Forming the whip by Overthrow Disc Golf

podskiii

Par Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2017
Messages
216
Location
Bergen, Norway
I just saw "Forming the Whip" by Overthrow Disc Golf.



My personal opinion is, they make a lot of great videos. Anyways this video one made me unsure. One of the things I'm practicing, is getting a deeper pocket and I want to understand this concept better.

Briefly, my opinion is that if you're too smooth/slack in your shoulder/arm, your rotation will win over the arm (shoulder will drive the arm), and you will never get into the pocket because rotation of upperbody will win. If you are stiffer in shoulder/arm, arm will win against against shoulder rotation.


I think Spin Doctor covers this, and I agree. However, when I practice this drill, I don't get deep into my pocket. My thoughts on shoulder/arm being stiff is that arm will win against rotation (arm starts the rotation).
If I try to get the elbow more out, or even force the curl to happen I get a much deeper pocket as he talks about around 3:39

I feel I got something out of this drill.

In general I've seen a lot of video that talks about out-in-out, this will release the disc around 11 o'clock. This is what I've been trying to accomplish. When Josh talks about his concept, that will be more of a 12 o'clock release. I feel this will get inconsistent releases? How will this affect brace when you almost release behind you instead of out at 11 o'clock?

At 5:58 I get that a deep pocket gets created if he hold back the rotation of the shoulder. However is this a natural move? Is this something all the pros learned by themselves when they started playing disc golf and evolve by themselves?

However, I don't disagree with OT at all, I'm just trying to widen my knowledge. I also start to wonder if there are more ways to throw a disc which is correct?
 
My personal opinion is, they make a lot of great videos. Anyways this video one made me unsure. One of the things I'm practicing, is getting a deeper pocket and I want to understand this concept better.

They make really flashy high post production videos. This .. garners extra attention regardless of the quality of the message. They do have some good video's though, the problem is with this video is.. well, He still has only half a clue what he's talking about.

So what I gathered watching this is he's trying to progress his knowledge, he still doesn't understand these concepts and it sounds like he talked to someone and now suddenly "out in out" isn't "sophisticated" enough, despite it being literally what you need to do.

I also see him moving into the old "pull on line" style throw practice here which is... almost entirely not taught anymore except by old heads.

I was hoping to watch him eventually figure it out and get somewhere, but it seems like he's regressing while studying but teaching old methods. Which.. there is nothing wrong to that as long as you address it as "old methods."

Briefly, my opinion is that if you're too smooth/slack in your shoulder/arm, your rotation will win over the arm (shoulder will drive the arm), and you will never get into the pocket because rotation of upperbody will win. If you are stiffer in shoulder/arm, arm will win against against shoulder rotation.

Pocketing the disc is a semi conscious effort. We want to let the body drive the disc into the pocket. We don't want to pull the disc in.

That's why Jaani teaches it at "curl" the disc in.

I think Spin Doctor covers this, and I agree. However, when I practice this drill, I don't get deep into my pocket. My thoughts on shoulder/arm being stiff is that arm will win against rotation (arm starts the rotation).
If I try to get the elbow more out, or even force the curl to happen I get a much deeper pocket as he talks about around 3:39

When trying to pocket the disc, the rotation and drive of the body will start the curl. were just guiding it in. If you try and yank it or jerk it into the pocket with an arm motion ahead of the initial pocket, you're gonna throw off your timing.

So, with that we are saving energy, were letting the body do things, we wanna add onto that. so as we get into the pocket, were gonna push the elbow forward then to get the deep pocket.

To deep pocket you have to consciously tell yourself to deep pocket. The problem people have is they try and force it in there. It's really awkward to do because you gotta adjust yoru timing on the fly essentially from a standard pocket shot to a deep pocket shot. and you have to actively push out more when youre throwing a deep pocket or you'll round.

In general I've seen a lot of video that talks about out-in-out, this will release the disc around 11 o'clock. This is what I've been trying to accomplish. When Josh talks about his concept, that will be more of a 12 o'clock release. I feel this will get inconsistent releases? How will this affect brace when you almost release behind you instead of out at 11 o'clock?

