Big Questions after "Fundamentals of"

[timothy42b]

I thought the Fundamentals of Form was a good effort to capture the current consensus of the forum. All consensuses must contain knowledge, opinion, and speculation. But over the years I've been here I think the knowledge portion has been steadily improving as fine points get debated and explained. Disc golf is still relatively new in this progression.

So three questions occur.

What areas/things/concepts is there disagreement on?

What areas remain unknown?

What do we have wrong?

 

[Brychanus]

I thought the Fundamentals of Form was a good effort to capture the current consensus of the forum. All consensuses must contain knowledge, opinion, and speculation. But over the years I've been here I think the knowledge portion has been steadily improving as fine points get debated and explained. Disc golf is still relatively new in this progression.

So three questions occur.

What areas/things/concepts is there disagreement on?

What areas remain unknown?

What do we have wrong?

Thanks for this, and for giving it its own thread!


General need/problem: who is paying for full-time graduate educated Kinesiologists and other related sports/biomechanical disciplines to study all this?

I'm focusing on backhand here, things that still bother me/I continue to learn about/talk about with others.

1. A general but important point: individual differences. I think the tension between what is "truly" fundamental and conserved across concepts with what actually varies is a hard problem in many fields, and the same is true in disc golf. Maybe the reason that people like me seem to respond so well to sledgehammers is different than the reason that some people never need to pick a hammer up to learn to throw far. What does that mean? What doesn't it? What is the same in the kinetics, and what is different?

2. Are pulls, pushes from the chest, and arm swings all the same? Are there meaningful individual differences, or are these really just semantic differences?

3. Grip style & grip tension interactions with posture and kinetics, broadly speaking.

4. Do you stack and balance on the CoG, or do you want the CoG "as far behind the brace as possible" as some people say? Is it possible that these are just perspectives talking past one another?

5. Does Calvin actually use "The same" mechanics as Eagle in terms of the macro-move?

6. Is the vertical/horizontal/diagonal dimensional thinking just a way to describe "the same" move and conservation/transmission of forces?

7. How do/should hip-shoulder separation for one arm swings really work and interact with "The Move" in golf (or not)?

8. Whassup with the shoulder abduction in the swing? All centrifugal effects from the swing plane? A little deltoid and a lot muscles for scapular retraction?

I know you have some Qs on top of those too so please pile on!

 

[seedlings]

Throw and throw and throw and throw in the field. For long periods of time, short periods of time, and several times a week for months on end. When something feels good try to do it repeatedly. When something seems like it should work, but doesn't… watch yourself on video. Learn what the limitations of your body/flexibility are. Do not try to throw hard. Ever. … that is, until you're coming out of the pocket.

 

[Sheep]

Thanks for this, and for giving it its own thread!


General need/problem: who is paying for full-time graduate educated Kinesiologists and other related sports/biomechanical disciplines to study all this?

I'm focusing on backhand here, things that still bother me/I continue to learn about/talk about with others.

1. A general but important point: individual differences. I think the tension between what is "truly" fundamental and conserved across concepts with what actually varies is a hard problem in many fields, and the same is true in disc golf. Maybe the reason that people like me seem to respond so well to sledgehammers is different than the reason that some people never need to pick a hammer up to learn to throw far. What does that mean? What doesn't it? What is the same in the kinetics, and what is different?

2. Are pulls, pushes from the chest, and arm swings all the same? Are there meaningful individual differences, or are these really just semantic differences?

3. Grip style & grip tension interactions with posture and kinetics, broadly speaking.

4. Do you stack and balance on the CoG, or do you want the CoG "as far behind the brace as possible" as some people say? Is it possible that these are just perspectives talking past one another?

5. Does Calvin actually use "The same" mechanics as Eagle in terms of the macro-move?

6. Is the vertical/horizontal/diagonal dimensional thinking just a way to describe "the same" move and conservation/transmission of forces?

7. How do/should hip-shoulder separation for one arm swings really work and interact with "The Move" in golf (or not)?

8. Whassup with the shoulder abduction in the swing? All centrifugal effects from the swing plane? A little deltoid and a lot muscles for scapular retraction?

I know you have some Qs on top of those too so please pile on!

They really really need to fix multi quote. Ughhhh.

Grip stuff is really not looked into a lot.
I am currently, but there is only so much "feel" data I can gather, but I'm also still in Theory mode on this as well. Lots of brain power on this one. I'm pretty sure the accepted idea's on grip stuff are... actually hurting some players.
I'll get the high speed out at some point and review at something better than a cell phone level. Though, cellphones doing pretty good now.



Main disagreements;

Language to use is one of the largest ones. I've been pushing language for 5 years now. Brychanus is pushing it also, and it's catching on. But we need to agree on better language and to eliminate this bad language describing what we are doing.
Language is what helps the brain react. Giving bad instructions and signals to the body because we don't describe things correctly absolutely destroy our motor functions, because ... were telling it to do one thing, and trying to mimic a completely different motion.

Weight shift might have been in disagreement, but I think 95% of us coaching out there are all on the same page close enough. There is that one guy who teaches weight shift from behind the throw. and. whatever. He can do what he wants.

The implementation of fast twitch muscles and when to use them is not a widely discussed topic, but it's why these young kids can bomb at 14-15 years old, and some of us old fuddies are struggling, because we didn't develop those muscles the same way even with someone like me with a heavy sports background, I don't have that type of control on those muscle groups, and it takes adults WAY longer to learn them.
Then there is the "when" to add the "zhuzh" which is really an advanced topic anyways.

I think a lot of other disagreements out there between us comes down to us all saying the same thing slightly different using different language.
Were all explaining the same core concepts and how to get there.
And I don't think there is 1 way to get there. There are multiple ways that are good, and there is even more ways that are bad. And the annoying part of all of it is that there are many "bad" form ways that work. And you can apply the "if its stupid and it works" concept to it, but I golf with a lot of the OG 80's and 90's golfers. Who ... Have been using old school mechanics and form for years. Stopping the follow through and some other weird snappy things they did. And .. well. It worked. It worked really really well. But they are all having long term injuries now they have been building over the years hurting them. One more recently had back surgery from it. A lot of bad form that worked sorta deal.
So, identifying bad mechanics that work is something I believe there is some definite disagreement in. Because Sometimes in the case of health "if its stupid and it works" is not a good idea. Because while it works now, you're hurting yourself on a small level every throw.

That is actually a pretty fun topic. All the bad swings out there that are safe and work, but have a hard hard cap on play, but shoot good scores. So people take advice from them and ... continue the bad form that just happens to work, but people need to seriously stop doing.
Such as the "force annie flex forehand" players. hahaha. STOP IT.

 

[timothy42b]

Okay, couple of thoughts.

Individual differences. Yes, the baseball people are way ahead of us here. Just watch Tread Athletics discussions of hip internal rotation, arm slot, etc., and remember baseball professionals are a truncated distribution - the tiny fraction of exceptional athletes that make it. We're a even more diverse group, both in physical ability and learning style. So if there are real differences in the swing, some patterns might be more optimum, or even impossible for some people. I'm glad you mentioned that one. If you can't get layback like Eagle, is there a way to extend the acceleration distance on a forehand?

Areas of disagreement. If we look at Spin&Throw, Slingshot, Overthrow to some extent, we see some differences that are too large to be just different descriptions of the same thing. Some are just wrong. Others may be tradeoffs. There are a couple people who like a very vertical axis of rotation. (Stokely, Strauss maybe) There are a couple people who employ more deliberate shoulder rotation, or more deliberate wrist action. There are people who think pendulum backswing has some limitations.

We see standstill shots as a good precursor to X-step variations. But is the step just a larger amplitude standstill, or are they two different swings.

