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

[koiyote]

Well, that came out wrong.. stupid English not being my first language. I hope you guys doesn't take it the wrong way.. I'm just in here to learn and I love this page!

I think you are very wise and I appreciate your measured responses.

Regrettably, my first interactions on here were fighting pseudo-logic with logical proofs. I felt a heavy hand was necessary in light of magnanimously ignorant and spiteful comments. Understandably, others will see my method as an overreaction.

I am now putting down the stick and hope to engage in much lighter and intellectually edifying conversation with the community here.

Thanks for the heart check

 

[disc-golf-neil]

Well, that came out wrong.. stupid English not being my first language. I hope you guys doesn't take it the wrong way.. I'm just in here to learn and I love this page!

Interesting you see @koiyote that way. Here's how I see his style.

It is the clearest and simplest to carefully focus on things piece by piece in order to clarify each piece to make sure everything fits clearly together without contradictions or ambiguities.

However, in order for it to be most effective, the both people need to be capable of setting aside their ego and simply handling each point, one-by-one.

Most people are taken aback by this style because they are not used to it since it's not how most people talk and debate without practice, and so they get annoyed / frustrated / emotional when confronted with it. However, if two people want to practice really getting to the bottom of things clearly, if they can both agree to go more along these lines, it's tremendously helpful.

I have a friend who is like this, whenever we talk, we can discuss literally any topic (belief / idea / opinion) whether we hold the idea or not and always make a lot of progress in mutually understanding each other better and clarifying our own points of views in the process due to agreeing to see through each claim we make to decide keep, update, or discard it. When I try it with other people, they often lose interest because they don't really want to have to do the difficult analytical work to sort everything out clearly, they just want to get the normal arguing experience that they've become accustomed to even though it's usually ineffective.

 

[Kennets]

I think you are very wise and I appreciate your measured responses.

Regrettably, my first interactions on here were fighting pseudo-logic with logical proofs. I felt a heavy hand was necessary in light of magnanimously ignorant and spiteful comments. Understandably, others will see my method as an overreaction.

I am now putting down the stick and hope to engage in much lighter and intellectually edifying conversation with the community here.

Thanks for the heart check

Thanks for taking my comments lightly, I meant no real harm, it were just my take on recent events. As you can see, Neil doesn't take it the same way as I do. We're all different and type in our own manner.

 

[koiyote]

Thanks for taking my comments lightly, I meant no real harm, it were just my take on recent events. As you can see, Neil doesn't take it the same way as I do. We're all different and type in our own manner.

I felt no animosity towards me with your comments. Just objective observations; which are always welcome.

 

[sidewinder22]

It's not about what works and what actually yields results. It's about clicks and selling crap.

Either you can provide evidence that they don't care about the results of their students or you can't. If you can't, you're just slandering them for whatever twisted self righteous crusade you're on.

I think using scare tactics and attacking a fellow forum member was uncalled for and unhealthy to further productive discussion.

Technically you are talking about "libel", not "slander", but anyway there is no case to be made, especially since he didn't name anyone specifically and there is no way to prove anything false. Is there no truth in the statement made? I had an unnamed YouTuber directly ask me for advice on how to get more subscribers and clicks. I laughed and told him I was the wrong person to ask about that.

"Importantly, free speech is protected and held harmless from civil litigation as long as it is truthful or based on an honest opinion, and that is exactly why it is so important to understand what defamation is.

Defamation of character is when a false statement of fact is made that injures another's reputation. Defamation can be perpetrated through the written word – in which case it is known as libel – or through a spoken statement, in which case it is known as slander. Either way, proving defamation requires establishing that:

• The statement was heard or read
• The statement was false
• The statement injured the reputation of a person or entity
• The statement can't be the subject of any kind of privilege that shields the defendant of liability

If these conditions are in place then there is a good chance that defamation has happened, although it's important to note that defamation is much harder to prove if the victim is a public figure.

The most important element that distinguishes free speech and defamation is the question of whether the person making the false statement knew that it was false. Freedom of speech is not a defense to purposely destroying somebody else's reputation."

What is the Difference Between Free Speech and Defamation?

