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

[disc-golf-neil]

I'm curious to hear, for those of you who change your grip when you want to throw nose up, how exactly to you grip it to throw really nose up?

 

[Brychanus]

Curious what people like to do there too. For me I think usually:

1. Less thumb pressure heading into the release or
2. Change disc alignment in palm

 

[Kennets]

That's the neat part, I don't even have to change anything, I've recently been throwing everything nose up

But as Brychanus said, I like to grip my putters differently and move my thumb more towards the center of the disc with less pressure, if I'm going for at nose up shot.

If I'm throwing sub 150, I actually got a mental cue of turning the key, just the opposite way. Usually that creates an air bounce with extreme nose angle

 

[RowingBoats]

I do not have a techdisc, therefore have no data on my own swing, so this is a more general question not an argument.

I have been seeing a lot of talk about negative nose angles, and the ideal being something between -4 and -6 degrees (the numbers vary, but this seems common).

What is this based on exactly? Is there evidence that truly going negative is ideal? I can see clearly when discs fly nose-up, is there footage of discs flying with negative nose angle?

Genuinely just curious about this as I have no idea myself what my nose angle is. My analysis of whether I threw with an effective nose angle is basically just that my view of the disc is a flat profile, I do not ever 'see' the bottom side of the plate in the same way as I see the top side of the plate when I do throw nose-up.

 

[Brychanus]

I do not have a techdisc, therefore have no data on my own swing, so this is a more general question not an argument.

I have been seeing a lot of talk about negative nose angles, and the ideal being something between -4 and -6 degrees (the numbers vary, but this seems common).

What is this based on exactly? Is there evidence that truly going negative is ideal? I can see clearly when discs fly nose-up, is there footage of discs flying with negative nose angle?

Genuinely just curious about this as I have no idea myself what my nose angle is. My analysis of whether I threw with an effective nose angle is basically just that my view of the disc is a flat profile, I do not ever 'see' the bottom side of the plate in the same way as I see the top side of the plate when I do throw nose-up.

I'd have the same general question. FWIW I found the "don't see the top of the flight plate/flat profile" is still a handy tool to have.

I have read some basic heuristics people talk about and data on what was working better in my own form for distance lines was what some people around here were saying about GG's mechanics (slight nose down/negative and high line of attack) which in my headcanon I could make sense out of since my form is becoming very centrifugal like his.* I also found that there was such a thing as too nose down and too much late supination (that again was basically just what was outside my natural range of motion and would give me elbow inflammation), which was also when my whole move started to feel jammed up and crappy somewhere. TechDisc data suggested the same but I'm not one of these mega bombers. So interestingly what I thought was "flat profile" was like 3-5 degrees negative and that's when I was getting my max distance at lowest effort.

In general or in very advanced/70mph+ forms I'd like to know.

*I forget where it is, but Sidewinder posted a couple hypothetical TechDisc simulations to that effect IIRC, and I'm curious about live throws.

 

[RowingBoats]

I'd have the same general question. FWIW I found the "don't see the top of the flight plate/flat profile" is still a handy tool to have.

I have read some basic heuristics people talk about and data on what was working better in my own form for distance lines was what some people around here were saying about GG's mechanics (slight nose down/negative and high line of attack) which in my headcanon I could make sense out of since my form is becoming very centrifugal like his.* I also found that there was such a thing as too nose down and too much late supination (that again was basically just what was outside my natural range of motion and would give me elbow inflammation), which was also when my whole move started to feel jammed up and crappy somewhere. TechDisc data suggested the same but I'm not one of these mega bombers. So interestingly what I thought was "flat profile" was like 3-5 degrees negative and that's when I was getting my max distance at lowest effort.

In general or in very advanced/70mph+ forms I'd like to know.

*I forget where it is, but Sidewinder posted a couple hypothetical TechDisc simulations to that effect IIRC, and I'm curious about live throws.

Ya, lol basically same as my thoughts.