One emphasis that may have changed over time is working the kinetic chain as the basis vs working the hit. It seems to me that the old DGR pioneers really focused on arm and release, and expected the body to figure out how to add weight and momentum, and DGCR is now the reverse mostly. Could be my perception, and of course feel isn't real.

Kinetic chain is a basic that seems accepted. Each link admits some variation in both alignment and timing. Are there possibly two main patterns of swing, like in ball golf (hitting/axhandle vs swinging/ropespull), and does wide rail vs American really describe them? If there are, then some variations in kinetic links will work for one and not the other.

Unknown to me (but doesn't mean unknown to the rest of you of course!):

What really happens at release/hit? There is no description I've seen that seems convincing.

To what extent do inertial forces cause motion, vs muscular force, when angles of levers change. I'm thinking mostly wrist, elbow, shoulder, all of which change angles. The simulations assume frictionless pin joints but that isn't reality.

Which leads to: what causes rotation in a given case, and how can we tell. Inertial forces will cause rotation but only if the CG is off center of the brace - (example push a box against a curb, when the lower edge stops (braced) the CG continues inducing rotation forward.) Vs actual application of torque, e.g. the brace leg extending driving the front hip backward.

 

[jupiterboy]

I feel like the distillation is still very much in process. Part of the idea of fundamental is simplification, and it seems like we are still working on these boundaries; along with some differentiation in regards to actual different shots—stand still vs run up, etc. I know I've tried to absorb what I can, and there is a big pile of cast offs—ideas where I can see why they take hold, but ultimately are not really helpful for some reason, for example, "starting the mower".

There's probably a core—what is common to all backhand shots? Then secondary and tertiary refinements/variations. I'm watching Overthrow this morning and breakdown of right arm for Drew and Simon. I can see the off shoulder starting the downforce into the plant. This is one idea I've been working for a while, but I don't see it in any coaching curriculum.

Like Seedlings says, it is you and the disc in the field. Words can only refer you to experience. The wrong words can confuse everything.

Sometimes this all feels a bit like dieting culture. One path is to learn about food and see how it makes you feel, the other is to sign up for a program that gets you excited about the idea.

 

[Brychanus]

Okay, couple of thoughts.

Individual differences. Yes, the baseball people are way ahead of us here. Just watch Tread Athletics discussions of hip internal rotation, arm slot, etc., and remember baseball professionals are a truncated distribution - the tiny fraction of exceptional athletes that make it. We're a even more diverse group, both in physical ability and learning style. So if there are real differences in the swing, some patterns might be more optimum, or even impossible for some people. I'm glad you mentioned that one. If you can't get layback like Eagle, is there a way to extend the acceleration distance on a forehand?

Areas of disagreement. If we look at Spin&Throw, Slingshot, Overthrow to some extent, we see some differences that are too large to be just different descriptions of the same thing. Some are just wrong. Others may be tradeoffs. There are a couple people who like a very vertical axis of rotation. (Stokely, Strauss maybe) There are a couple people who employ more deliberate shoulder rotation, or more deliberate wrist action. There are people who think pendulum backswing has some limitations.

We see standstill shots as a good precursor to X-step variations. But is the step just a larger amplitude standstill, or are they two different swings.

One emphasis that may have changed over time is working the kinetic chain as the basis vs working the hit. It seems to me that the old DGR pioneers really focused on arm and release, and expected the body to figure out how to add weight and momentum, and DGCR is now the reverse mostly. Could be my perception, and of course feel isn't real.

Kinetic chain is a basic that seems accepted. Each link admits some variation in both alignment and timing. Are there possibly two main patterns of swing, like in ball golf (hitting/axhandle vs swinging/ropespull), and does wide rail vs American really describe them? If there are, then some variations in kinetic links will work for one and not the other.

Unknown to me (but doesn't mean unknown to the rest of you of course!):

What really happens at release/hit? There is no description I've seen that seems convincing.

