Dr. Kwon’s DG 3D motion study

[timothy42b]

Mmmm I think the shoulder abduction as you swing through the pocket can be part of the move. Always?

Well clearly it is in a ball golf swing. There is no way to keep the arm on the shoulder plane and have it high enough in the backswing.

But if we go back to Sara's thesis, she uses the terms differently, and I think that's part of the confusion. She measured adduction, which is exactly what your diagrams show, differently from horizontal adduction, by which she means relative to the shoulder plane.

My mental image is that the throwing arm should be on the shoulder plane for disc golf but of course that could be way wrong.

 

[Brychanus]

Well clearly it is in a ball golf swing. There is no way to keep the arm on the shoulder plane and have it high enough in the backswing.

But if we go back to Sara's thesis, she uses the terms differently, and I think that's part of the confusion. She measured adduction, which is exactly what your diagrams show, differently from horizontal adduction, by which she means relative to the shoulder plane.

My mental image is that the throwing arm should be on the shoulder plane for disc golf but of course that could be way wrong.

I'd be curious how SW would talk about this too given how he teaches the "pocket" mechanics.

There's the planar descriptions of the moves through the pocket that sometimes involve vertical movement relative to body and/or ground (which was why I think we might talk about some shoulder abduction per the little figure I shared), and then otherwise the muscular flow & kinetics of the move. I'm curious so I'll try to understand better what Sara was doing in this context. Potentially interesting discussion to be had here.

 

[BruisedOoze]

Are you sure? I went back and read it again. XsubN is "direction of throw." I used the word target but of course I don't know what the target was. It really seems to me that she was using direction of throw to mean direction the disc goes at release.

Google tells me that ultimate lids are understable. I didn't know that so thanks. But you mostly throw them nose up so they can be caught.

I also looked at elbow flexion again. In her study the elbow starts about 50 degrees flexed and peaks at 70 just before release, it never gets much below 50 through follow through. There is no way they get near a power pocket. This is essentially a one lever throw (plus wrist.)

Yeah, like you I was trying to make sense of the numbers and noticed there was a change of wording when they talked about the throw qualitatively versus quantitative.

It's a bit hard for me to visualize the combination of the angles via the charts, but was trying to find a good example of old disc golf drives on youtube to marry what they were discussing in the thesis. Looking at frisbee driving/pulling videos close to the thesis date seems to imply driving mechanics we're used to seeing so I'm a bit curious.

What is noteworthy is that these are 50% throws and associated data of one thrower, so it's hard to say whether they'd have a consistent form across power levels.

 

[Brychanus]

Just returning to pocket, and muscle load. I'm trying to get better at distinguishing the more "academic" from "practical" points so I'll distinguish them here. To any lurkers, you probably won't get better just reading this, so just some food for thought that I hope helps you relax and play around:

Academic N = 1 "Self study"
This is something I sorta thought I knew, but I've been revisiting a few materials and decided to do a little self-experimenting.

Not quite directly addressing timothy's point Sara's there yet since I was trying to tinker with a how a few things work as a unit and started paying more attention to when I get the best action moving through the pocket (I usually define "best" as "highest release speed at lowest effort").

One of the things I think many people struggle with is over-isolating the arm, which can often end up decoupling it in one way or another from the body and the powerful supporting and workhorse muscles around the core, shoulder and back. There are a number of ways things can go wrong there even in pretty well-developed form.

I tried several motion experiments fishing in the vicinity of this move. Notice how much SW emphasizes the connection to the body, and de-emphasizes focusing on any one plane of motion even though he exaggerates a couple things for emphasis:

https://youtu.be/XC0LsBO_Wck?t=151

In little variations of that move, I played with discs, my wall-anchored resistance bands, and a flexbar and club. As I flowed into the pocket and rebound out into the release, there's probably some ideal combination for a given player for a complex, smooth loading of the oblique slings, throwing side lat muscle, rhomboid, (trapezius I think?), deltoid (some shoulder abduction). Notice that the move needs to work in some version of how he talks about the "screwing & unscrewing." Each body may wear that a little differently. My own loading and unloading that got the best results was always hard to pin down to a single distinct sequence and more a smooth loading between the groups, which I think is one of many of SW's "you're not a robot" points without getting into all the details.

Something I think is very easy to do is move through the pocket too vertical or too horizontal or too flat. You can easily and subtly pull things out of their best alignment, which means that you're getting part but not all of your best muscle groups and flow. E.g., when I was playing around with a windmill pump, it helped me get some of the wrong arm rotation out of my swing. But then gradually my swing started to flatten out too much (i.e., I overcorrected part of it), and I lost touch with some of the stronger muscle groups somewhere in that flow. It became extreme enough that I could feel more of the flow coming through my triceps too early. Strong arming is a continuum - I was not fully "strong arming" since the body and weight shift were still leading the swing, but I was losing enough of the other muscles and wave-like motion that I lost some potential power from my body. The swings are always better when I get a lot of those other groups smoothing loading and unloading before the arm really is doing any work. Unsurprisingly (and maybe especially for my body), I always got the best swings when I was shifting ahead with the buttwipe, moving through the strongest parts of my upper body in a flow, swinging through my center of gravity. Nothing muscled about it, just smooth loading and unloading. Some noticeable athletic contraction power as I added more momentum.

Practical advice:
IMHO, my practical/coaching point is the opposite of micromanaging the moves and muscles. You are not a robot. It's great to talk about sequences sometimes, but also learn to think about "flow." You might need to focus on bits at a time at first, but don't think too much when you do these moves. What you're trying to find is where you get natural, smooth leverage and as much of your body leading the swing as possible. It's going to be some kind of mishmash and flow of those muscle groups. It's probably going to feel weird and counterintuitive at first. I suspect the exact load and configuration might vary from player to player, so I'd hesitate to put any universal on what's "too latissimusey" or "too shoulderey" or "too arm-ey" etc. It's always surprising to me how natural and easy the "best" move feels - it just might surprise you what that is once you find it. For me it was "oh, really, that's it? I did that before, why am I not doing it every time?" Then you stop your session, hold onto that, and work on it next time. There's a reason Simon or Gurthie or Calvin's moves through the pocket look they way they do, and also a reason that they probably won't look exactly like your ideal move. As usual, get feedback and input along the way.

 

[kenda]

Hey Everyone,

I came across this thread and felt like I should pass a few things on. First off, Chris Taylor is someone to be wary of. He is not a biomechanist and has no formal background in biomechanics, yet he either overtly presents himself as such or allows others to call him a biomechanist/kinesiologist without correcting or clarifying. This is dishonest and has benefited him by giving heavier weight to the things he says out of a false sense of credibility. With all due respect to someone like everyone's favorite Coach T, people aren't reluctant to critique and question the advice he puts out there. Chris is the total opposite. It's just assumed that he is the legitimate and credentialed expert he presents himself as and nearly everyone just defers to him. Chris is not a credentialed expert or paid coach to the pros like he implies though. In actuality he is an elderly retired gentleman that typically reaches out to young or up and coming players and gets in their world by offering to give his opinions for free. This allows him to build up a group that he can refer to as "his players" or further imply that he is a highly desired coach inside the pro world. Chris is making claims that are based on person theories and his own non-expert interpretation of data but presenting them as proven facts. What he is doing is reckless and irresponsible because he does not have the authority to speak with the certainty he does, and if he is wrong the things he is advocating will hurt people.

Sidewinder posted an excerpt from Sarah Hummel's work which Chris has cited and seems to be one of the inspirations for his insistence that the major driver of the throw is an aggressive active pull with the arm. Hummel's work looked at the throw of one subject, an ultimate player, throwing an ultimate disc, at a little over 50% estimated effort. For someone that is supposed to be an expert to extrapolate or use this work to support for anything related to a full power disc golf throw for the entire population of disc golfers is mind blowing, but it all starts to make sense when you know who Chris actually is and what his background really is.

There's a lot more I could say but I will leave it at this. I've been seeing his name pop up more and more lately, and there seems to be an assumption that because he speaks with authority, knows some biomechanical terms, and gets aggressive if you disagree he must be legit, so I felt it was important for people to have a more clear picture of who they are dealing with before they just to defer to him by default.