Honestly, don't get hung up on this clock thing.

Not everyone's body operates in a way to allow this to be significant, nor do we really have any study that says that. Optimal timing is learned through trial and error.
It's about getting your body setup so the disc can come out on the target line at maximum effectiveness. 11 ocklock means nothing if your shoulders are over rotated, or your front hip is open or whatever other thing going on.

However, I don't disagree with OT at all

I do, a lot.
 
Further into the video it looks like he is trying to reinvent the Beato drill and Bradley's More Snap. And he doesn't look too bad at that point.

He does seem to think that out-in-out refers to North-South, rather than East-West.

I don't like using the term whip for what is really a linkage of rigid segments - but as a mental image I'm sure it works for some people, that's just me being overly picky.

Does the disc really approximate a straight line or an arc? This gets deep. It probably depends on your frame of reference. My guess: The plane of the ground is stable. Relative to the ground, the disc travels on a shallow arc, out-in-out, maybe not that far from a straight line. Relative to the rotating axis of the body, the arc may be close to a circle. (Think crank-slider or four bar, what if you rotate the frame?)

Straight segments that move in an arc around a pivot can approximate a straight path pretty well. In the 1600s before milling machines this was used to produce straight line motions. Four bar linkage examples might be the Watts or Roberts mechanisms; a little more complicate maybe Chebychev or Peaucillier.
 
I don't like using the term whip for what is really a linkage of rigid segments - but as a mental image I'm sure it works for some people, that's just me being overly picky.

This is to capitalize on the hype from dunapace's video. Because in a sense of wrapping your brain around it, were looking to drive kinetic energy from the brace through our body to our hand to "snap" the whip. The uncoiling and blah blah blah .

I think it could be considered an over simplification in a bad way to. Because people don't understand what is WHAT. Just like using the towel drills improperly, where people focus more on trying to snap the towel than they do on trying to focus through their form with the towel providing feedback.

So in turn, you get people trying to "snap" their hand out there like they are snapping a towel, because of the analogy of the whip usage.

People like to get in debate with me on this, but the goals I'm reaching for are to try and provide proper descriptors if at all possible to encourage your brain to automagically perform the action vs you fighting a bad descriptor with a completely different mental pattern.

our brain KNOWS what "pull" means. Our brain knows what "throw" means and our brain knows what "swing" means.

When we call it a swing, and we use "swing" terminology to apply to the process, and stop saying things like "throw and pull" (which throw is hard to drop) our brains can far more easily comprehend the action we want it to perform.

This is the overall basis to what Sidewinder teaches, a Swing style throw, Making use of known, engrained mechanics that allow the body to flow and sing, vs some ridged conglomeration of bad commands.

He does seem to think that out-in-out refers to North-South, rather than East-West.

I could care less about north south east west.
The fact that he just outright got boogey about it and said it was to "elementary" style of explanation kinda irked me.
And its not because I use the term, but it was the tone in which he said it.
Sorry Josh, you have YEARS to catch up to some of us. Your subscriber count and patreon pay doesn't equate to knowledge/skill bro. sorry.
/me makes wank motion

Does the disc really approximate a straight line or an arc? This gets deep. It probably depends on your frame of reference. My guess: The plane of the ground is stable. Relative to the ground, the disc travels on a shallow arc, out-in-out, maybe not that far from a straight line. Relative to the rotating axis of the body, the arc may be close to a circle. (Think crank-slider or four bar, what if you rotate the frame?)

The part about this that bothers me is right before I stopped watching him he started trying to encourage a wide rail throw, which.. Is a whole different animal.
The idea of a "straight line pull" was people trying to put some level of simplification on it without actually knowing what was going on. They were going over what they were trying to do in their heads to keep their timing.

The problem is when you try and get to "straight" with your throw like that, you're going to become ridged and clunky. We wanna flow and fly. And we know for certian, as does him with his need to compare everyone to elite throwers which he does for his form reviews... which is fucking stupid.
Sorry, Side tracked.

The idea that we set the disc up and drive it down a straight line is just outright false.

The only "straight line" in your head should be the target line at which you're trying to drive the disc down.

