"Simple Keys" to Disc Golf

[iacas]

I'll try to be brief (for the sake of being brief only, not because I'm angry or disagree or feel bad or anything ).

I recommend throwing and developing better form so that you know from experience why we suggest what we do.

While that's undoubtedly one way do it, very accomplished golfers can sometimes make horrible, HORRIBLE instructors because "ability to do something" doesn't translate to "ability to teach something" or even "ability to understand something." Not saying you fall into one of those groups, just that I believe you can know something without necessarily being able to do it (or else PGA Tour players would never have instructors) and vice versa.

One mistake i noticed from you was contradicting moving the disc in a straight line not being a key with Dan's rail as proof.

Not just Dan's rail. I've seen videos of other pros not moving the disc in a straight line (or reasonably straight line). I haven't thrown it out per se, but one guy doing it and not even really being close is a convincing case to remove it.

Dave Dunipace said that only the angles of the disc at the rip matter and the disc moves to where the thumb nail points at the rip. To get there all and i mean every player i can think of among top players move the disc in a straight line at least from the right pec position forward with a flat shot. So by the criteria you specified earlier: "Keys are absolute requirements and virtually absolute commonalities." that should become key once every developing player can be taught to avoid rounding.

No real final decision has been made, but Dan doesn't throw straight from the right pec, does he? He shortens two radii.

Bits about movement (it's too generic to be a Key) cut for the sake of brevity.

I am very wary of allowing people who know nothing about throwing being counted into "absolute commonalities" as a criterion for something to be a key.

Huh? Pro level disc golfers "know nothing about throwing"?

You have form improvements to be made including adding things you haven't exhibited in your videos yet. That is why i think you are trying to run before you're comfy with walking now.

It's not running. It's standing in place and drawing a map. If I can do focus on doing the things the best BH throwers have in common, I will get better. But I have to know what those things are first.

You mentioned dropping visual aiming for not being able to measure it and aiming at what and being focused.

I mentioned dropping it more because I'm not convinced that it's a nearly absolute commonality among the game's greatest. Some let their heads spin around and aren't looking at their targets. Just as in golf some golfers look at a dimple on the golf ball, some look at a spot in front of the golf ball, and some don't even really focus on anything when they're looking downward during their swing.

I recall the 5SK coming up in conversation over on GolfWRX (i'm a regular lurker over there, occasional poster) and I get what you're trying to do here. The issue I see with disc golf is that the throwing motion among even the best players has a much wider variance than you see in golf.

That may be true. I still believe there are bound to be SOME underlying commonalities (Weight Forward, Controlled Disc Plane, and Controlled "Forces" or torques or whatever you want to call it to name three) seem to be there. And obviously to control the plane of the disc (wing and nose), that allows players to have some unique things. Climo's fork grip might mean he has to control nose angle slightly differently than Jenkins, but they both have to control nose angle and wing angle in the end.

(although there was a fair amount of argument about key #1)

Those people don't have the data we have. Or they tried to apply it to drivers, where we allow the most freedom. But that's OT for here...

For disc golf, throwing the equivalent of a cut or fade isn't as simple as making the same throw as a flat shot but adjusting your aim and disc plane. The throws for a big hyzer, anny, or roller might not even resemble the standard flat throw. Throws for distance are totally different from upshots. Then there's forehands, thumbers, and all kinds of trick shots that get played all the time and might break a few keys depending on the situation.

These are BH throw Keys only. Forehands and Thumbers are excluded for now.

And I don't know that I agree that they're quite as different as you think. You need to adjust your aim, clubface, path, and several other things when shaping the ball in golf. Never mind that Jim Furyk's swing doesn't really look all that similar to, well, anyone's but they still have 5 SK in common. And whether you're hitting a 75-yard wedge shot or a 300-yard drive, the 5SK still apply.

I think the three keys I mentioned just above apply to all BH throws in disc golf. Do you disagree with that? Is there ever a throw where you don't have your weight forward? How about a throw where you don't have to control the spin or lateral speed you put into the disc? How about a throw where controlling the nose and wing angles aren't important?

Now, if those are the ONLY three commonalities, then I'm with you and applying "Keys" to disc golf is a waste, because if it's just three things, then it's almost TOO simple or something. Know what I mean?

I think everyone here would like to help but it's not as clear-cut as the golf swing because I think there are more variables involved. Not that I'm an expert on the golf swing-- I did a lot of work on my swing this year, took a couple lessons, went from a 21 hdcp to a 15 and still dropping... But to me it is a lot easier to break down the entire golf swing and see where you're going wrong, than to break down the entire disc golf throwing motion. Unless you are specifically trying to emulate someone else's exact throwing style.

You might be right. But whether it's stupidity or something else, I'll keep going with this until I'm as convinced as you are.

Maybe the real keys to the disc golf throw are in the last second, as you're approaching the rip point. And a lot of that is simply about feel and repetition, just like achieving clubface control in ball golf. I guess I would be interested to hear how you go about teaching someone about key #5 in ball golf, because I might be thinking about it the wrong way. You obviously can't just say "control the clubface better". I find that controlling the clubface is mostly about achieving consistency in release, and I'm trying to find that by simple repetition. It's really the only way I've seen it happen in disc golf.

Clubface control begins with understanding the ball flight laws, includes (for instructors anyway) D-Plane knowledge, and for the student can be as simple as understanding that a good draw is hit with a clubface pointing right of the target at impact and vice versa for a fade (for righties) to making a grip change (because it makes it difficult for them to control the clubface easily) to all manner of things - the rates at which they roll their forearms can be changed by elbow locations, loading patterns, and a whole bunch of other things I won't get into here.

Yes, it's a lot more than saying "control the clubface." It's understanding the components that HELP control the clubface, implementing those so you can do it better, and understanding what makes the ball fly the way it does.

Would you say that there are more movements in a disc golf throw than in a golf swing?

