Two lanes....... ?

[TrebuchetDiscGolf]

Hey Brychanus, thanks for including my little contribution in your comment!

If I may take a moment to fanboy... I really appreciate (that you can respectfully disagree) as well as the depth of though you are putting into this stuff. You and Sidewinder and HUB are my people and I'm glad I finally found you. And let me state for the record that I understand Y'all have a veritable poop-ton more experience here than I do and I may or may not have any idea what I'm talking about, but I think sometimes I do at least. Please shut me down when and if necessary!

On to the thing!

So what I mean about the three rails idea doesn't work slow is exactly what Sidewinder is demoing. With my idea, I don't want to practice it like that. He is going slow enough that the balance has to be static (ish) and the CoM migrates towards being stacked over each individual foot fall, relative to how much the CoM would 'wiggle' east to west in the context of a full speed throw (not none, but less).

Now In the context of an actual throw, I think as long as you have complete control over where your CoM is and where its going and why, then all is well... but as a drill I want to move the CoM as linearly as possible. With the specific goal of sending the weight shift on a vector a few inches *behind* the plant heel. The drill as I propose practicing it is specifically developing a capacity to go from X step to plant WITHOUT shifting the weight directly towards the plant foot but keeping it on the third rail.

I see so many intermediate players shifting the weight directly ONTO the plant foot (head over plant foot, shoulder not far behind the head). This causes the rear leg to get 'stuck' in a neutral position directly in line with the plant foot and under the thrower. When it 'scoops up' and deweights, it does so in place with no rightward motion and quickly ends up progressing towards a spin out. Players like Climo make this neutral scoop work, many many intermediate and new players don't and end up spinning out past their brace before it has had a chance to slow and stop the front hip.

When the Weight Shift is instead directed slightly behind the plant heel then the rear leg continues target-ward for an instant, drifting right 'behind' the brace. This transfers momentum into the brace better allowing the brace to 'stick' and have more ground force for a longer window of time... and that allows more of the hip rotation to happen in one precise spot, which means more power and more swing plane integrity (because now you can stay down on your hyser tilt with a rear leg counterweighting your lean).

Let me know if anyone sees any value in this line of thought or can poke any holes in it.

Happy to do a vid explaining with demos if folks aren't following me clearly in text form. lmk!

 

[TrebuchetDiscGolf]

Ok, cannot figure out how the quote functions work... going old school. Maybe Sheep can show me on discord...

Notice in SW22 moving down the hall there is West (wall in front of him) to East (wall behind him) movement as his spine sways over his feet. The CoM moves more than the three track idea suggests in the West direction. When he lands on the front foot (the crush), the CoM is stacked vertically over the plant foot.

But in a throw we dont ever have the CoM stacked vertically over a foot (until the very end of follow through).
This is why Chris Taylor doesn't like one leg drills conceptually: they stack the weight over the brace foot, which doesn't happen in the throw.
Personally, I think that it is possible that some one leg drills are useful as a step in a progression to a fully braced hyser tilted throw, but surely they are not an accurate representation of a full dynamic brace and we should not confuse the two.

Not about the track but conceptually important: when he crosses behind, the CoM doesn't appear to stack vertically over the rear foot,

Ok sure, so he is biasing towards the front rail. I am unsure of the implications of that...

but keep in mind that the backswing/X-/crossover step loads by allowing the rear hip to open up and away from the target, setting up the torque force that you want to commit to the shot when you plant,

Pretty sure I am not following the nuance of your model yet here... Can you fill me in on how you want the x step to load? And why? And what do you mean by 'open up away from the target'? Do you mean your left hip turning back such that your belt buckle would be behind a line 90 degrees to the target line. (sorry thats a clunky way to explain that. Maybe: behind 9 o clock, towards 8?)

I think the slower you do it, the most mastery you have over the dynamic balance back and forth.

Interesting. I could see that. My model is that the closer to perfectly straight you can keep the CoG moving, the more mastery you will have over the footwork gliding into the brace. This idea actually comes from a concept in Muay Thai that my old coach really stressed in our fundamental stance work that informed all of our strikes (everything was a very linear style based on striking from a constantly stable structure).