In the United States, we prize our freedom. Being able to speak our minds without fear of persecution is an essential American right. Unfortunately, some people take this freedom too far, going beyond protected opinions to make ugly, untrue accusations that can cause real harm to a person’s...

www.bochettoandlentz.com

 

[CoachChris]

I think that's exactly it. There is a reason these cues get passed down and it's because they worked for someone somewhere.

Re: coaching
This is all coaching is basically. Say something, see what they do. If it works, amazing. If it doesn't work plug something else in.

This is partly why I'm so confused about the hate for YouTube coaches in here. Do people really think Overthrow just made up a random cue for nose down and immediately went out and filmed a video that second. Even when the guy is showing you in the video that the cue is moving the disc more nose down they'll just deny it altogether even though it is happening right in front of their eyes with TechDisc data and all.

He's literally showing you the cue working and the conclusion (and reason this thread was created) was to show that he "made up" a cue that didn't work.

Even if a pro uses a cue to success some in here are going to write it off because it doesn't fit in their preconceived framework. I'm willing to bet that OP doesn't ever acknowledge that this cue is a good cue. He might one day say something like, "Well yeah. It can work for some people" but probably won't ever admit that it is a good cue even if supplied with a mountain of evidence.

Cues are "conditioned connections with thoughts or behaviors." That is only dangerous if a mental cue connects with the wrong thought or behavior.

I obviously don't write that for your benefit as you understand that already, but I think some DGCR people don't understand coaching versus understanding biomechanics.

I'm newer here, but that reality struck me very early. I see that DGCR could be really valuable in learning the biomechanics (which is why I'm here) with its repository of information, but some of the more vocal people have their fingers in their ears while screaming obscenities at some of the people that are actually out there coaching.

Well said. Having coached multiple sports for a few decades, I know that keeping an open mind to cues is very important even if my bias thinks the underlying mechanics might be wrong. The art of coaching is being able to turn my words into their feels. It becomes increasingly more difficult as the intended motion gets more subtle - such as degrees of forearm supination in order to achieve relative degrees of nose angle. I can pretty easily throw anywhere from +10° to -10° but transferring my feel into words that teach a student a similar subtle motion is challenging.

This DGCR community (as well as the rest of the interwebs) has been rehashing the same form ideas for a long time and many have personal deep rooted notions of form and flight. As new data emerges from companies like TechDisc, hopefully all of us will be able to keep an open mind and find ways to use the information to help others.

 

[sidewinder22]

I think that's exactly it. There is a reason these cues get passed down and it's because they worked for someone somewhere.

Re: coaching
This is all coaching is basically. Say something, see what they do. If it works, amazing. If it doesn't work plug something else in.

This is partly why I'm so confused about the hate for YouTube coaches in here. Do people really think Overthrow just made up a random cue for nose down and immediately went out and filmed a video that second. Even when the guy is showing you in the video that the cue is moving the disc more nose down they'll just deny it altogether even though it is happening right in front of their eyes with TechDisc data and all.

He's literally showing you the cue working and the conclusion (and reason this thread was created) was to show that he "made up" a cue that didn't work.

Even if a pro uses a cue to success some in here are going to write it off because it doesn't fit in their preconceived framework. I'm willing to bet that OP doesn't ever acknowledge that this cue is a good cue. He might one day say something like, "Well yeah. It can work for some people" but probably won't ever admit that it is a good cue even if supplied with a mountain of evidence.

Cues are "conditioned connections with thoughts or behaviors." That is only dangerous if a mental cue connects with the wrong thought or behavior.

I obviously don't write that for your benefit as you understand that already, but I think some DGCR people don't understand coaching versus understanding biomechanics.

I'm newer here, but that reality struck me very early. I see that DGCR could be really valuable in learning the biomechanics (which is why I'm here) with its repository of information, but some of the more vocal people have their fingers in their ears while screaming obscenities at some of the people that are actually out there coaching.

I'd hesitate to use tech disc data and call it biomechanics. Shouldn't coaching and biomechanics converge, rather than diverge (vs), especially as more data is available? Squish the Bug was prevalently taught back in the day, but since biomechanics showed it is actually the opposite happening in high level swings, the coaching has largely changed in baseball (but some disc golf coaches like to bring it back for some weird reason, and use it as a foundational part of their one-size-fits-all method).

