"Simple Keys" to Disc Golf

[keltik]

I think these two are gonna break the server.

[JR]

Plonked Parks unless he's giving false advice from now on. That kid has very little relevant to contribute. Poodle humping my leg ad nauseum perpetually grows old especially when usually his posts to others are pretty useless too. Why not try to find similar company? Re DGCR go find it and how about expanding your horizons? Why not hump a cop's leg or the military, gangsters etc? Or if that gets old how about finding a useful goal for your life?

[Parks]

Poodle humping my leg ad nauseum perpetually grows old especially when usually his posts to others are pretty useless too.

Leopard carried the torch for me on this for a while. I'll leave it to him since he does it in a more lighthearted manner.

[Mark Ellis]

In truth I just could not bring myself to read most of this thread but nonetheless, now that the intensely scientific micro-management of throwing form in pursuit of maximum distance has died down I would offer the following formula. NOT, mind you NOT in the hopes that a player can throw a disc over the moon but rather that a player can develop accuracy and consistency, my simple keys would be:

Smooth
Balanced
Flat
Full follow through
Practiced

This, combined with a good tournament head and a putter which avoids the dirt may not satisfy the sophisticated audience which frequents this site but could well win a myriad of PDGA sanctioned tournaments.

[Simeon]

Hello to everybody, and Peace!
First I want to thank you Mr Iacas for your research and efforts with this project. Keep going.

This is a project that needs the judge, leader or however you name him. He will make a logical conclusion from all the data we will provide him. That is not anything dramatic. If the judge rejects some information he is given to without close study, he will lose the recpect from us and this thread will die. After that somebody else will, hopefully, continue this interesting research.
At the moment I trust Iacas is striving honestly for an unbiased list based on facts.

Beside that, Iacas, in the following example you "forgot" to mention you don't have the final list. Thus you asked for more troubles and we others had to read still more debate. Some people can read between lines what is your actual meaning but that is not self evident, as you see.

You have already made mistakes in the keys list

I don't even have a Keys list!?!

To have a preliminary plan or model is normal process when resarching. Further studies and open-minded discussion will guide it to some direction.

Now, let's go to an actual case concerning the research on the Simple Keys list:
Someone, (there might be some others beside JR), tells that after the first steps you have to push with your left foot (rhbh) when throwing or before throwing. Now. what the the judge will do? He will go and find 20 other pro players, who can confirm that without pushing he will lose distance. In addition the judge will check if he is able to find DG instructors from youtube who are teaching: foot push, hips, shoulders and so on. If the judge is not able to have these findings, he can not but reject the foot push theory as being unreliable. That is part of his work. He just have to proceed that way.

I have got some positive words about the work JR has been doing, of cource, but on an other time.

-Timo

[JR]

I'm siding with iacas on that whichever person is trying to apply any research methods to any study should follow the data and do measurements. I would trust data instead of the judge or the top pros. If none of the pros do something optimally but it is a known physics phenomenon and it can be applied in practice for measurable differences in using the idea or not that data should be used as a basis for conclusions. Each pros might not know or be able to or have chosen to use all the same ideas. Whether it falls under a key by any definition is another matter.

[treehugger87]

I was thinking about a similar set of keys to the game but in a simpler way. At this point I'm just starting to understand and impliment the more specific, technical parts of form. I do realize that the nuances, technical aspects and physics of form are what ultimately let you attain the goals of driving 450'+ and being a consistent putter within so many feet of the basket and being accurate consistently. At the same time I'm wondering what the ends are that these means are trying to achieve, such as what is the workable distance of a successful, well-rounded disc golfer (all around, not just tournament play or casual rounds). I'm not necessarily talking about the extremes either. We all know about the freaks of the disc golf world who can hit ridiculous distances consistently and who never miss a putt, but what are the "simple keys" for a player that is consistently doing well? I'm getting at something like this:

-Consistent putter within __'
-Has a workable golf distance of ___'-___'
-Etc.

I know I'm leaving a lot out, but what should be added to this list of "simple keys" for a well-rounded, successful disc golfer?

[iacas]

-Consistent putter within __'
-Has a workable golf distance of ___'-___'
-Etc.

Those are good ideas, but that's not the way "Keys" were defined in this particular instance. Sounds like a good starting list for a different thread, though.