The Fundamentals of Form: Disc Golf Backhand

[Brychanus]

Just a comment about learning/teaching paradigms. I've taken music lessons from some high level teachers. Sometimes the discussion goes like this. You're doing X and you need to do Y. Many students get the idea by doing A. Nope, didn't work. Okay, we'll try B. Somewhere around F or G there's an AHA moment.

There's not always a straight path from the wrong X to the right Y.

(private theory, sometimes it's not the exercise at all, it's differential reinforcement of a precursor to the goal)

The number of times I thought I understood an act or concept or how it related to a move is too large to count at this point.

The only certainty I have is that the number will keep growing.

 

[aaronreini]

I've been waiting for a document like this for a long time. Thank you for putting in all the work. Excited to see the finished product!

 

[Brychanus]

I've been waiting for a document like this for a long time. Thank you for putting in all the work. Excited to see the finished product!

First draft is done!

Currently sitting w/ 3 people for comments & I'm cleaning up some of the prose in the meantime. I'll give a little more time for that, then post for general visibility/feedback.

 

[Sheep]

Update:

The "alpha" version has been sent to a few people to solicit initial comments if they are willing.

I will post a "beta" version after cleaning a bit up soon for broader visibility. I will treat it as a "living" public document and evaluate input and critiques to incorporate necessary changes.

awww boo, You didn't include me.

 

[Brychanus]

awww boo, You didn't include me.

only sent it to direct requesters for Rd1, just sent you PM

 

[NotSham]

Is this something that can be requested? Or will most of us need to wait for the aforementioned beta?

 

[Billbox]

Really interested as well!

 

[Brychanus]

Update:

The first round of feedback/permission has been received. The document is already significantly improved.

We've identified a couple interesting areas of potential disagreement about fundamentals (i.e., what is ideally shared in form across players, not what varies) with a couple public and private sources. Since part of the point of the project from my perspective is to bring clarity and contention to light (and the authors are doing this for free anyway), I'll be happy to encourage that discussion publicly.

It's close enough that I'm happy to announce I'll post it within the week if something shocking doesn't happen because I think some of the other conversations will likely take a long time to address and most of them require actual scientific methods. Of course, my coauthor and I will always point out that we need data from qualified experts to address certain topics, and we both appear to be very responsive to data. I really wish there were actual investments in that area because it would make me consider putting skin in the game if I have anything meaningful to contribute ;-)

I'm enthusiastic to get public release 1 out there because this has been a long year.

So rather than try to track down each request, I'll ask us to please sit tight just a little longer and then we're onto some strange new horizon. It's going to be fun!

 

[Brychanus]

Well folks, public release 1.0 is now available. You can find it in my signature and in the first post of this thread. I will always link the current version of the document in those two links.

I had a few thoughts as I conclude the first phase of this project.

1. I will reiterate that this is not a coaching guide, and in my personal opinion we have very little of what I would call actual science in disc golf. We were very clear to put disclaimers up front that we are in no way saying this is a "final" document. It is built on a foundation of scientific concepts and theory in adjacent sports sciences at a time that disc golf-specific methodology is in its infancy. It was my personal goal to start this project to attempt to tell myself a story (a weaker version of a "theory") that addresses the questions I have about form, and I had the pleasure of a coach and colleague willing to tolerate my enthusiasm, and who continues to help me through my struggles. And now we are pleased to share it with you.

2. At this point, I will be doing a bit of direct correspondence with coaches to get input if they are willing to look at the document. As I mentioned above, there are a few areas of controversy in form mechanics, and many of them would require data and true experiments to address.

3. The question of who is a disc golf form "expert" in this Wild West of a sport remains a subject of interest of mine. My coauthor is one of them in my estimation. I seem to aspire to be one. Among experts, disagreements are common and healthy for progress. Over time, we hope this document helps promote progress through good faith discussion and research.

4. Sidewinder and I are sharing some notes on some of the areas where we have some mutual open questions with greater technical depth I need to engage with in the meantime. People are welcome to reach out in PMs or on this thread.

5. This has been the long beginning of a long road ahead for myself. Thanks more than I can express to Sidewinder, and thanks to everyone else who indulges my compulsive essays. Now you have access to access to the longest of them all, and I can defend myself by saying that Sidewinder said most of it, and it was a challenge and joy to adapt, integrate, and expound upon it all. After all this time with the body of work, all I will say of his backhand theory is: "exquisite."

