Tech disc test driven development

[disc-golf-neil]

Nice work!

This is increasingly subtle, but if I may, your front shoulder still tends to shunt up/skyward relative to the brace/axis of rotation rather than clearing forward and through more like Simon. You tend to get slightly caught behind the brace than completely follow through, and the clearing action of the throwing arm is slightly sawed off as a result. This is related to why your rear arm tends to drag behind and slighty down to counterbalance the skyward action rather than maintaining posture. So there's a little more on the table there.

You are probably getting load through the oblique slings and lats, but the motion through the scapular range of motion looks either slightly off plane and/or (more likely causally) is lacking a degree of freedom somewhere in the shoulder assembly somewhere in the depression/elevation and/or downward rotation/upward rotation cycle.

Visually (these are persistent regardless of camera angle. I am looking at the mechanics in motion and pulling out images for emphasis, not just cherry-picking images):
1. The yellow line is the balance point over the front leg through the motion. You have a bit of rearward balance relative to Simon (biased East along the tee) as an effect of the shoulder action. Notice how much more stacked his balance line is from foot to the top of the head
2. Notice that the relationship between the shoulder line and forearm are opposite in Simon's as an effect of the diferences in shoulder action.
3. Overall, notice the very large space between your leading shoulder and leading hip. Simon's is much smaller/more compressed.
4. The sweeping arrow near the shoulders represents the path through the motion. Simon's tows/windmills/swings/pulls/whatever slightly downward and then upward maintaining intact posture, whereas yours tows more upward off plane (again, an effect of the lack of shoulder degree of freedom.

View attachment 354516

Your problem is somewhere in the last two images here:
View attachment 354515

This is fixable in principle of course. As fair warning if you ever get it, it will feel very weird and your balance will take a little time to adjust to it.

You're familiar with dingle arms (not sure how much you use them); you can also play around with racquet backhand, golf club, hammer, etc to identify it.

Thanks!

I know you've pointed this out before and I hoped it would improve indirectly as I worked on other things because it always seemed like a difficult and subtle thing to work on that I didn't have a clear path towards, so I kept focusing on other stuff that seemed like it could be easier to fix and then forgot to come back around to it, so thanks for reminding me.

I might just have to directly focus on maintaining scapular depression like I've focused on maintaining protraction before. But part of why that feels weird to think about is because it's a 'downward' thought simultaneously with an 'elbow / arm up' and 'throw upwards / angle shoulder plane up' thoughts. Especially when putting extra focus on a higher pull through, it's tough to juggle that with thinking of scapular depression.

I think I need to trust my side bend more to angle my shoulders upwards for positive launch angle also to help avoid my front shoulder wanting to come up to 'lean into the upwards angle and help with it' so to speak.

I know Nick Krush does and teaches a elbow up + protraction + depression checklist so it makes sense to add that in.


I think when trying a higher reach back, it may have a side effect on my front shoulder position. The kind of higher reachback I'm talking about for me (and I think many people) mostly seems to be a combo of external rotation in the reachback and more sidebend both tilting things more upwards rather than actually raising the arm much higher. The external rotation in the reachback angling the arm upwards makes me want to lean into that feeling more with more sidebend.

The external rotation + throwing-side-side-bend during the coil both lead to more downward feeling into the pocket motions which maybe more automatically helping scapular depression or reducing the opposite. throwing-side-side--bend during the reachback make the front shoulder feel like in space it's coming arcing down then up a bit into the reachback with scapular protraction and external rotation which then feels more set up to come into the pocket with a downward feel from internal rotation and the undoing of throwing-side-side-bend leveling out the shoulder plane.

Here's an exaggerated example.

2:46



However, when I focus on this I'm less consistent with getting a good combo of nose + launch angle and more easily accidentally get way too nose down for the launch angle and lose spin when there's extra swoop feel. The reason I think I more easily get extreme nose down on this style is because starting with more external rotation in the reachback sets me up to have larger swings from external-internal-external where the hit has more external + supination motion saved for it.

So, perhaps adding a less exaggerated version of this could also be helpful.

 

[Brychanus]

Thanks!

I know you've pointed this out before and I hoped it would improve indirectly as I worked on other things because it always seemed like a difficult and subtle thing to work on that I didn't have a clear path towards, so I kept focusing on other stuff that seemed like it could be easier to fix and then forgot to come back around to it, so thanks for reminding me.

YW - yes, sometimes of course that happens without micromanaging things.

I might just have to directly focus on maintaining scapular depression like I've focused on maintaining protraction before. But part of why that feels weird to think about is because it's a 'downward' thought simultaneously with an 'elbow / arm up' and 'throw upwards / angle shoulder plane up' thoughts. Especially when putting extra focus on a higher pull through, it's tough to juggle that with thinking of scapular depression.

Now more just philosophizing & your brain might parse it differently than others - I tend to be cautious with "maintain" cues and use more "move" cues. Oftentimes, people who use maintain cues inadvertently cause chain breaks or hitches and rigid body dynamics as opposed to a temporally connected chain and fluid body dynamics. These are all on a continuum of course (I think). Things that initially seem hitchier can smooth out over time once you stop focusing on them, which is interesting.

IMO the contrast for "move" cues is that they are initially natural, but unstable (like a baby learning to walk). That describes most of Sidewinder's move set and philosophy. The learning curve often has punctuated periods of unstable outputs ("spray and pray"), but "jumps" in development when the learning clicks followed by rapid increases in accuracy, precision, and replicability (like a baby learning to walk). For some people, however, it never seems to click.