 

[drk_evns]

B]Practical advice:[/B]
IMHO, my practical/coaching point is the opposite of micromanaging the moves and muscles. You are not a robot. It's great to talk about sequences sometimes, but also learn to think about "flow." You might need to focus on bits at a time at first, but don't think too much when you do these moves. What you're trying to find is where you get natural, smooth leverage and as much of your body leading the swing as possible. It's going to be some kind of mishmash and flow of those muscle groups. It's probably going to feel weird and counterintuitive at first. I suspect the exact load and configuration might vary from player to player, so I'd hesitate to put any universal on what's "too latissimusey" or "too shoulderey" or "too arm-ey" etc. It's always surprising to me how natural and easy the "best" move feels - it just might surprise you what that is once you find it. For me it was "oh, really, that's it? I did that before, why am I not doing it every time?" Then you stop your session, hold onto that, and work on it next time. There's a reason Simon or Gurthie or Calvin's moves through the pocket look they way they do, and also a reason that they probably won't look exactly like your ideal move. As usual, get feedback and input along the way.

When it all comes together it feels too easy. It makes it harder to hold on to because as soon as you try to add more power, you're likely to go back to what you were doing. I feel like I've had the swing "figured out" for myself for a couple of years and just now I'm starting to see consistency really ramp up.

I've been seeing his name pop up more and more lately, and there seems to be an assumption that because he speaks with authority, knows some biomechanical terms, and gets aggressive if you disagree he must be legit, so I felt it was important for people to have a more clear picture of who they are dealing with before they just to defer to him by default.

You're right, and this is almost every "coach" in disc golf. It's really up to you to consume the content and decipher it. There are no easy answers right now, no official "book" on the disc golf swing. I will say, the 3D study is good for disc golf no matter who does it—I just want data to form opinions for myself at this point.

_

Has anyone seen the new Disc.ai app? It essentially draws sticks over your body and gives you data about them. I asked how they interpret the data to give feedback and they said they're working with Chris T, Overthrow, and Slingshot to "provide users with awesome feedback." Immediately turned me off to the product. The AI implies the insights are given based on the data, not some random YouTubers.

 

[Sard0nyx]

Hey Everyone,

I came across this thread and felt like I should pass a few things on. First off, Chris Taylor is someone to be wary of. He is not a biomechanist and has no formal background in biomechanics, yet he either overtly presents himself as such or allows others to call him a biomechanist/kinesiologist without correcting or clarifying. This is dishonest and has benefited him by giving heavier weight to the things he says out of a false sense of credibility. With all due respect to someone like everyone's favorite Coach T, people aren't reluctant to critique and question the advice he puts out there. Chris is the total opposite. It's just assumed that he is the legitimate and credentialed expert he presents himself as and nearly everyone just defers to him. Chris is not a credentialed expert or paid coach to the pros like he implies though. In actuality he is an elderly retired gentleman that typically reaches out to young or up and coming players and gets in their world by offering to give his opinions for free. This allows him to build up a group that he can refer to as "his players" or further imply that he is a highly desired coach inside the pro world. Chris is making claims that are based on person theories and his own non-expert interpretation of data but presenting them as proven facts. What he is doing is reckless and irresponsible because he does not have the authority to speak with the certainty he does, and if he is wrong the things he is advocating will hurt people.

Sidewinder posted an excerpt from Sarah Hummel's work which Chris has cited and seems to be one of the inspirations for his insistence that the major driver of the throw is an aggressive active pull with the arm. Hummel's work looked at the throw of one subject, an ultimate player, throwing an ultimate disc, at a little over 50% estimated effort. For someone that is supposed to be an expert to extrapolate or use this work to support for anything related to a full power disc golf throw for the entire population of disc golfers is mind blowing, but it all starts to make sense when you know who Chris actually is and what his background really is.

There's a lot more I could say but I will leave it at this. I've been seeing his name pop up more and more lately, and there seems to be an assumption that because he speaks with authority, knows some biomechanical terms, and gets aggressive if you disagree he must be legit, so I felt it was important for people to have a more clear picture of who they are dealing with before they just to defer to him by default.

Interesting. Can you expand on how you know all this? A lot of this could be opinions based on his social media presence. He's been a part of 3d captures in the past and this recent one as well so he does have biomechanic data on the throwers to figure things out. I don't think he's solely basing his methods on that old study from Hummel.

