How much can we know about our throw using only TechDisc?

But I predicted that people would be using it more as a "look at this data, and try and push the data" vs "push the form, see the data."
I understand your point overall, but how does one try to 'push the data' without...changing something about their form in order to manipulate the resulting data? I don't feel like these two things are mutually exclusive. I suppose if people are just out there going pure ape-mind "THROW HARDER" without any thought at all, that is silly. But making changes to see how the data turns out is...the point of this thing to me. Trying silly things and seeing what happens in the output, then seeing if it helps your real throws isn't a bad process imo.

I guess I haven't really seen what you are describing too much. When I play with someone who argues against the result of a real shot and says that TechDisc would have shown the real flight, I'll definitely laugh though.

I just wish there was a budget model that only read the nose angle lol, that is the single most useful feature and it seems to be relatively accurate from what I've seen. I'll prolly still end up buying one when they are available on demand though.
 
I actually think "pushing the data" is perfectly fine. The data isn't the simulator, the data is your nose angle, launch angle, disc speed, etc. It's so incredibly difficult to push the data without fixing form that frankly I don't see the issue.

If people were chasing simulator distance, I'd see the issue. As I mentioned here (or another thread) my data aligned with the approximate disc flight numbers of my main driver would show that if I change up basically ANYTHING, my disc won't go as far. That would lead me to tell people "throw slightly nose up on a lot of hyzer and only throw at this speed". But that's not chasing data, that's chasing the simulator IMO. Likewise if I looked at the simulator and said "I'm throwing more nose down now and my disc is going shorter, better stop doing that"...then that's a problem.

I don't think it matters much at all if people chase the data. Throw 70 mph with 2 degrees nose down, slightly positive launch angle, high spin rate, and low wobble. I just don't see a lot of practical examples of "you got to those numbers, but man your form is terrible and you can't really throw a disc in real life". Those numbers are hard to do. There just aren't a lot of paths there besides "throw with better form".

To your point of throwing more nose down with less wobble...great...but those are 2 data points. You can't just pick one data point and chase only that. You can't throw 70 MPH with the nose straight up, you have to chase all of the data points eventually. BUT, it's also very difficult to make 19 form adjustments at the same time, so you have to work on something, make it part of your throw, then move on. I do think there's certainly questionable decisions with both TechDisc and in regular throwing of a disc about what people should work on FIRST. The classic example would be people saying "I gotta fix my runup" while clearly needing to stop throwing it 30 degrees nose up instead.

Maybe I'm wrong. I just can't see a viable way to push all of those data points in combination without also pushing form pretty extensively (other than MAYBE forehands by someone just throwing the disc like a psycho in a way that's clearly going to destroy their elbow/shoulder...but that person probably also throws far in real life, just in a dangerous way). But I think there's a pretty big difference between chasing the data and chasing the flight simulator. The flight simulator will definitely give you reason to make terrible changes in the name of hypothetical distance.
Are you...me?
 
I understand your point overall, but how does one try to 'push the data' without...changing something about their form in order to manipulate the resulting data? I don't feel like these two things are mutually exclusive. I suppose if people are just out there going pure ape-mind "THROW HARDER" without any thought at all, that is silly. But making changes to see how the data turns out is...the point of this thing to me. Trying silly things and seeing what happens in the output, then seeing if it helps your real throws isn't a bad process imo.

I guess I haven't really seen what you are describing too much. When I play with someone who argues against the result of a real shot and says that TechDisc would have shown the real flight, I'll definitely laugh though.

I just wish there was a budget model that only read the nose angle lol, that is the single most useful feature and it seems to be relatively accurate from what I've seen. I'll prolly still end up buying one when they are available on demand though.

Maybe a better way of putting it is that I see people chasing the results, not the method.

Does that make more sense?

Both provide data, but if all your doing is trying to generate the results, without focusing on the method of getting there, you're not really gaining anything.