I think I need to trust my side bend more to angle my shoulders upwards for positive launch angle also to help avoid my front shoulder wanting to come up to 'lean into the upwards angle and help with it' so to speak.

I know I'm a dirty posture theorist, but yes, I think trusting the lower body units (legs, core, posture control) is IMO harder to learn for most adults, but can control the part you're talking about. I found it very hard to learn and it still needs drill and preshot routine "booster shots" (but starts to become automatic over time).

I know Nick Krush does and teaches a elbow up + protraction + depression checklist so it makes sense to add that in.

This can be fine IMO. Beware that an extreme version or misinterpretation of that cue leads to a disconnected "chicken wing" where the shoulder is decoupled from the arm, which is the opposite of what I'm getting at. So in your experimenting, mess around in that!

I think when trying a higher reach back, it may have a side effect on my front shoulder position. The kind of higher reachback I'm talking about for me (and I think many people) mostly seems to be a combo of external rotation in the reachback and more sidebend both tilting things more upwards rather than actually raising the arm much higher. The external rotation in the reachback angling the arm upwards makes me want to lean into that feeling more with more sidebend.

So that could be true- the interesting thing in your case is I was having trouble distinguishing cause and effect in that space. However, you have adjusted other parts of your balance and posture sufficiently that I suspect the shoulder mechanics/degrees of freedom is a block for you at this point. I do think however that messing around with those posture cues while playing with shoulder/backhand cues might help. I've had to do a lot of weird things with objects to figure out how they link together (or not) and of course your pattern will end up being a little bit of the general "rule" and a little bit uniquely your own.

The external rotation + throwing-side-side-bend during the coil both lead to more downward feeling into the pocket motions which maybe more automatically helping scapular depression or reducing the opposite. throwing-side-side--bend during the reachback make the front shoulder feel like in space it's coming arcing down then up a bit into the reachback with scapular protraction and external rotation which then feels more set up to come into the pocket with a downward feel from internal rotation and the undoing of throwing-side-side-bend leveling out the shoulder plane.

I think I parsed this, which if so sounds promising. Basically you will probably feel like the leading shoulder will be moving more "down" (relative to the sky and your body) longer into the move, while meanwhile you are uncoiling a bit longer and probably harder/faster out of the peak of the backswing. At the same time, you might feel transiently more grounded in the plant foot. Your follow through will probably carry you "forward" (toward the target) but you will be balanced and rotating more crisply and centered over the front leg, and the front arm will travel over a slightly larger range of motion. The idea is that the added compression and balance work together to create more peak force and rotation, clean up the timing a bit, and get a bit more out of the muscular-fascial chain throughout the body.

Here's an exaggerated example.

2:46

View attachment 354520

That looks a little Ricky-esque and I think the higher backswing might help initially. Couple things:

1. Try to "let it go" a little more in the backswing and allow it too feel more like it's stretching you out slightly around the shoulder. It doesn't need to be/shouldn't be much, but I think if you focus too much on rigidly maintaining the posture, you are blocking some of the natural elasticity and range of motion. Just a hypothesis. If you get it you'll start to "feel" like this around the shoulder area. Then once you learn it, it will tend to get tighter/quicker/more elastic with repetitions. You've probably felt it in other sports moves/parts of the body. I found it easier to learn winding up back "heaving" my arm first with a weight then with a disc into the backswing/reachback while my rear foot was planted (standstill), then gradually I could access it in x-step.

2. It's so subtle I'll just say it rather than show it, but esp. when I watch in real time, you are tending still to tip a bit in the x-step transition - head and balance are tipping and pitching forward slightly, then reverting back as you shift to plant. This is a transient opposite of that "north-south" balance idea most people have the hardest time with. You can play around with Double Dragon, golf balance drills, etc. I suspect these are interrelated with the shoulder dynamics because to some extent they tend to either contribute to the balance issues, or result from them.

BTW, I think these together is part of why your rear shoulder never really seems to load back just behind your rear hip at the peak of the backswing like the big guns. Once you find it you will really enjoy it. If you're touching 68mph now I won't be surprised if you get to 70.

 

[Brychanus]

Pt 2:

However, when I focus on this I'm less consistent with getting a good combo of nose + launch angle and more easily accidentally get way too nose down for the launch angle and lose spin when there's extra swoop feel. The reason I think I more easily get extreme nose down on this style is because starting with more external rotation in the reachback sets me up to have larger swings from external-internal-external where the hit has more external + supination motion saved for it.

So, perhaps adding a less exaggerated version of this could also be helpful.

Yeah, that could be true & there are a couple of interesting things worth adding here:

Incidentally I went through a phase where I messed around with the "let it go" + high reachback trying to figure out what the hell was going on in Double Dragon fundamentally. I suppose I ended up convinced that the DD idea is correct, but often very subtle and small in mature form (e.g., it is there in Gibson's form but I was baffled how for a long time). When I switched back to a lower reachback with a low armslot, this weird "feel" occurred where my backswing seems like it is high, but it's actually pretty low. That's because relative to my posture and balance, it is high. But relative to my head and ground it looks quite low on camera, more like Aderhold height. That helps in my case get a lot of space around my midsection despite my short arm and keeps me more balanced relative to my gimped rear leg, so that by the time I plant, I can get a pretty good range of motion halfway to GG-like nose down, but the move is still converting back "up" more like Simon or GG (again, obviously much less awesome). It's basically just one smooth flow.