Happy hucking!

Sidewinder22 & Brychanus

 

[timothy42b]

Very nice, and the best arrangement of relevant photos in one spot that exists. You could almost skip the text and have an appreciation for form.
Couple of minor comments I'll send you in a DM.

 

[Brychanus]

Very nice, and the best arrangement of relevant photos in one spot that exists. You could almost skip the text and have an appreciation for form.
Couple of minor comments I'll send you in a DM.

That's very kind Timothy, thank you. Hoping we can keep the conversation going. Some of my graduate mentors would advise that if you cannot tell a story in pictures (well, with some captions), you cannot tell it in words.

Edit: Oh, and I'm a "full credit" guy - just a reminder to any lurkers that Sidewinder did the lion's share of the important concepts and figures, and I mostly extrapolated from there as I've stumbled through my own journey.

 

[blayed]

Awesome resource! now do sidearm and putting!

 

[Brychanus]

Awesome resource! now do sidearm and putting!

Putting: "your guess is as good as mine"

Sidearm: "good luck, I hope you started as a sidearm pitcher in elementary school."

Seriously though I will grab a couple things about putting mechanics at least on this thread when I have time and people are welcome to help there/with Forehand for core resources.

 

[Brychanus]

Awesome resource! now do sidearm and putting!

As a placeholder for putting in the meantime, dropping my favorite thread on putting mechanics here and extracting Sidewinder's nice image. This informed my own putting mechanics significantly w/ easy distance and consistency gains (still requires lots of practice obviously).

1. Looks like you are only squatting down/vertical, and not moving back/horizontally at all. Note how Simon moves backward onto front heel and then plant toes going forward, and he also puts his rear foot flat on ground and body centered on rear foot.

2. Looks like your shoulders are too horizontal/flat. Note how Simon side bends the front shoulder to hang lower and rear shoulder is higher.

3. Also looks like you are trying push too fast/hard/jump off the rear leg which disconnects the energy flow. Note how Simon is much slower/smoother pushing off rear foot.

4. Hard to tell from camera angles, but I would suggest moving your rear foot more behind/inline with front foot instead of being so square.

5. I really like how Simon is loaded on his jump putt, shoulder really low almost hip high and behind knee, looks just like Climo and Ricky on their normal putt, kind of like a speed skater start or shoveling snow.

 

[Sheep]

Alright, I got a BIG question here.
Because .. The length on this is very long.

Who is this for at this level of length?

Are we just trying to consolidate a bunch of information to consolidate, or are we trying to revise this to make a useable reading for anyone who's interested in a more academic reading of disc golf form? Because at the current writing and length of it as stands, were in scholarship paper academic length.
Maybe written almost a bit to personal as well?
It's really tough for me to read this style of writing personally. I am a special case though, so don't take that in a negative fashion, there are just certain ways people write longform that are waaaaay to wordy and I trigger and turn off.

 

[Brychanus]

Alright, I got a BIG question here.
Because .. The length on this is very long.

Who is this for at this level of length?

This is a good question. I think I would currently say "anyone who cares to read it." Who are those people? I honestly don't know. The overall goals of the document are described on page 2 "Introduction" with some broader concerns under "Disclaimer, Limitations, and Future Directions" on page 3.

This is a "Fundamentals" thread, and I am going to answer any questions as briefly or thoroughly as I can.

Your question made me think about why I was struggling to answer it, and then I realized that sharing some of the writing process is relevant too.

It could certainly lose some words, maybe 25% depending on the section. I tend to think that one could delete most of the words and just look at the figures, too.

There were versions that were closer to ~50 pages, but as I wrote I increasingly realized that a document of that length (with figures) would lack sufficient context and linking ideas between figures and words to understand parts of the mechanics of form. Much of the early text was adapted directly from this forum. That editing process ended around midway through the project. And then I read the whole thing again and thought "You really have to make some leaps of cognition here to see how some of the ideas are connected."

From that point, the real "work" I did and why I consider myself a coauthor rather than primary author was that I identified additional ways to illustrate and link the concepts that were not obvious to me just from reading forum posts or watching videos without challenging myself to force it into a single narrative. Basically, any time I couldn't understand something myself, a new figure or new writing emerged after processing it for a while, and usually in many more ways than appear in the public document. These insights often came from looking at form critiques and how Sidewinder attacked them and trying to understand causes and effects in form.