Try it out my way and tell me you don't think it works your stabilizer muscles harder than doing it the way Sebass does in the gif. This is the goal, training those stabilizers to both be stronger and have a more coordinated, smoother, and more consistent motor pattern for delivering your CoM target-ward.

You should also be able to uptempo it like you would when powering up a shot.

Totally. And when you do this you will find your CoG wiggles less and stays more linear / doesn't get as close to stacking over your feet. This is how I am proposing we practice the movement. In a way that more closely represents how our body will move in a full power throw.

But I may misunderstand or be missing something, so I put the work into getting these examples together for discussion.

Were you missing something? Are you missing less now? Any follow ups? Any of the thought make sense to you?

Thank you for the time you have put in already and sorry for the slow response. I should get notifications now...

 

[sidewinder22]

But in a throw we dont ever have the CoM stacked vertically over a foot (until the very end of follow through).
This is why Chris Taylor doesn't like one leg drills conceptually: they stack the weight over the brace foot, which doesn't happen in the throw.
Personally, I think that it is possible that some one leg drills are useful as a step in a progression to a fully braced hyser tilted throw, but surely they are not an accurate representation of a full dynamic brace and we should not confuse the two.



Interesting. I could see that. My model is that the closer to perfectly straight you can keep the CoG moving, the more mastery you will have over the footwork gliding into the brace. This idea actually comes from a concept in Muay Thai that my old coach really stressed in our fundamental stance work that informed all of our strikes (everything was a very linear style based on striking from a constantly stable structure).

Try it out my way and tell me you don't think it works your stabilizer muscles harder than doing it the way Sebass does in the gif. This is the goal, training those stabilizers to both be stronger and have a more coordinated, smoother, and more consistent motor pattern for delivering your CoM target-ward.



Totally. And when you do this you will find your CoG wiggles less and stays more linear / doesn't get as close to stacking over your feet. This is how I am proposing we practice the movement. In a way that more closely represents how our body will move in a full power throw.

 

[Sheep]

I see where this is going.

And I think it comes down to one of the biggest issues we all here have when trying to make videos' and teach.

You cannot explain everything if you want people to watch.
And its really easy to miss understand something about a drill from different perspectives and not possible to capture all area's when doing video's for drills. So what happens is part of the concept is achieved in the brain, but part is misunderstood.

So based on reading what Trebuchet was just talking about, I think he's arguing the one leg drill issues on a left to right basis on the weight, not a front to back.
And the example SW just posted here is showing key to it from front to back. And I think he was having more struggles with the one leg as a weight shift problem right to left.

Gah, hard to explain, I dont' use the 1 leg drill

But that's what I'm reading.

 

[Brychanus]

Ok, cannot figure out how the quote functions work... going old school. Maybe Sheep can show me on discord...

Hit the "quote" button on the post and it supplies the tags. You can then copy the tags if you want to break up the quote like this (I added a space after each [ so you can see the actual type):

[ QUOTE=TrebuchetDiscGolf;3858082] PART OF QUOTE [ /QUOTE]

Yields this if you remove the space after the initial [

PART OF QUOTE

It's kind of clunky but useful once you get the hang of it. Onto DG stuff:

But in a throw we dont ever have the CoM stacked vertically over a foot (until the very end of follow through).
This is why Chris Taylor doesn't like one leg drills conceptually: they stack the weight over the brace foot, which doesn't happen in the throw.
Personally, I think that it is possible that some one leg drills are useful as a step in a progression to a fully braced hyser tilted throw, but surely they are not an accurate representation of a full dynamic brace and we should not confuse the two.

I agree that a one leg throw or drill isolates different components. Due to the lack of momentum from additional steps, the brace appears more vertical/perpendicular to the ground throwing on one leg than a standstill or x-step.

I would add that a one leg throw or drill still involves a dynamic brace if it's done correctly that is less obvious if you're not doing it correctly. This is why so many players have food pressure or spinout issues when they try to throw on one leg, and they're usually the same issues they have when they add steps. I've seen multiple people (adult learners) give up on it and then spend months trying to fix the issue(s) while x-stepping. They usually just compensate for it. A few of them sort it out but I wonder how much faster it would have gone if they just slowed down for 3 weeks to figure it out.