You mentioned the "Swoop" and I have a bit more/new to say there. If you start with extreme Dingle arm +Double dragon balance like I committed to, I do think that there is a very clear tradeoff. I guess I'll make a contrast of extremes between swing theory and pull theory.

1. Swing theory. Pros: the swoopier/swingier dynamic is assuredly lower effort, emphasizes the whole chain action, and optimizes force efficiency especially relative to gravity. Cons: it can be quite difficult to learn how to convert the very circular and tilted balance "swoopy" dynamics into a reliable, fast, spinny shot. Since I'm on the wrong side of 35, slightly busted, and less athletic, I was/am happy to commit to this idea as a primary training method for myself (obligatory thank you to Sidewinder again).

Meanwhile:

2. Pull theory. Pros: I mean, there's just something there and intuitive to a lot of people. It looks like a pull and to some extent feels like a pull (with the whole body), and the pros tend to describe it this way. Pull theory tends to maximize the horizontal phase and force plane(s) of the move, maximize elastic tension directly toward and back away from the target. Intuitively, most people (adults) tend to "get" that "disc go away from line, disc go toward line." For distance, I do have the suspicion that pull theory is part of the peak power game in terms of raw MPH; I am still unclear for RPM, but obviously speed is a dominant variable in distance. I have messed with pull theory principally in standstills (harder in x-step in part due to my rear leg abnormality), which has taught me a lot. There is also a sneaky set of effort-minimizing mechanics in the horizontal part of the move that IMO we don't talk enough about around here. Cons: most adults (nearly all?) tend to leave efficiencies on the table if they never encounter swing theory. They are typically more rigid body and less efficient at comparable speeds. Their overall motion and movement plane(s) are lacking. I suspect also that this is an "athletic" differentiator - younger, limber, more well-rounded athletes etc. seem to respond faster to this. I still am curious about longevity implications.

Throw theory is some kind of hybrid of these things. Simon's form at times still stands out as a fascinating hybrid and you see him moving between the extremes over time.

 

[itlnstln]

Throw theory is some kind of hybrid of these things. Simon's form at times still stands out as a fascinating hybrid and you see him moving between the extremes over time.

I wonder if Simon understands* discs leverage at some fundamental level where he's focused on that and adapts his body/technique accordingly

*he's probably not overthinking this, but decides on a particular flight and how the disc needs to be thrown to get that flight, thus flipping the cause and effect

 

[RowingBoats]

I wonder if Simon understands* discs leverage at some fundamental level where he's focused on that and adapts his body/technique accordingly

*he's probably not overthinking this, but decides on a particular flight and how the disc needs to be thrown to get that flight, thus flipping the cause and effect

I think this is something most people start doing no? Actually thinking about your body is such a detached way to conceive of throwing a disc to me.

Visualizing what the disc itself needs to do to accomplish the shot is just so much better for me.

There definitely were drills that helped me that involved thinking about the body itself but that isn't the goal imo

 

[disc-golf-neil]

I tend to be cautious with "maintain" cues and use more "move" cues. Oftentimes, people who use maintain cues inadvertently cause chain breaks

Yeah, this has been my experience too and the reason for my usage of dynamic (move) and static (maintain) terms to specify where I've found static to be insufficient.

In this session where got 68 to 69.7 PR, I was focused more on a higher pull through but I was trying to have a relatively normal reachback height, so it was less of a static height throughout backswing + swing and dynamic move to a higher pull through from the reachback (at least that's what it felt like). I haven't tried presetting the higher pull through height in the reachback yet (static).

Static protraction, however, seems to work fairly well, but I think it's because it's kind of like establishing a sturdy base of the whip that doesn't collapse but still has some room to stretch, however, even with this, trying to more dynamic protraction during the pocket has had some great results, it's just kind of a weird and short ROM to be dynamic with in the pocket. Also, super interestingly, it felt like dynamic protraction during the pocket quickly runs out of ROM in the direction of 'away from chest' but as you are rotating the feeling of trying to continue that ROM starts to translate into going with the rotation and feels more like transitioning into elbow drive, but it felt WAY better than just trying to elbow drive without the dynamic protraction first. Focusing on this gave me some throws that had the cleanest looking disc orientation through the entire swing and a combo of all good stats with amazing wobble: 64.8mph, 1267 spin, 1.2 wobble, 16.8 hyzer, -3.8 nose, 8.4 launch.

Scapular depression I think will be similar to protraction. It feels hard to jump right into a dynamic cue with it and I think I'll need to start with static just to get some muscle memory and used to doing it along with the kind of contradictory feeling of also keeping the arm up. Then, it should be easier to start doing it more dynamically, but I'll try both next session.

Another example of static vs dynamic is of course turn the key. Which, I tried to pre tilt the disc very nose down and maintain it (mostly supination since you can't maintain external rotation in the pocket if you want a good pocket). It felt impossible to get very nose down or even slightly nose down, the force of the swing just pushed me out of being able to maintain the supination, and so it felt absolutely necessary for it to be a dynamic motion to have any chance of arriving at the desired position to get nose down.

BTW, I think these together is part of why your rear shoulder never really seems to load back just behind your rear hip at the peak of the backswing like the big guns.