Everything else doesn't matter.
Disc golf swings are not a case of "you" "must" "do" "it" "this" "way".
We all develop our own swing based on our abilities and body shapes. It's very very unique that way.
So, some players might keep the disc on a straight line, other players might have curve to their whole swing.
Then you add in something like wide rail, and you're not keeping it on a straight line.

Straight line for this.
Target line.
Imagine it.
When you plant to drive, make sure your feet are lined upright on that imaginary line.
Fuck the rest of that overly complicated shit.

Keep it simple.
Don't overcomplicate shit.

I had to deal with some of that the other night.
Guy watched some old simon/eagle video and they were talking abou tthe back swing shoudln't swoop, and he was telling me. I basically replied "Sidewinder and I would strongly dissagree" cause he had the swoop back backswing and then absolute SHIT tons of power.

He was trying to over complicate it and he lost his rhythm and dance. He was falling over his brace and driving 20 feet out into the ground.

Keep shit simple.
Find your dance.
Aim to hit the key points of a swing and be in time.
 
Someone has been speaking to Chris Taylor lately.. gonna rewatch the video later today, I might've missed something, but so far I'm not sure I like the video.
 
Chris likes to preach the exact same drill that josh did in the video.

ooooh.
Preach is accurate too.

I was making sure you were not directing the comment towards the... brash attitude I had when speaking. Cause Chris talks pretty aggressively and I've heard a lot of people say he sounds very arrogant. ... To which I probably sound the same to some as well. I don't find him to be arrogant personally, but I do also find his method of speaking to be very much of a "this is the way, thats final."

I was feeling extra spicy yesterday morning for some reason, so I just let it fly.
 
As a rule, I'm not critical of coaches, because I don't know what they're seeing or experiencing in their training, and my form needs a lot of work, so it seems silly for me to critique them. However, the last 2 OT videos have bothered me a bit, even though I'm glad Josh is correcting and refining what he teaches.

I don't like selling the idea of an overcorrection being the solution. For example - nobody should be arming the disc. But if you're not using it at all because you're focusing on the shoulders and everything else, while being too loose or passive with the arm, I can see using an overcorrection to get the body into new territory. The "out-in-out" and "wide-narrow-wide" language is a better directive than "arm the disc."

I also don't like "uncurl" as a term. I'm not saying it's a made up word or anything like that, but in kinesiology we talk more about curling vs extending. As I commented in his Forming the Whip video, I think extend-curl-extend also fits the bill if we're talking about body mechanics. That said "out-in-out" has been around since at least 2019 (in my quick research on it) and is the quickest to type, with the least amount of syllables, so is the easiest to remember and teach.
 
I've been "speaking" to Chris every now and then for a few years and I got nothing against him. He has been a huge help reaching my FH goals, so don't get me wrong!

You might be "hard to like" at times, but at least you're open for ideas and discussing form.

Back on topic: I'm no coach, nor do I know anything about advanced disc golf mechanics, buuuut..

To me, josh is all over the place and I do not like the way he's going lately. To me, it sounds like a worse version off Bradley's (it was him right?) Closed shoulder drill, with less explanation of the basic how and why. And that's my issue, not going into further details about the how's and why's. It sounds like "you just need to throw like this, there is no chain, 90% of the power is from the arm". I know I'm exaggerating, but daft people, like myself, will get hurt trying that stuff.

Won't go on, cause I'll end up like sheep with a way to long rant that people won't read anyway... 😉 (I'm kidding)
 
Chris likes to preach the exact same drill that josh did in the video.

Yes, and so does Trebuchet, but really Josh is the first one I've seen explain it completely and demonstrate it. I couldn't find any video of Chris demonstrating or teaching it, but I guess he does more Instagram than Youtube, or maybe it's private lessons. So I'm assuming Josh's version is what is intended. He does use the term horizontal adduction which is a clue (unless he read Sarah's thesis which I doubt.)

So it seems Josh has gone from 90/90 and Twirlybird drills, which assume inertial forces will produce the pocket and elbow forward positions as long as the body mechanics are correct, to teaching just the arm motions and the body will support.