To what extent do inertial forces cause motion, vs muscular force, when angles of levers change. I'm thinking mostly wrist, elbow, shoulder, all of which change angles. The simulations assume frictionless pin joints but that isn't reality.

Which leads to: what causes rotation in a given case, and how can we tell. Inertial forces will cause rotation but only if the CG is off center of the brace - (example push a box against a curb, when the lower edge stops (braced) the CG continues inducing rotation forward.) Vs actual application of torque, e.g. the brace leg extending driving the front hip backward.

These are good questions, I'd like to continue:

1. Indiv. differences and non-exceptional athletes: I think baseball is a great example of this. I know firsthand that it can be a tremendous struggle getting certain people and bodies to learn to do certain things. Coaching-wise, what can (should) you do in those cases? What is "good enough" if the person isn't getting bound to get that MLB/touring pro equivalent level of ability?

2. Areas of public coaching disagreements: I completely agree that there are fundamental tensions there, and that the extent to which it is a vertical axis vs. the more diagonal shift-in-a-pendulum shift (more like most DGCR content) appears to be one of the biggest ones. In general, these have big implications for how people move into and through the X-step. Personally to stick my neck out a bit, I think part of the problem there is that there are indeed several legs to get off of the rear leg, but some of them are harder to learn than others, and maybe some bodies have more access to some more easily than others (your point 1, above). I think there are bigger implications for different moves and how leverage is or isn't maintained in their drive leg transition and afterwards. Almost every single player I've ever seen has a lot of trouble figuring out how to consistently load and coil while moving through an X-step. I'll leave it there for a moment.

3. Standstill vs. x-step: I think one reason the x-step is so challenging because it has more dynamics/degrees of freedom entering the move. I still commonly have to tinker back and forth between them to try and find advantages. I think the boundary between when you call it a different swing is interesting neurologically/kinetically etc.

4. Work on the chain, or work on the hit? Trite but true, why not both? I worry sometimes about trying to learn to throw without throwing, and trying to learn to throw so much that you never change it. Like you're saying, some people also will struggle to pick up some aspects no matter what for one reason or another. I think a hit without a chain is weak, and a chain without a hit is weak. My guess is that developing a single integrated motion pattern is probably the most mileage in the long run, however you get there.

5. Two+ main patterns? I think it is possible & discerning at what level of detail you would need to say one way or another is an interesting problem.

6. What happens at the release/hit? I'm still not 100% sure in an absolute sense. Whatever it is, it seems to involve maintaining fluid leverage with sufficient force to resist it slipping out early. It seems like there might be a little variability in how people achieve this. I think it's probably also related to how well-integrated whatever that thing is with managing swing/pull/shift/ground force earlier in the chain. Again, maybe there are interesting differences there.

7. Inertia + muscle force interacting with angles: I think this is very interesting.

8. Causes of rotation: I agree there is also probably more to talk about here, esp. when it comes to optimizing individual cases. Onto leads myself.

 

[Brychanus]

Throw and throw and throw and throw in the field. For long periods of time, short periods of time, and several times a week for months on end. When something feels good try to do it repeatedly. When something seems like it should work, but doesn't… watch yourself on video. Learn what the limitations of your body/flexibility are. Do not try to throw hard. Ever. … that is, until you're coming out of the pocket.

I have found it interesting talking to some bombers (which I'd put at consistent ~475'+ club who usually who started young/were athletic and flexible when they started - they often have form issues but are clearly throwing far) that there are some that really are ripping as hard as they can as often as they can. But I encounter probably more players who claim only ever to throw at 80% and they chip away year after year gradually marching their power and control up. I usually advise searching around the 80% "sweet spot" and seeing how the body takes it at this point. And I don't know about everyone but my 80% "feels" much easier than it did a year ago when throwing even though it's a more athletic move.

 

[Sheep]

What really happens at release/hit? There is no description I've seen that seems convincing.

I'm going to take high speed of this sometime soon.
I just gotta figure out how to get the high speed setup, because lens length etc. Cause.. that's my hold up at the moment.