No. There's more motion (because golfers are relatively stationary to their surroundings) but there's not more motion, no. The wrist in the disc golf throw only really flexes and extends. In golf both wrists cock, extend, flex, hinge, and roll. Ulnar deviation, palmar flexion, dorsiflexion, etc. Heck, the trail knee in a golf swing extends, flexes, and extends again, the last two happening from the top of the backswing and up to (and through) impact, a very short window of time. Etc.

The added complication of a more complex movement makes things different too because the brain processing power is woefully lacking.

We're going to have to agree to disagree that disc golf is "added complication." I couldn't disagree more. I think your lack of understanding of the golf swing is hurting your perspective here. I'm being careful not to have the same blind spot for any other sport.

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.

I'm not sure what your point there is. The golf swing is complex. If you think it's simpler than a disc golf throw, we disagree. Hell, I've seen studies that talk about how jaw alignments affect your golf swing. The amount of anterior or posterior tilt in your pelvis (which changes several times throughout a golf swing, btw). And so on.

So does gripping tight at least in one time qualify?

Possibly. It could be measured. It's a commonality. I'm not sure it's achievable, though. Some disc golfers might never throw 400', so they might never be able to (or need to) grip the disc more firmly than they already do. What if a kid or a 60-year-old guy had perfect form and were as good a disc golfer as they could be given the speed they could physically muster at their maximums? They'd have all the Keys, but they might not be able to grip as strong as a pro. They're still an "expert player" though. So no, I'm inclined to say "not a Key."

In golf, a 60-year-old can have all 5 keys and they'll basically be as good a golfer as they can be. "Smacks the Shit out of the Golf Ball" is not a Key because 120 MPH clubhead speed is not achievable by all.

Something else might be a Key, and it might relate to the *appropriate* grip pressure. What about something like "Proper Release Timing" (those are first generation words, so the title could change drastically). By this I mean that regardless of whether you're Beto or Jenkins or Jussi or the 60-year-old guy who's awesome but just can't throw 400'... they all release at the moment of the disc's greatest speed, at the tangent point or the full hit point. None of them are experiencing slips on every throw.

That's achievable. It's a commonality (I think), and it's visibly measurable (especially overhead).

Just a thought.

[JR]

I'm definitely in the science and measurements camp too so i get and agree with where you're coming from. And i anticipated ballooning of the post remember so i get trying to be brief. Me too. I don't know how often people here have asked top throwers about how they do this and that and the response is mostly i don't know.

Oops i replied in the wrong thread about wanting to see Dan's current form in a top down movement. There are older vids of Dan floating around about which he said that some parts of form have deteriorated. And he has since them corrected those issues. The same problem of threads mixing with the correction to your misunderstanding. I vote for using only proficient players as a test group for commonalities in throws not noobs who don't know anything.

I fiercely disagree with your mapping idea because you have blind spots in there that need to be illuminated with info i gave in the last replies in the video thread and your personal proof that what i'm preaching is fact and by the way it is not me that is preaching. It is standard advice here and i hope largely in all of disc golf so i'm conveying the experience and knowledge of many not just my own view. I'm sure you need even more data for a full enough picture.

We need evidence before deciding whether visual aiming is common among top players and to my knowledge only Climo has talked about it turning his eyes as far right as possible to regain eye contact with the target as early as possible. And if you look at his top down views in Climo Mando Minute and The Champion's way DVD he stops the head rotation left to right for a while. Feel wise i think i stop for a longer time but that ain't the point. Stopping the head rotating is needed for the eye sight to focus because it is slow and if you swoosh the head left to right without stopping there is a good chance that your sight is not clear or focused at all until after the disc has left


I would not ditch a key before gathering data. Or before it has been presented. Patience. I'd watch at all the top pros for the head rotation to see if it pauses for a while when the eyes can see the target even if it is by turning the eyes to the right corner. And then decide if it even possible that top pros except Feldy and his students aim visually. Even though somebody hasn't been coached by Feldy one can mimick by watching. Here i refer to my earlier point about the need to research properly using proper scientific methods not discarding the conclusions of others before you've looked at their evidence. Data first conclusions later not the other way around and that has bugged me all the time. You act like you know enough now to be able to judge what is a key withing your own criteria which might not even be the best possible criteria IDK for some goals. I haven't put enough thought into possibly better suiting criteria other than a raw idea that i haven't looked at from different angles. And not being sure what your goal is after defining the keys leaves me hanging on that front and unable to show an alternative. Different goals might need different criteria for keys and if that is true like i think the keys change too. Take it at face value because we have different training in science and different data about disc golf. So it is natural that our views differ. I ask you to recognize that there are people who know more about disc golf than you do now so please take that into account before you start dismissing replies. Also you should recognize that you lack enough data to see the whole so before having that base to push off from your conclusions are frankly not in line with reality at times. I know you mean well but the road to hell is paved with good intentions and often by those who act on things they don't understand enough. Some knowledge is often more dangerous than nothing at all. If you know that metal conducts electricity and stick two metal rods into an electrical socket you might get fried. The same is true here. You might be biting off a little too much but never fear we're here to help.

I talked of bias earlier and you seem to be comparing everything to golf. I'm not sure that is always producing correct results because the movements and anatomical requirements and limits differ at some parts of the form. Like having a run up and x steps can result in running out of hip joint mobility in a different manner than in golf and you don't have experience of that yet. And the continuum of different speeds and stride lengths being necessary because of that anatomical limit. I don't know enough about golf to say if locking the hip is a concern in golf and if the results of it are the same. In DG that possibility has to change form and be taken into account in practice and shot planning. Along with not being flat footed in a mild hyzer, flat or annied throw. A steep hyzer can be used for rolling from the inside of the right shoe to the outside without a pivot if you jump up in the follow through but that is an exception in itself.