Pretty sure I can do this very directly by driving my elbow back towards the target more and trying to keep it much tighter to the body, whether or not other things are affecting it as a side effect. Of course, it would be better to correct the issue at the root, but still probably useful to work on it more directly.

Zach Nash in the OT vid talked about feeling his rear lat engaged the whole time, I think this helps with keeping the off arm close to the body as well and able to more easily and intuitively bring it into it's position when the brace happens. I toyed with this and it felt great but when going for max power and focusing on new throwing arm stuff, it's really hard to keep my off arm doing something new as well so it always reverts to swinging out more as I coil. However, I think I can work on new throwing arm stuff and get the off arm more tight to the body and driving the off elbow back deeper if preset it tight to the body, imagining the off elbow is glued to the side. I was already planning on doing this as a set it and forget it checklist, but I keep doing the forget it part first..

that pull theory is part of the peak power game in terms of raw MPH

How do you think this relates to the idea that the arm, if it's a whip, needs to be loose to most efficiently transfer the speed to the tip? Seems like the fact that so many people, including pros, find success with pull focus contradicts this. Maybe there's just athletic intuition kicking in to prevent the interference?

 

[disc-golf-neil]

Side topic, never knew about this study.

There was a study by Joonas using EMG, I'm told, that supports this based on deg of rotation and acceleration in the hips vs the trunk.

 

[Brychanus]

As usual I enjoy all of the grist in here; I will pull out a couple I had an immediate response to:

Yeah, this has been my experience too and the reason for my usage of dynamic (move) and static (maintain) terms to specify where I've found static to be insufficient.

In this session where got 68 to 69.7 PR, I was focused more on a higher pull through but I was trying to have a relatively normal reachback height, so it was less of a static height throughout backswing + swing and dynamic move to a higher pull through from the reachback (at least that's what it felt like). I haven't tried presetting the higher pull through height in the reachback yet (static).

Static protraction, however, seems to work fairly well, but I think it's because it's kind of like establishing a sturdy base of the whip that doesn't collapse but still has some room to stretch, however, even with this, trying to more dynamic protraction during the pocket has had some great results, it's just kind of a weird and short ROM to be dynamic with in the pocket. Also, super interestingly, it felt like dynamic protraction during the pocket quickly runs out of ROM in the direction of 'away from chest' but as you are rotating the feeling of trying to continue that ROM starts to translate into going with the rotation and feels more like transitioning into elbow drive, but it felt WAY better than just trying to elbow drive without the dynamic protraction first. Focusing on this gave me some throws that had the cleanest looking disc orientation through the entire swing and a combo of all good stats with amazing wobble: 64.8mph, 1267 spin, 1.2 wobble, 16.8 hyzer, -3.8 nose, 8.4 launch.

Yes, I wouldn't discourage fishing around in this. It seems like people learn to access it along different learning trajectories in any case.

Scapular depression I think will be similar to protraction. It feels hard to jump right into a dynamic cue with it and I think I'll need to start with static just to get some muscle memory and used to doing it along with the kind of contradictory feeling of also keeping the arm up. Then, it should be easier to start doing it more dynamically, but I'll try both next session.

Yeah - and don't get me wrong, converting extreme dingle arm mechanics has/still is its own learning tradeoffs as above. I think what helped me is that I was so muscularly rigid and heavy on my feet is that I needed the extreme opposite. Otherwise I kept getting stuck in old patterns. So mess around for sure, and I think noticing what feel like body-brain contradictions is helpful for learning sometimes.

Another example of static vs dynamic is of course turn the key. Which, I tried to pre tilt the disc very nose down and maintain it (mostly supination since you can't maintain external rotation in the pocket if you want a good pocket). It felt impossible to get very nose down or even slightly nose down, the force of the swing just pushed me out of being able to maintain the supination, and so it felt absolutely necessary for it to be a dynamic motion to have any chance of arriving at the desired position to get nose down.

I think I follow. And right, I tend to stay open-minded about this. I think metaphorically and physically, turning a key is a motion by definition, not a position. But you can still emphasize positions along a flow of dynamics and postural transitions/beats. So the fact that you have been very exploratory in this space is interesting, as it is also interesting that you converged on a few dynamic concepts that seem consistent with other ideas (a concensus, of sorts?) out there. V. cool.

Pretty sure I can do this very directly by driving my elbow back towards the target more and trying to keep it much tighter to the body, whether or not other things are affecting it as a side effect. Of course, it would be better to correct the issue at the root, but still probably useful to work on it more directly.

Zach Nash in the OT vid talked about feeling his rear lat engaged the whole time, I think this helps with keeping the off arm close to the body as well and able to more easily and intuitively bring it into it's position when the brace happens. I toyed with this and it felt great but when going for max power and focusing on new throwing arm stuff, it's really hard to keep my off arm doing something new as well so it always reverts to swinging out more as I coil. However, I think I can work on new throwing arm stuff and get the off arm more tight to the body and driving the off elbow back deeper if preset it tight to the body, imagining the off elbow is glued to the side. I was already planning on doing this as a set it and forget it checklist, but I keep doing the forget it part first..


How do you think this relates to the idea that the arm, if it's a whip, needs to be loose to most efficiently transfer the speed to the tip? Seems like the fact that so many people, including pros, find success with pull focus contradicts this. Maybe there's just athletic intuition kicking in to prevent the interference?