I do think that it's possible to learn a good swing with the legs moving, and maybe players do. However, some of the issues are very hard to sort out with more moving parts, and this is especially true of adult learners who have already built-up years of habits. I'm still curious about the learning trajectories and outcomes in that case.

Ok sure, so he is biasing towards the front rail. I am unsure of the implications of that...

I'd have answered this in words but it's similar to his images here:

Pretty sure I am not following the nuance of your model yet here... Can you fill me in on how you want the x step to load? And why? And what do you mean by 'open up away from the target'? Do you mean your left hip turning back such that your belt buckle would be behind a line 90 degrees to the target line. (sorry thats a clunky way to explain that. Maybe: behind 9 o clock, towards 8?)

The words about the belt buckle seem about right if I understand where your 90-degree line is.

In my understanding the x-step should load so that (1) you are loading/compressing the rear leg against the ground that maximizes (2) the load "up away" into the rear hip to build potential torque that is released when you plant without (3) overrotating or swiveling in efficiently in the rear hip so you still (4) generate lateral force into the stride with a full body rock. To connect those ideas to the current topic, that's what I see expressed in the seabas/SW22 rail walk compared to a "force the CoG on a straight line" rail walk.

Interesting. I could see that. My model is that the closer to perfectly straight you can keep the CoG moving, the more mastery you will have over the footwork gliding into the brace. This idea actually comes from a concept in Muay Thai that my old coach really stressed in our fundamental stance work that informed all of our strikes (everything was a very linear style based on striking from a constantly stable structure).

That's interesting. My first reaction in terms of DG is that this could often leads player to trapping their CoG between their feet and compensating for that to generate power (evidence that this error is common can be found in hundreds of form reviews on DGCR. Yes, I look at a lot of them). We used similar concepts in karate, but one difference in many of the those striking arts from a DG backhand is the size of a CoG shift in a high-level swing. Judo often emphasizes large shifts in the CoG to get body mass to minimize effort and maximize force transfer. It's this CoG "lead" that is very elusive in many swings, and most players tend to be cheating their CoG somewhere between their feet and rotating more than shifting.

Seabas/SW22 designed many of his drills around the CoG lead. He observed how many problems players (including himself initially) have in moving their weight and using it to lead the swing. The reason that I'm bothering to get into this is that most instructors don't appear to talk about or teach this and it becomes clear when players (and most often the adult learners) get stuck without physically learning these concepts.

I'm curious what you have in mind specifically per below.

Try it out my way and tell me you don't think it works your stabilizer muscles harder than doing it the way Sebass does in the gif. This is the goal, training those stabilizers to both be stronger and have a more coordinated, smoother, and more consistent motor pattern for delivering your CoM target-ward.

It does, but my initial reaction is that I want the power and balance of the swing to be handled by major muscle groups and allow stabilizers to support those groups rather than the other way around.

Usually drill motions that are consistent with throwing mechanics can get you a long way in that regard. Sometimes a DG-like move sufficiently trains the muscle groups/motor memory. Other times you might need additional work for developing strength/flexibility.

I'd agree if you believe that this topic could be discussed more in general.

Totally. And when you do this you will find your CoG wiggles less and stays more linear / doesn't get as close to stacking over your feet. This is how I am proposing we practice the movement. In a way that more closely represents how our body will move in a full power throw.

As before, I would be curious about the actual movement you're talking about per the discussion above.

For productivity's sake, I'd predict that it (1) isn't the move I'm expecting or (2) will
be potentially interesting and invoke some constructive critiquing w.r.t. how the CoG relates to the movement.

Either way, there's something to learn there!

Were you missing something? Are you missing less now? Any follow ups? Any of the thought make sense to you?

I am always missing something, which is why I keep at it <3

I think I am missing less now about where you're coming from and the follow ups are mostly above.

I did want to say that I do not believe there is a "one size fits all" instruction model. I benefit from seabas in large part because I started later in life (37 this month), am very mechanics-minded, am focused on building a "lifelong swing" more than anything else, and get copious direct input from him. I also benefit from sprinkling in stuff from elsewhere (other more advanced players, dance, karate). SocraDeez in particular drops also drops in sometimes and helps whack me around to my benefit. I'm an academic by training and I present and process information differently than I did 20 years ago. Everyone's journey is different.