I'm confused, somebody tell me who's right. <smiley> Are they the same swing starting from different viewpoints, or two different swings? In ball golf some people think there are two swings, one where the club is loaded like an axe handle and the other like pulling a rope (I borrowed Homer Kelley's descriptions, but that's supported by an old study of Cambridge physicists.)

And, is this really the Beato drill? Dan doesn't deliberately move the shoulder angle that much, but he does have the arm move much faster than the shoulders turn, which seems to be the intent.
 
Yes, and so does Trebuchet, but really Josh is the first one I've seen explain it completely and demonstrate it. I couldn't find any video of Chris demonstrating or teaching it, but I guess he does more Instagram than Youtube, or maybe it's private lessons. So I'm assuming Josh's version is what is intended. He does use the term horizontal adduction which is a clue (unless he read Sarah's thesis which I doubt.)

So it seems Josh has gone from 90/90 and Twirlybird drills, which assume inertial forces will produce the pocket and elbow forward positions as long as the body mechanics are correct, to teaching just the arm motions and the body will support.

I'm confused, somebody tell me who's right. <smiley> Are they the same swing starting from different viewpoints, or two different swings? In ball golf some people think there are two swings, one where the club is loaded like an axe handle and the other like pulling a rope (I borrowed Homer Kelley's descriptions, but that's supported by an old study of Cambridge physicists.)

And, is this really the Beato drill? Dan doesn't deliberately move the shoulder angle that much, but he does have the arm move much faster than the shoulders turn, which seems to be the intent.

With some "insider" insight that I hope is fair when said publicly:

1. Josh will say that he works more from a "positional" or now "hybrid" or "amalgamator" perspective. He does now talk to many coaches and allows each of them to influence him, and likes to try out different ideas.

2. He has some interest in a version of what people call a "pull," which also has some commonalities and direct influences from Taylor. I still talk to Josh about it, and he reports measurable differences in his own increased armspeed that IMO are part mechanics and part mentality/intent. I am more familiar with these same discussions in ball golf now. I'm personally not yet sure if I believe that there exists a fundamentally different form, or if people are exaggerating different parts of the elephant in the room. I do think there can be centrifugal moves that look like a pull, but function like a swing consistent with the postures most of the best throwers use (door frame drill is the best example of this). You need to do the move correctly to "feel" the relationship. Even in that case, there are obviously still some disagreements out there.

3. Yes, there is a difference (at least superficially) when emphasizing action through the arm versus the centrifugal theory. I can convince myself on most days that a person can start from both directions and make progress depending on what else is going on. I think it's very clear that you need momentum and a centrifugal component and an arm working together on a tilted balance axis for real power throws. Is there room for differences in emphasis? Yes, I think we see that too.

4. One difference also includes whether one should be accelerating smoothly or abruptly out of the backswing, and Wiggins is sometimes cited as a latter. As your resident "filthy moderate," I think sometimes the words are not as meaningful as they first sound and people aren't disagreeing as much as they seem to. I also still would point out that there are still differences among the best throwers worth pointing out. I try to be open minded these days, but not so open minded that my brains fall out.

5. There is also still a real difference in opinion about the extent to which the CoM or mAss does/should ideally lead the swing. Taylor has a strong emphasis on lateral movement down the tee, lateral humeral abduction, and squaring it all up to commit net momentum down the line and more strongly views bracing as a "stop" of momentum. Sidewinder places more emphasis on the tilted axis and spiral and redirection of momentum and mAss. Jaani utilizes explosive reflexive loading and unloading through the core led by the hips. Slingshot uses raw momentum down the tee and a forceful move off the rear leg with an open shoulder. Josh looks at everyone and tries to grab things here and there, and knows that he is willing to try whatever he can to help someone improve regardless of its theory or source. Pro coaches provide copious bits of advice. Everyone is onto something. Is anyone really onto everything?

6. Posture and athleticism and individual bodies and minds are all still related to all of the above. I'd encourage each person to consider how they would approach learning or teaching any other athletic move.
 
My problem with Josh's latest ideas is that his justification is far from watertight. He's trying to convince me that leaving the hand until last, letting power transfer up through the chain, is inevitably going to collapse the pocket. But i don't buy it.