 

[SocraDeez]

First off, Chris Taylor is someone to be wary of. He is not a biomechanist and has no formal background in biomechanics, yet he either overtly presents himself as such or allows others to call him a biomechanist/kinesiologist without correcting or clarifying... With all due respect to someone like everyone's favorite Coach T, people aren't reluctant to critique and question the advice he puts out there. Chris is the total opposite. It's just assumed that he is the legitimate and credentialed expert he presents himself as and nearly everyone just defers to him.

Yeah I have the same impression. Thanks for sharing. Started drafting a "Who is Chris Taylor?" post for this thread but never finished. He made a put-down comment that "Scott Stokely has never studied biomechanics [like I have]" that really jostled my giblets.

From my limited research: Chris Taylor has (a) been around the sport of ultimate/disc golf for a long time, (b) some background in formal golf instruction and/or coaching up to the high school level, (c) financial interest in and/or ownership of "Motus3D," which hawks motion analysis equipment, and (d) financial interest in and/or ownership of whatever "discgolfclinics.com" represents.

Chris is not a credentialed expert or paid coach to the pros like he implies though. In actuality he is an elderly retired gentleman that typically reaches out to young or up and coming players and gets in their world by offering to give his opinions for free. This allows him to build up a group that he can refer to as "his players" or further imply that he is a highly desired coach inside the pro world.

Yeah the continuous appeals to "I coach your favorite Pros that throw far" sure set the alarm bells a-rangin'.

Q: "How do you know this form-thing, Chris?"
A: "David Wiggins, Jr. calls me coach when I ask him to."

He's absolutely marketing off the idea that he helped develop David Wiggins, Jr.'s bomb-throwing capabilities. Same thing with Gurthie. But he's actually soliciting their services in return for his own: access to 3D motion capture equipment/software (which Chris Taylor owns/sells) + the data it produces and whatever the business plan is for discgolfclinics.com. I'm sure there are more robust product ideas in the pipeline, all of which will benefit from Chris Taylor's proximity to the Pros he continues to collect like a disc-golfing Professor Slughorn and Chris Taylor's proximity to "Dr. Kwon's 3D motion study."

Sidewinder posted an excerpt from Sarah Hummel's work which Chris has cited and seems to be one of the inspirations for his insistence that the major driver of the throw is an aggressive active pull with the arm. Hummel's work looked at the throw of one subject, an ultimate player, throwing an ultimate disc, at a little over 50% estimated effort. For someone that is supposed to be an expert to extrapolate or use this work to support for anything related to a full power disc golf throw for the entire population of disc golfers is mind blowing, but it all starts to make sense when you know who Chris actually is and what his background really is.

Chris Taylor's other favorite appeal to support his statements is to "having the data", whatever that means. We're not sure what that data is, exactly, or the methodology Chris Taylor uses to poke and prod and demand answers from that data, because Chris Taylor won't tell us. He has told us, though, that the data supports his statements, such as "the hand/arm motion in to the power pocket is an active/purposeful move" and (can't find the direct quote so paraphrasing) "upper arm accounts for 50% of the final disc velocity".

These are related statements and seem to be at the core of his swing philosophy. When asked online by players "How to get better?", Chris Taylor has recommended that players focus on this upper arm (shoulder to elbow) segment and practice this active/purposeful move into a net. Why not, right? The upper arm produces the biggest chunk of disc speed. Chris Taylor said so, and he has the data.

I don't think Chris Taylor is necessarily pulling this upper-arm-speed-swing-philosophy data point from the Hummel study. He is probably "using" his own collected data. Chris Taylor's reddit account made this statement:

Do not listen to 'anti' pullers. His upper arm is rotating more that twice as fast as his shoulders can turn (and his shoulders are rotating at 1000°/sec). The abduction of the upper arm is a true 'pulling' motion (retraction of shoulder blade and then a series of contraction of shoulder horizontal abduction muscles). Do not listen to the lag/slingshot/rubber band crowd.

Here is the likely data/methodology that produced this statement: The dot on David Wiggin's Jr.'s lead shoulder was estimated (by Gears 3D motion capture software) to be moving at x velocity. The dot on David Wiggin's Jr.'s lead elbow was estimated (by Gears 3D motion capture software) to be moving at 2.2x velocity. The dot on David Wiggins Jr.'s wrist was estimated (by Gears 3D motion capture software) to be moving at ___x velocity. Which leads to the claim: The upper arm accounts for "___%" of final velocity.

