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

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

Nose angles are natural for some and absolute torture for others. Curse natural nose down or neutral throwers. You can all go die in a fire. haha.

Nose down, -2 to -4, should give you a better distance flight. Because when we explore concepts of throwing to apex, we need to plan what we want the disc doing after apex, not what we want the disc doing before apex.

Such as the fact that if you want a huge far driving hzyer shot, you dont throw an overstable disc, you throw and understable disc on hyzer and control it. When the disc hits apex, if you've set the attack properly, the disc will pick up speed as it hyzers, and start to turn again allowing the disc to attack left (RHBH) harder.

So essentially players throw a bit nose down but kinda power it up in the air so the disc is set to push forwards when it hits apex. And because of the shape of the wing, it has lift despite its angle of attack on hits high speed flight. After apex is more of a slow speed flight, so we want the disc to push forwards and not stall.

This is all really basic aerodynamics stuff. I don't seem to have the link saved on my desktop for the video I used to share on this. And disc golf wings are so dynamic because of all the forces we are putting on the disc in all sorts of directions. It's quite fascinating. Most of what we even talk about is really theory based vs data based. We have some air tunnel data, but the papers are written in such a way that you can't really understand them.

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

I missed the turn the key for anhyzer stuff apparently. Because I always teach it feldbergs way.

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

People are SO hung up on the tech disc simulator that I honestly just don't really care what they have to say at that point. Especially with some newer people and "well the simulator says this" so they are chasing it with their tech disc. Like dude, your form sucks, its why you struggle. "But my tech disc says!"

Yeah, your tech disc can suck my nuts.
And the simulator can suck on the shaft.

It provides some basic data to give people some hopes and dreams. But i've noticed a lot of examples from it dont' really give real world results.

I guess I would say that the nose down wasn't exactly natural to me at first, but became that way after an excruciating amount of work retraining what my arm was doing with hammers and other tools. So that's part of what influenced how I talk and think about it overall so much, and also why I've been hesitating to say too much more.

Sheep, you did have a point about the nose coming around in the context of the move elsewhere and I do think that is essential. There are certainly ways to get nose down throws that don't get the full chain of action and force into the disc and that have overall motion patterns and pressures that are different than what I think we tend to see in the best throwers. I'm still organizing a little bit of writing but will post it after I run it by a couple people. Will be more on mechanics really than coaching points there though, cue mileage can vary...

I think the regular coaches here should all get a tech disc imo with how invested y'all are in understanding things. It's pretty easy for most people to quickly encounter some surprises that elicit further investigation and then an update / tweak to their model. And if you think people are being lead astray by the TechDisc, that's another reason to get one and show how to bridge that gap.

I think the regular coaches here should all get a tech disc imo with how invested y'all are in understanding things. It's pretty easy for most people to quickly encounter some surprises that elicit further investigation and then an update / tweak to their model. And if you think people are being lead astray by the TechDisc, that's another reason to get one and show how to bridge that gap.
FWIW I have never doubted it within its domain of utility and consider it one tool in the kit. I'm slightly annoyed about the extra mass in the center of the disc but I can live with it.*

It actually helped me understand some of the relationships between "hammer time"** and what was working on the disc.

Also interesting when working with someone in real time, where it can either help or hinder depending on what we're working on at the moment and to some extent the player's (and coach's) disposition.

**I do think that there is going to end up being a somewhat interesting opportunity to see what happens from people who "forward engineer" their move from other sports moves and mechanics theory vs people who are "reverse engineering" without mediating their form choices through mechanics theories and drills (and everywhere in between).

Last edited:
I think the regular coaches here should all get a tech disc imo with how invested y'all are in understanding things. It's pretty easy for most people to quickly encounter some surprises that elicit further investigation and then an update / tweak to their model. And if you think people are being lead astray by the TechDisc, that's another reason to get one and show how to bridge that gap.
I think you're mistaking a "training aid" as a be all end all to answer questions.

I think you need to slow your roll a bit and realize that just because you have a tech disc doesn't suddenly make you an expert on some of these subject matters because you've spent some time in the yard throwing discs.
It's like listening to the method guy or slinky when you talk now vs a curious disc golfer looking for more information.

I think you're mistaking a "training aid" as a be all end all to answer questions.

I think you need to slow your roll a bit and realize that just because you have a tech disc doesn't suddenly make you an expert on some of these subject matters because you've spent some time in the yard throwing discs.
It's like listening to the method guy or slinky when you talk now vs a curious disc golfer looking for more information.
It's not a be all end all. But you can learn much more quickly and easily see how things actually affect angles and spin, whether it's directly or indirectly. In order for you to do that, you would have spend a lot more time to derive it from your high FPS camera with analysis tools like Nick Krush has done in some of his videos, calculating speed and angles from footage.

If you want to learn faster, take advantage of the new tools, otherwise carry on.