You're incorrect about what all the wrist does in a disc golf throw read my post again for a more comprehensive list. Again your data is corrupted if you dismiss what you've been presented with and especially in this case without a reason. The list of movements would be nice to see side by side but is off topic. I am not so sure about golf having more movements but not knowing enough about it and not having enough time now i can't compile a list of DG movements. I know my lack of knowledge about a golf swing limits my understanding of what all moves in there but you discarded a short off the top of the head list of DG wrist movement example too so your record is tarnished and that is a big no no for judging anything. I don't act on golf swings because it doesn't interest me and i know i lack the info and experience. You have already made mistakes in the keys list and i think you started off with the wrong foot and armed with too little data. Discarding proof will only deviate you from the truth. I hope you are patient enough to learn to throw better and get more data and not drop the evidence that does not make sense to you now. It should later.

Jaw alignment influences a disc golf throw too. My point is we need a list of golf vs disc golf movements and the difficulty of pulling each off to see how the total taxes the brain in guidance requirements and what that means to form in practice and in competition and i know that the parts after the list go at least partially beyond my knowledge. We also need a timetable for each movement and command the brain sends to each muscle group and counting how many muscle groups fire simultaneously and seeing if some of them dire together so that they can be commanded as a cluster vs the need for individual guidance throughout the motions to see which is more difficult. In taxing the brains and that result needs to be compared to the severity of failing in the necessary movements. The difficulty can be charted from that and another perspective to finding keys is to see where failing hurts the results the most. I'm pushing the idea that the keys need to result in something beneficial. That list requires a laboratory and qualified researchers so many researchers would need to learn a lot more to be able to pull off such a study even in one sport. That has not been done in DG i dunno about golf. If it hasn't been that could net some serious cash to the ones making the study. It could launch a career for a sports researcher/coach you're free to pursue this idea Lacking said info and the skills, measuring equipment etc. i don't think many can say what the reality is. What i can say is that even though golf has a smaller margin of error in degrees in many things hitting farther disc golf has the added difficulty of maintaining balance, body positions and timing and still firing the muscles properly quickly accelerating in the end. Standing still weight shifting in golf is not as difficult as running at full tilt turning the back at the target and having the belly full of legs underneath after that. And needing to step correctly each time or wiping out. Compare long jumpers to the requirements of triple jumpers.

You are much more accurate with your analysis of grip strength if we include everyone as a data set vs far throwing top pros. I'm perfectly happy calling appropriate grip strength vs throwing distance with a full disc pivot a key however you want to name it. Excellent there is some progress!

[iacas]

I've tried to be brief and failed miserably.

I don't know how often people here have asked top throwers about how they do this and that and the response is mostly i don't know.

Asking them what they think they do is pretty irrelevant in my experience. What they ACTUALLY do is what matters.

Oops i replied in the wrong thread about wanting to see Dan's current form in a top down movement. There are older vids of Dan floating around about which he said that some parts of form have deteriorated. And he has since them corrected those issues. The same problem of threads mixing with the correction to your misunderstanding. I vote for using only proficient players as a test group for commonalities in throws not noobs who don't know anything.

I never said new players counted for the commonalities. I've specifically said that it has to be common among the game's best (and a differentiator - which means the poorer players don't do that particular thing). Controlling the disc's plane upon release is common to all great disc golfers. Beginners do not control the disc's plane well.

And if you look at his top down views in Climo Mando Minute and The Champion's way DVD he stops the head rotation left to right for a while. Feel wise i think i stop for a longer time but that ain't the point. Stopping the head rotating is needed for the eye sight to focus because it is slow and if you swoosh the head left to right without stopping there is a good chance that your sight is not clear or focused at all until after the disc has left

That's one guy. These guys aren't looking anywhere near their targets and the disc has already left their hands:
http://f.cl.ly/items/0p2A2c30243n3n2s2K ... Export.jpg
http://f.cl.ly/items/210X0j151o1S0F3X2B ... rt%202.jpg

I would not ditch a key before gathering data.

JR, a video of Ken Climo is one data point. I've just posted three more that contradict that data (and there's probably video of Ken Climo contradicting that data too).

Here i refer to my earlier point about the need to research properly using proper scientific methods not discarding the conclusions of others before you've looked at their evidence.

I've got degrees in two scientific fields. I'm good with doing research. But if something is ruled out as a Key, if you can quickly see that it's not a true commonality among the game's best and that's one of the criteria, what's the purpose in doing more research? The images above and several others are compelling evidence that a good number of top players are not looking at the target when they throw, n'est-ce pas?

You act like you know enough now to be able to judge what is a key withing your own criteria which might not even be the best possible criteria IDK for some goals.

I don't know squat. That's one of the main reasons I'm undertaking this. In the end it's just a big thought experiment. If I thought I knew "enough" at this point I'd have said "Here are the Keys. No debate." Yet here I am debating, and asking you what YOU think the Keys should be, and WHY, and then asking you to show me that they ARE a Key.

Now, obviously I defined the requirements (commonality, measurable, achievable) for something to be a Key, and I've also said several times now that perhaps the same methods for applying Keys won't work in disc golf. They might not. But until I'm convinced of that, I'm going to keep pursuing it that way. If it turns out there's only three Keys that can fit within those requirements, and they're kind of common sense Keys anyway, then the criteria were likely not good in the end and the whole thing could be thrown out.

I've asked tons of questions. I've continued to discuss this with you. Yes, I've been applying MY definition of whether something can be a Key or not, again based on: achievable, measurable, and nearly absolute commonality. Perhaps, AGAIN, those criteria won't really work in DG as they do so well in golf. Those might not be the best criteria. But that's the criteria I've got and the criteria I'm working with.

I assure you I do not feel I know much at all, and that's why I'm doing this. Just as 5SK helps to simplify things for golfers and help them focus on EXACTLY the things that will make them better, I'm trying to do the same for my own DG improvement. I know very little right now. I'm just trying to build a structure so that my learning, practice, etc. will form a clearer picture. And if it helps others too, great. If it's trash, well, it will have forced us to think, and that's rarely a bad thing in my opinion, either.

