sandalman
Dec 12 2007, 12:46 PM
does anyone have any data on the speed at which a disc leaves the hand on a drive? i'm trying to get a typical range... i seem to remember numbers in the 50-80 mph range, but need to verify.

thanks in advance.

exczar
Dec 12 2007, 12:53 PM
I know it is at least 60 MPH, because that is the Guinness world record for fastest velocity of a flying disc that was caught, but that was a long time ago, so I would imagine that it is much faster. Plus, at the last WDGC I attended, at the Fly Mart, there was a booth with a radar gun where, for a fee, you could have a couple of throws clocked.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to my Tarrant county friend from the only other current or past PDGA board member in the Metroplex.

sandalman
Dec 12 2007, 04:29 PM
there are those who are advocating the restriction of "gyroscopic" (rim-weighted) configurations. they seem to make the argument that distance due to gyroscopic forces is bad compared to distance derived from centrifugal forces or wing-generated lift. they also confuse gyroscopic with "projectile" or "ballistic" trajectories, and imply that gyroscopic discs necessarily move ballistically.

this is terrible science - wrong at best and misleading at worst. here's why:

1. trajectory physics can be used to calculate the range of a projected object. the primary inputs are launch velocity and launch angle. range (R) is calc'd as (V<sub>0</sub><sup>2</sup>sin2Θ ) / g. (newton figured that out in the late 17th century). if trajectory physics was all that mattered, range would max out at 434 feet for a disc thrown at 80 miles/hour at 45 degrees. we all know that this is not the maximum distance, therefore we can infer the presence of some other force(s). the fact that maximum distance is substantially different from that predicted by projectile/ballistic physics further means that whatever additional forces are present make a significant contribution to distance.

2. change Θ to something flatter, say 15, and the maximum range drops to less than 220 feet! yet shots released at less than 15 make up a huge percentage of our shots, and many, many, many go farther than the maximum range attributable to ballistic forces. an even more dramatic proof that referring to trajectory physics alone represents a woefully incomplete analysis is what happens with a horizontal launch. maximum range when releasing at 0, 2M height and at 36m/sec (80mph) is an anemic 23 feet!

3. the wing shape matters! this should not be news. as soon as you start sculpting a shape, you move beyond ballistic physics. lift generated by the wing augments the arm-imparted velocity. spin speed contributes to lift (amount and duration) and stability, which also impacts range. wing shape is a very significant part of the distance puzzle by cancelling effects of gravity and carrying the disc farther.

there is also a new movement that would eliminate hyper-centrifugal discs such as the 10M Brick. the argument is that the extreme center-weighting leaves the disc solely at the mercy of ballistic physics. again, this is not true. just as with wide rimmed discs, wing shape and spin combine to overshadow the ballistic forces.

it is as if those who want us to restrict rim width (gyroscopics) and plate thickness (centrifugals) got off the physics bus in 1687 with Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, and completely missed the advent of aerodynamics.

that it is so easily demonstrated that wing shape and generation of lift are the real drivers to distance in our sport means that the concerns over rim width and plate thickness are misplaced. applying those variables in conjunction with wing shape is far more consistant with science and the sport's legacy. creating technical standards that severely shorten the distance between the gyroscopic and centrifugal ends of the spectrum is effectively declaring vast territories of flight design off-limits. to me, these restrictions amount to clipping a birds wings and putting him in a cage.

whats worse, it wont work to achieve the desired objectives of fairness and anti-obsolescence. whatever the rim width or rim:center wieght ratios mandated by specs, a wing shape will come along that creates the lift required to go farther.

another point: when rim width increases beyond a certain point, the gyroscopic effect begins to decrease - weight moves back to the center as the rim widens. the perceived problem of rim width actually diminishes with increasing rim widths! this implies less need for width limits... and if current configurations already achieve maximum gyroscopic effect, we may gain more, and protect the sport better, by removing the width limit entirely.

sandalman
Dec 12 2007, 04:32 PM
btw, thanks for the kind words, Bill. my intro paragraph got cut trying to make the special chars work. regardless of how sweet the metroplex is for golf, today is a better day to play with the spreadsheet. brrrrrrrrr.........