Yes and no.
It's not about teaching your body that its "okay"

Its about listening to your body tell you no, and work around it correctly, so you don't end up like Calvin and others who have these nasty elbow injuries because of bad form.

The idea of getting to the hit and suddenly rolling your wrist over like you're trying to start a car is incredibly un natural unless you've just trained to do it from a younger age and your body adapted.

Secondly, it will cause you to drop your elbow, which will cause other throw issues. And possible elbow strain. The elbow is meant to bend 1 direction, not multiples.

But, to your point.
We can teach the body to not have a bad flinch response which is what happens to some. Where they roll their hand under.
But these responses come from previous activities really, not necessarily from protecting our bodies.

It's really natural to flick your palm down when you wanna flick your wrist.
Its not natural to want to come over the top when doing that, nor is it very kind to your elbow.

I think Calvin's elbow injury is from his forehand, but anyway...

I've been using the flip the disc over cue the past two weeks and it does kind of work to help get the nose down, but I now have tennis elbow which I've never had before. Needless to say I'm not going continue doing this for my own health reasons. YMMV.

All shared knowledge is valuable. That's why we have this place, It doesn't mean you need to be a coach or expert to share your experience. Don't let my bold speaking manor scare you from sharing what works for you so we can all learn. =)


Always points for Feldberg references.


Always a case of having to have some level of standard before fixing other things.
But also, a reflection into coaching. Which in, when getting help, the coach needs to identify the root cause of the issue, not apply bandaids over top.

Some peoples nose angle issues are in their x-step, or their backswing. You gotta find it and address that. That's the biggest issue with to many gimmick video's too. You go "oh I have that problem." So you start trying to fix it with their method. But... that was never your issue in the first place.
It's tough. And I think that people forget that there is a baseline when they watch some of these video's. But I think its also important if you're making content to roll in and be like "hey, this assumes you already have basic mechanics down."

But.. Then on top of a bit of self reflection of people out there who play. They "think" they have good mechanics. and.. its not. So no amount of special sauce helps.


So, I actually have some slow motion video of this. But the problem is I don't know what I was doing to cause it. You can see the disc leave my hand nose down, and immediately stabilize to a nose up flight. I spent hours on this project filming and ended up walking away with waaaaay more questions than answers. And I have not had a chance to re-visit the project. I need to get a shorter lens for the high speed camera.

Though if we look at Feldberg when he talks about nose angle stuff. He says the pinky finger controls the nose angle. Which, honestly, how I putt nose down is with my pinky.


It's about trying to break down the conflicting information, figure out why it actually works vs just assuming the magic. I don't really think this turn the key thing has a whole lot to do with putting off axis torque on the disc to force a nose down angle. But I'm more curious to figure out what its actually changing in the follow through that's removing whatever opposing off axis torque on nose up throws.

There is a lot going on with the disc release, and. Well, My main feeling about it is simply the title of this. "lets just make stuff up."
Someone figured out some thing to help them essentially remove a bad mechanic from the throw, but in turn are looking at it as a "fix all" for everyone else having that issue.

And, I'm also sitting looking at it going "yeah, but you're ignoring like 40 other things that are more important before you flip discs over your hand."

There's a lot of good points in there. Interestingly most people including myself get better nose down driving when the pinky is not on the disc using a 2 or 3 finger grip.

 

[sidewinder22]

For someone who likes to say they care about accuracy of information you sure do use a lot of straw men…

"Flip It... The Best Cue for THROWING NOSE DOWN in Disc Golf IMO"

People throwing anhyzers into the ground are not doing so because they turned the key; they are doing so because they over rotated into the hit and their arm is coming out closer to 12 o'clock as opposed to earlier. With a closed shoulder (i.e. GG) you can turn the key for nose down.

View attachment 335370View attachment 335372
View attachment 335371
Here's GG introducing all that Off Axis Torque with his key turn. /s

There are many others that do this same motion that obviously don't have a problem with OAT. To name a few: Proctor, Eagle, AB, and Ricky.

Are you going to tell those guys to stop supinating their forearms?

The weird part is right after release the thumb turns downward. Whips are waves. Hard to describe complex motion with simple words.