I should have a techdisc within a month so maybe I will find that I do in fact have a negative angle when it looks neutral, I truly have no idea.

It does seem like some people are trying to chase lower and lower nose angles as if it is the goal, and I will be very, very surprised if anything actually proves that you want anything like 9-10 degrees negative. I absolutely do not think the techdisc flight model should be used as evidence that this is an effective goal, and I can't conceive of an easy way to answer this.

Some engineer needs to make a disc throwing arm that can manipulate all of this but have truly consistent form man, we'd learn so much.

 

[sidewinder22]

I thought "turning the key" was for anhyzers, and don,t you do it in the back swing?
The way I am understanding this other technique( flipping ) just before release seems like a bad habit that will hurt you pretty quickly.

To change the nose angle I simply adjust my grip.
Like ball golf , I think most issues players have are due to poor grip.

Yes, terms/phrases are all getting intermingled with completely different meanings.

 

[Brychanus]

Ya, lol basically same as my thoughts.

I should have a techdisc within a month so maybe I will find that I do in fact have a negative angle when it looks neutral, I truly have no idea.

It does seem like some people are trying to chase lower and lower nose angles as if it is the goal, and I will be very, very surprised if anything actually proves that you want anything like 9-10 degrees negative. I absolutely do not think the techdisc flight model should be used as evidence that this is an effective goal, and I can't conceive of an easy way to answer this.

Some engineer needs to make a disc throwing arm that can manipulate all of this but have truly consistent form man, we'd learn so much.

I'll be curious if you find it to be at least more than useless - I guess what it confirmed in my own personal development was that I was doing the "right" thing by following the "natural motion pattern" philosophy. Getting long, loose, leveraged, and quick at the end of the move was always breaking when certain things were going wrong either in the grip or upstream. I think that got easier again once I stopped throwing as much and did a lot of "athletic" exercises over the winter to make up for lost time that made me do those things for other tasks. I didn't really understand the point (physically) of 2-finger grips until after that because then I was like "oh, that's what the "tip of the whip' is", more or less.

I don't fully understand wing/disc aerodynamics so I don't know exactly how to think about the entire disc end of it, but yeah intuitively a certain degree of nose down is probably either (1) super uncomfortable/unnatural/undoable to some people physically, or even if you could (2) at a certain point it's going too much. I mean, even before you measure it, imagine taking a disc and throwing it 90 degrees nose down (flight plate aimed at the trajectory) and you get what I mean lmao

 

[Brychanus]

Yes, terms/phrases are all getting intermingled with completely different meanings.

FWIW as you well know I'm a hyzer fiend and try to keep my driving form work focused there, but this did immediately help me throw anhyzers better again recently in the context of that form.

I'm kind of quietly avoiding the phrase "turning the key" on purpose because people seem to be talking about different things in different phases of the move and I cannot see inside their heads lol

 

[RowingBoats]

I'll be curious if you find it to be at least more than useless

If you mean the tech disc flight model stuff, I highly doubt I will ever give a single care about it lol.

I want this almost 100% for nose angle experimentation.

 

[Brychanus]

If you mean the tech disc flight model stuff, I highly doubt I will ever give a single care about it lol.

I want this almost 100% for nose angle experimentation.

Yeah, more just about anything you like/dislike about it after you mess around with it.

 

[disc-golf-neil]

I do not have a techdisc, therefore have no data on my own swing, so this is a more general question not an argument.

I have been seeing a lot of talk about negative nose angles, and the ideal being something between -4 and -6 degrees (the numbers vary, but this seems common).

What is this based on exactly? Is there evidence that truly going negative is ideal? I can see clearly when discs fly nose-up, is there footage of discs flying with negative nose angle?

Genuinely just curious about this as I have no idea myself what my nose angle is. My analysis of whether I threw with an effective nose angle is basically just that my view of the disc is a flat profile, I do not ever 'see' the bottom side of the plate in the same way as I see the top side of the plate when I do throw nose-up.

I don't know where the -4 to -6 came from, perhaps it was some aerodynamic computer simulation.

