-
Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)
Can anyone throw 500'?
- Thread starter sidewinder22
- Start date
I've thrown 500 feet with poor mechanics.
Mechanics don't always directly correlate with distance when discussing different individuals.
Mechanics are mechanics. Distance is distance. Just because someone has good distance does not mean they have good mechanics.
However, having good mechanics translates to more possible power for each individual, and a longer playing career without/with less injury.
Yeah, was meant to be a progression. I was thinking that to comfortably throw up to 300, its mostly mechanics. After that, it becomes more of a mix with reps gaining importance.
My buddies who started at the same time as me:
First still throws landing plant foot open and can hit 220-240 with a blizzard katana on a flex line. He is throwing as hard as he can.
The other had an ultimate background and a little head start on us but he doesn't quite get mechanics, planting unstaggered with no room for the disc, doesn't engage his lower body enough, and tries to apply power with active wrist snapping like its a lid. He throws flippy shrykes on flex lines and on good days hits 320 and bad days they hyzer out at 280. He has a great approach game throwing putters.
Now these are both roughly 39-43 year old dudes picking up the sport late in life, but athletic and in decent enough shape. They have had a lot of reps over 2 years but their lack of sound mechanics has prevented the youngest and tallest of us to hit 250, and the other who played ultimate for years can only get to 300 on occasion. I imagine 2 years of reps and them trying to throw as hard as they can shows the limits of effort ineffectively applied.
I would argue around 320' consistently. That's not perfect or even excellent, but what I would consider good. Obviously subjective.
"Good" is so relative to each individual that you can't set a standard for players across the board
Last edited:
I personally don't think anyone is throwing 500' without very good mechanics. I would love to see a video of that occurring. It could be a Jim Furyk type case in that it may not be optimal or easily repetitive from a teaching perspective, but are still good in the sense that results (especially consistent) could be argued to define the quality of the motion. Results are the most easily quantifiable component here to apply to a physical movement across anatomies & physiologies.
Again, its a subjective term so we're all jerking off here but that's the fun.
Groovy question, I've pondered this in the past myself. I've seen 12 year old kids throw 300, I've seen pros approaching 400lbs (Jamie Mosier *) throw 400+, my son threw a disc 300ft the first time he threw it (with zero experience). Mechanically I think it's much easier to get to 300ft than 400+, and again I think that's why alot of players plateau at 300ft because they are not willing to put in the time, take lessons, etc, to improve their base mechanics. I'd say 450 is the benchmark for having good form & good mechanics. This doesn't mean throwing a light disc on a high anny flex during a wind storm, this is the mechanics needed to throw a mid range 350, faiways 400, drivers 450. At 450 you have both good arm speed and great snap to put spin on the disc.
* Before weight loss. He's lost some weight the past couple of years.
1) This question is really broad.
A) Which group of people are you talking about?
Random people at the park are impressed with a 300' throw. Casual/recreational disc golfers may be impressed with 350'. Different groups will have different standards.
B) What are "good" mechanics?
You hear people say that "good is the enemy of great." What exactly do you mean when you say "good?" Is it good enough to throw decently? Good, but could be greatly improved upon? Good, meaning "correct" form? (Note the distinction between "correct" and "perfect" where there can still be room for improvement.)
2) This question contributes more to an increase in posts and very little to an increase in distance.
Dude
I agree and disagree somewhat. I think anyone throwing 500 feet can be said to have good mechanics. But, it may be that their mechanics aren't very good relatively speaking with their ultimate potential.
I don't think there's a specific distance that means your mechanics are good. I threw farther in my first year of playing than I did in years 2 and 3. The difference is that I actually knew where my throws were going in years 2 and 3 while I worked on consistent, controlled, repeatable mechanics. I lost 30' but started scoring better. I also started being able to throw mids and putters further, even though my max distance with fast discs went down. Now when I really try to crank on a disc I can't hit 400', whereas I was hitting 400' periodically in that first year I played. And I'm not old enough to where Father Time should be the cause of that.
My mechanics have improved but my distance is decreased. I'm OK with that. Maybe someday I'll try to put it all together -- control and power. But that would take a lot more time and effort than I'm willing to commit.
My mechanics have improved but my distance is decreased. I'm OK with that. Maybe someday I'll try to put it all together -- control and power. But that would take a lot more time and effort than I'm willing to commit.
For example- A while back Paul Omans mechanics were brought up on a 500 foot controlled throw he made and it seemed like there were certain individuals (not going to mention names) on the forum here who thought his mechanics weren't good. I was kind of shocked by that because I thought his mechanics were good. One simply can't throw that far with bad or even mediocre mechanics.
So you define good mechanics as Nate Sexton? I mean I guess that is a fair definition, but I would qualify that as more of what is the benchmark of good mechanics for a professional player in their prime.
I was thinking more on the average person who is not a professional, plays/practices at least once a week, is actively trying to improve, but also has a day job and other commitments. I guess that's just my frame of reference but I figure that is the majority of people here.
- Joined
- May 17, 2020
- Messages
- 1,707
I think there are a lot of big and/or athletic dudes out there that can probably yank something overstable to the right and hit big numbers.
I've also seen some people that can absolutely bomb when they get things right but can't consistently get things right. I would argue that if it isn't easily repeatable, it isn't good mechanics.
I've also seen some people that can absolutely bomb when they get things right but can't consistently get things right. I would argue that if it isn't easily repeatable, it isn't good mechanics.
As I recall it wasn't that they were saying his mechanics weren't good.
You had said something about his form was "perfect" and they responded with things that could be improved upon.
Again, the difference between "correct" and "perfect."
EDIT: here is what I said back then:
You are misstating the Paul Oman issue. It started when you stated "I think it perfectly does showcase the correct kinetic motion sequence." That was the initial point of contention. Then SW pointed out his mechanical advantage and some inefficiencies in his throw. Then, seemingly because you could not address these issues directly on their merits you started engaging in logical fallacy. What is wrong with pointing out issues? It doesn't make the 500' accurate throw any less impressive. It doesn't mean he can't throw far. It simply means that he can throw that far even with issues, which should give people hope that even if you don't have perfect form, you can still throw pretty far and accurately.
Last edited:
Absolutely. Repeatable and sustainable big distance usually derives from good mechanics.
But even then, good mechanics are good mechanics. Easily pointed out by someone who knows what they're looking at by a quick video. Don't only use symptoms to find the cause, look at the source.
Last edited:
SW22's "I wouldn't call it perfect" <> "weren't good"
He also followed that up with a detailed discussion of why he wouldn't call it perfect and compared to another pro he thought did some things better. Like...you couldn't get a better more thoughtful response and you still acted like a child in that thread. Come on.
If I understood the underling message in the question, I took it as: "at what distance do you need good mechanics to throw that distance" I think 450+ is the definition of that. I think it's literally impossible to have bad mechanics and throw 450+. But on the flip side..I think it's very possible to have crappy mechanics and still be able to chug a disc 250-300. But I digress... mechanics useful to the disc golf throw can be learned in other areas such as track and field, sports, yard work, fishing, tossing a lid on a beach, throwing paper airplanes, etc, etc which may be the reason some people adapt to the throw much easier.
Fair and an interesting take on the question. I would lower that bar but maybe I haven't come across enough freaks hitting 400' with bad form.
On that topic, if anyone has a good video of someone with what you would consider bad form hitting 400+, I would like to see it. I imagine, there are things we can learn from that too.
It seems we have a panel of arbitrary judges of distance and mechanics in here and that's one of our problems I guess. Who or how determines "Good mechanics"?. Seems rather arbitrary to me.