He's probably not wrong about the relative velocities of these dots placed on joints - it's just not a very nuanced observation. The upper arm (a) has greater mass than your forearm, (b) is a longer lever than your forearm, (c) is the first segment of your kinetic chain being flung beyond your (imaginary) CoG. All considered, not very surprising that a dot placed on a high level throwers elbow was recorded & estimated to be moving at >2x the velocity of the dot placed on their shoulder, and that this was a greater difference/increase in velocity than that observed between the elbow dot and the wrist dot.

Consider the pendulum figure below once more. Chris Taylor's swing philosophy/analysis doesn't seem much more complicated than taking the below figure, circling the longest segment nestled between the two largest circles/masses of the chain, and saying "this piece is pretty important." Now, what does this reveal about swing mechanics?

 

[timothy42b]

Consider the pendulum figure below once more. Chris Taylor's swing philosophy/analysis doesn't seem much more complicated than taking the below figure, circling the longest segment nestled between the two largest circles/masses of the chain, and saying "this piece is pretty important." Now, what does this reveal about swing mechanics?

There may be more shoulder abduction (or maybe it's scapular retraction) in the throw than we realize, especially for upshots. Apparently the Hummel thesis supports throwing 50% power with just those mechanics. Watching some people throw upshots recently, including my usual partner, makes me think that might be the case. I watched the Michael Strauss upshot series and he talks about the shoulder "fold." I just watched Beto 2.0 frame by frame and I don't see any fold, looks like 135 degrees the whole time. But sidewinder's post about straight arm power for shorter throws only makes sense to me if the shoulder is actively resisting collapse.

(Thinking about my own game, while I lack distance I could still score better if my upshots were more accurate, on a course as short as my local one.)

The simulations don't usually include all the assumptions at the joints. If one segment speeds up, then a force acted on it (there is no such thing as momentum transfer with force application). If a force acted on one segment, then the reverse force acted on the segment connected.

 

[TrebuchetDiscGolf]

While all this data is fascinating and should be useful in some capacity, I'm a little leery of what kind of form extremes Skynet would recommend purely based on the mathematics. Everybody is built different, so it would have to somehow take that into consideration. Even the Swing Catalyst guys talk about how messy the data is from ball golfers and how changing the same thing for two different players can yield opposite results.

IMO there is an art to the swing.

There is def an art to the swing and body type is going to play a huge roll in optimizing motion for any given player. But I think the data is how we start to really un ravel that...

But me being built like a tiny lankier Drew isn't gonna get much value from the data they captured off GG.

What I am excited about from this data is comparing different players and seeing where they are getting most of their power. Some of the stuff Brychanus wrote about GG vs Eagle for example, I want to see data backing up or refuting claims with that level of nuance.

I happen to agree with Bry's analysis and I want to see if the data agrees with us, and what else we can learn from it that we dont even know we dont know yet...

 

[TrebuchetDiscGolf]

Chris Taylor always "praised" the "pull", in a "arm needs to swing out/being pulled through faster than the shoulders" kinda way. While he's definitely correct, i still struggle with "how" in my head, lol. I've tried the no rotation, deeper pocket etc, it doesn't just click for me.. throwing a hammer does though. For me, when my chain is right, my arm has no other choice than to sling out, and i wonder if the "arm before shoulders", is merely a byproduct of a good "throw"/chain? Or?

Chris Taylor were really a help for me, when i tried to hit 500 FH, so this ain't a dig at him, merely just me being stupid ar backhand

Chris has helped me understand form alot better too... and I do jive with the vast majority of his ideas that I'm aware of. But keep perspective on his experience: he works mostly (exclusively now?) with pro players, so his data set is limited to elite players and the methods suggested may not be optimized for everyone (I do happen to think a deep pocket is a good idea for most, but if it doesn't work for you that may not be a big deal...). Alot of top players don't have a particularly deep pocket but their timing across the rest of the chain works out well enough that a deep elbow bend isn't really needed for some solid distance. Each link in the chain is a chance to add more power, power can kinda come from any link though...

 

[drk_evns]

Yeah I have the same impression. Thanks for sharing. Started drafting a "Who is Chris Taylor?" post for this thread but never finished. He made a put-down comment that "Scott Stokely has never studied biomechanics [like I have]" that really jostled my giblets.