I think I recall seeing a video (Not sure which) that used a computer sim (not tech disc) or referenced an academic paper but it showed that the initial nose down is largely lost as the disc flies so I think more knows down, gives you more of a buffer on the nose the nose down being lost in flight to avoid stalling.

There's also the attached, Chris Taylor picture which shows GG having the lowest nose angle by far, that, in addition to his elite spin seems to be why at a lower arm speed he's able to stay competitive for longer and distance competitions which lends some credibility to the value of extra nose down.

Anyone can go onto the TechDisc website and use their simulator and change the nose angle and see what happens. even at a 10° launch angle at some point, making the nose lower than -4 will reduce distance if I recall, but at more extreme positive launch angles when going after a long high pushing glide phase I think that's where some extra nose down might be useful but I haven't checked the tech disc sim on that.

Also, doesn't GG's form, have one of the most clearly visible dynamic wrist supination movements? And this Chris Taylor data (assuming low sample size) suggests he has the better nose down control.

 

[RowingBoats]

I don't know where the -4 to -6 came from, perhaps it was some aerodynamic computer simulation.

I think I recall seeing a video (Not sure which) that used a computer sim (not tech disc) or referenced an academic paper but it showed that the initial nose down is largely lost as the disc flies so I think more knows down, gives you more of a buffer on the nose the nose down being lost in flight to avoid stalling.

There's also the attached, Chris Taylor picture which shows GG having the lowest nose angle by far, that, in addition to his elite spin seems to be why at a lower arm speed he's able to stay competitive for longer and distance competitions which lends some credibility to the value of extra nose down.

Anyone can go onto the TechDisc website and use their simulator and change the nose angle and see what happens. even at a 10° launch angle at some point, making the nose lower than -4 will reduce distance if I recall, but at more extreme positive launch angles when going after a long high pushing glide phase I think that's where some extra nose down might be useful but I haven't checked the tech disc sim on that.

Ya, my unscientific theory is that it doesn't really matter as long as it is at least extremely close to neutral nose angle. I think you might be right, and that negative nose angle is just a hedge against the incredibly unwanted positive nose angle, but that flight characteristics between 0.00 and -5 probably don't change all that much.

Really don't know, but I also just really don't believe chasing high negative numbers is an endeavor most people should put much effort into.

 

[Brychanus]

I don't know where the -4 to -6 came from, perhaps it was some aerodynamic computer simulation.

I think I recall seeing a video (Not sure which) that used a computer sim (not tech disc) or referenced an academic paper but it showed that the initial nose down is largely lost as the disc flies so I think more knows down, gives you more of a buffer on the nose the nose down being lost in flight to avoid stalling.

There's also the attached, Chris Taylor picture which shows GG having the lowest nose angle by far, that, in addition to his elite spin seems to be why at a lower arm speed he's able to stay competitive for longer and distance competitions which lends some credibility to the value of extra nose down.

Anyone can go onto the TechDisc website and use their simulator and change the nose angle and see what happens. even at a 10° launch angle at some point, making the nose lower than -4 will reduce distance if I recall, but at more extreme positive launch angles when going after a long high pushing glide phase I think that's where some extra nose down might be useful but I haven't checked the tech disc sim on that.

Also, doesn't GG's form, have one of the most clearly visible dynamic wrist supination movements? And this Chris Taylor data (assuming low sample size) suggests he has the better nose down control.

Nice, glad you shared this here, thanks.

Yeah I didn't want to assume too much, but it doesn't surprise me that the disc nose would level out as you describe as it interacts with the air maybe unless you take it too far at release.