Lyle O Ross
Dec 12 2007, 06:38 PM
Pat,

Google Theo's site on video of top throwers. In the data he accumulated was info on flight speed (I remember seeing charts and that there was either little or no correlation between distance and velocity indicating that other factors, say spin, play an important role). I seem to recall that you're right on, somewhere between 40 and 80 miles/hour.

ChrisWoj
Dec 12 2007, 07:31 PM
This thread makes me think of Marty Peters...

"I'd love for someone to just TRY to mug me while I have my discs on me..."

Hahaha....

PatrickSmith
Dec 13 2007, 09:20 AM
Chris Voigt told me that his fasted recorded throw was 83mph. There was a net set up after the first day of this years Weilheim Open. Players were consistantly hitting between 85-126kmph (52-78mph). Chris had the 126 with a few others in the 120kmph range. I myself topped out at 95 (59mph) with a backhand and 114 (71mph) with a thumber and the help of some beautiful oktoberfest brew.

Greg_R
Dec 13 2007, 05:07 PM
I've been at a few tournaments where Theo has been clocking throws. At near sea-level, the average pro throws were in the high 50s, low 60s. The occasional player would toss one in the low 70s. Note that speed did not correspond to distance... i.e. one of the guys who throws very long drives hit 55 max while another with similar distance was throwing low 70s. Form is everything!

jmc2442
Dec 13 2007, 05:11 PM
This thread makes me think of Marty Peters...

"I'd love for someone to just TRY to mug me while I have my discs on me..."

Hahaha....



"I threw paper"
"... yeah, and I threw a Roc."

LOL. good stuff.

the_kid
Dec 13 2007, 06:25 PM
Chris Voigt told me that his fasted recorded throw was 83mph. There was a net set up after the first day of this years Weilheim Open. Players were consistantly hitting between 85-126kmph (52-78mph). Chris had the 126 with a few others in the 120kmph range. I myself topped out at 95 (59mph) with a backhand and 114 (71mph) with a thumber and the help of some beautiful oktoberfest brew.



Bratten hit 133kph twice with a guts disc. That unofficially broke the record but it took him more than his 5 tries.

PatrickSmith
Dec 14 2007, 02:13 AM
I've been at a few tournaments where Theo has been clocking throws. At near sea-level, the average pro throws were in the high 50s, low 60s. The occasional player would toss one in the low 70s. Note that speed did not correspond to distance... i.e. one of the guys who throws very long drives hit 55 max while another with similar distance was throwing low 70s. Form is everything!



No doubt. I throw a legit 380-400 but had a very hard time breaking 90kmph. I watched players who struggle to throw 330 getting over 100kmph. That's why i broke out the ol thumber. I was pretty sure i could get over 100kmph with that.

PatrickSmith
Dec 14 2007, 02:17 AM
Chris Voigt told me that his fasted recorded throw was 83mph. There was a net set up after the first day of this years Weilheim Open. Players were consistantly hitting between 85-126kmph (52-78mph). Chris had the 126 with a few others in the 120kmph range. I myself topped out at 95 (59mph) with a backhand and 114 (71mph) with a thumber and the help of some beautiful oktoberfest brew.



Bratten hit 133kph twice with a guts disc. That unofficially broke the record but it took him more than his 5 tries.



That is freaking sick! I know it took chris a few throws to get up to what he threw in weilheim. I believe he was throwing an ancient x-clone.

vwkeepontruckin
Dec 14 2007, 02:19 AM
Chris Voigt told me that his fasted recorded throw was 83mph. There was a net set up after the first day of this years Weilheim Open. Players were consistantly hitting between 85-126kmph (52-78mph). Chris had the 126 with a few others in the 120kmph range. I myself topped out at 95 (59mph) with a backhand and 114 (71mph) with a thumber and the help of some beautiful oktoberfest brew.



Bratten hit 133kph twice with a guts disc. That unofficially broke the record but it took him more than his 5 tries.



That is freaking sick! I know it took chris a few throws to get up to what he threw in weilheim. I believe he was throwing an ancient x-clone.