It's not a be all end all. But you can learn much more quickly and easily see how things actually affect angles and spin, whether it's directly or indirectly. In order for you to do that, you would have spend a lot more time to derive it from your high FPS camera with analysis tools like Nick Krush has done in some of his videos, calculating speed and angles from footage.

If you want to learn faster, take advantage of the new tools, otherwise carry on.

The point I was trying to make is that you're presenting the data as a be all end all. You're leaning on it as proof of whatever your saying. And you're doing a great job of being imaginative. But I'll admit you get on my nerves the way you say stuff and I respond poorly to it. A majority of people don't do well with "hey, I know I've been doing this for 2 months, but like, I got this to prove I'm right and ya'll are wrong despite having years and years of experience, testing and research." That's what you sound like. The difference is others are good at ignoring it or staying quiet. I suck at not responding to it. And responding to it in a bad fashion because it bothers me.
You're basically walking into a college of professors and screaming "your wrong I'm right." when you say stuff. And people are giving you the side eye and not responding.
I'm to stupid to not respond "the fuck did you say?" And people take that as me being a jerk. You respond to it emotionally and then we act like idiots to each other.

That out of the way.

I could take high speed of you throwing your tech disc and it says one thing, but your form and the disc coming out of your hand say something completely different.

There are lots of ways to do things wrong to cheat sensors to make them say the correct thing.

It's like we look at a lot of pro form, we see a lot of bad pro form, I posted that video on calvins form. It's horrible.
But he bombs.
Everyone wants to rub his knob for his disc golf prowis.

When he throws that tech disc, its going to give good data. But the film says a lot of different things.

Tools are there to present us data, then how we use that data is even more important.

Any time you test things you want multiple data points, not just 1. And when were talking about something like grip and disc planes. there is SOOO much more to it than that.

The point I was trying to make is that you're presenting the data as a be all end all. You're leaning on it as proof of whatever your saying. And you're doing a great job of being imaginative. But I'll admit you get on my nerves the way you say stuff and I respond poorly to it. A majority of people don't do well with "hey, I know I've been doing this for 2 months, but like, I got this to prove I'm right and ya'll are wrong despite having years and years of experience, testing and research." That's what you sound like. The difference is others are good at ignoring it or staying quiet. I suck at not responding to it. And responding to it in a bad fashion because it bothers me.
You're basically walking into a college of professors and screaming "your wrong I'm right." when you say stuff. And people are giving you the side eye and not responding.
I'm to stupid to not respond "the fuck did you say?" And people take that as me being a jerk. You respond to it emotionally and then we act like idiots to each other.

That out of the way.

I could take high speed of you throwing your tech disc and it says one thing, but your form and the disc coming out of your hand say something completely different.

There are lots of ways to do things wrong to cheat sensors to make them say the correct thing.

It's like we look at a lot of pro form, we see a lot of bad pro form, I posted that video on calvins form. It's horrible.
But he bombs.
Everyone wants to rub his knob for his disc golf prowis.

When he throws that tech disc, its going to give good data. But the film says a lot of different things.

Tools are there to present us data, then how we use that data is even more important.

Any time you test things you want multiple data points, not just 1. And when were talking about something like grip and disc planes. there is SOOO much more to it than that.
I do not present it as incontrovertible proof. I even say in the intro video of the series and a few other times "these aren't extremely precise tests and the conclusions are not conclusive".

I present it as, 'I tried doing this and this is the data I got, isn't that interesting here are my thoughts on the results.' But you let your frustration make you see it in a way that fuels more frustration.

I don't just do 1 throw each and that's the test.

I just did another grip alignment test, and I thought one of the grips was going to be more nose up, but the data is showing more nose down, guess what, I'm going to take the new data into consideration and update my view. I threw extra throws as well and kept getting the same results so I have to accept them unless I start getting contradictory results next time.

If I could, I would blind myself to what I'm testing to avoid bias.

Do other people here agree that Calvin's form is bad? Or is it just a bit unorthodox? It's interesting that a small stature Emerson Keith as a similar form and also bombs.

Do other people here agree that Calvin's form is bad? Or is it just a bit unorthodox? It's interesting that a small stature Emerson Keith as a similar form and also bombs.

I have some observations that concern me but always stop myself short of saying it is "bad" without additional evidence:

1. He has an unusually aggressive brace with the plant foot turned dramatically back. He might be slightly pigeon-toed which would explain part of it, but it looks like more than just his natural foot orientation & how his gait works. It's possible to do and learn this and it requires the plant foot pivoting earlier in the sequence to relieve the pressure without blowing out an ankle or knee, but I think in general it might catch up with you. I could be wrong about this but I also can't not notice it anymore whenever I see him throw, either.