Stuff like this leads to muscling, swooping, air bouncing, etc. A lot of players out there throw 400-420 feet, but the throw is super aggressive, super hard, super air bounce and super swoop.

If you're just chasing numbers on the app, you're not chasing the method at that point, your chasing the results, cause the simulator says "if you get this, than you should get that."

I mean, I don't think people are "intentionally" doing it per say, but based on the way the conversation is coming out from people talking about it, I'm seeing people chase results, vs focusing on what needs to really change to address those numbers form wise.

For example, trying to up your disc exit velocity. A majority of people are just gonna try and huck harder, vs seeing where they can generate more leverage in their form to produce that higher exit velocity.

Maybe I'm totally wrong, I'm trying to pull more sources than Just here. I don't think anyone is intentionally trying to do it, but its how some brains work. People want results ,and it drives results immediately. And that's a good way to essentially drive to a result without using a good method.
 
Stuff like this leads to muscling, swooping, air bouncing, etc. A lot of players out there throw 400-420 feet, but the throw is super aggressive, super hard, super air bounce and super swoop.
I do get what you are saying, guess I just have a different take on some things. I don't see how some people being silly affects anything. I am not drawing water from a pool that is irredeemably poisoned by other people. I read ideas, watch videos, and see what works for me. I know it was a few relatively weird phrases or concepts people took the time to describe in some bizarre way that truly impacted me, but those same phrases could also hinder another person.

I will say that muscling, swooping, and air bouncing are all things that will quite literally show up in the TechDisc output, as long as you understand what those actions will end up causing. I don't think you can really muscle a disc to 420 myself. This might be a bias in my distance valuations because I don't use an x-step at all, but to be honest, the people that use an x-step and have what I would call an aggressive/muscled swing are throwing like 320 lol.

I don't think we disagree on anything here other than...whether or not what other people do matters. I feel the same about you dissuading people from field work. Can field work be somewhat pointless and give you a false sense of ability? Sure...Can field work be extremely disciplined and valuable, and transfer to the course? Absolutely hell yes it can be.
 
Last edited:
For example, trying to up your disc exit velocity. A majority of people are just gonna try and huck harder, vs seeing where they can generate more leverage in their form to produce that higher exit velocity.
I agree people are going to try that stuff. I actually think that might be a great thing for most people. It's going to FEEL like they're really throwing it hard...and they're going to look at the data and realize "hmmm disc isn't going any faster". The people who are going to try that are the same people today who just grit their teeth and rip it as hard as they can. Now they're going to see that doesn't even really help their disc speed.

That's actually an example of where I think your logic should LOVE the simulator. If they are throwing fairly slow to begin to where just hucking it generates more speed, they're also going to immediately see their poor form play out in terms of nose angle (and other things) in the simulator to show them "throw went short, doesn't matter you threw it 10mph faster".

That's where I see no difference between chasing the form or chasing the data. You're assuming that people chasing the data don't understand the data (i.e. just trying to huck the disc for speed without understanding all of the other data points that go into it as well). The same thing exists in form though...people figure out what an x-step is supposed to look like and they just do that thing without it helping them because they don't understand the interplay of the x-step and the rest of the body. Or "Stokely told me not to serve the pizza" and then they just rip their wrist over on forehands. They're chasing form, but they don't understand it. Anyone chasing anything they don't understand isn't likely to go that well.

Lastly though, I'm not sure I agree that the "majority" of people who are willing to buy a $300 tech disc think arming a disc harder is the key to speed. I mean they might try it for fun. Or at least they aren't likely to continue trying it long IMO. $300 is a lot of money for disc golf, I have my doubts that people are just going to buy it as a proxy for a radar gun and just ignore all of the other great data points it provides. I don't doubt folks will try it. I've tried all kinds of things with it like seeing if my 360 generates any more speed...but that's playing with a toy, not really a legitimate attempt at improvement. I DO fully expect that people going to a shop to try one out are probably throwing it as hard as their arm can because it's more like a carnival game to them than anything (heck if I go somewhere now with the guys and they have one, I'm not going to worry one bit about the other metrics, I'm just gonna try to rip it harder than they do...but again...that's more screw-around game than it is a real attempt at increasing distance).
 