 

[koiyote]

Technically you are talking about "libel", not "slander", but anyway there is no case to be made, especially since he didn't name anyone specifically and there is no way to prove anything false. Is there no truth in the statement made? I had an unnamed YouTuber directly ask me for advice on how to get more subscribers and clicks. I laughed and told him I was the wrong person to ask about that.

Contextually Overthrow at a minimum is being wrapped up in all this. I'm sure there is no need for me to quote the very beginning of the thread to prove that as well as Sheep's later info to prove that they are bundled into the accusations. This whole post was created as a hit piece against Overthrow and it's not an illogical jump to say they have represented their beliefs as: "Is Overthrow just making stuff up about nose angle now?" And "Overthrow is only in it for clicks and does not care about results."

DGCR is not civil court. I don't have to go through a court appointed lawyer and make a case to prove their intent behind their comments. I can simply ask them. And I did. They have chosen not to answer which says enough to me.

I'm old fashioned in this way. If you're bad mouthing someone unjustly, I'm gonna say something.

If they said the same thing about your channel I would defend you all the same (regardless of if I would win a court case).

I appreciate your moderation and am happy to answer any questions. Though I have no further points to be made in this regard, I will of course answer to any of my previous comments.

My goal moving forward is to talk coaching and biomechanics.

 

[koiyote]

I'd hesitate to use tech disc data and call it biomechanics.

To clarify, I didn't equate tech disc with biomechanics. The point I was making was that the cue from the video of "flip the disc" was proven to work by tech disc data. If you don't believe tech disc to be accurate then that is obviously insufficient proof.

Shouldn't coaching and biomechanics converge, rather than diverge (vs), especially as more data is available?

Now this is interesting and depends on how you define coaching I suppose.

Historically, disc golf coaching appears to attempt to do this. I would say that disc golf coaches tend to describe as accurately as possible the biomechanics to a student and once the student accurately understands the biomechanics they can then execute them. In other words, my impression of most disc golf coaches is that they lean away from the feel/cue aspects and more readily present the "real" aspects of form.

Personally, I believe coaching is more akin to vernacular than grammatically constructed sentence structure. In this case I would say coaching is closer to saying "flip the disc over" than "nose angle is relative to your swing plane which moves across the body in a…" Though the latter may be more biomechanically sound it is poor coaching.

If the "flip the disc" cue moves someone towards incorrect biomechanics then use a different cue, but I think that is case by case basis. Cues that consistently create bad biomechanics should be evaluated but that doesn't mean they won't be helpful for someone down the road. That particular cue just might not be one a coach goes to first.

Short version: I would say coaching is using language that moves students towards good biomechanics. If that language more accurately depicts the actual biomechanics, great. If it misrepresents the biomechanics but gets them to do the correct ones, that's just as great.

 

[geebob]

But what I can say is that what most people who have good grip and good articulation might be suffering from is doing the opposite of what he's talking about and imparting bad OAT into the disc that pops the nose up in the follow through.

Only wish I had read this a month ago. My throw just went sideways (literally and figuratively) and I lost distance and accuracy. I just about went crazy trying to diagnose what was happening (filming my throw, etc.). Stumbled on the answer when I was helping another player who was experiencing really wobbly throws and was demonstrating a release in slow motion when the disc popped out of my hand and flew about 150'. Now I just have to rewind all of the other fixes.

 

[Sewer bill]

Contextually Overthrow at a minimum is being wrapped up in all this. I'm sure there is no need for me to quote the very beginning of the thread to prove that as well as Sheep's later info to prove that they are bundled into the accusations. This whole post was created as a hit piece against Overthrow and it's not an illogical jump to say they have represented their beliefs as: "Is Overthrow just making stuff up about nose angle now?" And "Overthrow is only in it for clicks and does not care about results."

DGCR is not civil court. I don't have to go through a court appointed lawyer and make a case to prove their intent behind their comments. I can simply ask them. And I did. They have chosen not to answer which says enough to me.

I'm old fashioned in this way. If you're bad mouthing someone unjustly, I'm gonna say something.

If they said the same thing about your channel I would defend you all the same (regardless of if I would win a court case).

I appreciate your moderation and am happy to answer any questions. Though I have no further points to be made in this regard, I will of course answer to any of my previous comments.