If I've got a good starting position (call it coil or reachback or whatever you like) and my shoulder suddenly accelerates forward, it doesn't immediately collapse the pocket. If i keep rotating, then yes of course it would collapse, and he's right (imo) to point out that rotation for the sake of rotation isn't helpful. But if the shoulder applies a strong jerk to the arm and then slows down, allowing the arm to overtake it, the pocket needn't collapse.

And in fact, momentum transfer really only happens if the body part doing the transferring DOES slow down. If the next link in the chain isn't overtaking the last link, then we're really not transferring very much.

I am not at all persuaded that you MUST arm the disc to get it to overtake the shoulders.
 
I think if I could ban the word 'pull' from discussing the backhand swing, I would do it. Maybe some people are using it in a way that I simply do not grasp, but I think it is one of the most potentially misleading concepts out there.

Personally I'm going to rate this new video as a gigantic yikes. He is basically describing one of my first wrong paths I went down conceptually lol. Holding the disc at 12'oclock (in relation to how some of us like to say 10'oclock, I know its a silly way to describe this)...donno man. Its a yikes from me.
 
My problem with Josh's latest ideas is that his justification is far from watertight. He's trying to convince me that leaving the hand until last, letting power transfer up through the chain, is inevitably going to collapse the pocket. But i don't buy it.

If I've got a good starting position (call it coil or reachback or whatever you like) and my shoulder suddenly accelerates forward, it doesn't immediately collapse the pocket. If i keep rotating, then yes of course it would collapse, and he's right (imo) to point out that rotation for the sake of rotation isn't helpful. But if the shoulder applies a strong jerk to the arm and then slows down, allowing the arm to overtake it, the pocket needn't collapse.

And in fact, momentum transfer really only happens if the body part doing the transferring DOES slow down. If the next link in the chain isn't overtaking the last link, then we're really not transferring very much.

I am not at all persuaded that you MUST arm the disc to get it to overtake the shoulders.
I've encountered people who have trouble with the progressive & smooth muscle activation who somehow seem to have more arm stuff going on and don't impede significantly fast throws. More often though it seems like people get musclebound in a way that backfires.

There are many ways to accelerate & still posturally collapse, and that in contrast you can jerk at the shoulder and avoid certain kinds of collapse. I have some shoulder wear and tear that became part of what told me which ones to keep and which ones to drop, players' mileage apparently varies. I'm going to be curious how certain people will look if they keep using certain ideas as they age.


I think if I could ban the word 'pull' from discussing the backhand swing, I would do it. Maybe some people are using it in a way that I simply do not grasp, but I think it is one of the most potentially misleading concepts out there.

Personally I'm going to rate this new video as a gigantic yikes. He is basically describing one of my first wrong paths I went down conceptually lol. Holding the disc at 12'oclock (in relation to how some of us like to say 10'oclock, I know its a silly way to describe this)...donno man. Its a yikes from me.
I had a cordial conversation with Chris Taylor and he and I agreed that it is a "throw."

On this topic, I still only slightly ironically like to call it a "swull." I've been through enough of the marketplace of ideas to not feel strongly inclined to argue to Sidewinder that we should change the title of Fundamentals from "The Good Swing" at this time. I really do get why people get so hung up about it. It was frustrating enough to me to compile 107 pages on the problem. Also why I still welcome talking about ideas otherwise - this entire Technique forum is a monument to adults getting confused about motions with words and trying to find answers. Despite my love for them, I think relaxing attention to the words is the best thing for many players much of the time.
 
1706822019677.png

At this exact moment he says this is 'where most pros end up'.

Does anyone in here agree with this statement looking at this image lol?
 
I've encountered people who have trouble with the progressive & smooth muscle activation who somehow seem to have more arm stuff going on and don't impede significantly fast throws. More often though it seems like people get musclebound in a way that backfires.

There are many ways to accelerate & still posturally collapse, and that in contrast you can jerk at the shoulder and avoid certain kinds of collapse. I have some shoulder wear and tear that became part of what told me which ones to keep and which ones to drop, players' mileage apparently varies. I'm going to be curious how certain people will look if they keep using certain ideas as they age.