And not being sure what your goal is after defining the keys leaves me hanging on that front and unable to show an alternative.

Same goal as with 5 Simple Keys in golf - to break down the thing to the core things you need to do to play your best. That's it. To make it simple and provide some structure.

- Why do I need to grip the club this way? Because it affects your ability to control Key #5, Clubface Control.
- Why do I need to push my hips forward on the downswing? So that you can get Key #2, Weight Forward.
- Why do I need to keep my head steady? Because it makes it easier to strike the golf ball solidly, turn your shoulders in a circle, and it doesn't mess with your vision requiring re-calculations on where the ball is in 3D space.

That's the goal. I think I've mentioned it before, but it could easily have been lost in all of the text here.

I ask you to recognize that there are people who know more about disc golf than you do now so please take that into account before you start dismissing replies.

Quite honestly I feel quite misunderstood if that's what you think. I'm asking questions, playing devil's advocate, and trying to learn. I know next to nothing, and this is how I learn about things. If I'm wrong about something, by all means tell me, but then show me why. Show me evidence.

When simple evidence contradicts what I'm being told by you, someone I respect as having a LOT of knowledge, a thousand times more than I have, I ask questions. The questions don't mean I think I'm smarter. The questions simply mean "please explain this." And sometimes, when the evidence seems to be awfully compelling, yes, I flat out reject it. I could show you lots of evidence that the earth is flat, but you'd not need a mountain of evidence to prove it's not.

I don't get offended when people point out that I'm wrong. It's science, it's not personal. But evidence and scientific data is very different than "this guy says that's what he does."

Also you should recognize that you lack enough data to see the whole so before having that base to push off from your conclusions are frankly not in line with reality at times.

I don't mean this to sound the wrong way, but this isn't helping the discussion. I'm quite likely wrong about a ton of things, but you might be wrong about a few things too, no?

Where's your evidence that pros visually aim and that I've found the only three examples in the world who don't? What about your evidence regarding pushing off with the back foot when so many top pros seem to have the foot in the air or with the knee bent and on their toes throughout much of the throw? I'll happily admit I'm wrong, but you telling me that I'm wrong isn't "evidence" or "science."

I'd LOVE to be shown wrong about some of these things. Absolutely love it - because then I'm that much closer to getting it RIGHT.

If you think I'm arguing because I think I know stuff, you've got me pegged wrong. I'm arguing because I want to draw out information. I'm arguing because I'm seeing conflicting data and evidence. I'm arguing as a means of getting to the kernel of truth beneath it all.

I've thrown out some Keys. I've added some. Heck, only three survive right now, and I haven't even looked at the "Weight Forward" Key in depth because it seems obvious to me and nobody's suggested it's wrong. And the torque one is in hot water because the name sucks and it might be too broad.

I talked of bias earlier and you seem to be comparing everything to golf.

Though it may seem that way, I'm simply trying to use golf as a means of understanding some things, and I'm trying to avoid any direct comparisons to the motions as they're different. I'm the guy who points out how, for example, the golf swing and the baseball hitting motion are indeed very different, so while I bet what you say is accurate a little, I am trying to avoid doing it too much. FWIW, your bias seems to include thinking the disc golf motion is "more complex" than golf.

I am not so sure about golf having more movements but not knowing enough about it and not having enough time now i can't compile a list of DG movements.

I wouldn't ask you to, nor do we have to in golf to demonstrate that the 5SK work in golf.

Heck, playing the piano might require more motions than disc golf or a golf swing for all I know - but the complexity is only relevant if it speaks to the idea that there are NO Keys at all because there's no commonalities. Yet within the disc golf throwing motion, there are commonalities, so relative complexity to other activities aside, it's probably NOT too complex to bake into Keys.

As I've said, "Weight Forward" is a Key in golf, but the complexity of HOW to get the "Weight Forward" and do it properly (which includes not only positions but timing and forces and sequencing) is there. Keys aren't "ALL" there is to know about disc golf (maybe that's why you keep talking about how it'd be book-length). It's just a simplification.

I've used this example I believe: "Controlled Disc Plane" is currently a Key I think can stand the test of time and so on. Good players control the plane of their disc, bad players might not. But obviously what goes into "controlling" the plane of the disc is quite complex - wrist angles and motions, grip style and strength, arm patterns, elbow bending sequencing, and on and on and on.

So knowing ALL of the motions is somewhat irrelevant. If you're doing that, you're just building a SINGLE throwing motion. The Keys in disc golf should account for ALL of the throwing motions used by the game's best. That's where the "personality" or quirks come in.

I know my lack of knowledge about a golf swing limits my understanding of what all moves in there but you discarded a short off the top of the head list of DG wrist movement example too so your record is tarnished and that is a big no no for judging anything.

I'm not judging anything and I'm not sure why you keep saying I dismissed your list of wrist motions. From my perspective I simply listed several wrist motions made in the golf swing because you made the comment that the disc golf throwing motion is more complex than a golf swing.

I'm not sure I even read your list of wrist motions in the disc golf throw. Why? Because I don't care about which is more complex, or how complex something is. It doesn't further the discussion?

You have already made mistakes in the keys list

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

and i think you started off with the wrong foot and armed with too little data.

I didn't start off with too little data, I started off with NO DATA. That's kind of the point - to throw out the pre-conceived notions, boil it down to the TRUE keys. Do this by applying the three rules for what is a Key and what's not (and as I said before, maybe those same criteria don't apply well to DG, but until that's proven, I'm going with it), and see where you end up. It's exploration.

You keep talking about data, but what it really sounds like to me is that you think you a lot (and I'm sure you do) and you're not open to being shown that any of your data is actually wrong. You keep talking about how you need to push off with your left leg or how you need to visually aim, and yet the most rudimentary of data (pictures) shows that quite a few top players don't do those things.