I realized somewhere during writing it that I could do a decent job describing some processes one level lower than the current level (e.g., physics and biomechanics of pressure readings, joint-to-joint interactions and how linear forces convert to rotational forces in biology, and so on). However, to do that for everything would probably require closer to 200+ tight pages, numerous direct academic citations, more words and equations, and years of additional learning well beyond my current academic depth (or energy/time). Problematically, I also think that is where many of the "meaty" real scientific questions exist that would take years of expert work to answer. I'd love to do it, but that's the kind of effort I put in at my full-time job, and it comes with a cost and significant additional training needs that I could never complete alone.

So at that point I targeted ~100 pages and decided to stop when it started to become hard to identify what to change without input.

It would take some time and care for me to figure out where to "carve it at the joints," and I'm a little too close to the writing and my own form work at this point.

Thus, I am very open to specific critiques while I get a little distance from it in the meantime. Feel free to mention here or PM.

Are we just trying to consolidate a bunch of information to consolidate, or are we trying to revise this to make a useable reading for anyone who's interested in a more academic reading of disc golf form? Because at the current writing and length of it as stands, were in scholarship paper academic length.

I read this a few times and after thinking about it, I would just say "yes," though it might depend on a reader's expectations for "useable" are. Can you say what you have in mind?

I am aware that there is also a distinction between true academic writing (which I would say I do in my day job, and that this is not) and academically informed writing tailored for broad or specific audiences. I think everyone could maybe take something from it, but I do not think that this document will reach all audiences. I am not even sure there is an audience other than a handful of very specific types of people. Maybe that's ok. Maybe not. So I am open to thoughts there too.

Maybe written almost a bit to personal as well?

That could be true.

Since it started as a story I started to help myself understand the backhand, it inevitably involved personal points and anecdotes and of course I know my own struggles the best. I also knew some of Sidewinder's due to so much time learning from him. If certain areas of the story suffer for that, they could be removed or become less identifying. I was mostly interested in whether they could support a point in the narrative wherever they appear in the text or figures, and it was usually easiest (if a bit lazy or selfish) to generate them when I had a direct experience of them.

It's really tough for me to read this style of writing personally. I am a special case though, so don't take that in a negative fashion, there are just certain ways people write longform that are waaaaay to wordy and I trigger and turn off.

That is ok. I critique academic writing and am critiqued for academic writing as part of my day job.

This document currently uses a tone that is somewhere between a casual and academic style, meandering between the two a bit here and there. I would not strictly call it "academic" myself because it is not yoked to numerous primary citations grounded in peer-reviewed research, which is part of what I found challenging and interesting in writing the first draft. I find Sidewinder's level of analysis interesting and somewhat unique within disc golf, so struggling to do some editorial work and add my own style of weaving the story together ended up being frankly kind of exhilarating to struggle through. It was in some ways the hardest writing I've ever attempted. It can improve.

As of this comment we're already on public release 1.0.2. after integrating some other sources of feedback. As I have time and receive feedback I expect it to continue to evolve over time. The 1.0.0. series also gave me the liberty to give myself up to 99 edits before I consider a version 2.

 

[Sheep]

This is a good question. I think I would currently say "anyone who cares to read it." Who are those people? I honestly don't know. The overall goals of the document are described on page 2 "Introduction" with some broader concerns under "Disclaimer, Limitations, and Future Directions" on page 3.

This is a "Fundamentals" thread, and I am going to answer any questions as briefly or thoroughly as I can.

Your question made me think about why I was struggling to answer it, and then I realized that sharing some of the writing process is relevant too.

It could certainly lose some words, maybe 25% depending on the section. I tend to think one could delete most of the words and just look at the figures, too.

There were versions that were closer to ~50 pages, but I increasingly realized it would lack sufficient context and linking ideas between figures and words to understand parts of the mechanics of form. Much of the early text was adapted directly from the forum, which ended around midway through the project. And I looked at it, and thought "You really have to make some leaps of cognition here to see how some ideas are connected."