I don't have the money to buy some shortie lens for the kronos.

 

[Brychanus]

I feel like the distillation is still very much in process. Part of the idea of fundamental is simplification, and it seems like we are still working on these boundaries; along with some differentiation in regards to actual different shots—stand still vs run up, etc. I know I've tried to absorb what I can, and there is a big pile of cast offs—ideas where I can see why they take hold, but ultimately are not really helpful for some reason, for example, "starting the mower".

There's probably a core—what is common to all backhand shots? Then secondary and tertiary refinements/variations. I'm watching Overthrow this morning and breakdown of right arm for Drew and Simon. I can see the off shoulder starting the downforce into the plant. This is one idea I've been working for a while, but I don't see it in any coaching curriculum.

Like Seedlings says, it is you and the disc in the field. Words can only refer you to experience. The wrong words can confuse everything.

Sometimes this all feels a bit like dieting culture. One path is to learn about food and see how it makes you feel, the other is to sign up for a program that gets you excited about the idea.

I agree. For off shoulder and downforce, you might be talking about something related to this:

The SW22 Swim Move

*My use of "forward" might be ambiguous - "laterally" into the brace may be clearer per SW's vid.

www.dgcoursereview.com

I think this is important, but don't usually separate it from posture because if you are not in balance or in posture for the off arm to aid the downforce, you tend to end up with more wild/less consistently powerful swings. I think there are still fundamental differences in how various youtube folks demonstrate posture.

 

[Brychanus]

Main disagreements;
Weight shift might have been in disagreement, but I think 95% of us coaching out there are all on the same page close enough. There is that one guy who teaches weight shift from behind the throw. and. whatever. He can do what he wants.

The implementation of fast twitch muscles and when to use them is not a widely discussed topic, but it's why these young kids can bomb at 14-15 years old, and some of us old fuddies are struggling, because we didn't develop those muscles the same way even with someone like me with a heavy sports background, I don't have that type of control on those muscle groups, and it takes adults WAY longer to learn them.

I think a lot of other disagreements out there between us comes down to us all saying the same thing slightly different using different language.

For the sake of discussion, I am not sure I would put the weight shift commonality as high as 95% personally, but it also depends on how that's defined.

Fast twitch: Totally, and for the usual reasons it's not surprising when far throwers report distance dropoffs somewhere around 40. I also am curious how much is about the muscle twitching vs. fascial loading and unloading vs. leverage in different body types (thinking e.g. of Paul Oman vs. Isaac Robinson).

I do agree that a lot of the problems are with words.

 

[Sheep]

For the sake of discussion, I am not sure I would put the weight shift commonality as high as 95% personally, but it also depends on how that's defined.

That was a poke at slinky.

 

[seedlings]

Interested in your thoughts on how the new and old MD5 flights compare. How are they similar and how are they different?

I have found it interesting talking to some bombers (which I'd put at consistent ~475'+ club who usually who started young/were athletic and flexible when they started - they often have form issues but are clearly throwing far) that there are some that really are ripping as hard as they can as often as they can. But I encounter probably more players who claim only ever to throw at 80% and they chip away year after year gradually marching their power and control up. I usually advise searching around the 80% "sweet spot" and seeing how the body takes it at this point. And I don't know about everyone but my 80% "feels" much easier than it did a year ago when throwing even though it's a more athletic move.

My 80% is 62mph. My 100% is 59mph.

 

[blayed]

"Can anyone throw 500 feet" really should be "Can anyone throw 500 foot golf lines". If you can throw 430ft golf lines you can throw 500 ft distance lines (from personal experience) but they have virtually no impact in the real world.

The biggest issue with the guide is really in the interpretation. Like sheep asked, who is it for? Because its so easy to overthink your form and if you're already doing that this guide will send you spinning. The BH throw is really so simple and the power is right there for the taking, its just getting out of your own way. But that's more the realm of coaching, which is the practice of identifying and applying the correct action items and cues for the player. So I guess this is ideally a resource for coaches? For people with curiosity about mechanics? As something to argue about online?