That's not personal. It's not me being stuck with the "wrong data." It's me hearing what you said and trying to see if it matches up with reality and the available data.

My point is we need a list of golf vs disc golf movements and the difficulty of pulling each off to see how the total taxes the brain in guidance requirements and what that means to form in practice and in competition and i know that the parts after the list go at least partially beyond my knowledge.

I disagree and don't know what point that would serve. This isn't a battle of which is more complex.

I'm pushing the idea that the keys need to result in something beneficial.

SO AM I!

That's almost their sole purpose. As I've said, if you're a student, improving at a Key should improve or benefit your motion. It eliminates a bunch of wasted time and lets you focus in the core things that will make you better because you're focusing on something that actually matters, not something someone thinks matters because one guy they like does it or says he does it.

That list requires a laboratory and qualified researchers so many researchers would need to learn a lot more to be able to pull off such a study even in one sport.

I disagree that it's required. We've already built 5SK for golf. It's working quite well.

Compare long jumpers to the requirements of triple jumpers.

I can't, and I'm not sure you can either... nor am I sure what the point of that would be.

I'm not trying to piss anyone off, and so if that's how this is going, then I'm done. I'll probably continue to mull this over in my head, but will refrain from posting here about it as I clearly cannot put things in a way that avoids confusion and misunderstanding, or makes me sound as though I think I know more than I do when in reality I'm incredibly aware of how little I know and in fact started down this road to help me learn some things.

Thank you.

[JR]

Another chapter in the book Believe me now on that count?

Ok i'll leave this until you have more to comment but please don't jump to conclusions something that you did a lot in your previous post. I'm in no way irritated, offended angry or anything negative. Just as you wrote in your PM i too know how emotions don't translate well over text always and i'm cold hard fact driven guy so as an example of that i wholeheartedly agree with you in that not every top pro seems to aim visually each time so that can't be a key to each throw type at least. Scott Stokely (took a world championship from Kenny in Kenny's heyday) preached using two different driving forms one for distance and the other for accuracy=scoring. As an overall comment on all throw types with all top pros it seems very likely that visual aiming can't be a key to every throw of every throw with your criteria. You have to know what the players were doing in those pictures and in which kind of conditions.

It seems that you did indeed miss somethings i wrote of like what all goes on in the wrist with a disc golf throw. I have written walls of text already we were threatening book size limits Many people miss data in long texts so i suggest that you reread everything. It is not the visual aiming and the list of disc golf wrist movements that you've missed. A good researcher does not miss data you have based on some of your replies so i hope that in rereading you'll get more ah-ha moments.

http://f.cl.ly/items/0p2A2c30243n3n2s2K ... Export.jpg
Feldy has been already described to use an exceptional form when it comes to visual aiming and he is using his own kind of form to counter the back force of the elbow chop (and the hips twisting and the shoulders turning). By the way in the left picture filming is lcgm8. There was no wind here and the fairway turns to the right. This is from the Scandinavian Open 2010. Without checking the video from memory i can't recall if this was the final. I also don't recall well enough but i shot some videos from that vantage point standing on the fence of the terrace of the club house of the course so i might have taken that video from which the picture is. There was no wind penetrating the surrounding woods there accoring to my memory and Dave sure didn't go for accurate placement shot any time in the event. He said that he managed to hit properly for the first time in the final and after that he knew he had this event. See his interview on lcgm8 right after he won. It is the drive on hole 1 the one that the codesigner of the course Tomas Ekström described in the interview we made. In the final Dave's drive flew past the first two curves of the hole which is just sicknasty. You can see the first corner of the fairway in the upper left corner of the right image.

http://f.cl.ly/items/210X0j151o1S0F3X2B ... rt%202.jpg
If Will has his eyes on the right corner it is possible he sees the target but focus would be iffy indeed. I haven't played Winthrop Gold so i can't say from experience what kind of throw that is. Avery at the President's Cup 2011 was filmed by someone else than me IIRC. Lcgm8 or mafa. That hole starts with a downhill placement shot in between a pond on the right and OB left beyond which to the left lies an island hole without hay bales to protect the rear of the green but having hay bales on the sides and the front. There was some wind then but it didn't seem to change the flight of the discs. This throw was messed up by an incredible amount of players mostly going to OB left with a few people throwing into the pond. I was shocked because the landing area needs only 360'-380' of flat ground distance so this definitely should be accuracy form time for Avery. I have not talked to him and analyzed his playing to the point of being able to say if uses two forms or not for drives. And it is very clear that accuracy throw should move slower and have a larger portion of the throw with eyes on the target so Avery in this throw is clearly breaking commonality. Does he do that often for accuracy shots i don't know. If he does it is obvious that visual contact is not common enough to meet your criteria.

Then visual aiming needs to be called something else like the next things to improve on after you've gotten the keys right. And make no mistake seeing to where the disc needs to go tightens the variance closer to spot on very nicely. Blake did not mention it for nothing because the difference is quite startling. So from a utility perspective it should be taught to everyone no matter if all top pros don't practice it each time with accuracy throws. Their loss i say I don't care what name the visual aiming has but rest assured that it is gonna remain as common advice on this site. We don't call standard DGR advice (the term used often here) keys but if we did we do include visual aiming as one. You are perfectly free to create a new and different set of keys but is the lack of standardization beneficial for future disc golf students? As if all sites or groups of players had standard advice. Not the case in golf too i assume.

I agree that for a video analysis of a pro it is important to see what they do but asking for coaching and them saying i don't know what i'm doing doesn't help.