2. With his body type, coordination, and quickness, I would actually expect him to be able to throw faster than he does at the upper limits of his move. There are a small handful of efficiency tricks that don't look like they are encoded in his move that are more common in people with similar body types throwing faster than him. Posturally he has flattened out a couple components of his move beyond where you might "ideally" want them to be. I've always wondered if this was because of developing his form to attack super low forward penetrating lines in Florida woods. Neil since I know you are working on this, watch his rear side coil and shift posture and rear hip action and compare it to say, Eagle's.

I agree there are a few things in common with Emerson's but called out the couple areas I always notice that would worry me the most.

Do other people here agree that Calvin's form is bad? Or is it just a bit unorthodox? It's interesting that a small stature Emerson Keith as a similar form and also bombs.

I realize this may slightly derail the thread, but this is sparking an interesting convo note to me. In a lot of sports we see and hear all the time of truly elite people with "bad" form. This is usually accompanied by "How much better could this person be if they just learned to do X". I think a lot of the time is "potentially worse". One of the more recent examples I can think of in track is the new female triple jump world record holder, Yulimar Rojas. As far as being a technically sound triple jump in terms of phase breakdowns, it falls very short of the mark, and much more resembles a young high schooler trying the event for the first time. But, she's got the bloody world record. She's literally done it better than anyone ever. So, who are we to say "well you're doing it wrong". When/if she breaks her world record again, it's not going to be by "fixing" the thing she does poorly, it's going to be by exploiting the things she does incredibly well. Hell, look at Jason Belmonte in bowling. He got sooo much flack for being the 'two-handed' guy and bowling wrong, but the results speak for themselves. Would he have been a better bowler if he'd learned to do it "right"? Probably not.

So, taking that over to someone like Calvin. There could be a million reasons Calvin looks the way he does. I haven't exactly tried to do an analysis of his form, because it wouldn't exactly be one that would fit my frame, but clearly it works for him. Granted, DG is still a fairly young sport in terms of biomechanical knowledge, so perhaps in our case there may be elite players that could stand to make some significant technical changes and actually see improvement, but at that stage of the game in any sport, it's very rare (though, not impossible) to find a significant technical adjustment that leads to real improvement. I think Josh had a video about a similar concept with Cole Redalen's trail leg. (Or whatever we call that back leg in disc golf lol).

I'm thinking too of the US Air Force and their flawed cockpit design where they tried to build the 'universal cockpit' that wound up fitting no one. At the end of the day in sports, we teach to models, but with the knowledge no one is ever going to fit those models perfectly.

I realize this may slightly derail the thread

I realize this may slightly derail the thread, but this is sparking an interesting convo note to me. In a lot of sports we see and hear all the time of truly elite people with "bad" form. This is usually accompanied by "How much better could this person be if they just learned to do X". I think a lot of the time is "potentially worse". One of the more recent examples I can think of in track is the new female triple jump world record holder, Yulimar Rojas. As far as being a technically sound triple jump in terms of phase breakdowns, it falls very short of the mark, and much more resembles a young high schooler trying the event for the first time. But, she's got the bloody world record. She's literally done it better than anyone ever. So, who are we to say "well you're doing it wrong". When/if she breaks her world record again, it's not going to be by "fixing" the thing she does poorly, it's going to be by exploiting the things she does incredibly well. Hell, look at Jason Belmonte in bowling. He got sooo much flack for being the 'two-handed' guy and bowling wrong, but the results speak for themselves. Would he have been a better bowler if he'd learned to do it "right"? Probably not.

So, taking that over to someone like Calvin. There could be a million reasons Calvin looks the way he does. I haven't exactly tried to do an analysis of his form, because it wouldn't exactly be one that would fit my frame, but clearly it works for him. Granted, DG is still a fairly young sport in terms of biomechanical knowledge, so perhaps in our case there may be elite players that could stand to make some significant technical changes and actually see improvement, but at that stage of the game in any sport, it's very rare (though, not impossible) to find a significant technical adjustment that leads to real improvement. I think Josh had a video about a similar concept with Cole Redalen's trail leg. (Or whatever we call that back leg in disc golf lol).

I'm thinking too of the US Air Force and their flawed cockpit design where they tried to build the 'universal cockpit' that wound up fitting no one. At the end of the day in sports, we teach to models, but with the knowledge no one is ever going to fit those models perfectly.
And this is the exact reason I stop just a step short of saying it is "bad." Well said.

Then on the other hand, Josh and I have talked about the legend (reality) of Jared Roan. At a certain point he became too interested in his own form, and broke it and never recovered.

A stained glass mirror shatters if you tap it the wrong way.

Edit: wow. You go girl!

Last edited:
I wish I could stop, honestly, but you know me...

Hahahah yeah.... I felt silly even writing that disclaimer, but y'know. It's nice to be nice lmao.