Lastly though, I'm not sure I agree that the "majority" of people who are willing to buy a $300 tech disc think arming a disc harder is the key to speed.
I agree with your whole post, but this part for sure. I'd wager most people who bought the TechDisc, outside of Youtube content generators, are quite serious about form. People who get somewhat serious and make significant progress are commonly going to come to a realization: Throwing a disc is friggin kind of ridiculous with how many variables there are.

This product is so tempting for people at that point in their progress imo.
 
I don't think you can really muscle a disc to 420 myself.

Oh sure you can. Known a few people. But they were built like trucks.

Ezra is an example of a muscled swing thrower. Brodie is the same way.

I put them in the muscled category vs the finesse category.

Guy I played with here though was throwing 450 all arm. Was pretty good at it too, until he blew his shoulder out and had to stop playing for 2 months.
He learned how to throw with his body after that and he can still hit 450, he just doesn't try and do it much anymore.
Him and I hold a local course doubles record from just after he started playing again from throwing his shoulder out.

I used to throw 400 with my arm when I started too. Threw my shoulder out 2 times, decided it was a bad idea to keep going that way.

I don't think we disagree on anything here other than...whether or not what other people do matters.

Were coming at it from very different perspectives. I cannot tell if you're trying to look from your perspective, or others. I'm trying to be a distant observer on all the things based on how people generally act with things.

And yes, while the tech disc is going to give you that information. It's a huge compounding issue of people plugging it into the number generator and it saying "your good" and them continuing on it. But as well, the feel vs real. Practice vs play.
When you get out on the course, you don't know what you're doing. you're just trying to get that extra 5 mph cause the hole is X feet long.

We want people to do it right and focus on the method and read the results. I'm just looking at the reality of human nature when it comes to study and practice.

I'm not trying to really say your wrong, I'm just trying to point out the reality without giving it any excuses. Engineer brain does that.
 
I agree people are going to try that stuff. I actually think that might be a great thing for most people. It's going to FEEL like they're really throwing it hard...and they're going to look at the data and realize "hmmm disc isn't going any faster". The people who are going to try that are the same people today who just grit their teeth and rip it as hard as they can. Now they're going to see that doesn't even really help their disc speed.

That's actually an example of where I think your logic should LOVE the simulator. If they are throwing fairly slow to begin to where just hucking it generates more speed, they're also going to immediately see their poor form play out in terms of nose angle (and other things) in the simulator to show them "throw went short, doesn't matter you threw it 10mph faster".

That's where I see no difference between chasing the form or chasing the data. You're assuming that people chasing the data don't understand the data (i.e. just trying to huck the disc for speed without understanding all of the other data points that go into it as well). The same thing exists in form though...people figure out what an x-step is supposed to look like and they just do that thing without it helping them because they don't understand the interplay of the x-step and the rest of the body. Or "Stokely told me not to serve the pizza" and then they just rip their wrist over on forehands. They're chasing form, but they don't understand it. Anyone chasing anything they don't understand isn't likely to go that well.

Lastly though, I'm not sure I agree that the "majority" of people who are willing to buy a $300 tech disc think arming a disc harder is the key to speed. I mean they might try it for fun. Or at least they aren't likely to continue trying it long IMO. $300 is a lot of money for disc golf, I have my doubts that people are just going to buy it as a proxy for a radar gun and just ignore all of the other great data points it provides. I don't doubt folks will try it. I've tried all kinds of things with it like seeing if my 360 generates any more speed...but that's playing with a toy, not really a legitimate attempt at improvement. I DO fully expect that people going to a shop to try one out are probably throwing it as hard as their arm can because it's more like a carnival game to them than anything (heck if I go somewhere now with the guys and they have one, I'm not going to worry one bit about the other metrics, I'm just gonna try to rip it harder than they do...but again...that's more screw-around game than it is a real attempt at increasing distance).