I haven't thought enough of what things could be keys according to your criteria or by any other criteria except the things long time readers and throwers already know. DGR standard advice has a wider approach than demanding that all top pros do the same part similarly. We analyze the differences to their pros and cons too. And with that data see where one approach is better than the other and adopting the best form for the situation is on the table and free to be adopted. There is this thing tested by lots of players called standard DGR advice that has not been codified into a FAQ so far because there is so much good working information to convey and writing that down was suggested at one time and i said i might do once i get my snap better and understand it better. The hell i do AAARGH!!!! Or i may enough in theoretical terms and am too shot to pull it off in real life or then the measurements i've gotten vs what Blake has said paint a bleak picture of my form and power. See i get good snap distance increase according to Blake over my locked wrist distance even though i clearly can't get full disc pivots almost all of the time. Sniff. I just might start to write a summary of standard advice if i get too cabin feverish over the winter.

Standard advice here is not 5 things. It is way more because most if not all here seem to subscribe to the utilitarian approach of trying to improve on everything not just the easily marketable limited amount of parts. Anything to improve the scores no matter if nobody else in the world does that. I have no objections to others throwing worse than me DGR Standard advice is just that because it works for the majority if not almost all. So the standardization has evolved based on the progress of real people en masse.

One thing i ask you to do is to try to measure everything i've suggested for yourself from your throws to see what they do for you. Feel free to adopt those things that improve any aspect of your game. As a researcher i ask of you to doubt everything and measure everything and report back. We all need feedback of how which advice has worked with your current application. If something doesn't work right off it might over time as obstacles to the tip are eliminated. Muscle weakness, lack of timing, strength, speed etc. are common problems and form flaws earlier in the kinetic chain is a major confuser of people. Like you would not believe. Or maybe you would thanks to your sports background.

The list of keys and why they are that and evidence needs to wait until later. First off proper criteria for being a key needs to be specified. Thus thought of in more detail. I'll get back to you with suggestions so you can play the opposition in turn Quid pro quo. See for example achievable is a dicey thing because the difference between a 420' thrower with modern discs vs farther throws is the quality of the snap. Half hit vs full hit. Unfortunately a vanishingly small fraction of the players throw past 420' at sea level without wind at the moment. So far the experience of many others than me Blake especially shows that only a couple of percent of throwers learn to hit fully. It does not quite seem to me to meet the criterion of achievable. If teaching everyone to throw with a full hit=significantly more than 420' on command has not been achieved yet maybe the goals or criteria need to change to find keys. Or the achievable criterion needs a goal in it like by x % of throwers in y amount of time. I don't think that everyone could come to a unanimous decision to what x and y are but i'm ready to be surprised. I am not assuming dictatorship in stating what those numbers are i am not qualified enough to speak for all disc golfers. A wildly heterogenic bunch.

I'm pretty sure that there are more than 3 keys that can be with enough work to be shown to meet your criteria. Didn't we just agree on one more? I'm not sure that all of your criteria should be thrown out necessarily. You wrote that 5SK simplifies things and i'm sure it does and a simplified method could be useful for disc golf too but so is a wider more details encompassing system that is the DGR standard advice. Which is in free use already and has been fairly well received and tested and standing over time even though not everyone has been helped by every bit of standard advice.

I cannot agree with only 5 things being enough to allow a player to play his/her best. I also am not yet in a position to give a definite number of clear minimum of necessary things to do to throw to the best. To me best means knowing everything anyone does and cherry picking everything you can put to use and gain an advantage vs any other form. Even if somebody else can't get the same benefit and you need to drop something that helps someone else. So commonality seems to be a criterion of questionable merit to me. So what if you are the best there's ever been and anyone else can't do what you can. Jhern told of Ken Westerfield who threw a lid 500' sidearm in the 70s and apparently that has never been approached since if i remember the facts right. The history of science is filled with people who are the only one for a while to know of a phenomenon. If something works and there is only one practitioner but everyone can learn his trick why should anyone refrain from using that tip? Because it is status quo? Holding onto the status quo stops progress right? Maybe it is indicative of how young the sport is that there are few commonalities among top players (there are but maybe not scores) and lots of individuality. So does the diversity of the status quo give uncorrupted data for distillation to bare bones commonalities and is that distillate the best human kind can produce? If anyone is clearly ahead of the pack why should we not use that person's trick? So again we may need to choose our goal. How do we want to people to progress? Easy set without all of the data that is more efficient to convey because it is so short? Or the whole shebang? If the student comes across a situation where she cannot execute a commonality based key properly because she is not armed with enough information to diagnose the hindrance and removing it was the keys approach comprehensive enough no matter how the keys are defined? Doesn't that probable situation require a coach to explain what needs to be rectified before the key can be attacked? What is the advantage of a key based approach to having many people on hand here coaching and being able to explain things outside the framework influencing the keys or practicing to make the keys to work? Keeping in mind that the throw is a kinetic chain where a failure in an earlier or later part can ruin the chances of progress. I have no idea how the keys approach would improve the current situation.

I have tried to present evidence only when i've had it on hand easily. I have not posted everything because i don't believe the current version is useful for general use maybe it is for your learning. I have not had the time or the energy and as i said inclination to go fetch proof of everything yet. That does not mean that i couldn't and wouldn't over time if the data exists. Or rather has been measured and disseminated and i know of it. I am not a library from which a video pops out with a merely a question

I have already told you why i think your criteria seem iffy and why i doubt your methods. You asked me again for proof of pushing off of the left foot. I already have and so has Sir Isaac Newton. This is what i mean by you missing evidence as an example. Repeat after me countering the force of the elbow chop etc. and that there is the other form that Feldy uses to achieve the same goal. Show me a conflict in the evidence in this matter please. I am not aware of it.

FWIW i sure agree fully with weight forward being a key and no torque means no throw so there is reason to call torque a key. But you countered movement as a key too and spin comes with movement so it might be shot down by you for the same reason -being too simple and obvious. I also underwrite the need to control the angles.