From that point, the real "work" I did and consider myself a coauthor rather than primary author was that I identied additional ways to illustrate and link concepts that were not obvious to me just reading forum posts or watching videos without forcing it into a single narrative. Basically, any time I couldn't understand something myself, a new figure or new writing emerged after processing it for a while, and usually in many more ways than appear in the public document. They often came from looking at form critiques and how Sidewinder attacked them and trying to understand causes and effects in form.

I realized somewhere during writing it that I could do a decent job describing some processes one level lower than the current level (e.g., physics and biomechanics of pressure readings, joint-to-joint interactions and how linear forces convert to rotational forces in biology, and so on). However, to do that effort for everything would probably require closer to 200 pages, numerous direct academic citations, more words and equations, and years of additional learning well beyond my current academic depth (or energy/time). Problematically I also think that is where many of the "meaty" real scientific questions exist that would take years of expert work to answer. I'd love to do it, but that's the kind of effort I put in at my full-time job, and it comes with a cost and significant additional training needs that I could never complete alone.

So at that point I targeted ~100 pages and decided to stop when it started to become hard to identify what to change without input.

It would take some time and care for me to figure out where to "carve it at the joints," and I'm a little too close to the writing and my own form work at this point.

Thus, I am very open to specific critiques while I get a little distance from it in the meantime. Feel free to mention here or PM.


I read this a few times and after thinking about it, I would just say "yes," though it might depend on a reader's expectations for "useable" are. Can you say what you have in mind?

I am aware that there is also a distinction between true academic writing (which I would say I do in my day job, and that this is not) and academically informed writing tailored for broad or specific audiences. I think everyone could maybe take something from it, but I do not think that this document will reach all audiences. I am not even sure there is an audience other than a handful of very specific types of people. Maybe that's ok. Maybe not. So I am open to thoughts there too.


That could be true.

Since it started as a story I started to help myself understand the backhand, it inevitably involved personal points and anecdotes and of course I know my own struggles the best. I also knew some of Sidewinder's due to so much time learning from him. If certain areas of the story suffer for that, they could be removed or become less identifying. I was mostly interested in whether they could support a point in the narrative wherever they appear in the text or figures, and it was usually easiest (if a bit lazy or selfish) to generate them when I had a direct experience of them.



That is ok. I critique academic writing and am critiqued for academic writing as part of my day job.

This document currently uses a tone that is somewhere between a casual and academic style, meandering between the two a bit here and there. I would not strictly call it "academic" myself because it is not yoked to numerous primary citations grounded in peer-reviewed research, which is part of what I found challenging and interesting in writing the first draft. I find Sidewinder's level of analysis interesting and somewhat unique within disc golf, so struggling to do some editorial work and add my own style of weaving the story together ended up being frankly kind of exhilarating to struggle through. It was in some ways the hardest writing I've ever attempted. It can improve.

As of this comment we're already on public release 1.0.2. after integrating some other sources of feedback. As I have time and receive feedback I expect it to continue to evolve over time. The 1.0.0. series also gave me the liberty to give myself up to 99 edits before I consider a version 2.

I think the questions I asked helped to direct you on the path that I was looking for.

Always in writing we have to set goals.
And audience is one of those goals we have to focus on and the tangible use of such the writing.

It reminds me of, for example, the writings of Eragon by Christopher Paolini. Great book series, but if you were to truly take a scalpel to it and break down the fluff, the books would be far smaller. Overly detailed where unnecessary, and under detailed when necessary. It's a hard thing to do when writing, to not talk to much and say a lot. Or talk to much and say little. I'm not making this accusation, but audience targeting to make the writing tangible is huge and that's where I was headed with it. Were not necessarily looking at fiction here where our imaginations need to be employed more, but sometimes overwhelming with information can be more of a struggle than leaving someone with questions to figure out. And you and I are fantastic at overwriting anything we say. As demonstrated by the paragraphs and novels we smack out on the keyboard in here.

(For those who wonder, I say far less words in person, because you have this thing call inflection and posture, where your voice tone and mannerisms do half the talking, and less words are necessary.)

Were not looking at writing an engineering manual, that's obnoxious, but making sure to target the audience to keep them engaged in the material with just enough fluff to draw them in, but get the point across as quickly as possible. It's a fine edge sword I'd say. And the point of my question there was to try and develop a target goal with the document to put on your mind to help bring the writing into focus.