My goal moving forward is to talk coaching and biomechanics.

Here is their mission statement: "To equip every generation of disc golf with good form and really cool discs and merch... Feel equipped to the max."

I wrote a big ass explanation rehashing my point but I have now changed my mind after seeing overthrow is pulling 8500 a month.

I am now a creator and you may subscribe to my patreon for additional information.

 

[koiyote]

Here is their mission statement: "To equip every generation of disc golf with good form and really cool discs and merch... Feel equipped to the max."

You're mad their goal is to sell stuff on their store page?

I wrote a big ass explanation rehashing my point but I have now changed my mind after seeing overthrow is pulling 8500 a month.

My biggest issue with your argument is your assumption that because they make money, whatever the amount, they don't care about getting results for their students. If they made $100,000 monthly it still wouldn't prove your point. Caring for students and getting paid for rendering those services are not mutually exclusive.

Do you think coaches should coach for free? Is that morally higher than getting paid to coach? Again, if so, then the more money someone makes coaching means the less they care about their students.

 

[geebob]

Do you think coaches should coach for free? Is that morally higher than getting paid to coach? Again, if so, then the more money someone makes coaching means the less they care about their students.

Are you saying it's unfair to question the motivations of someone posting content when it is producing a lucrative revenue stream?

 

[koiyote]

Are you saying it's unfair to question the motivations of someone posting content when it is producing a lucrative revenue stream?

Good question. Not at all. I'm against assuming the motivations of someone posting content on the basis of it producing a lucrative revenue stream.

If Sheep and Sewer Bill were questioning the motivations instead of assuming them the conversation would be much different at this point.

 

[Sewer bill]

Good question. Not at all. I'm against assuming the motivations of someone posting content on the basis of it producing a lucrative revenue stream.

If Sheep and Sewer Bill were questioning the motivations instead of assuming them the conversation would be much different at this point.

See this is where it's actually quite easy to distinguish. If they did not have a pay wall to additional content and I'm not talking about private lessons, their motivations would be to inform people of their methodology and techniques, but they do.

Thus, their motivation is profit, not the distribution of knowledge, we didn't need to go in circles to arrive at this conclusion but hey I'm down for thought exercises.

Let's reference the mission statement again just to clarify. "To equip every generation of disc golf with good form and really cool discs and merch... Feel equipped to the max."

 

[koiyote]

See this is where it's actually quite easy to distinguish. If they did not have a pay wall to additional content and I'm not talking about private lessons, their motivations would be to inform people of their methodology and techniques, but they do.

Thus, their motivation is profit, not the distribution of knowledge, we didn't need to go in circles to arrive at this conclusion but hey I'm down for thought exercises.

Because they have additional content behind a paywall, the motivation behind their free content must be to make money and therefore they don't care about results of their students?

This is circular reasoning. You're basically saying, "because they make money elsewhere their intention is to make money everywhere and therefore they don't care about knowledge or helping people."

Additionally it assumes the type of content behind the paywall as well as the motivation for putting it behind the paywall. I can think of several reasons other than making more money to put additional content on Patreon versus YouTube. For the sake of argument I'll give an example.

It is common for content creators with larger communities to want to go deeper with more active followers. A simple way to do this is to release vlogs and other content that is targeted toward the community within the community. For channels with high production value like Overthrow it may not be appealing to put lower quality content on the main channel but in still wanting to dig deeper with the ones who are interested they do more "raw" cuts and put less editing time into these content pieces.

We know that this is partly the case because on Overthrow's podcast (where they even featured Seabas22) they said there was a Patreon question segment. Not wanting to put out questions asked by specific people on their Patreon seems reasonable enough, no?

Those are just two common motivations content creators have for putting things behind the Patreon paywall that don't necessitate a lack of care for the information presented on their YouTube platform.

Let's reference the mission statement again just to clarify. "To equip every generation of disc golf with good form and really cool discs and merch... Feel equipped to the max."

I recommend taking a look at the entirety of their store page (I did after your first time quoting this). It is obvious that they are goofballs and making an argument off of one line taken from a page filled with comedic quips is not the strongest.

That plus you intentionally omitted the end of the statement.
In its entirety it reads:
"To equip every generation of disc golf with good form and really cool discs and merch... Feel equipped to the max... Are you still reading this?"