I'm often a filthy moderate so I assign weight to the relative contributions of forces in my mental model (obviously these are guesses since I don't have a validated mechanical model that would convince a biomechanical engineer and pass peer review). So for your last question there, it's probably still a story about sweet spots/ force transfer/coupling/stretch-contract cycles working relativistically well together. I suspect that is why we see a space of somewhat different cues and mechanics like death grips on the disc all the way from the beginning all the way to pretty loose and relaxed (but not so much that the body loses posture and control). However, if the chain moves through a "good enough" sequence of beats along the relevant stretch/contract/conduct cycles of force transfer/addition, maybe good enough?

 

[Brychanus]

Side topic, never knew about this study.

There was a study by Joonas using EMG, I'm told, that supports this based on deg of rotation and acceleration in the hips vs the trunk.

View attachment 354527

I don't have reason to disagree with Chris there (see my comment about weighting the contributions of forces in the chain). I've talked with Chris and Josh about this to an extent and I do suspect the relative contributions due to alignment differences de-emphasize ground force reaction relative to e.g., forehand/pitching-like mechanics. I suspect that they are clearly there to some nonzero extent, but it's possible to overemphasize it. This is also why by the way you can have very extreme moves like Kristian Kuoksa and people in Finland cracking their pelvis or lower spine trying to convert too much force too fast with braces that function more like "stops" of horizontal momentum "catapulting" the move into horizontal abduction of the arm more than "redirections" of forward momentum that are a bit "swingier" like we tend to talk about around here.

I talked with Joonas for 2.5 hours about his data. I learned a lot & am happy to share anything that wasn't too proprietary. W.r.t. the EMG I was convinced about a few things - I think the problem with some of those measurements is the density of the electrodes and their exact positions relative to the underlying musculature require a little more scrutiny (I know a bit about this because we do motor thresholding as part of our brain stimulation study protocols, but it is not my main area of study).

 

[disc-golf-neil]

I don't have reason to disagree with Chris there (see my comment about weighting the contributions of forces in the chain). I've talked with Chris and Josh about this to an extent and I do suspect the relative contributions due to alignment differences de-emphasize ground force reaction relative to e.g., forehand/pitching-like mechanics. I suspect that they are clearly there to some nonzero extent, but it's possible to overemphasize it. This is also why by the way you can have very extreme moves like Kristian Kuoksa and people in Finland cracking their pelvis or lower spine trying to convert too much force too fast with braces that function more like "stops" of horizontal momentum "catapulting" the move into horizontal abduction of the arm more than "redirections" of forward momentum that are a bit "swingier" like we tend to talk about around here.

I talked with Joonas for 2.5 hours about his data. I learned a lot & am happy to share anything that wasn't too proprietary. W.r.t. the EMG I was convinced about a few things - I think the problem with some of those measurements is the density of the electrodes and their exact positions relative to the underlying musculature require a little more scrutiny (I know a bit about this because we do motor thresholding as part of our brain stimulation study protocols, but it is not my main area of study).

Please share any other info you can that isn't common knowledge.

When you say remain open to turn the key, what is the hesitation?

 

[disc-golf-neil]

Going all the way down to 1 finger underneath did not meaningfully reduce my spin with a putting stroke, supporting my feeling that the finger pop is for smooth transfer of spin and not to add more spin.

Unfortunately vertical vid because of the underneath shots needing the height to get it in frame.

 

[Brychanus]

Please share any other info you can that isn't common knowledge.

When you say remain open to turn the key, what is the hesitation?

Re: Joonas, not sure the domain of common knowledge, but here were some main takeaways:
1. In at least one 80mph thrower, the timecourse analysis of joints suggests that the intuition that the mechanical chain proceeds through pelvis/hip then trunk then shoulder, elbow, and wrist was confirmed. There are a couple of interesting dynamic effects near the release point that suggest the process is a little more dynamic than that, where there is a very small, transient deceleration of the preceding joint as the next joint accelerates. There is some evidence of the elbow "catapulting" ahead of the torso sequence (and/or pulling, but isolating the myofascial vis muscular contraction is not obvious in those data). The entire process from peak of reachback to release is quite brief (<<1s).

2. Pelvis increases rotation, but not by much. This idea is consistent with forms coming out of Europe that are much more focused on 'block/stop' bracing than "redirect/pivot" bracing (this is why I still like to think of it as a continuum between extremes).

3. Relatedly, trunk rotation increases but then plateaus about halfway through the motion, at which point the transfer/mechanics through the shoulder and arm are becoming prominent.

4. Torque can be added at the hand for some effect.

5. Ultra-elite throwers have significantly greater reactive strength indices (RSIs) through the lower body than the average person (and even greater RSIs if they don't have great levers). They also often had diverse relevant sports backgrounds in childhood. IMO the average person hoping they can throw 70, 75, or 80mph seems to dramatically underestimate these effects.

6. Yes, there is an effect of horizontal abduction, but it is possible to get power from the ground and core at odds with that effect and still generate ultra-elite power.

7. Distance correlates with stride width (roughly half the player's height), Jumping/Medball throws/Sprint+agility running, functional mobility through the shoulder and core, high one rep explosive max, rotational speed in trunk. PDGA rating only explained ~16% of the variance in one-throw max distance.

We also had conversations about coaching advice and workload management in offseason and on season. It would take a while to write that out, but the short version is that he titrates training based on experience, uses what looks to me like a logarithmic curve for the shot intensity across shot volume, and ramps up distance training closer to the start of competition season.