I think the part that is being lost in translation is that people are buying it to chase data in the attempt of improving.

"my numbers say this so, x" situation.

Point being, while what you're saying isn't incorrect by any stretch or means. You still have to "know" how to get there in a conventional manor.

And I think the part that is being forgotten is you can do good things wrong ways and you'll see the same results as you would with doing it the right way.

I cannot articulate myself any better that I am on this. And I'm not disagreeing with any one else, but it just seems like nobody is seeing the side that I'm seeing, And ya'll more hopeful people than me and are assuming they are using the device in the manor that would achieve the best results.

It's a whatever I guess. Kinda feel annoyed for bringing it up.
 
My son is on the rowing team at his school and the Tech Disc makes me think of what rowers say about rowing machines - "Ergs don't float."

A rowing machine is good training and a great way to practice certain aspects of form and get immediate feedback from the power curve data it gathers, but no substitute for being in a real boat on real water.

The Tech Disc seems similar, it's a great way to practice and get immediate feedback on certain aspects of form, but "Tech Discs don't get birdies." 😆

Ok, that's not as punchy as "Ergs don't float", anyone got a better catchphrase?
 
I see TechDisc as useful for the following purposes:
* A reasonable substitute for field work if you don't have the time for a regular field work session, you don't have a convenient location for a field work session, or the weather is not good for throwing outside. Field work is still very important, and TechDisc doesn't totally replace it, but it does allow you can get in, say, 45 throws in 30 minutes in your garage and the immediate feedback you get will give you a good idea whether it was a good throw or a bad throw and why. MUCH more interesting and useful than just throwing into a net with regular discs.
* Diagnosing certain problems that may not be obvious from seeing your actual throws - e.g., from just observing their throws, its hard for many people to (1) tell if they are throwing nose up and (2) tell if their spin rate is low relative to their disc speed, both of which suggest specific form issues that people can work on.
 
I'm sure the data gathered from a tech disc can be extremely useful... with valid and proper analysis.

Knowing all the data on your throw is one thing. Actually understanding what it means for your disc flight is another. I think the only way to really understand how what you're doing, translates to what the results are, is by observing what actually happens in flight.

Knowing that your disc will turn and fade is one thing. Having a good idea of where along the flight path it will turn (and by how much it will turn), and when it will start to fade and how much... is extremely useful. That only comes with repetition and observation.
 
Last edited:
And most of what I'm seeing is chasing numbers, not "I made this form change, and this was the results."

I want to say Nick is the one I've seen trying to gather results from form changes the most.

It's a neat tool, but used in bad ways can be a hinderance, doesn't matter what those numbers are if the road to get those numbers is rocky and bad.
Thank you! Yeah personally I found Tech Disc most useful (for me at least) in letting me work on adjusting 1 thing I think will affect 1 aspect that I'm focusing on, and I take note of what I consider to be the next most valuable aspect or two that might also be affected by the change. One day was just the wobble metric, by adjusting my swing plane (minimizing external shoulder rotation of the upper arm at the shoulder socket). Another day was nose angle, by adjusting wrist angle (I tried "pouring the coffee" and "turn the key" cues to see what they would do). And yet another day I focused on launch angle by raising the net 1 foot higher, while trying to use the fixes from prior days in combination. It was a LOT harder than I thought it would be, and I had to keep my expectations low. The final day I went "full sendies" and honestly it just broke my form down attempting that. The goal was hunting speed and spin, and all the other numbers suffered.

So you can definitely find yourself going backwards if you aren't careful. I made a ton of mistakes in my week with the Tech Disc, so I can see how this tool can actually hurt you in the long run, if you aren't careful. I found myself a lot more likely to throw discs too low because the first 3 days my net was too low, and it successfully trained me to throw down a lot more often. Also throwing into a net a lot - without supplementing it with real world throws - will lead to some wonkiness on the course when you least expect it!
 