 

[Brychanus]

"Can anyone throw 500 feet" really should be "Can anyone throw 500 foot golf lines". If you can throw 430ft golf lines you can throw 500 ft distance lines (from personal experience) but they have virtually no impact in the real world.

The biggest issue with the guide is really in the interpretation. Like sheep asked, who is it for? Because its so easy to overthink your form and if you're already doing that this guide will send you spinning. The BH throw is really so simple and the power is right there for the taking, its just getting out of your own way. But that's more the realm of coaching, which is the practice of identifying and applying the correct action items and cues for the player. So I guess this is ideally a resource for coaches? For people with curiosity about mechanics? As something to argue about online?

1. Agree with the first point.

2. Issue with the guide seems more related to the parent thread for the document so I responded there!

 

[Nick Carroll]

As someone who started out with terrible form, and has started to put the pieces together way too late, there needs to be a push to get the fundamentals out there, that maybe can be adopted in a widespread manner. Knowing what I do now, the sooner I would have been introduced to the simple, proper, steps to get throwing correctly, the better. And I've seen too many people take that same path. For people like me, "feel" isn't just "not enough" but it's detrimental. I had no proper understanding how bad my form was, and even though there's good content out there on YouTube, the onboarding process for new players is still too difficult. Not just because some people differ in teachings, and terminology, but the learning process is so individualized. Someone like a Paul McBeth can learn with terminology like "pull" and "reachback" but for too many people, those words are practically dangerous - if not immediately, it's over time. The best gift someone can give a new disc golfer is proper instruction on how to throw. From basic swing theory, to the essentials of footwork and movement.

 

[Sheep]

As someone who started out with terrible form, and has started to put the pieces together way too late, there needs to be a push to get the fundamentals out there, that maybe can be adopted in a widespread manner. Knowing what I do now, the sooner I would have been introduced to the simple, proper, steps to get throwing correctly, the better. And I've seen too many people take that same path. For people like me, "feel" isn't just "not enough" but it's detrimental. I had no proper understanding how bad my form was, and even though there's good content out there on YouTube, the onboarding process for new players is still too difficult. Not just because some people differ in teachings, and terminology, but the learning process is so individualized. Someone like a Paul McBeth can learn with terminology like "pull" and "reachback" but for too many people, those words are practically dangerous - if not immediately, it's over time. The best gift someone can give a new disc golfer is proper instruction on how to throw. From basic swing theory, to the essentials of footwork and movement.

I can see this issue watching content online.

There is rarely any focus on fundamentals and baseline things that we all agree on to a great extent.
But there is a lot of focus on "omg, I got the thing to help you throw 500 feet, listen to my sales pitch!"

It's a lot of hype and theory.

But nobody is really breaking it down into some basics of "these are the key points you really need to pay attention to and here is how you can build them."

Because nobody cares about that. They want the quick pill, the instant fix, the hype. The "double move." or whatever garbage someone comes up with.

I could make video's all day about the fundamental points to build from, nobody is going to watch them, just as nobody gives 2 cares about talking to me about a lot of this coaching theory despite actively saying stuff like "we need to all talk and communicate" or whatever.
Well, I shouldn't say that. Jaani and I have talked at length about breaking down the form into key basic points and letting the body take the wheel as we guide it. And it's a great theoretical way to disc golf, vs a huge mechanical machine way to disc golf.
I'm getting side tracked badly.

Basically, everyone wants the hype. Nobody wants to watch a 5 minute video on why the power pocket is important. Or a 3 minute video about how important it is to set your shoulders up properly for success.
Just like nobody really cares much about my video about why "its not grip lock" even though everyone says its grip lock.

 

[jupiterboy]

Coming from a book background, I think about this in terms of an outline and illustrations. Youtube, etc. needs constant content, and it also constantly cannibalizes itself. It doesn't have credibility as a medium because everyone knows that any content creator is in an endless loop to create content whether it is needed or not.