How can i be biased in thinking that a disc golf throw has more movements than a golf swing if it does? Proof of that it isn't should lie in the list of movements that might not have been created yet. I'm not aware of a list for either sport and would like to see it for both sports. In time i might be able to compile that list for disc golf.

I do not fathom how you came to the conclusion that training all specifics builds a "single throwing motion". People vary and since not everything is executable to a 100 % efficiency people will always deviate from the ideal. But say if the keys built a single optimal form that everyone could learn wouldn't a large enough list of keys be worth the results? I see added complexity as a bonus if the result were that good. That is how we greedy bastards for personal development as disc golfers mostly operate here.

You say you are not judging but it is you who has set the criteria for the keys. That is exercising judgment. And directing the direction of your research into a subset of the whole picture from which a distillation might be too much simplified. I don't want to throw the baby out with the washing water. You also wrote: "I'm not sure I even read your list of wrist motions in the disc golf throw. Why? Because I don't care about which is more complex, or how complex something is. It doesn't further the discussion"? Didn't you judge that my list was irrelevant? And 2 it doesn't further the discussion. Possibly with the underlying judgment that complexity of the disc golf throw is not relevant to building a helpful list of keys.

You wrote: "I don't even have a Keys list"!?! Well you did and it has changed and didn't you write in your last post that you were at 3. Did that number include appropriate grip strength? Do you see why i am puzzled and not happy with dismissal of evidence i'm providing? Not happy for your learning being less than the whole data that has been provided is. And running before you can walk because IMO your approach is not addressing all real world issues like how the keys you create with your criteria help people better than standard DGR advice. So i have a different perspective that is based on a different data set and seeing how i and many other disc golfers have progressed successfully and how small the percentage of people that have not improved is.

What are the pre conceived notions and are standard pieces of DGR advice not "TRUE keys"? With and without your criteria. See that advice has been explored and i welcome you to explore it again. That is what we promote here learning for yourself so that you can throw the best for yourself because we can't think for you and the same goes for throwing.

I do not like that you incorrectly accuse me of not being shown wrong. That is untrue. Again you push your personal contested by my criteria to what is "wrong". Pushing off of the left leg has been proven ad nauseum so i have to ask have you done all the drills i have given you? I am sad to say that your research methods and line of thought has failed you this time. I have presented plentiful evidence on left leg pushing like has Sir Isaac Newton. To my knowledge Einstein didn't go too far from Newton on that matter and i don't know of later research if that has changed that law of nature description that has stood the test of time in most matters on earth since the 17th century. How is that not a mountain of evidence? You not reading it understanding it is something that needs to change. Look up the laws of movement Newton described. That is science and evidence for you. Along with the measurements you need to do with the drills. Do your studies and tell me again how i have not given you evidence. Have you done the exploration of left leg push improvements? I suggest you do before you fail in repeating the above incorrect accusation. Or you won't learn that you are dead wrong. Not a sign of a good researcher. I have already commented on you dismissing data given to you. I hope that is not repeated any more. Pay attention and think things through and do the measurements. That is what a researcher does. Act like one because you've been taught to do it. Or your schools failed you.

I already covered visual aiming so what do you think now? Were your criteria helpful regarding the visual aiming not being important enough to be a key even though it is not common enough according to your criteria? That i suspect are off for best practical results to teaching disc golfers. You assumed that i am not willing to accept pictures of top pros doing thing differently as proof. Untrue would you agree?

You are correct in that it does not matter which is more complex it matters that DG is so difficult and taxing to the brain. I already explained why the complexity needs to be addressed only if you could go get the data for yourself. You need to run fast with the rup up steps to experience the whys. Maybe then a key of having automation in the execution of form could be seen from experience to be a key because it is demonstrable, measurable, common, achievable etc. Yet that does not help the students because naming routine as a key does not add to the experience of the thrower. The utility is nil.

Quoting: "As I've said, if you're a student, improving at a Key should improve or benefit your motion. It eliminates a bunch of wasted time and lets you focus in the core things that will make you better because you're focusing on something that actually matters, not something someone thinks matters because one guy they like does it or says he does it." With what i've written before in this post do you still think the same?

How on earth do you suppose to build xSK for disc golf if you do not do research and acquire data? You must ask your money back from the schools or return your diplomas if you think that is proper scientific research You say you do not need a lab and measurements so how does that not mean that you think you do not need data? Hmm.

Thanks for doubting my skills and knowledge and comprehension ability on comparing long jumpers to triple jumpers. It must stem from some really vast knowledge being able to read my mind because i was not aware that i lacked the understanding of those subjects. How did you arrive at that? You do not appear to be good in your research methods. Where is the data to support that conclusion and are there no holes in your train of thought? If the results are so off something before the conclusion could have gone wrong.

[iacas]

Another chapter in the book Believe me now on that count?

No. This is debate, not the actual final result.

I never said there were five, nor did I ever say I had an actual list, just a temporary, work-in-progress (that's changed several times, with an indeterminate number).

But no matter, you may have missed the part where I said that I was done discussing this further for now. It should stand out in a post as short as this one.

Thank you.

[JR]

Another chapter in the book Believe me now on that count?

No. This is debate, not the actual final result.

I never said there were five, nor did I ever say I had an actual list, just a temporary, work-in-progress (that's changed several times, with an indeterminate number).

But no matter, you may have missed the part where I said that I was done discussing this further for now. It should stand out in a post as short as this one.

Thank you.

And in my wall of text i promised to leave you with that wall of text to mull it over but consider this a postscript.

Yeah the final result may not be book sized but i was predicting the length of discussion leading to the list and i'm afraid all the usual symptoms applied. Like bazillion words I read numbers 1 to x as a list but ok.

[rhatton2]

Maybe it is indicative of how young the sport is that there are few commonalities among top players (there are but maybe not scores) and lots of individuality. So does the diversity of the status quo give uncorrupted data for distillation to bare bones commonalities and is that distillate the best human kind can produce?