From my limited research: Chris Taylor has (a) been around the sport of ultimate/disc golf for a long time, (b) some background in formal golf instruction and/or coaching up to the high school level, (c) financial interest in and/or ownership of "Motus3D," which hawks motion analysis equipment, and (d) financial interest in and/or ownership of whatever "discgolfclinics.com" represents.



Yeah the continuous appeals to "I coach your favorite Pros that throw far" sure set the alarm bells a-rangin'.

Q: "How do you know this form-thing, Chris?"
A: "David Wiggins, Jr. calls me coach when I ask him to."

He's absolutely marketing off the idea that he helped develop David Wiggins, Jr.'s bomb-throwing capabilities. Same thing with Gurthie. But he's actually soliciting their services in return for his own: access to 3D motion capture equipment/software (which Chris Taylor owns/sells) + the data it produces and whatever the business plan is for discgolfclinics.com. I'm sure there are more robust product ideas in the pipeline, all of which will benefit from Chris Taylor's proximity to the Pros he continues to collect like a disc-golfing Professor Slughorn and Chris Taylor's proximity to "Dr. Kwon's 3D motion study."



Chris Taylor's other favorite appeal to support his statements is to "having the data", whatever that means. We're not sure what that data is, exactly, or the methodology Chris Taylor uses to poke and prod and demand answers from that data, because Chris Taylor won't tell us. He has told us, though, that the data supports his statements, such as "the hand/arm motion in to the power pocket is an active/purposeful move" and (can't find the direct quote so paraphrasing) "upper arm accounts for 50% of the final disc velocity".

These are related statements and seem to be at the core of his swing philosophy. When asked online by players "How to get better?", Chris Taylor has recommended that players focus on this upper arm (shoulder to elbow) segment and practice this active/purposeful move into a net. Why not, right? The upper arm produces the biggest chunk of disc speed. Chris Taylor said so, and he has the data.

I don't think Chris Taylor is necessarily pulling this upper-arm-speed-swing-philosophy data point from the Hummel study. He is probably "using" his own collected data. Chris Taylor's reddit account made this statement:



Here is the likely data/methodology that produced this statement: The dot on David Wiggin's Jr.'s lead shoulder was estimated (by Gears 3D motion capture software) to be moving at x velocity. The dot on David Wiggin's Jr.'s lead elbow was estimated (by Gears 3D motion capture software) to be moving at 2.2x velocity. The dot on David Wiggins Jr.'s wrist was estimated (by Gears 3D motion capture software) to be moving at ___x velocity. Which leads to the claim: The upper arm accounts for "___%" of final velocity.

He's probably not wrong about the relative velocities of these dots placed on joints - it's just not a very nuanced observation. The upper arm (a) has greater mass than your forearm, (b) is a longer lever than your forearm, (c) is the first segment of your kinetic chain being flung beyond your (imaginary) CoG. All considered, not very surprising that a dot placed on a high level throwers elbow was recorded & estimated to be moving at >2x the velocity of the dot placed on their shoulder, and that this was a greater difference/increase in velocity than that observed between the elbow dot and the wrist dot.

Consider the pendulum figure below once more. Chris Taylor's swing philosophy/analysis doesn't seem much more complicated than taking the below figure, circling the longest segment nestled between the two largest circles/masses of the chain, and saying "this piece is pretty important." Now, what does this reveal about swing mechanics?

Thanks for this. Lots of great info. I wasn't really sure where he came from and he didn't reveal much when I DM'd him. I've seen his 3D contributions and occasionally nodded along with advice he gave here and there in short bursts. Agreeing with some and questioning others.

There is def an art to the swing and body type is going to play a huge roll in optimizing motion for any given player. But I think the data is how we start to really un ravel that...

But me being built like a tiny lankier Drew isn't gonna get much value from the data they captured off GG.

What I am excited about from this data is comparing different players and seeing where they are getting most of their power. Some of the stuff Brychanus wrote about GG vs Eagle for example, I want to see data backing up or refuting claims with that level of nuance.

I happen to agree with Bry's analysis and I want to see if the data agrees with us, and what else we can learn from it that we dont even know we dont know yet...

Yeah, I'm interested in data in general. More is never worse.