I'm sure there are bones to pick about details, but I was generally impressed that he treats it like a throwing sport rather than some kind of unicorn, uses cross-sports concepts, clearly collects and thinks about data and sports training optimization, and had copious data he was very happy to share (I wonder if he has more he keeps close to the chest).

Turn the key hesitation:
It's really just me being highly skeptical, but that pertains to most cues. The more specific concern is just when a single joint is manipulated in a single degree of freedom, whereas motions occur through chains and use multiple degrees of freedom. The analogous muscular/fascial dynamics change. However, you can tell I am also open-minded to every concept and cue having its place, and that it interacts differently for different people. Thus why I am still happy to see you plugging away and publicly sharing the process

 

[disc-golf-neil]

Cool, ty.

There are a couple of interesting dynamic effects near the release point that suggest the process is a little more dynamic than that, where there is a very small, transient deceleration of the preceding joint as the next joint accelerates.

The deceleration sounds like the kinematic sequence?

6. Yes, there is an effect of horizontal abduction, but it is possible to get power from the ground and core at odds with that effect and still generate ultra-elite power.

With the chest decelerating, I wonder if the transfer of the rotation force into the arm is a significant source of abduction without as much need to directly focus on abduction for a deep pocket?

I think this is partly why when I tried manual abduction to work on a deeper pocket, if anything, I lost speed, because I was trying to do it too early before chest deceleration happened and so was jumping the gun.

It's really just me being highly skeptical, but that pertains to most cues. The more specific concern is just when a single joint is manipulated in a single degree of freedom, whereas motions occur through chains and use multiple degrees of freedom.

I've said before that it should be a fluid motion, so external + supination + wrist uncurl flowing together. You can feel it much more smoothly if you try to merge the supination motion with wrist uncurl motion, it feels less like a separate flipping of the disc when focusing on it like that, but people who have no supination muscle memory / poor forearm rotation proprioception are probably less likely to be able to jump straight to a fluid motion where it's harder to feel the distinct piece that they may be lacking, so I do still think an exaggeration is useful, as it uncontroversial is in most other places where people have no issue recognizing exaggeration cues are exaggerations and not ideals and that exaggerations can be taken too far and can come with risks.

You only mentioned hesitation about the cue, but not about mechanics of external rotation and supination happening on the way out of the pocket and into the hit for throwing upwards nose down, does that mean you aren't hesitant about it being a mechanical reality?

 

[Brychanus]

Cool, ty.

The deceleration sounds like the kinematic sequence?

Yes, in general - basically he showed me some timecourse plots (which I don't think I should share yet) that convinced me there are some interesting effects in that space both in terms of (1) the relative length of time they take and (2) the amplitude/acceleration rate just before the next step in the chain. I'm not sure I would have had specific enough predictions before seeing it to say it confirmed or refuted anything in my own head, but it made me wonder how those effects play out in ultra-elite form and where you would observe the biggest motion mistakes in anyone other than that (assuming we account for whatever we learn actually matters about individual body differences etc.).

With the chest decelerating, I wonder if the transfer of the rotation force into the arm is a significant source of abduction without as much need to directly focus on abduction for a deep pocket?

This is how I currently tend to think about it. You can of course "actively" do that abduction to, and maybe some people need to fish around it in to get the thing to work. But subjectively my own action started to feel more like the "redirection" force Sidewinder tends to indicate, or the "catapult"/rubber band effect. I personally think that there is a conceptual tension (or continuum) between how much is redirection and how much is catapulting out of the backswing/reachback.

Kuoksa BTW is an interesting case study here because there have been times when he had more "deep pocket" phenomena in his motion, but then at other times much less so and still throwing similar speeds. So Merela may be onto something there in terms of other parts of the chain "upstream" to that offering opportunities for power. In any case I still find it interesting to think about possible causes and effects/alternatives when it comes to the pocket and "deep pocket" theory.

I think this is partly why when I tried manual abduction to work on a deeper pocket, if anything, I lost speed, because I was trying to do it too early before chest deceleration happened and so was jumping the gun.

Yeah, that makes sense to me. FWIW I went through exactly the same thing and I think 100% of the time it resulted in distance/speed loss and effort increases.

I've said before that it should be a fluid motion, so external + supination + wrist uncurl flowing together. You can feel it much more smoothly if you try to merge the supination motion with wrist uncurl motion, it feels less like a separate flipping of the disc when focusing on it like that, but people who have no supination muscle memory / poor forearm rotation proprioception are probably less likely to be able to jump straight to a fluid motion where it's harder to feel the distinct piece that they may be lacking, so I do still think an exaggeration is useful, as it uncontroversial is in most other places where people have no issue recognizing exaggeration cues are exaggerations and not ideals and that exaggerations can be taken too far and can come with risks.

Yes, I think that's fair and also a counterpoint as to how the cue can be used to good effect if applied well. So in that case my curmudgeonly comment was really just about specificity and context than anything. No specific complaint about what you are saying here.

You only mentioned hesitation about the cue, but not about mechanics of external rotation and supination happening on the way out of the pocket and into the hit for throwing upwards nose down, does that mean you aren't hesitant about it being a mechanical reality?