I do however think that there are motions and swing concepts that are worth debating and that you can cobble together a reasonable perspective on how the high-level swing probably works at this point. So I wanted to mention that my real motive on this side of the hobby is to provide a precursor effort to "DG swing science" that is much more advanced in e.g., baseball and golf, and I don't think there's any reason DG can't benefit from the same.

Thank you for the time you have put in already and sorry for the slow response. I should get notifications now...

No worries, one of the nice things about this Forum is that it's a slow burn! I do sincerely appreciate you engaging with this stuff, and I did want to reiterate that my goal is always to be constructive, not combative. We all need more of that these days <3

I see where this is going.

And I think it comes down to one of the biggest issues we all here have when trying to make videos' and teach.

You cannot explain everything if you want people to watch.
And its really easy to miss understand something about a drill from different perspectives and not possible to capture all area's when doing video's for drills. So what happens is part of the concept is achieved in the brain, but part is misunderstood.

So based on reading what Trebuchet was just talking about, I think he's arguing the one leg drill issues on a left to right basis on the weight, not a front to back.
And the example SW just posted here is showing key to it from front to back. And I think he was having more struggles with the one leg as a weight shift problem right to left.

Gah, hard to explain, I dont' use the 1 leg drill

But that's what I'm reading.

Totally agree about explaining and perspectives.

Good here, just to make sure we're talking about the same thing: I think here you mean front to back as "front of tee to bottom of tee", or "North to South" in SW22-ese. In that case, I'm curious what Trebuchet says. I'd still probably talk about CoG the same way in terms of stacking or a skiier slaloming, but by getting words and images unconfused there can be progress!

 

[Brychanus]

SocraDeez in particular drops also drops in sometimes and helps whack me around to my benefit.

Forgive me and I'm sure I'm still missing some, but at different times people like Sheep, Jupiterboy, Navel, Salto have also weighed in. DGCR can really be a wonderful community!

 

[seedlings]

Parts of the drills are always experienced in the actual throw. The actual throw is never experienced in a drill.

The address walk up is a drill. There are a few datapoints being set in the mind to execute within the real throw. As has been said: point of aim, apex, release angle, imaginary flight, etc. none of which would actually be realized with only the motions of the walk up address.

For me, I experience problems when I use a drill as the actual throw, and OT Josh sometimes oversimplifies throws into drills (or the other way around). Thinking about lanes in a walkup or drill is great.

 

[ballgolfconvert]

Hi, how do you maintain depth/balance with your rear hip if you have 2 clear train tracks (own track for each foot)? You have 1 CoM so you have to get your rear foor underneath it to stay in balance?

I guess im missing something but want to learn. Thanks again!

I tried to attach picture of Mcbeth from sidewinder but not sure I got it here.

1 track is for the foot line and the other track is the disc line. If you are releasing the disc on an opposing line to the foot line, you will see a drain in accuracy and power.

 

[Sheep]

No worries, one of the nice things about this Forum is that it's a slow burn! I do sincerely appreciate you engaging with this stuff, and I did want to reiterate that my goal is always to be constructive, not combative. We all need more of that these days <3

This is one of my major goals here, constructive not combative, Though I do understand I come off combative sometimes.
When people look passed that and start to talk, we have wonderful discussions.

Sadly its the internet and intent isn't always what is read. And some kneejerk a bit hard thinking someone is attacking them when they are just being blunt or defending their point harder than someone is used to.

Parts of the drills are always experienced in the actual throw. The actual throw is never experienced in a drill.

The address walk up is a drill. There are a few datapoints being set in the mind to execute within the real throw. As has been said: point of aim, apex, release angle, imaginary flight, etc. none of which would actually be realized with only the motions of the walk up address.

For me, I experience problems when I use a drill as the actual throw, and OT Josh sometimes oversimplifies throws into drills (or the other way around). Thinking about lanes in a walkup or drill is great.

Agreed on all counts.

1 track is for the foot line and the other track is the disc line. If you are releasing the disc on an opposing line to the foot line, you will see a drain in accuracy and power.

That's the old 2 rails. This is where the video Josh made causes some issues/confusion.

The normal version of 2 rails is as sebass and others have described in here.

Trebuchet was trying to blend the 2 together I think.

I don't personally like the idea of either, but I see where they can benefit some. Especially if the struggle is trying to figure out how to move on the tee pad.