"Are you still reading this" seems to me like they aren't concerned with putting out an accurate thesis of their mission but as more of a satirical statement communicating their playfulness.

 

[RowingBoats]

To clarify, I didn't equate tech disc with biomechanics. The point I was making was that the cue from the video of "flip the disc" was proven to work by tech disc data. If you don't believe tech disc to be accurate then that is obviously insufficient proof.

Im not trying to argue here, but even if I believe tech disc data is accurate, which I do, that still does not mean any 'proof' occurred. One person who has a lot of experience throwing discs claimed to be using the cue for a couple of demonstrations, that is all that happened.

Now if you show me a video of a group of amateur players who struggle to ever throw nose down, we can get some idea of the value of this cue. Show me people who cannot otherwise figure this out implementing this cue successfully, and I will change my mind at least somewhat.

As it stands, this cue, to me, is objectively bad. It is LITERALLY cueing people to introduce OAT, and honestly just misdirected torque on the body itself will be the most common result that I would expect.

Whatever you want to say about Sheep being a slight asshole sometimes, cool, I don't think he disagrees lol. His video on how to think about nose angle makes a ton more sense to me and is pretty damn close to how I try to help people sometimes. At the very peak of the hit, things are moving so quickly that it is extremely hard to 'feel' whether you are doing something wonky with your wrist. Really digging into how your joints unfold, particularly the wrist, in conjunction with your grip choice, unconvers almost all explanations for nose-up issues in my experience. Maintaining the integrity of that 'dingle arm' unfolding and going out of your way to NOT introduce a dramatic or deliberate roll of the wrist gets my vote for a much better cue. Basically the opposite of what this video is saying.

I have no data to back this up, but I am becoming convinced that people are trying to overdo the whole nose-down thing now. And weirder, I think a lot of the standard cues (pour the coffee, turn the key) can be exaggerated to the point where they have the opposite effect. I mostly believe this because it seems like it happened to me, and when I started emphasizing a more neutral nose to the trajectory, rather than trying to get a negative angle, my swing feels better and my discs fly farther. Take all of this with a mega dose of salt because its all feel based.

I do not personally have a tech disc, but will in a couple of weeks from what it sounds like. Maybe I will find some interesting ways that I am wrong

/Not to brag, but my tech disc setup is gonna be sick. My Dad is the one actually getting it, and they live out on a bunch of land with this 100 foot astroturfed, air conditioned barn. The net he set up is like 12' high by 15' long so I can throw whatever shots I want lol. Hoping I can help him figure out nose angle without using the bonapane style grip as one of my main objectives lol.

 

[Brychanus]

Anyone else reading all this thinking "everyone has a point here?"

Here's my half-penny which is more or less a summary of what I just read plus a tidbit or two:

1. Some people give away tons of knowledge or their version of it for free. People can choose to give that or not. Others can choose to consume it or not. You can choose to pay them or not.
2. Some people coach to some extent for free. People can choose to do that or not. Others can choose to consume it or not. You can choose to pay them or not.
3. Some people give some knowledge away for free and are also financially supported in other ways that make it easy for them to give it away for free.
4. Some people coach to some extent for free, and to some extent for a fee.
5. Some people have goals to make generating knowledge and coaching (like me as an academic researcher and teacher) a financially sustainable full-time activity. You can choose to pay them or not.
6. Some research in incentives & behavioral economics suggest that when people pay or put "skin in the game" financially, they improve at skills faster. Not everyone responds the same way.
7. Some things we call knowledge require further testing or evidence.
8. Yes, it would be nice if biomechanics theory and data measurements end up lining up in a coherent way (god I hope so).
9. Yes, sometimes people respond to the same cues in the same way, the same cues in different ways, and different cues different ways.
10. People are free to assume things about the motives of others or provide evidence of motives. People can choose to argue or confront them or not.
11.Saying or implying something about someone means that they eventually might show up to confront you.
12. Sometimes people take things personally, which influences their tones and arguments.

What are we trying to do here, DGCR?

 

[RowingBoats]

Anyone else reading all this thinking "everyone has a point here?"

Lol I for one definitely don't have a point, almost ever.