I had a cordial conversation with Chris Taylor and he and I agreed that it is a "throw."

On this topic, I still only slightly ironically like to call it a "swull." I've been through enough of the marketplace of ideas to not feel strongly inclined to argue to Sidewinder that we should change the title of Fundamentals from "The Good Swing" at this time. I really do get why people get so hung up about it. It was frustrating enough to me to compile 107 pages on the problem. Also why I still welcome talking about ideas otherwise - this entire Technique forum is a monument to adults getting confused about motions with words and trying to find answers. Despite my love for them, I think relaxing attention to the words is the best thing for many players much of the time.
For sure and Im all for getting weird with words. There have been some pretty strange phrases that actually dramatically impacted me here!

But this video is just talking a lot of nonsense, and then disproving a lot of what he says on his own when he does the actual drill at the end.

I get it. It is difficult to demonstrate the swing in static poses. But the idea of pulling through to that position 'where pros end up' above is not a helpful conceptualization if you ask me.
 
[COLOR=var(--text-lighter)]Does anyone in here agree with this statement looking at this image lol?[/COLOR]
1000015784.png
I certainly can't see any differences. /s

I think Josh is a really good coach, in how he communicates concepts and (i suspect) how he works with people one on one. And confidently stating things as fact rather than letting your students see the doubts and nuance is not necessarily a bad thing.

But I'm definitely not in agreement on this new direction, nor on the way it's expressed. If you want to tell people to engage the arm in some way, I think 'arm the disc' is about the worst language he could have chosen (though it will certainly get the videos a high view count). Sure, many amateurs, regardless of their current form, are going to find some quick distance gains from going full send - but is that really a good way to improve longer term? And 'arm the disc', to me, sounds much more like 'throw hard' than 'engage the arm a bit to keep it in the right places'. 🤷‍♂️
 
View attachment 331885
I certainly can't see any differences. /s

I think Josh is a really good coach, in how he communicates concepts and (i suspect) how he works with people one on one. And confidently stating things as fact rather than letting your students see the doubts and nuance is not necessarily a bad thing.

But I'm definitely not in agreement on this new direction, nor on the way it's expressed. If you want to tell people to engage the arm in some way, I think 'arm the disc' is about the worst language he could have chosen (though it will certainly get the videos a high view count). Sure, many amateurs, regardless of their current form, are going to find some quick distance gains from going full send - but is that really a good way to improve longer term? And 'arm the disc', to me, sounds much more like 'throw hard' than 'engage the arm a bit to keep it in the right places'. 🤷‍♂️
Lol yep. He has some decent videos and I'm not trying to just outright trash the guy but this particular video is so bad that it baffles me that he made it.
 
My problem with Josh's latest ideas is that his justification is far from watertight. He's trying to convince me that leaving the hand until last, letting power transfer up through the chain, is inevitably going to collapse the pocket. But i don't buy it.

If I've got a good starting position (call it coil or reachback or whatever you like) and my shoulder suddenly accelerates forward, it doesn't immediately collapse the pocket. If i keep rotating, then yes of course it would collapse, and he's right (imo) to point out that rotation for the sake of rotation isn't helpful. But if the shoulder applies a strong jerk to the arm and then slows down, allowing the arm to overtake it, the pocket needn't collapse.

And in fact, momentum transfer really only happens if the body part doing the transferring DOES slow down. If the next link in the chain isn't overtaking the last link, then we're really not transferring very much.

I am not at all persuaded that you MUST arm the disc to get it to overtake the shoulders.
I think you hit the nail on the head. A lot of coaches make it sound like they're right, but the mechanics of disc golf is still so new that we don't know for sure.

I do know that what Josh mentions and what you do above is that preventing shoulder collapse (rounding) is the key to throwing with proper form. It just seems that coaches aren't quite there yet with a way to stop rounding that's easily applied to most people. Or at least the light bulb isn't quite clicking in my head.

I think most people don't throw as far as they want to because they round (including me). It's just a big pain in the butt to figure out what you need to do to stop doing it and another big pain to actually fix engrained muscle memory.
 

Latest posts

Top