Part of the learning process is learning to see. Reminds me of how an audio mastering engineer can listen to a recording or speakers, etc. and know by frequency where something is off. A great musician need not be able to do this. I think the first part of learning and teaching a disc golf throw is learning to see what is happening. Seems the pros don't always know what it is they are doing.

Something about a book and ink on paper makes people really sort out what they are on about because you can't take it back, delete it, etc. Gotta wait until the second edition.

I don't know how the online coaching community establishes credibility. I'm pretty sure there are not enough different ways to teach the same thing to allow all contenders proprietary content.

 

[Brychanus]

Jupiterboy's last comment seems on theme with unanswered questions, if to broaden to theme a bit.

I agree about YouTube. As the document editor & coauthor, one of the benefits I enjoyed in compiling V1 of the project was that I was both making no money, but also not beholden to anyone other than SW's initial judgment. It was not to support a business or anything other than my own curiosity and drive to understand mechanics. I have interests in coaching, but I prefer to put as many of my conceptual horses in front of their carts when I can. Not everyone does. On the other hand, the lack of a formal editor or incentives to appeal to any one group means that the current document will have some very rough areas, as it currently does.

On learning to see, I have to believe that someone like SW has the kind of perception of throws that e.g., a highly trained radiologist has of brain scans. They can make mistakes, but there is a reason that we still usually have at best "AI-assisted" clinical judgments in medicine (to the chagrin of insurance companies, as an aside), and for the most parts humans are still very much "in the loop."* I don't know where my own perception ranks relative to his (certainly more novice), but after working on Fundamentals, I do know that I can't watch disc golf or baseball the same way anymore because all I am noticing is how players' bodies are moving and considering why some players seem to have more power or consistency than others. I don't see lines or static images even when they are used to communicate ideas such as in our Fundamentals story (I promise blayed I'll call it a "theory" after the next revision). I perceive motion and balance and weight shifts and pressure and leverage and coordination and so on. When I am wrong or cannot do it myself, it becomes more motivating because I have something new to learn. That's also the only reason I don't quit my day job, but disc golf has become a close second.

In that domain, it is interesting to me when someone like Chris Taylor and SW (or any coach) appear to disagree. Where, and how deeply? What happens when our "data" are poorly controlled and insufficient? How easily can we overinterpret one "data" source relative to another? I submit to you from the front lines of another field - easily. Sometimes it is the effort to tie it all together in motion or in your head that you realize the important things. Sometimes there are true "ahas!". Most of it is usually over a long period of time. SW's version of this has the type of cohesion and connectedness to outside sports science I had to work hard to understand, and that I could not find anywhere else (I've looked). In that respect it provides a good starting point. He also put himself through everything he teaches to good effect, and I respect the hell out of that too.


*To clarify, I am anything but anti-technology, and I'm rooting for these methods. But I can tell you story after story about how people building these models would have saved themselves a hell of a lot of time by talking to people who actually treat patients and are also fans of technologies that work.

 

[Sheep]

Coming from a book background, I think about this in terms of an outline and illustrations. Youtube, etc. needs constant content, and it also constantly cannibalizes itself. It doesn't have credibility as a medium because everyone knows that any content creator is in an endless loop to create content whether it is needed or not.

Part of the learning process is learning to see. Reminds me of how an audio mastering engineer can listen to a recording or speakers, etc. and know by frequency where something is off. A great musician need not be able to do this. I think the first part of learning and teaching a disc golf throw is learning to see what is happening. Seems the pros don't always know what it is they are doing.

Something about a book and ink on paper makes people really sort out what they are on about because you can't take it back, delete it, etc. Gotta wait until the second edition.

I don't know how the online coaching community establishes credibility. I'm pretty sure there are not enough different ways to teach the same thing to allow all contenders proprietary content.