Do you mean the external rotation and supination out of the pocket specifically? I think between Chris' breakdown, your data, subsequently playing with other objects to throw or hit things, and inspecting footage I don't have a strong reason to quibble. My own focus and interests instead moved on to the force chain occurring before that, and the commitment of force into the release. I am still interested in the potential for variability and how the force chain from the feet can operate with the mechanics through the arm heading out of the pocket otherwise. I am also still interested if it is ever the case where additional internal rotation heading out of the pocket.

 

[disc-golf-neil]

Do you mean the external rotation and supination out of the pocket specifically? I think between Chris' breakdown, your data, subsequently playing with other objects to throw or hit things, and inspecting footage I don't have a strong reason to quibble.

Yeah, that's what I meant. I was wondering if you were tacitly agreeing with the underlying mechanics to a degree by not mentioning the mechanics and only mentioning the cue regarding your hesitation.

I am also still interested if it is ever the case where additional internal rotation heading out of the pocket.

I think that could be the case for nose up low launch angle throws and maybe sometimes look to be happening on nose down throws too but unlike the nose up throw the internal rotation coming out of the hit would be stop before the hit and oscillate back.

That's what I've observed in my throws where it felt like I turned the key to be really nose down but then was surprised by nose up, and it looked like I supinated + externally rotated too early, and then ended up internally rotating out of the pocket as a consequence and into the hit a bit. But then other times when it looked like that happened but was surprisingly very nose down, with more occurrences of this and sometimes clearer slow mo views I started seeing the internal rotation out of the pocket finished very soon and so it didn't carry through the hit and there was just enough time for things to move back in the external direction through the hit.


On a side note, what are your initial thoughts on the differences in pocket space here? Keeping it tighter to chest has more max power potential? What mechanically do you think they are doing different mostly that is resulting in the differencing in space? Elbow flexion amount primarily?



Timestamped:

 

[Brychanus]

Yeah, that's what I meant. I was wondering if you were tacitly agreeing with the underlying mechanics to a degree by not mentioning the mechanics and only mentioning the cue regarding your hesitation.

Yes, I think it's mostly the cue and potential vagaries/misuses (again, not you specifically), but those can be triaged when relevant.

I think that could be the case for nose up low launch angle throws and maybe sometimes look to be happening on nose down throws too but unlike the nose up throw the internal rotation coming out of the hit would be stop before the hit and oscillate back.

This discussion has made me think again about the difference between subjective impression/rehearsal vs. live throws. For instance, I can learn or design a throw and drill that "feels" like it would commit the disc through the release point using an internal rotation coming into/out of the hit. However, it seems more likely that even if there is a delayed pattern that is IR dominant, the late part of the action tends to involve ER and transition to contribute to nose down, even if for instance I subjectively think/feel/"know" there is a pressure coming through the thumb in a force chain interaction involving the ground. Or at least, that is part of what I am still trying to understand.

That's what I've observed in my throws where it felt like I turned the key to be really nose down but then was surprised by nose up, and it looked like I supinated + externally rotated too early, and then ended up internally rotating out of the pocket as a consequence and into the hit a bit. But then other times when it looked like that happened but was surprisingly very nose down, with more occurrences of this and sometimes clearer slow mo views I started seeing the internal rotation out of the pocket finished very soon and so it didn't carry through the hit and there was just enough time for things to move back in the external direction through the hit.

I think I follow & am visualizing what you are saying - yes, that seems somewhere in the space I am talking about above.

On a side note, what are your initial thoughts on the differences in pocket space here? Keeping it tighter to chest has more max power potential? What mechanically do you think they are doing different mostly that is resulting in the differencing in space? Elbow flexion amount primarily?

View attachment 355312

Timestamped:

I think this is a good example of part of the conversation about (1) abduction (2) redirection-CoG or (3) Merelaesque models. I'm not convinced they are all mutually incompatible if there is some tolerance for variability (I'm not sure there is but maybe that's for the Multiple Forms Extravaganza thread).

In this example, I guess we are indeed back down to how much is actually recruiting a process through the shoulder, arm, and more distal joints, the redirection/countering force relative to imaginary CoG, or the legs/core like Merela described to me.

Using those three models as possibilities, I would maybe guess that overall Eagle is functioning somewhat closer to abduction/"pull" model. Evan Scott is maybe closer to centrifugal whip/redirection/GG-like model. My guess about Evan is that he has a lever arm process hidden in there that is redirecting the move and release point out wide and in front of him. It's possible that Eagle's move does in fact involve a flexion process keeping it tighter, whereas a stricter "lever arm" redirection or whip process will tend to yoke the joints along one after another, mitigating the demand on flexion.

I think the jury is still out about max power potential, but I can fashion an updated guess.

1. I suspect that deep pocket/pull theory might have a higher raw speed ceiling than pure centrifugal whip. The reason is that it potentially aligns the force chains sufficiently to recruit the primary muscle groups, achieve more of a "block" function in the brace, and catapult or elastically load and unload with abrupt velocity out of the reachback. This maneuver is probably the most "athletically" demanding on mobility and elasticity, and likely to start becoming problematic for all but the most athletic as players get into their late 30s/40s (like most other high ceiling throwing moves). However, if a person isn't trying to throw max distance every time off the tee I imagine we'll see a lot of currently elite players still sticking around for a long time since their bodies are being conditioned for the load. Though still youngish, Eagle is a good example of this kind of player & Wiggins of course.