Robbie is just disgusting to watch....BOOM!

dwiggmd
Dec 15 2007, 11:11 PM
You certainly have a thorough grasp of the science involved - great to read posts that are instructive and not pure opinion. Thanks and Happy Birthday

dwiggmd
Dec 15 2007, 11:24 PM
All other things equal (granted they are not) the guy with the fastest throw will throw farthest. That means that for an individual player, increasing velocity will likely lead to increased distance assuming his/her throw does not otherwise change (i.e. all other parameters remain the same.) In other words, someone who wants to throw farther would be better off at least to some degree if he/she learned how to throw faster.

If one takes an experienced individual thrower whose style should not vary tremendously from throw to throw, one could calculate the relationship of velocity to distance at any particular release angle, slope of terrain, humidity, wind conditions, etc.

Contolling these variables could be done reasonably well if the same thrower threw multiple throws consecutively in the same direction from the same release point and at the same release angle while release velocity was measured. There would be some margin of error, but a definable trend should emerge.

Measuring the effect of spin would be a bit more difficult, but the maximum effect might be roughly deduced by examining the difference in distance traveled between throws of equal velocity and release angle under the above described conditions.

ganzel
Dec 16 2007, 03:56 AM
Frame by frame video analysis works great to improve technique. You can see the cause of each effect, while trying to reproduce the same effect with each throw (the more variables controlled, the more accurate the results). Tom Seaver wrote a book saying technique comes first, speed second. Once proper technique is achieved (including mental technique), increasing strength is the only factor that increases speed. And that being said there are different strength training techniques. He would spend time in the gym for overall strength, but would use a 1,2,and 3 pound weights in repetetive lift cycles to increase speed (a lot of reps with low weight...as opposed to a few reps with a lot of weight). He also used cardio training, and utilized proper dietary techniques to be a pro.
I am just putting this subject into the perspective of how to improve a disc throw, totally off the subject of who throws fastest. It would be cool to have a speed record for backhand, forehand and overhand, (and what disc and weight they are throwing) and a distance record for each to see the correlation.
I've seen the D competition, might it be time to offer yet another game....the speed gun!?! :D

kjellispv
Dec 17 2007, 02:07 AM
He would spend time in the gym for overall strength, but would use a 1,2,and 3 pound weights in repetetive lift cycles to increase speed (a lot of reps with low weight...as opposed to a few reps with a lot of weight). He also used cardio training, and utilized proper dietary techniques to be a pro.

Scientifically these statements do not make sense. Doing alot of reps with light weight would be classified as an endurance exercise. And endurance exercises focus on slow twitch muscle fibers rather than fast twitch fibers which are used in "explosive" movements. Same goes for cardio, probably helped his tournament play since it requires endurance.... But it will not help you throw faster.

Karl
Dec 17 2007, 10:02 AM
Kyle,

What you're saying is true, but I think you're missing what Seaver was doing. It was 1, 2, and 3 pound weight exercises 'done quickly'! Instead of lifting / throwing HEAVY weights, he'd do stuff with 'light weights' (or at least light compared to "normal weights"...but actually heavy compared to the 4 1/2 oz baseball he usually threw) but still concentrate on doing it quickly - thus still working the fast-twitch muscles, etc.

Karl

kjellispv
Dec 17 2007, 07:01 PM
I guess that could work, he would probably get more out of just throwing a disc as hard as possible without regard for control. Aside from lifting i would recommend racquetball. I would stay as sport specific as possible. It's like basketball players, some try to increase their jumping ability by doing non-specific acticities like lifting, jogging in "strength shoes" etc. etc. And some just play basketball everyday and every once in a while jump as high as they can to dunk or to see how high they can touch. The second are usually the most succesful. Of course natural ability and body type comes into play. But what im trying to say is if you wanna increase arm speed then go through a bunch of discs as hard as possible.

lien83
Dec 17 2007, 07:16 PM
Throwing a bunch of discs as hard as possible will not increase your arm speed nearly as much as doing it with weights. Throw discs with a three pound wrist weight on for two hours a day as hard as you can and your arm speed will increase exponentially. Throwing a Frisbee as hard as you can over and over does nothing but hurt form...