But players rarely move in a line to their aim because of weight movement, cog and balance and how they are pushing their balance into the plant.

 

[SocraDeez]

RE: 2 lanes v. 3 lanes v. 6 lanes v. no lanes

Thanks for contributing here, TrebuchetDiscGolf. Please keep 'em coming.

Imaginary lanes, whether 2 or 3, for flailing human body parts seem like a useful enough construct for coaching up lateral movement. This is evidenced by:

The concept has been around.

Additional evidence includes the widespread popularity of painted lines on motor vehicle pathways. Personally, I think this practice should spread to sidewalks, too.

Line up 20 second grade soccer players for a grapevine run (lateral movement drill meant to warm up the hips), blow the whistle, and watch the mayhem. At least 4 kids are eating dirt because they ran into each other. Throw down some cones to create some lanes, and you decrease the probability of players running into each other and increase the probability of cones getting stepped on.

Turns out, it's hard for humans to locomote themselves in a straight lane without the use of an external reference point. Especially laterally. Why might this be?

There are three tracks. The middle rail is where your CoM floats… it will wiggle a bit but you do not ever want it to stack over the front or back rails.

The balance is dynamic… the drill cannot be done correctly moving too slow. Because you will fall over or stack the CoM over a foot rail instead of the 3rd center rail.

It should feel like your legs are tank treads just gliding you sideways. The individual steps should be as fluid and unnoticeable as possible.

Similar to the placing of cones for our youth soccer players above, I think that the tracks described here are plenty useful constructs for coaching lateral movement in the disc golf swing. However, I disagree that: "you do not ever want [the Center of Mass] to stack over the front or back [feet]."

Describing lateral movement in the disc golf swing as "it should feel like your legs are tank treads just gliding you sideways" is too noble or mechanical when the truth feels fleshier: bi-pedal lateral movement is more so a bastardization of bi-pedal forward and backward movement than it is a thing unto itself. One leg takes you forward and the other takes you back, consecutively. Or maybe each leg takes you both forward and backward, concurrently. I don't know.

But my point is: in a good disc golf swing, I think there's much more CoM side to side wiggling or movement than allowed by your 3 track model due to our bi-pedal constitution. I'd go as far as to say that, in a powerful swing, the CoM sloshes about violently, like you're trying to spill the beverage as far as possible in the direction of your throw, or like you're trying to emulate the sudden drop and stop of a heavy counterweight attached to a beam.

I think it's closer to a sine wave than a straight line down the middle:

Also - isn't the Center of Mass imaginary, anyway? So what on Earth is everybody arguing about?


Postscript

Maybe not the most athletic, but I'd wager he is more athletic than most people(or think).

I've had my lunch eaten enough times by fat men in adult soccer leagues to learn that body type is only loosely correlated to athletic prowess. So enjoy this related video:

 

[Brychanus]

RE: 2 lanes v. 3 lanes v. 6 lanes v. no lanes

Thanks for contributing here, TrebuchetDiscGolf. Please keep 'em coming.

Imaginary lanes, whether 2 or 3, for flailing human body parts seem like a useful enough construct for coaching up lateral movement. This is evidenced by:

Additional evidence includes the widespread popularity of painted lines on motor vehicle pathways. Personally, I think this practice should spread to sidewalks, too.

Line up 20 second grade soccer players for a grapevine run (lateral movement drill meant to warm up the hips), blow the whistle, and watch the mayhem. At least 4 kids are eating dirt because they ran into each other. Throw down some cones to create some lanes, and you decrease the probability of players running into each other and increase the probability of cones getting stepped on.

Turns out, it's hard for humans to locomote themselves in a straight lane without the use of an external reference point. Especially laterally. Why might this be?

Similar to the placing of cones for our youth soccer players above, I think that the tracks described here are plenty useful constructs for coaching lateral movement in the disc golf swing. However, I disagree that: "you do not ever want [the Center of Mass] to stack over the front or back [feet]."

Describing lateral movement in the disc golf swing as "it should feel like your legs are tank treads just gliding you sideways" is too noble or mechanical when the truth feels fleshier: bi-pedal lateral movement is more so a bastardization of bi-pedal forward and backward movement than it is a thing unto itself. One leg takes you forward and the other takes you back, consecutively. Or maybe each leg takes you both forward and backward, concurrently. I don't know.