Thank you! Yeah personally I found Tech Disc most useful (for me at least) in letting me work on adjusting 1 thing I think will affect 1 aspect that I'm focusing on, and I take note of what I consider to be the next most valuable aspect or two that might also be affected by the change. One day was just the wobble metric, by adjusting my swing plane (minimizing external shoulder rotation of the upper arm at the shoulder socket). Another day was nose angle, by adjusting wrist angle (I tried "pouring the coffee" and "turn the key" cues to see what they would do). And yet another day I focused on launch angle by raising the net 1 foot higher, while trying to use the fixes from prior days in combination. It was a LOT harder than I thought it would be, and I had to keep my expectations low. The final day I went "full sendies" and honestly it just broke my form down attempting that. The goal was hunting speed and spin, and all the other numbers suffered.

So you can definitely find yourself going backwards if you aren't careful. I made a ton of mistakes in my week with the Tech Disc, so I can see how this tool can actually hurt you in the long run, if you aren't careful. I found myself a lot more likely to throw discs too low because the first 3 days my net was too low, and it successfully trained me to throw down a lot more often. Also throwing into a net a lot - without supplementing it with real world throws - will lead to some wonkiness on the course when you least expect it!
Re "pouring the coffee" vs "turn the key" - I tried both and found that "turn the key" (or a mix of "pour the coffee" and "turn the key") was best for giving me nose down numbers. Those two cues tip the disc in somewhat different directions, which leads me to believe that what you need to do to get nose down differs from person to person, based on their grip and throw mechanics.
 
Re "pouring the coffee" vs "turn the key" - I tried both and found that "turn the key" (or a mix of "pour the coffee" and "turn the key") was best for giving me nose down numbers. Those two cues tip the disc in somewhat different directions, which leads me to believe that what you need to do to get nose down differs from person to person, based on their grip and throw mechanics.
Yep you nailed it - it was definitely "turn the key" - and that became more evident once I dialed that in some. That said, it only helps so much if the swing plane is off, which confounded my results a bit. The more I work on form, the more interested I've become in "root causes" or "upstream problems." You don't want to overlook wrist angle, but sometimes the focus is on there when that's actually fine, but something else is jacked up, making the correct grip/wrist angle/whatever harder to see.
 
I'm sure the data gathered from a tech disc can be extremely useful... with valid and proper analysis.

Knowing all the data on your throw is one thing. Actually understanding what it means for your disc flight is another. I think the only way to really understand how what you're doing, translates to what the results are, is by observing what actually happens in flight.

Knowing that your disc will turn and fade is one thing. Having a good idea of where along the flight path it will turn (and by how much it will turn), and when it will start to fade and how much... is extremely useful. That only comes with repetition and observation.
Yeah, that's mostly what I was trying to say.
Just from a different angle.
 
Yep you nailed it - it was definitely "turn the key" - and that became more evident once I dialed that in some. That said, it only helps so much if the swing plane is off, which confounded my results a bit. The more I work on form, the more interested I've become in "root causes" or "upstream problems." You don't want to overlook wrist angle, but sometimes the focus is on there when that's actually fine, but something else is jacked up, making the correct grip/wrist angle/whatever harder to see.

It's a bit of a tough subject because we want to think everyone will play the game right if that makes sense.

We want to think that everyone will drive a car properly, or any other analogy you can come up with. But, what our brain does without strict discipline is screws around. This is why you constantly have to work on your form as a pro golfer, or even an am golfer trying to maintain form, our brains try and screw around because of all these root understandings of stuff.

The most important thing a good coach will do is not address the problem directly, but focus on trying to find the absolute root cause of the issue. This is why I kind of turd on josh a bit, because... he's not educated enough yet, and he's trying to compare joe schmoes form to simon. that's, silly.

It's like looking at a simulator and gathering x-data and then taking those numbers and just focusing on making the tech disc data match that.