Shags17
Dec 17 2007, 08:56 PM
But throwing with a weight on your wrist can also hurt your form, since you need to adjust to compensate for it. I have found that just getting in the gym and lifting at least three times a week will help you gain distance and speed pretty fast.

kjellispv
Dec 17 2007, 11:38 PM
I guess there is no point in arguing with people who do not know what they are talking about. I guess thats why most Americans are considered dumb when it comes to training. Because they rely on the"because it makes sense to me" logic instead of actually reading scientific studies. The only reason i post replies on this is because when you say this person did so and so and this is why they can throw far. And the training has little to do with success makes me angry because your giving unproven advice to people trying to get better. Then one day they might figure out that there was a much better way to do things. Discuss throwers have to throw as far as possible without sacrificing technique and control. Think about that. Plus there implament weighs alot more so strength and arm length is especially essential.

mikeP
Dec 18 2007, 10:40 AM
Throwing a bunch of discs as hard as possible will not increase your arm speed nearly as much as doing it with weights. Throw discs with a three pound wrist weight on for two hours a day as hard as you can and your arm speed will increase exponentially. Throwing a Frisbee as hard as you can over and over does nothing but hurt form...



Throwing 1519g (3lb+175g disc) as hard as you can is only going to make you faster at throwing 1519g. I don't see how this is going to make you throw 175g (or less) any faster. I get sore from throwing my discs in a field and I only do it once or twice a week to avoid muscle strain. If I tried to do the same with weights I would most likely injure myself. And how can throwing a frisbee over and over hurt your form? The people I know with the best form built it throwing frisbees over and over....

the_kid
Dec 18 2007, 01:44 PM
Throwing a bunch of discs as hard as possible will not increase your arm speed nearly as much as doing it with weights. Throw discs with a three pound wrist weight on for two hours a day as hard as you can and your arm speed will increase exponentially. Throwing a Frisbee as hard as you can over and over does nothing but hurt form...



Throwing 1519g (3lb+175g disc) as hard as you can is only going to make you faster at throwing 1519g. I don't see how this is going to make you throw 175g (or less) any faster. I get sore from throwing my discs in a field and I only do it once or twice a week to avoid muscle strain. If I tried to do the same with weights I would most likely injure myself. And how can throwing a frisbee over and over hurt your form? The people I know with the best form built it throwing frisbees over and over....





And the ones with the bad form got that way by throwing over and over too.

circle_2
Dec 18 2007, 03:18 PM
Throwing a bunch of discs as hard as possible will not increase your arm speed nearly as much as doing it with weights. Throw discs with a three pound wrist weight on for two hours a day as hard as you can and your arm speed will increase exponentially. Throwing a Frisbee as hard as you can over and over does nothing but hurt form...



Throwing 1519g (3lb+175g disc) as hard as you can is only going to make you faster at throwing 1519g. I don't see how this is going to make you throw 175g (or less) any faster. I get sore from throwing my discs in a field and I only do it once or twice a week to avoid muscle strain. If I tried to do the same with weights I would most likely injure myself. And how can throwing a frisbee over and over hurt your form? The people I know with the best form built it throwing frisbees over and over....





And the ones with the bad form got that way by throwing over and over too.



...and the amount of added/REQUIRED follow-through from 3 extra lb's could very well affect form...adversely. Imagine the added micro-damage beginning at the wrist...all the way through the arm into the shoulder and down to the follow-through foot work?? :eek: Muscle memory destroyer, IMHO.

Perhaps the added weight &amp; some kind of non-disc-throwing, yet accelerating repetitions with exaggerated follow-through foot work could/would wake up some fast-twitch fibers...

kjellispv
Dec 18 2007, 07:49 PM
I agree with all three satements above. The easiest way to run faster is to do sprints, jump higher by juming, throw farther by throwing FAR.. And of ourse plyometric or strength training will help but if you dont know what you're doing 100%,then stick with the basics.

lien83
Dec 20 2007, 05:49 PM
Throwing a bunch of discs as hard as possible will not increase your arm speed nearly as much as doing it with weights. Throw discs with a three pound wrist weight on for two hours a day as hard as you can and your arm speed will increase exponentially. Throwing a Frisbee as hard as you can over and over does nothing but hurt form...