While SW makes a great point about the state of the technology right now, I think where AI is going inherently takes what he's talking about into account in addition to countless other things we can hardly even comprehend. I'm in a sort of AI Committee at work and the more we implement new AI tools into our workflow the more I imagine it being possible for AI to affect everything... including video analysis of biomechanics, something we're already in the infancy of.

 

[Sard0nyx]

Interesting....Idk if it's fuel to the fire or something else. Her form looks much improved.

 

[Brychanus]

I really enjoy Caroline's teaching style of presentation and she's an exciting new FPO athlete.

Unfortunately:

Recommended reading & videos:

https://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3189362&postcount=3

This issue comes up very frequently now and has become an epidemic as "content" exponentiates. Notably among pros, Henderson, Ella Hansen, Holyn Handley, and Paul Ulibarri (who has also struggled with being stuck over the rubber in his modern form) have all been observed to teach a version of this move. Compare and contrast to 550'+ top MPO throwers of various body types.

Interestingly, sometimes people teach or learn squishing the bug and apparently their body figures out the more efficient shift on its own even if they continue to instruct otherwise. At this point I just encourage people to try them both (carefully!) and come to their own conclusions. It will be interesting to see what happens with Caroline.

 

[RowingBoats]

Interesting....Idk if it's fuel to the fire or something else. Her form looks much improved.

Omg, that might be the most extreme bug squishing I have ever seen. That genuinely makes my knees hurt.

 

[Brychanus]

It is part of why I have permanent knee issues.

 

[Sard0nyx]

I really enjoy Caroline's teaching style of presentation and she's an exciting new FPO athlete.

Unfortunately:

Recommended reading & videos:

https://www.dgcoursereview.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3189362&postcount=3

This issue comes up very frequently now and has become an epidemic as "content" exponentiates. Notably among pros, Henderson, Ella Hansen, Holyn Handley, and Paul Ulibarri (who has also struggled with being stuck over the rubber in his modern form) have all been observed to teach a version of this move. Compare and contrast to 550'+ top MPO throwers of various body types.

Interestingly, sometimes people teach or learn squishing the bug and apparently their body figures out the more efficient shift on its own even if they continue to instruct otherwise. At this point I just encourage people to try them both (carefully!) and come to their own conclusions. It will be interesting to see what happens with Caroline.

I will admit at times that I fail to see the difference between "the move" and "squishing the bug". As far as I can tell it seems she teaches it a certain way but when the dynamic motion occurs it looks different. Maybe some people like thinking about the back leg over the front leg. I personally have been thinking more about focusing on the hip clearing from the plant leg. But the weight has to start on the back foot and you do sort of need to push it forward. There's probably stuff getting lost in translation especially when teaching vs doing. Or I might be totally off base and need to talk with you more. Haha.

The main reason I say stuff like this is I have no illusions that Coach Taylor teaching back leg disc golf or anything like that. He has a heavy emphasis on bracing and stopping momentum.

 

[RowingBoats]

I will admit at times that I fail to see the difference between "the move" and "squishing the bug". As far as I can tell it seems she teaches it a certain way but when the dynamic motion occurs it looks different. Maybe some people like thinking about the back leg over the front leg. I personally have been thinking more about focusing on the hip clearing from the plant leg. But the weight has to start on the back foot and you do sort of need to push it forward. There's probably stuff getting lost in translation especially when teaching vs doing. Or I might be totally off base and need to talk with you more. Haha.

I do understand why it is hard to 'see' the difference, but the feeling is absolutely night and day from my perspective. Squishing the bug does feel faster, and I think that is why people get a bit stuck on the concept. It also feels powerful, because it is forceful. But in reality, it just cannot really match the power of falling with gravity itself.

I don't know if you have ever skate/snowboarded and learned how to 'pump' your legs to accelerate on sloping terrain, but this seems like a relevant feeling to me. If you have done this, you know you don't simply extend your legs as fast as you can, its slower, and you have to set up the feeling of falling with gravity to really get the power.

 

[TiltedFlipCurves]

I can tell nothing from any of those pictures other than 6-time really has a huge stride forward compared to everybody. :|

 

[Sard0nyx]

I can tell nothing from any of those pictures other than 6-time really has a huge stride forward compared to everybody. :|

My issue with the pictures are that the first two pictures aren't of the person throwing a disc, but the third one is.