This here pretty much sums it all up. You're trying to compare a fledgling sport with a handful of players to one of the oldest and most widely played sports in the world. By now the only way a top golf pro can be a top golf pro is to have all the keys you are talking about + a seriously well developed mental game.

in Disc Golf There may be these commonalities but it would suggest we had reached the peak players being at the top. With all due respect to the pros out there, i don't think we're even close to seeing perfect form yet.

10 years ago noone could touch Climo, 5 years ago Feldberg had blasted him out of the water. now Schusterick/Locastro and the young guns have left them in their wake. These are guys of the same era so it's not like trying to compare Nicklaus and Tiger where if Nicklaus had of had the sports conditioning and technology of today he would have been hitting just as far. They are using the same technology and Climo and Feldberg haven't faded through age, the pack are just starting to pass them by. (Feldberg less so admittedly)

I would suggest if you are looking for key commonalities maybe look more at these younger players coming through now who have been throwing discs their whole lives rather than finding the sport later on. They, i would suggest (with no evidence to back this up) are more likely to have commonalities amongst their throws as their throws are closer to a finished product.

Using Dan Beto as a comparison tool is a strange choice, whilst his video instructionals are excellent he is not yet a top pro so why would you assume that his technique would hold all the keys that a complete throw should?

The idea of commonalities is a great one and has been proven to work well in ball golf, there is no reason why this can;t be transferrable to Disc Golf but you need to find the right players to look for common elements in a sport that is still so young it can allow people with "dodgy" technical issues to still rise to the top.

[iacas]

This here pretty much sums it all up. You're trying to compare a fledgling sport with a handful of players to one of the oldest and most widely played sports in the world.

I think the sport has likely been around enough that they're at least starting to emerge, but perhaps it's too soon. Golf has has the 5 Simple Keys for 100 years, but for the first 50 or so perhaps they didn't really exist.

in Disc Golf There may be these commonalities but it would suggest we had reached the peak players being at the top. With all due respect to the pros out there, i don't think we're even close to seeing perfect form yet.

To be clear, there's no "perfect form" in golf either. The Keys are often just little elements of form with, again for lack of a better word, lots of room for "personality" or "quirks" around those keys.

Using Dan Beto as a comparison tool is a strange choice, whilst his video instructionals are excellent he is not yet a top pro so why would you assume that his technique would hold all the keys that a complete throw should?

I don't think I've really used him as a comparison tool, but he's clearly good enough to be one of the "top" players in the game, the same way a guy who is a +3 handicap at his local club likely has all five Keys in golf but is quite a ways away from competing on even the Web.com Tour.

The idea of commonalities is a great one and has been proven to work well in ball golf, there is no reason why this can;t be transferrable to Disc Golf but you need to find the right players to look for common elements in a sport that is still so young it can allow people with "dodgy" technical issues to still rise to the top.

While true, again, all golfers on the PGA Tour pretty much have all five Keys. If you're too selective in who you choose you eliminate things that clearly "work" just fine. Eliminate a bunch and you are just saying "throw like Will Schusterick" (or whomever) or "swing like Rory McIlroy." I hear what you're saying about looking at ALL the new players, but I don't know that we can eliminate guys who are on the back nine of their careers. Disc golf is new, but it's not brand new.

Anyway, as you've read, I've shelved this project or thought experiment for now. Perhaps I'll pick it up again in a year or so. Right now I'm focusing on my lessons with Blake, and trying to get DG courses built in Erie.

[JR]

As a contrast between generations of players and future potential the best pole vaulter of all time Sergey Bubka was asked how high can people pole vault eventually and i don't recall which his answer was 7 or 8 meters. Considering how far below he is to either and there is nobody close to his performance AFAIK he sets the limits to pretty astronomical numbers considering the information and equipment of today. And i think that equipment changes have a lot of room for improvements with materials tech that is so far mostly theory or just being researched. I don't know how long pole vaulting is as a researched sport but it has been practiced since ancient times.

[iacas]

And i think that equipment changes have a lot of room for improvements with materials tech that is so far mostly theory or just being researched.

I hope not. I hope or wish the PDGA would develop some sort of Overall Distance Standard: a disc launched at 60 MPH or something can only fly xxx feet on flat ground at sea level with no wind. There's an ODS in golf and so we're largely limited to how fast humans can swing the clubhead, which is as it should be. There are fairly real limits on golf ball distance, etc.

[JR]

If materials tech allow discs that are durable yet not having holes but porous to allow the air to go through the flight plate courses will be obsoleted. The drag on the disc drops and the discs get more gyroscopic. And people throw insanely fast and far being dangerous to outsiders so the need for dedicated private courses is beneficial for avoiding risks to courses getting pulled from safety reasons if anyone is hit hard. More distance means the discs are more dangerous out to a longer range needing more accuracy and consistency and if regular player throw 500' and top pros 800' on golf shots almost every course got obsoleted.

By the way i heard that there are more disc golf courses in Finland than golf courses. Wow

[turso]

By the way i heard that there are more disc golf courses in Finland than golf courses. Wow :-)

Not a real surprise considering the booming popularity. And they're a bit cheaper to construct, maintain and find space for :)

[Parks]

I like how iacas throws out a wall of text big enough to make JR jealous, so JR has to throw out out an even bigger one in the next post to show his dominance in the field.

However, from reading some of the other posts in here I have to assume that iacas' wall was coherent and useable instead of a bunch of "76.5 degree knee position" bullshit.

[JR]

And Parks gets it right for the first time with a -90 degree knee angle sucking his toes In waiting for his first success in life... Back to the kinder garten you go now child. They created DGCR you know. Maybe you should play with people who are at your level. But failing that you are very very welcome to stick your foot tightly in between two boulders and having a straight knee throwing hard and following through fully. See ya and write JR on your cast .

[Parks]

Meet JR, the god of confusion and false help.