Are people going to do that? If you say no, just... go away at this point. Our brain doesn't work like that. It's like when we want to throw further, we don't think about root mechanics that drive a better kinetic chain while standing on the tee pad. We think about "grug smash" and try and muscle some more power out of it. it takes thousands of hours of practice to get that sort of stupidity out of your head.

As much knowledge as I have in form and when I wanna try and throw further, my brain loves to space out while on the course and I muscle discs and hurt my shoulder, again. Why? Because athlete brain is engaged. That part of my brain isn't trained well enough to brace harder and focus on a powerful pocket and extension. So I yank the disc and hurt my shoulder and throw it like 250 feet.

We need to treat tech disc like a dynameter for vehicles.

"I've made x-changes to my form, I've practiced those changes. lets run throw it on the dyno"

And then take 10 swings with the tech disc and figure out the data.

If you're throwing only the tech disc into a net then trying to make adjustments every throw, you're going to lead yourself down the slope of chasing results, not chasing the actions to achieve better results.

It's why I advocate net throwing over field work. You can focus down on form videoing yourself making the adjustments. You're not worried about the flight, you're worried about the journey to throw the disc.

Then you take it into the field cause you've built that muscle memory without outside distractors worrying about how the disc flew, and worrying about where the discs at, or the wind. or did you put enough hyzer on it or not. You want to break down the focus small, then test the results.

Everyone can do what they want, but when you use a tool, you want to maximize its effectiveness, and you have to take into account the human condition and how our dumb brain works vs our smart brain.

You can say all day that you're going to do it smart.
But people continue to go into fields to "work on form" and after about 10 throws, they focus on trying to throw distance shots. Why? Discipline. It's not fun throwing 150 upshots from 120 feet out. So if you're throwing a tech disc, looking at numbers, and trying to make adjustments right away while only throwing it, you're putting yourself in a results loop, not an action correction loop. Because you're most likely making adjustments without understanding or addressing the root issue. Because our brain wants to do things the easiest way possible. So if we lack discipline and understanding, it will immediately take the path it thinks will achieve the results. This is what our subconscious does. This is why you have to use repetition to train your subconscious. Because we want our "auto pilot" feature to have good data.

You gotta think about putting the swing into auto pilot, but all your doing is just nudging the wheel ever so slightly to make tiny corrections.

The tech disc *is* going to be a great tool, especially when used properly.

But it's also going to be a massively detrimental tool because people are going to chase results. Then jump in forums and coaching area's and go "My tech disc data says that I should be throwing 550 feet when I enter it into the simulator, but I'm only seeing 250 on the course, what am I doing wrong?"

It's cheating the data, Your body will chase actions to gain the desired result.

This is why people recommend not using a speed gun to practice disc golf with. Because you start chasing how to throw the disc hard/fast, not how to throw the disc powerfully and well.
 
It's a bit of a tough subject because we want to think everyone will play the game right if that makes sense.

We want to think that everyone will drive a car properly, or any other analogy you can come up with. But, what our brain does without strict discipline is screws around. This is why you constantly have to work on your form as a pro golfer, or even an am golfer trying to maintain form, our brains try and screw around because of all these root understandings of stuff.

The most important thing a good coach will do is not address the problem directly, but focus on trying to find the absolute root cause of the issue. This is why I kind of turd on josh a bit, because... he's not educated enough yet, and he's trying to compare joe schmoes form to simon. that's, silly.

It's like looking at a simulator and gathering x-data and then taking those numbers and just focusing on making the tech disc data match that.

Are people going to do that? If you say no, just... go away at this point. Our brain doesn't work like that. It's like when we want to throw further, we don't think about root mechanics that drive a better kinetic chain while standing on the tee pad. We think about "grug smash" and try and muscle some more power out of it. it takes thousands of hours of practice to get that sort of stupidity out of your head.

As much knowledge as I have in form and when I wanna try and throw further, my brain loves to space out while on the course and I muscle discs and hurt my shoulder, again. Why? Because athlete brain is engaged. That part of my brain isn't trained well enough to brace harder and focus on a powerful pocket and extension. So I yank the disc and hurt my shoulder and throw it like 250 feet.