2. I suspect that Merela-esque move generating power from momentum and raw fitness (mobility + core & leg strength) is the competitor to this, and hard to tell until we see more high-level examples. However, Merela himself did seem favor still nudging his players toward "deep pocket" and was more interested in controlling the upstream variables to make it an effect of the move (if I followed him properly). I'm especially curious about Kuoksa here because he has a smaller frame and ultra-elite reactive strength index and his form has drifted a bit into and out of deep pocket over time.

3. I suspect that the centrifugal/redirect move makes the most use out of efficient maneuvers by minimizing acute athletic demands on certain aspects of the chain. Notably, you can still achieve pretty good results (speed, distance, repeatability) with these mechanics, potentially at a lower long run tax to the body. You can also still exploit lessons from these mechanics when onboarding the above. Simon probably remains my favorite example of a "compromise" form here that hides a lot of efficiencies that most people have trouble seeing.

As an aside, I was sad to see Eagle slipping to 1020s ratings this year. He's still doing nasty stuff obviously, but I loved it when you had the "1050" club duking it out for a couple years there.

 

[disc-golf-neil]

@Brychanus in relation to the runup line, what do you think is the ideal angle of the back foot on the x step?

Perpendicular? Slightly turned forwards. Most forward I've seen is close to perpendicular, I'm wondering if it's because it's not beneficial to turn it more forward or if it's just very hard but would be better.

 

[Brychanus]

@Brychanus in relation to the runup line, what do you think is the ideal angle of the back foot on the x step?

Perpendicular? Slightly turned forwards. Most forward I've seen is close to perpendicular, I'm wondering if it's because it's not beneficial to turn it more forward or if it's just very hard but would be better.

One theory we've talk about a lot around here (and of which Sidewinder is a strong teacher & proponent) is that it should be whatever your natural neutral angle is relative to the other foot (which is apparently a function of the anatomy of the hip-pelvis where the femur attaches). This theory seems to account for the perpendicular-ish you've seen for "normal" hips, and also for most of the exceptions I've spent any time scrutinizing.

Notice that if your hips are in the "normal" anatomical range, your feet will probably be pretty parallel (and thus rear foot is perpendicular-ish to the plant).

Working backwards from the plant, that theory would explain the foot angle variation in the rear foot mostly as a function of anatomy: in the case that the plant foot is perpendicular (ish) to the intended trajectory, you would predict the "ideal" foot angle is more or less where the femurs & feet naturally hang and point when walking - you mostly are solving the problem of how to stay leveraged off the rear foot all the way into the plant achieving the neutral-ish relative foot positions.

Sidewinder often shares examples comparing players' natural gaits and degree of e.g., pigeon-toedness or duck-footedness that suggests this is often the case. I've checked several cases otherwise and it usually seems to work out.

I do wonder if there are exceptions in the case where a player is mostly "shifting from behind" into the plant and getting momentum even if the rear foot move is suboptimally leveraged. Some people even routinely come off the rear foot heel. Natalie Ryan was an example of this at least at one point. I think Paul Oman falls in this category. Blink-and-you-miss-it but the first gif here is Simon coming off the rear heel (probably a movement mistake & unlike how he usually shifts into the plant, which is more like what Sidewinder is doing in reciprocal dingle arm or Simon is doing in his practice swing in the second gif below). Just goes to show that you can have a slightly wonky weight shift and still get the job done even if there's something to be said for the "anatomy over everything" theory.






Bonus 1: notice how Simon typically demonstrates his drill actions like a swinging motion consistent with his pendular learning history.

Bonus 2: Simon walks somewhat duck-footed (femoral retroverted) and his shift into the plant in his full move typically reflects it:

 

[itlnstln]

Bonus 2: Simon walks somewhat duck-footed (femoral retroverted) and his shift into the plant typically reflects it:

Not sure if it's femoral retroversion, but Cole Redalen also has his rear foot pointing slightly back

EDIT: I'm curious if the back foot pointing behind is an "artifact" of a strong shift on harder throws. It doesn't seem explicitly intentional, but I can see how someone with a long stride, like Simon above, could get their rear foot into that position incidentally

 

[Brychanus]

Not to be too self-indulgent but I'm an interesting abnormal case study that sort of helps one think about general ideas.

For months, I was underestimating the effect of a childhood severe leg fracture in my rear leg. Not only the length and leverage but my fundamental locomotion pattern is abnormal, which in hindsight explains a lot of why I was specifically struggle to find the "ideal" of any rear leg action - my anatomy literally can no longer support it. Interestingly, most people have symmetric-ish hip angles, whereas mine deviate - it is possible mine developmentally remodeled. Despite this weirdness, the relative foot angles of my "better" moves still more or less abide by the foot angle theory.

The rear hip action always seems slightly impaired and out of balance, so the tradeoff is basically how quick I can get off the rear foot without destabilizing the whole move into the plant. I'm also limited to a taller/more narrow stance not just due to athleticism (which has improved and I am still working on), but because the anatomy in the rear leg starts to physically lose leverage quickly moving left to right. Working on strength, reactive strength, and mobility have helped, but the stance width can only go so far because my rear hip socket slips out of leverage (which is hard to really describe with words, but is clearly different from what my right hip does lmao).

So nominally, what my somewhat rare rear leg issue indicates is consistent with the "suboptimal" shift or off-the-heel examples I shared above - as long as you are pretty good and relatively balanced with everything unfurling around the plant balance point, you can get a pretty good whack on a disc. And somehow despite all the weirdness in my specific case, my "neutral" foot positioning still works better than alternatives....