GG: Yes, that's why I keep mentioning him! I know there is a case to be made that his very vertical & centrifugal form is "compensatory," but there is also something to be learned in extremes. Here again my own data wouldn't be quite that far, but closer to his than the other guys (in more modest speed ranges). I kind of want to nudge you to think about the bigger concept that helps integrate why some grips and arm action patterns might work better than others. Sometimes people speculate that GG might have thrown just as far with a more horizontal form. On the other hand, it could just be that his body operates better with a lot more centrifugal force than anyone else and how he can convert that force through his arm/wrist action. The other theoretical reason for the supination is that the late and very fast rotation can help make up for shorter levers, but it still needs to work well in the context of the rest of the move. I don't expect the extreme arm move GG uses to work that well in the more horizontal forms - but you can also think about the supination becoming less pronounced naturally as the form and motion of the body are "stretched out" horizontally along the ground for any given body. This is part of what I understand about why sidewinder likes to share images like this - most high level athletic moves function like waves, and some are just "stretched out" more horizontally than others. Notice that joints in an arm don't fold and unfold exactly like hinges on a door. What would happen if you stretched out racket guy's move more horizontally? Would the move remain the "same", but flatten out the wave? Consider why or why not, and parts vs. the whole move.

 

[tastes like plastik]

I guess the phrase " lock the door" and "paint the rainbow" was what i was thinking . Tomas(lat64) was teaching Jonathan to throw an anhyzer.
Sidewinder posted the video I was remembering . I watched all of the latest64 videos with Jonathan.I think I am a covid baby.

 

[Nick Carroll]

In my experience the nose-up angle is caused a lot more by my swing than my grip, because it's an on-plane issue for me. I get limited use out of the "turn the key" cue, and the more I focus on it, the worse my form gets. I did tests where I managed to get a -26 nose down angle and my swing looks absolutely cartoonish. I won't even publish that example anywhere - it's that bad. IMO there's a law of diminishing returns with cues, and they may more drawbacks if you take them too far, than if you didn't use them in the first place. Definitely experiment with it, but your mileage will vary.

 

[koiyote]

Regarding nose up:

I've basically found the opposite of what @disc-golf-neil showed for nose down experiments works for creating nose up angles.

Three ways I've seen to manipulate it:
1. Swoop (aka air bounce)
2. Pronate the arm into the hit. It may also be helpful to move the thumb deeper into the flight plate for pronounced effect.
3. Radial deviation (opposite of pour the coffee)

 

[disc-golf-neil]

Regarding nose up:

I've basically found the opposite of what @disc-golf-neil showed for nose down experiments works for creating nose up angles.

Three ways I've seen to manipulate it:
1. Swoop (aka air bounce)
2. Pronate the arm into the hit. It may also be helpful to move the thumb deeper into the flight plate for pronounced effect.
3. Radial deviation (opposite of pour the coffee)

I was going to post it in the vid tomorrow but I'll share now since you also tested.

I tested 'no pour tea' while also not doing anything else for nose down and tested 'unpour tea' (radial deviation) to compare with my pour the tea results.

Interestingly the radial deviation wasn't worse than not pouring the tea, it was very weird feeling though so maybe I didn't maintain it well enough.

So it seems pour the tea helps a bit but is very hard to get actually negative nose angles from it alone and of course will barley put a dent in swooping / pronating.


The extra hyzer angle I think was mostly from me just hyzer leaning more today.

 

[disc-golf-neil]

Something else that's interesting is keeping the speed and spin the same but adjusting the other stats in the tech disc flight sim to get the furthest distance, I can't actually find a combo of stats with nose down that goes clearly further than nose neutral. Who knows how accurate this is:



I emailed tech disc asking them if they are just making things up with nose angle now . Maybe I messed a stat up though.

 

[koiyote]

Something else that's interesting is keeping the speed and spin the same but adjusting the other stats in the tech disc flight sim to get the furthest distance, I can't actually find a combo of stats with nose down that goes clearly further than nose neutral. Who knows how accurate this is:

View attachment 336019
View attachment 336020
I emailed tech disc asking them if they are just making things up with nose angle now . Maybe I messed a stat up though.

I think you've got to mess with a super flippy disc on that high of a launch. Distance lines are typically throwing very high with something that'll turn like crazy to carry the nose down and make use of gravity on the tail end.

I'm gonna play with the simulator now too.