mikes919 wrote:One of the big keys in ball golf is your setup, your body position at address.
mikes919 wrote:1. Controlled and balanced X-step approach
mikes919 wrote:2. Throwing motion on plane with intended flight path
mikes919 wrote:3. Weight forward
mikes919 wrote:4. Wrist snap
mikes919 wrote:5. Nose control
mikes919 wrote:Alright, sorry for trying to contribute. Sounds like you've got it all figured out.
JR wrote:mikes919 has a definite point that should be included in the keys list in that it is common across all good players that you step lightly, not flat footed and that results in good balance,
JR wrote:the ability to reach back far enough for great distance (another commonality among the majority with Uli and Scott Martin being the notable exceptions and Anthon being a halfway mark).
JR wrote:A light stepping run also allows proper body positions and timing. Because there are three exceptions limiting their absolute maximum distance in favor of more control, which is more important, it doesn't mean that their conscious choice does not mean it is crucial to reach back far for best distance. Which was the only statistically significant finding in the thesis of Carlsen. It is absolutely crucial to a disc golf throw to step without being flat footed and reaching back far for distance and warrants the title key. I am not proficient in golf so i can't comment on analogies on that side but this is for disc golf right? So if those are one or two keys is a matter of taste and if you can lump one or both under some label with other stuff fine. My only argument is that they are both common enough and influential enough to throwing competitively that the term key should be pondered and debated carefully.
JR wrote:Contrast this: Steve Brinster and lately more and more it would seem Mike Moser seem to breaking key #1 all the time
JR wrote:So i posit that even though there may be exceptions among top players to any keys it does not mean that they aren't proficient enough to be able to be top performers thanks to other traits.
JR wrote:So that shows how some keys aren't absolutely vital to performing well if you're good enough in other ways to compensate.
JR wrote:If there were hard and fast requirements to throwing well which i think you were aiming for there would not be so many different throwing styles.
JR wrote:A different perspective is to think that it is very probable that disc golf has not had enough scientific study with widely available measured data to show the superiority of any form part so training and coaching is much trial and error with methods and individuals varying.
JR wrote:So not much has been solidified yet because there is not enough overwhelming evidence about many issues. From that position i'd say developing keys is probably a work in progress for years to come with a moving target and unclear boundaries between keys and what makes the keys keys.
JR wrote:And what should be done about the keys training and playing wise. Analysis in disc golf has only one leg over the side of the crib at this point and the results have rarely been shared to the public. Add semantics and bias, personal preferences etc. and you have a good base for an explanation into why so many wildy differing styles exist.
JR wrote:I think Blake has listed some commonalities among top players here earlier. I seem to recall the figure 7 and that he didn't name all of them. No remembrance about in which thread it was. I think that's over a year ago.
JR wrote:If you inserted what a researcher or developer of research methods would say of personal bias, semantics and whatnot you might not be so eager to try to squeeze reality to fit into a box labeled a key.
JR wrote:IME few things fit into any kind of box.
JR wrote:Reality seems to way shiftier than the boxes people use to help their thinking. Too bad the laws of nature do not seem to swayed by our perceptions and short hand for thinking. The brain can be incredibly slow in some operations so we have a built in weakness to cut corners when it comes to thinking and perceiving with our limited system.
JR wrote:I'm being a bit advocatey
JR wrote:And i'm not so sure we can jump to conclusions with this little measured results in this sport.
JR wrote:If you want to go into science and proveable repeatable things then the keys are force equals mass times acceleration and kinetic energy equals half the mass time the square of velocity.
JR wrote:If you don't go into Einstein and later that showed that Newton couldn't explain everything in astrophysics. And people have much more inventions after Einstein. And i'm way out of my league with physics. More on this later but i'm not derailing this into philosophy of science because i don't consider myself to be competent enough in teaching research methods and it is off topic.
JR wrote:So if i were to hazard a guess as to what could stand up to studying by scientists as a key i am fairly comfortable in naming moving. Standing still needs a pretty stiff wind to get the disc out of your hand but how do you aim the wind? If you don't create it yourself Anything more is subject to debate i'm afraid so at this point i need to leave things for later. I'm not sure even about your definitions for a key being proper to do the job right.
JR wrote:And if they aren't i'm not sure if i'm competent enough or informed enough to lay down the criteria. So if we were thinking in terms of practical abstractions that are close enough to work with with caveats then it would be easier to do what you are attempting. I'm not trying to be a brake. A person contradicting and stopping everything. I'm doing this to get practical results out of naming the keys turned into practice and playing. And so far i think we have some disagreements. More on what differences and why i have differing opinions later. The problem is that commenting on everything takes a book. Really way too long posts and more issues pop up than i can address in a day. Or a few.
JR wrote:So would spinning the disc classify as a key according to you?
JR wrote:Off to sleep now more later because i've not really explained why i'm not convinced your criteria are necessarily useful.
JR wrote:Would you say that there are more movements in a disc golf throw than in a golf swing? The added complication of a more complex movement makes things different too because the brain processing power is woefully lacking. iacas mentioned golf hit length. Carlsen measured the time from the plant to the rip to be 0.02 seconds. There are lots of things going on with the wrist movement that takes even less time. And yes you can be conscious of those things. Hyzer, nose angle, pinch timing and strength and gripping direction for each finger pop to mind immediately with active extension of the wrist and the stopping of the wrist and pushing down the wrist and the thumb...
A decently tight grip is needed for long throws so that might qualify as a key for being common because a tight grip allows consistent aiming and enough spin to not flip the discs and have them fading out=different distance and lines between powerhouses and couch potatoes. All pros grip fairly tightly at least in the end of the throw. So does gripping tight at least in one time qualify?
Users browsing this forum: discraft, Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest