also forces my front shoulder forwards.

After playing tonight and reading today I watched my wrist movement. For me the turn the key means a fuller release on the wrist. Or maybe just waiting longer for the release. I'm trying to minimize wrist roll but now that I see how the arm and wrist don't rotate independently thanks Sheep, I don't feel as bad about the turn the key motion.

I don't feel like I'm adding the wrist roll so much as just snapping it down. It feels like im whipping my arm back-down/forward-up-then down. Kinda like waving your hand out a car window.

I think its making sure you're trying to come over top of the disc moreso than rolling your forearm into the picture.
When our posture is correct in the throw, we'll naturally come over top of the disc when things are aligned correctly. vs trying to force correct it during the swing if that makes more sense to explain it like that?
 
Re: lever lengths (from back before all the climbing talk lol)

In one sense, lever length is irrelevant. If the centre of mass is roughly halfway along the lever, and we stop one end, causing rotation, then the speed at the other end of the lever is roughly double what it was before - regardless of lever length.

Circumference of the circle traversed by both the center of mass and by the tip is just 2 pi * the radius. Double the radius and you double the circumference. The tip is at double the distance from the pivot point as the CoM is, so it travels twice as far (in the same time, so twice as fast).

So on that simple model, the length of levers is irrelevant, it would just be the number of levers that mattered. But in the real world, as i said before, it's not a sequential thing where one lever rotates exactly 180 degrees and then the next one does the same. Every lever is pushed and pulled off the straight, and by different amounts depending on how many links are pulling and how many links are behind it and resisting the pull. As we saw in the slow motion whip video, once there is relatively little remaining whip, the last few 'links' barely bent at all and rotated almost as a unit, because the inertia of the remaining whip-tip wasn't strong enough to overcome the stiffness within the whip.

So - it's complicated. Levers rotate about a moving pivot, not a stationary one, since the previous lever hasn't stopped moving. And every lever faces a slightly different situation due to its different position in the chain. And presumably, different lever lengths (and in particular different ratios between the various lever lengths within the system) would have big effects on the specifics of how the motion develops.

It does seem, anecdotally, like longer levers allow for more speed, but - if true - i don't think it's entirely simple to work out why.
Radius from the point of anchored pivot.
Longer levers = longer radius of leverage.
Short levers can generate tons of power, but long levers easily generate that power.

But i think there is a level of diminishing returns as well because longer levers take more energy to move vs shorter levers.
So a person with short levers can essentially drive more twitch muscle movement into the swing and have less precision with the engagement, while someone who has longer levers has to use more energy, so if they use that energy at the wrong time, they are gassing the muscles out and essentially slowing themselves down.

I think this in particular is why blitz throws so far, he has such great muscle control he knows how to explode at the right time. His natural ability though power lifting and muscle control within that sport lets him feel his body in ways we can't really comprehend.
 
I think this is where you're losing me :)

Isn't the fulcrum the elbow? At some point (if not in the whole motion, depending on the style) the upper arm is stationary and you're leveraging the disc out with the forearm.

My opinion that we over-complicate things even if the math/physics underneath isn't quite that simple.
I think that sometimes we want the basics to be more complicated than it is, because when we start breaking things down so simply and get disgusted with ourselves and our inability to actually perform those simple movements with any sort of grace and power.


so, it must be complicated right? or is it just simply our ape brain is terrible at these movements cause were old fuddies vs these young guns who started when they still were in motor learning stages and their bodies naturally adapted to the motions where they motions are unnatural to us and we have to fight so much harder to overcome the difficulty of such a simple task. We don't have that natural learning still active in us.
 
I think this is where you're losing me :)

Isn't the fulcrum the elbow? At some point (if not in the whole motion, depending on the style) the upper arm is stationary and you're leveraging the disc out with the forearm.

My opinion that we over-complicate things even if the math/physics underneath isn't quite that simple.
If the elbow is the fulcrum, then the thing we're trying to move/accelerate (effectively, the centre of mass) is halfway along the lever, so we don't get any real leverage.

I think when we include other links attached to either end, with their own weight/inertia, the 'centre of mass' in terms of inertia might not be in the middle, and you might get some real leverage. I dunno.
 
I've explained that backwards, sorry. Children shouting at me while I'm doing it. I'm just talking nonsense.

I'll try again. Case 1, where the forearm is whipping around due to inertia as described before: the fulcrum is the elbow, and the thing doing the work - inertia - can be assumed to act at the CoM, which is halfway along. The leverage isn't dependent on the length of lever.

Case 2: muscles driving rotation directly. Again the fulcrum is the elbow, and now the leverage is based on exactly where the muscles are attached to the bone, and in particular the ratio between the amount of forearm on either side of that attachment point. But that ratio is likely to be roughly the same, whatever the length of your levers.
 
I would say that either the front foot or the CoM/G is the fulcrum or handle of the whip. Note Nikko's little CoM twirl moving away from the tip of the whip.

that scott video there is the one i'm referencing.

I thought it was so dumb until the lightbulb popped with what he was talking about.

It's hard to argue with some scott things even if he's a bit of a weirdo. one thing you can say about scott is that when it comes to making a good throw, even if you dont necessarily agree with all his fundamentals, is that he does know how to throw far.
I mean.. how many years did he hold the world distance record?

I talked to one of the OG's here, he came out and did a distance clinic locally here, they had to have him throw up hill because they didn't have room for him to throw distance drives and be able to find the discs.
 
The line of force being applied is not in a position to pull the wrist in to neutral. At the moment of release the arm/wrist/thumb/index are applying a tangential force slightly more than 90° from the release direction of the disc. The COM of the disc is rotating around the thumb/index. If you were to hold on to the disc it might align the wrist. But as it nears release, the COM of the disc is rotating around your thumb/index and not following your wrist direction. Disc ends up going towards the target (if you're lucky) and your hand is going about 90° to the right. (RHBH)

Thanks.
I've been thinking that the wrist and the thumb/index attachment are both basically pin joints. From your data that's not correct for how the wrist functions; in plane it's really an extension of the forearm lever.

When I look at forehand from Ryan Sheldon or other big arms, that looks consistent with the forehand throw too. The wrist is in line, and not active. Same with baseball pitchers.

Every beginner forehand tutorial ever made insists you have to snap your wrist. Maybe there's a level of speed at which that doesn't hold - or maybe it never does.
 
Snapping the wrist is BS, having your arm (and elbow,hips etc) forcing the wrist to move is the 🔑. Otherwise why would you load your wrist before the throw (or more appropriately in the backswing)?

If you don't follow through with the wrist you choke your shot...

There's every chance I could be wrong haha
 
Thanks.
I've been thinking that the wrist and the thumb/index attachment are both basically pin joints. From your data that's not correct for how the wrist functions; in plane it's really an extension of the forearm lever.

When I look at forehand from Ryan Sheldon or other big arms, that looks consistent with the forehand throw too. The wrist is in line, and not active. Same with baseball pitchers.

Every beginner forehand tutorial ever made insists you have to snap your wrist. Maybe there's a level of speed at which that doesn't hold - or maybe it never does.

are you trying to say they use no wrist in forehands?
 

Latest posts

Top