Many times when I write technical manuals my first drafts are massive because I'm expelling all amounts of data and information into a written format to make sure I cover it all.
Then I usually re-write them 5 or 6 times following that breaking it down each time smaller and smaller, but also correcting lack of knowledge moments in other places. Which ... that can get dangerous.
One of the last times writing something recently I did that. And... It went from 2 pages to 10 really quick.

I'll try and take some time at some point to focus read it a bit better. As stated, the style of writing can be difficult for me to read and requires me to put in an amount of focus that is a bit tiresome on me. And maybe I can then help consolidate a bit more.

It's a bit easier to do in batches or earlier in creation. The amount of work that went into what you did so far is astronomical and I want to see it be successful reading for people. And while not everyone has my reading issues, it's always good to have a target audience to get the most traction among everyone.

 

[Brychanus]

I think the questions I asked helped to direct you on the path that I was looking for.

Always in writing we have to set goals.
And audience is one of those goals we have to focus on and the tangible use of such the writing.

It reminds me of, for example, the writings of Eragon by Christopher Paolini. Great book series, but if you were to truly take a scalpel to it and break down the fluff, the books would be far smaller. Overly detailed where unnecessary, and under detailed when necessary. It's a hard thing to do when writing, to not talk to much and say a lot...

...I'll try and take some time at some point to focus read it a bit better. As stated, the style of writing can be difficult for me to read and requires me to put in an amount of focus that is a bit tiresome on me. And maybe I can then help consolidate a bit more.

This is fair, and I think Eragon is a great example of one of the main problems with the current document.

I am aware that some places have much more detail when I was struggling the most to understand it myself. Other areas are sparser, probably because they seemed very clear to me, but might not be to everyone.

One way you (or any other reader) could help is to pick parts and critically evaluate where either more or less seems justified. I can consider each piece of feedback and it may help to even out the tone and flow.

The style of reading and writing the current document uses does require a specific type and amount of focus, and I don't think it will necessarily ever "click" in someone's head the first time they read it. So I guess I'd call it "quasi-academic" or something in that respect.

 

[Sheep]

This is fair, and I think Eragon is a great example of one of the main problems with the current document.

I am aware that some places have much more detail when I was struggling the most to understand it myself. Other areas are sparser, probably because they seemed very clear to me, but might not be to everyone.

One way you (or any other reader) could help is to pick parts and critically evaluate where either more or less seems justified. I can consider each piece of feedback and it may help to even out the tone and flow.

The style of reading and writing the current document uses does require a specific type and amount of focus, and I don't think it will necessarily ever "click" in someone's head the first time they read it. So I guess I'd call it "quasi-academic" or something in that respect.

I'm amused you knew my book reference.
Sadly the movie was terrible.

I'll spend time here sometime soon trying to look it over with a finer comb and get you some tighter feedback.

 

[Brychanus]

"Can anyone throw 500 feet" really should be "Can anyone throw 500 foot golf lines". If you can throw 430ft golf lines you can throw 500 ft distance lines (from personal experience) but they have virtually no impact in the real world.

The biggest issue with the guide is really in the interpretation. Like sheep asked, who is it for? Because its so easy to overthink your form and if you're already doing that this guide will send you spinning. The BH throw is really so simple and the power is right there for the taking, its just getting out of your own way. But that's more the realm of coaching, which is the practice of identifying and applying the correct action items and cues for the player. So I guess this is ideally a resource for coaches? For people with curiosity about mechanics? As something to argue about online?

"Anyone who cares to read it" is probably still the best reply for v 1.x.x. We aimed to be fairly clear that it was not a coaching guide, but coaches might become interested in thinking about it. The other current goals of the document are stated on page 2 in the Introduction.

Currently it is probably mostly for people like me and anyone else who likes to think about mechanics, but it is public for anyone who has tried to slog through this forum without a guide. Some of the fundamentals described in the document tread into areas of very clear disagreements among public sources. I think many of them conceptually have clear answers even if people struggle to implement them into their form. Part of my own experience is that people have a hard time connecting the details to the big picture of the movements. Of course, not everyone needs to think about that (and perhaps some shouldn't, I'm interested in that too) to do it.

I do not think a player should read it and expect their form to get better by reading it, and if the analytic types expect it to, it might backfire for some personalities in just the same way that happens when they misunderstand their coaches or how the pros move from watching slow motions of very mature form. A disclaimer might be advised in that case if it is to remain public.