But my point is: in a good disc golf swing, I think there's much more CoM side to side wiggling or movement than allowed by your 3 track model due to our bi-pedal constitution. I'd go as far as to say that, in a powerful swing, the CoM sloshes about violently, like you're trying to spill the beverage as far as possible in the direction of your throw, or like you're trying to emulate the sudden drop and stop of a heavy counterweight attached to a beam.

I think it's closer to a sine wave than a straight line down the middle:

Also - isn't the Center of Mass imaginary, anyway? So what on Earth is everybody arguing about?

Postscript

I've had my lunch eaten enough times by fat men in adult soccer leagues to learn that body type is only loosely correlated to athletic prowess. So enjoy this related video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EqAX7R8Dy0&ab_channel=NFLMatchupHighlights

 

[Sheep]

I like how the JRay joke is continuing to go here.

Were not talking about soccer players and football players who are not big dudes with very massive athletic ability due to practice, working out and other things.

Were talking about Disc golfers.
And while I'm not implying that he has no athleticism to him.
JRay is nowhere in the category of the references of larger built athletes.

It's not a diss on him. He's a big dude, he likes to eat.
he's also a ton of fun to be around, cause he can drink a LOT.

 

[TrebuchetDiscGolf]

Brychanus and others!

Thanks so much for the responses. It is beyond awesome to be involved in conversations on this level...

I have precious little time for an update but wanted to share a realization that pretty drastically changes my previous thoughts and I believe puts me much more firmly in the same camp as everyone else regarding the WS going straight at the plant foot and the way Seabass does the two rails drill.

I had a great talk with Jyrki and he led me to the realization that my two rails model of the throw seems very much to be 'chasing a shape' rather than doing the thing that would naturally put you in that shape. It does seem to put you in the right shape for a hyser tilted throw with a rear leg counterweight. But it gets you there somewhat artificially and with too much tension that does not allow the hips to rotate explosively as they should.

I am not totally giving up on the concept as 'perhaps useful' given that Tristan Tanner at least has a video with some of the same ideas. But What I was missing is how the heel drop in the plant should actively clear the front hip out of the way of the oncoming rear hip. This idea seems the most often overlooked in BH mechanics. I've heard Seabass and Loopghost both mention it, but have not found a suitable bible to study on the topic. Perhaps there is a threat here already???

My old model was mostly about the front hips stopping on the spot (not so much clearing right) and the rear hip somehow coming around, I could not isolate what actually made the rear hip start rotation... Loopghosts little hip wind up thing he demos in his one steps seemed like a start, but I dont think its the whole deal anymore. Jyrki's active hip clear makes a ton more sense and makes the hips look much more like the forward finish in a ball golfers hips, this allowing for more weight going forward on the target line and less of my bulky two rails tank rolling forward in three places at once idea. I see where the criticism was coming from now and, Brychanus, I think you are much more 'on base' than I was.

Thats all for now, will post more when I have more time. Busy with winter weather and work and house projects right now.

 

[timothy42b]

My old model was mostly about the front hips stopping on the spot (not so much clearing right) and the rear hip somehow coming around, I could not isolate what actually made the rear hip start rotation... Loopghosts little hip wind up thing he demos in his one steps seemed like a start, but I dont think its the whole deal anymore. Jyrki's active hip clear makes a ton more sense and makes the hips look much more like the forward finish in a ball golfers hips,

Would that maybe be something like the Dr Kwon "kick the ground?" shown here from about 4:00 to 8:00

 

[TrebuchetDiscGolf]

Yes, I believe that is exactly the same idea... but for us it clears the front hip out of the way so that the rear hip can continue directly targetward, increasing the power in the hip rotation.

I was thinking that the rear hip kinda slammed into the front hip down lower and behind the brace leg, which I think can work. Just not as well as doing it this way.

 

[Brychanus]

My old model was mostly about the front hips stopping on the spot (not so much clearing right) and the rear hip somehow coming around, I could not isolate what actually made the rear hip start rotation... Loopghosts little hip wind up thing he demos in his one steps seemed like a start, but I dont think its the whole deal anymore. Jyrki's active hip clear makes a ton more sense and makes the hips look much more like the forward finish in a ball golfers hips, this allowing for more weight going forward on the target line and less of my bulky two rails tank rolling forward in three places at once idea. I see where the criticism was coming from now and, Brychanus, I think you are much more 'on base' than I was.