I realize this may slightly derail the thread, but this is sparking an interesting convo note to me. In a lot of sports we see and hear all the time of truly elite people with "bad" form. This is usually accompanied by "How much better could this person be if they just learned to do X". I think a lot of the time is "potentially worse". One of the more recent examples I can think of in track is the new female triple jump world record holder, Yulimar Rojas. As far as being a technically sound triple jump in terms of phase breakdowns, it falls very short of the mark, and much more resembles a young high schooler trying the event for the first time. But, she's got the bloody world record. She's literally done it better than anyone ever. So, who are we to say "well you're doing it wrong". When/if she breaks her world record again, it's not going to be by "fixing" the thing she does poorly, it's going to be by exploiting the things she does incredibly well. Hell, look at Jason Belmonte in bowling. He got sooo much flack for being the 'two-handed' guy and bowling wrong, but the results speak for themselves. Would he have been a better bowler if he'd learned to do it "right"? Probably not.

So, taking that over to someone like Calvin. There could be a million reasons Calvin looks the way he does. I haven't exactly tried to do an analysis of his form, because it wouldn't exactly be one that would fit my frame, but clearly it works for him. Granted, DG is still a fairly young sport in terms of biomechanical knowledge, so perhaps in our case there may be elite players that could stand to make some significant technical changes and actually see improvement, but at that stage of the game in any sport, it's very rare (though, not impossible) to find a significant technical adjustment that leads to real improvement. I think Josh had a video about a similar concept with Cole Redalen's trail leg. (Or whatever we call that back leg in disc golf lol).

I'm thinking too of the US Air Force and their flawed cockpit design where they tried to build the 'universal cockpit' that wound up fitting no one. At the end of the day in sports, we teach to models, but with the knowledge no one is ever going to fit those models perfectly.
I also wanted to say something where I think Rowing and I actually agree most of the time, which is in the end you really are just finding the thing that works for you.

Again, I think I learned the most from just swinging and throwing s%\$! in my basement or outside and natural moves and gradually trying to connect those things up to a disc with drills. Literally one of best kinds of advice I had for "analysis paralysis" was "have a drink and throw a 360 hammer."

I do think in the end we'll know a lot about what's better or worse in general, but it's this individual variation stuff that keeps me interested in the long run.

I am not going to say a word of advice to a dude who is arguably the best disc golfer on this planet.

I do think he has unconventional aspects to his form, but I think people should play around with the most obvious one: Keeping a bent arm through the entire backswing.

I think lots of people have strange concepts of what the backswing even is, and this is something to try that prevents at least some of those ideas from manifesting.

I am not going to say a word of advice to a dude who is arguably the best disc golfer on this planet.

I do think he has unconventional aspects to his form, but I think people should play around with the most obvious one: Keeping a bent arm through the entire backswing.

I think lots of people have strange concepts of what the backswing even is, and this is something to try that prevents at least some of those ideas from manifesting.
I agree with this. Messing around with "wide," "straight back," and "bent elbow" methods taught me a lot, including how the other ones work and why different players appear to move in different ways but are actually pretty similar (and then again, sometimes not).

Do other people here agree that Calvin's form is bad? Or is it just a bit unorthodox?

I also wanted to say something where I think Rowing and I actually agree most of the time, which is in the end you really are just finding the thing that works for you.

Again, I think I learned the most from just swinging and throwing s%\$! in my basement or outside and natural moves and gradually trying to connect those things up to a disc with drills. Literally one of best kinds of advice I had for "analysis paralysis" was "have a drink and throw a 360 hammer."

I do think in the end we'll know a lot about what's better or worse in general, but it's this individual variation stuff that keeps me interested in the long run.

Building YOUR swing is important because we all move different.

But I think its safe to agree there are movements which are acceptable and movements which are bad, even though they work. Because its not the "now" issue, its the "when" issue.
Such as Calvins form. He has an elbow issue. "well he's not having any backhand problems." Cool story. That doesn't mean what he's doing isn't causing that muscle issue that only affects his forehand.

It's like me getting tennis elbow from operating a lull 8 hours a day for 3 months. There were certain actions I couldn't do that made 0 sense. I had to learn to pour a tea kettle a different way because if I grabbed it normally my arm stopped working. I was able to throw backhands just fine, but couldn't throw forehands for 3 to 4 months.

This is why a lot of posture things are important and why some topics like the nose angle thing are a really deep rabbit hole. Isolating them to much doesn't paint the correct picture. Because when it comes down to a good mechanical swing, it's about hitting the key points smoothly in good time in a safe manor that doesn't over stress the body in 1 spot.

This is why a lot of posture things are important and why some topics like the nose angle thing are a really deep rabbit hole. Isolating them to much doesn't paint the correct picture.
Yup, this is the thing that bothers me most about nose-angle talk lol.

Replies
21
Views
1K
Replies
39
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
976
Replies
43
Views
4K