what an idiot

travisgreenway
Dec 20 2007, 11:49 PM
From a Certified Strength Coach, I have found that a great warm-up is going through your throw but instead of a disc use a golf towel (small microfiber ones) hold it by the cornner (if it has one of those clips I hold that ring area) and do your throw...don't let go of the towel.....for more resistance use two or three towels then you can move up to hand towels and so on....I don't guess much bigger than that would do you much good....I have done research with varrious sports and found that a warm-up implement +or- 10% of the weight of the object you are going to use in competition is detremental to your accuracy (batting in baseball, throwing in baseball, throwing in football, shooting in basketball, setting in volleyball.....the list goes on) Hope this helps a little :D
T-Dogg

travisgreenway
Dec 20 2007, 11:56 PM
To add something or really just clear it up in this case the weight is not really the issue it is the resistance your arm encounters while accelerating the disc to speed...for the warm up/workout we are removing weight but we are adding drag and instability to the movement....this does two things it works the primary movers and works the stabilizers that aid in accuracy because the action is made unsteady by the fluttering of the towel changing resistance ramdomly....the resistance also gets harder if you go faster and it becomes more unstable the same reasons apply. Keep em TWISTED (http://www.twistedflyer.com/)

tafe
Dec 21 2007, 01:32 PM
I started doing something similar while waiting for my tee-off at AmNat's a few years back. I always start with quite a bit of stretching. Then I lightly throw, building up to full out drives. I got to the first tee with plenty of time before tee-off and I didn't want to go cold and start tightening up. It was a wet morning so I had my "tee-pad towel" (pool towel from the hotel, shhh) a pretty big towel. I went through the throwing motions with this and it worked great. The larger size allowed me to feel resistance like I was throwing. I do it any time I'm waiting for tee-off.
I would still like to see a +200 gram Z Ultrastar for practice purposes. Baseball players put a weight on the bat and swing for warm up, I want to throw a heavyweight disc for warm up.
Sometimes during a tourney if I feel a little tired or tight, I'll drop down and do a "T" push-up or two to wake-up my shoulder. It has worked quite well.

listen2bob
Dec 21 2007, 04:01 PM
Like maybe my 200g E Warlock. Bust some drives with that and watch it drop out of the sky as soon as the glide part is supposed to kick in.

travisgreenway
Dec 21 2007, 08:00 PM
Again keep it plus or minus 10 percent of the total weight of the object you are going to throw in competition or it will decrease accuracy. :DAnd yeah every batter that warms up with the "donut" weight is hurting their batting adverage....at least thats what the numbers say :) :cool:

kjellispv
Dec 22 2007, 02:49 AM
T_Dogg I a gree with what you are saying and have read simular researches like the one you spoke of. I am getting my masters in human performance. I e-mailed the author of Super Training about training for disc golf. I will try and find his reply and post it. But he said it would be very simular to a ball golfers training plan, nothing special....

travisgreenway
Dec 22 2007, 10:35 AM
I dissagree whith Super TRAINER ;) our sport is much more dynamic and requires alot more thought in the workout routine...I have a masters in health and human performance and athletic training I have already written a thesis on the subject of the disc golf drive for distance....pm me your email and you can read it all you want...you are in the field so it may be interesting but if you are not a biomechanists it may get a littl thick....I'm working on an all encompassing workout right now....to be finished :confused: when I get a break :D

kjellispv
Dec 22 2007, 11:31 PM
yeah the author said it was a little out of his league. but you are saying its different training than what a ball golfer would do?

circle_2
Dec 23 2007, 01:19 AM
Not many ball golfers have perfected the X-Step... :D

rosendin20
Dec 25 2007, 12:56 AM
Not many ball golfers have perfected the X-Step... :D



happy gilmor... ithink thats how you spell it lol /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Rodney Gilmore
Dec 25 2007, 11:57 PM
nope, it's Gilmore, trust me, I know. If you don't believe me, look at my profile. Some days I wish that movie had never been made.