Thats all for now, will post more when I have more time. Busy with winter weather and work and house projects right now.

Most of what I've ever shared that's "right" was probably learned from someone else! As this thread shows there are a few ways to talk about this stuff.

Would that maybe be something like the Dr Kwon "kick the ground?" shown here from about 4:00 to 8:00

The plant leg inherits, generates, and transmits force up the chain while bracing and leading the swing. Like walking, it doesn't ever really fully stop the hips - they should keep moving in a smooth, continuous action even though the plant & brace more or less stops the hips from moving more targetward or "sliding" as Dr. Kwon describes above.

In the clip Timothy shared this snippet around 5:00 shows a lot of what I had trouble learning when trying to plant or crush the can and swing correctly from the front side and hip. He's exaggerating a lot of the vertical compression with those little bounces - that action is smaller and quicker in the live DG swing as the plant leg lands. The kick or pump off the ground is also part of the ground reaction force - as your weight lands on the leg, the leg should immediately starts resisting the ground and prevent you falling and collapsing. I had to learn to move more like Dr. Kwon there (more "bouncy" or vertical at first) to teach my legs how to do it before I had success transferring it to DG since I'd never done anything similar before.

You might also find this thread interesting on plant leg mechanics. If you then go back to the couple of neat videos at the top of The Hips thread it might make more sense out of what's happening there - I like how Dr. Kwon or Shawn Clement exaggerate some of the hip action because it can be hard to see it otherwise.

Yes, I believe that is exactly the same idea... but for us it clears the front hip out of the way so that the rear hip can continue directly targetward, increasing the power in the hip rotation.

I was thinking that the rear hip kinda slammed into the front hip down lower and behind the brace leg, which I think can work. Just not as well as doing it this way.

Bolded seems about right, which is also part of why the rear leg/knee swings in behind in a counterbalance. I think if the hips are slamming sideways like the last part you mention can be done, but any version I can think of is probably losing important smooth torque in the swing and might be rough on the body. To that end the last post I put in Drive leg might interest you too.

****, that's a lot of thread cross-referencing. Now that I'm somewhat less confused than a couple months ago I'm going to put some more work into the Fundamentals of Form while on holiday since all this thread hunting can get tricky!

 

[TrebuchetDiscGolf]

Yes. There are a number of threads on here that I know I need to spend more time with. To the point where I often find them left open in not only one, but often two or three separate browser tabs… I will start with the ones you linked first Brychanus, thank you. Please send me any others you think I need to catch up on too.

 

[TrebuchetDiscGolf]

Lol @ Brychanus... Only thing is my eyes are even crazier than Jacks...

So thanks for pointing me to the drive leg thread... The clip Seabass posted is exactly what my method was going for (what Bearheart does in the clip, rear leg continuing forward linearly after the plant) makes sense as his X step deep dive vid is where I got on the two rails footwork train. I don't like that he was doing it there with a knee slam, that seems pretty clearly not good. I'm curious if it can be done with triple extension though. I think it can, Albert Tamm seems more like a 3xtender from what little I've seen of him. I should look again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kol2l-5Sj7M#t=4m55s

But what Brian is doing here does require the WS to drift a bit behind the heel of the plant foot right? Note: This is not what I'm am trying to emulate in my throw anymore, but I would still play with it given infinite time...

 

[Sheep]

Yes. There are a number of threads on here that I know I need to spend more time with. To the point where I often find them left open in not only one, but often two or three separate browser tabs… I will start with the ones you linked first Brychanus, thank you. Please send me any others you think I need to catch up on too.

Only 3 browser tabs?
those are rookie numbers.
=) hahaha

 

[TrebuchetDiscGolf]

Only 3 browser tabs?
those are rookie numbers.
=) hahaha

I mean three instances of one DGCR thread… and multiple threads with multiple instances. That all amongst my 50 plus tabs running on my ten year old gaming pc.

I am no rookie, Sir.

I have Armchair AADD (american attention-span deficit disorder) just as bad as the next guy…