We need to treat tech disc like a dynameter for vehicles.

"I've made x-changes to my form, I've practiced those changes. lets run throw it on the dyno"

And then take 10 swings with the tech disc and figure out the data.

If you're throwing only the tech disc into a net then trying to make adjustments every throw, you're going to lead yourself down the slope of chasing results, not chasing the actions to achieve better results.

It's why I advocate net throwing over field work. You can focus down on form videoing yourself making the adjustments. You're not worried about the flight, you're worried about the journey to throw the disc.

Then you take it into the field cause you've built that muscle memory without outside distractors worrying about how the disc flew, and worrying about where the discs at, or the wind. or did you put enough hyzer on it or not. You want to break down the focus small, then test the results.

Everyone can do what they want, but when you use a tool, you want to maximize its effectiveness, and you have to take into account the human condition and how our dumb brain works vs our smart brain.

You can say all day that you're going to do it smart.
But people continue to go into fields to "work on form" and after about 10 throws, they focus on trying to throw distance shots. Why? Discipline. It's not fun throwing 150 upshots from 120 feet out. So if you're throwing a tech disc, looking at numbers, and trying to make adjustments right away while only throwing it, you're putting yourself in a results loop, not an action correction loop. Because you're most likely making adjustments without understanding or addressing the root issue. Because our brain wants to do things the easiest way possible. So if we lack discipline and understanding, it will immediately take the path it thinks will achieve the results. This is what our subconscious does. This is why you have to use repetition to train your subconscious. Because we want our "auto pilot" feature to have good data.

You gotta think about putting the swing into auto pilot, but all your doing is just nudging the wheel ever so slightly to make tiny corrections.

The tech disc *is* going to be a great tool, especially when used properly.

But it's also going to be a massively detrimental tool because people are going to chase results. Then jump in forums and coaching area's and go "My tech disc data says that I should be throwing 550 feet when I enter it into the simulator, but I'm only seeing 250 on the course, what am I doing wrong?"

It's cheating the data, Your body will chase actions to gain the desired result.

This is why people recommend not using a speed gun to practice disc golf with. Because you start chasing how to throw the disc hard/fast, not how to throw the disc powerfully and well.
Doesn't your entire point boil down to something like this: "Some people aren't going to do things in a productive way."

That isn't extremely revelatory in my opinion. What other people do with a tool or concept does not impact what you can do with it. It seems like you are upset by this fact, or feel like you have a personal responsibility to make sure they all know how wrong they are.

Some people just wanna chuck plastic in whatever way is fun to them. No one is going to be the disc golf form messiah and start a religion of the one true form. Why do YOU care how people are doing fieldwork? If this is your angle of attack, you can be angry about every single facet of life, all the time lol.

The original question in this thread was whether we CAN know good information about our swing using TechDisc, and how much of that is useful. The answer to that the tool can be used to gain a lot of valuable information. The fact that it is possible to misinterpret or direct actions ineffectively is just not something I understand all of the effort behind. No one is trying to argue that it is impossible to misuse the tool, but you seem really caught up on pretending like that is an argument that needs to be made.
 
Last edited:
You can say all day that you're going to do it smart.
But people continue to go into fields to "work on form" and after about 10 throws, they focus on trying to throw distance shots. Why? Discipline. It's not fun throwing 150 upshots from 120 feet out.
This is what I mean. And in this thread you also said you recommend against fieldwork.

You put so much weight on the fact that people can do something ineffectively that you actually argue against the entire concept being done by anyone due to some form of resigned disgust lol. "People" are going to do all kinds of things you don't agree with. I guarantee there are people out there doing monumentally disciplined fieldwork too.

It isn't your responsibility to make sure the entire disc golf community is disciplined lol.

And honestly, its fun to go to a field and just try to throw bomber lines sometimes. I totally do that too.
 

Latest posts

Top