Credibility is something I really struggle with when it comes to disc golf coaching. There are some of us that put in a LOT of effort to be good at what we do. Spend time going over theories, talking about our idea's with each other. Sharing and comparing notes to be better, challenging each other.
Someone just gotta jump on youtube and get , ooooh, what is he at now... 45.6k subscribers, and they are the foremost expert on disc golf form. But you bring Josh into here where we discuss things at length and everything will fall apart really quick.

But guys like Josh and Robby C and others wont take someone like me seriously because I'm not making youtube content all the time, I don't have a lot of subscribers. So they wont have the conversations, they wont have the discussions. Thus, refusing to confirm any level of credibility.

This sort of thing eats at my core as I spend so many hours watching content. I spend hours ruining my form to try these concepts to see if there is merit in them at all.
But nope, I'm a nobody, because I don't have a blue checkmark, or a big channel of subscribers. It's just like the whole idea that some people have with not listening to someone coach because they are not like 980 rated or some crazy stuff.
What does my ability to score good in a tournament have to do with my ability to make you a better player and instruct you?
Nothing, same as with my ability to make youtube videos.

Excuse me as I go make click bait video's to draw people in. "Throw 500 feet!" or some other bullcrap. I'm interested in gathering real data and working through the theories of form.
(there is the segue)

Because ALL of it is theory.
ALL of it.
Everything throughout history of sports is theory. It's all THEROY.

What do I mean by that?
Well, if any of it was in the realm of some level of "this is the way it is, there is no where to improve" there would never be any study and research. There would be the "this is the accepted way and this is it." And just our minor differences in body would give us those changes. But people find better ways to manipulate their body, safer ways, stronger ways, more powerful ways.

Insert that javelin thrower picture here brychanus likes to use.
The guy posts up like an atomic bomb.
You wanna tell me this is how they were doing it back in greek times?
No, everyone back then was trying to find the secrets to getting better then too. It's all theory.

What is the "Best" theory.
or what are the "running theories"

Practical applications sort of deal. Doesn't mean there is 1 way and 1 way only. You see this in a lot of the older golf lesson video's. I would teach what they called "natural golf" because it was SOOOO easy to teach new players interested in golf.
I cannot even remember the other ones.
But swing trainers, gidgets and gadgets and video's and methods and theories.
And what do we get?
Better equipment, limitations put on balls, guys able to swing clubs at MASSIVE speeds and power never thought of before all through technology and understanding of mechanics better and better.
And.. honestly, through our body and minds willingness to try try try again and sometimes things just click.

Pro's are fantastic athletes, but they honestly have 0 credibility when it comes to teaching for the most part.
Some of them are good teachers.
And Ulibari see's that he's not gonna be a champ and switched to coaching and is riding his credibility wave of being a "pro" but... from the clips and info I've seen. He's got no clue what he's talking about. Especially if one of your advertisement clips is you teaching "squish the bug" the showing you throwing and not squishing the bug..
Yeah, go get bent.

Credibility is about us in here discussing and trying to do things better and working together.
I don't have the mind space anymore to do what Brychanus did. I can provide my feedback though, or help work through some idea's that I see relevance in.
Credibility comes in the respect you give others even that you dont always agree with being willing to stand up for their ideas, learn and change. But not being afraid to talk with others and learn.
Credibility comes from not shutting others out and living in your false reality as you plug your ears and go "neenerneenerneener" or some crap.

You gain credibility by doing, learning and discussing.
Unfortunately, sometimes it's hard to show others you HAVE credibility, and you have Reputation.
Because some people are not willing to look for it, or talk with you to find out.

I have no idea where I was going with any of this.
But yes, Smacking your name on some sort of big document is a catch22. or a double edged sword.
Because you're putting your name on something, and idea's and thoughts change.

And I think that's one of the key points from Belayed about it being theory writing.
And even then, people will attack you, because they have no idea what "theory" means, or how things work. And they think everything is an actual, not an idea to be challenged. So, you gotta be wrong. (this is a huge issue in archeology)