I have a throw in my arsenal where you use a forehand grip, but bring it from behind your head and left shoulder (RH) and release it upside down at about a 30 deg. angle. It's a pretty short range throw but goes up and over obstacles well especially from the right side. I got an incredible birdie once from about 60 ft out when I was surrounded by trees. The person who showed me was an ultimate player and called it a hammer throw. Is this the correct golf term, and does anybody else use it?

I think, although I may be incorrect, that a hammer is a BH throw where you hold the disc upside down (thumb and palm against the rim). Apparently the disc goes in a parabola and falls straight down. Farthest distance is about 150 ft. From the sounds of it your throw is released upside down and would have a similar flight?

That is, indeed, a hammer. See Conrad Damon's article in the most recent DGWN for a concise treatise on throwing it (and other forehand-grip throws).

Yeah, since you release at an angle it goes right for a bit and falls back left when the spin dies. Kinda ackward, but can get you out of a jam.

I came to disc golf with an Ultimate background. What is the difference between a hammer and a tomohawk? I used to think they were the same throw, with 'hammer' being the name for it in Ultimate and 'tomohawk' being the name in Disc Golf. But Conrad's article leaves me wondering if there is a difference?

How far is the record for a tomohawk throw? After seeing him in Bowling Green, I think Schweb can throw it at least 300 feet.

krusen:

there are a number of variations on this said throw and i've usually heard them called tomahawks or hammers. there are people who can throw it quite far but you can really get a good variation of distances based upon what angle/disc you choose to release it on. there are a lot of players who also use an overhand hook thumber, which has an opposite corkscrew of the one you are describing.

robj:

i've been told that Schweb is one of the few notables that is able to get a double-corkscrew (for lack of a better term) on an overhand toss and have been told he can hit the 350-400' range. i'm not sure what the record is, but i'm fairly certain it's well over 400'. curt gatlin (footage available on the 2000 pro/am worlds video) can throw a hook thumber well over 350'.

i have heard rumors that people are getting triple-corkscrews with the aerobie epic and that some of these are going over 500' but i have yet to see it with my own eyes.

I can get 350' with a thumber after it hits the ground and rolls 50', and possibly 400' with the epic.
I also heard this past weekend that Schweb can throw a Thumber 350' +.
I attribute my thumber by having a wicked tennis serve.

I don't consider the Epic a legitimate disc. What distance can you get with a real driver? Also, how much farther can you get with a thumber than with a traditional hammer?

Scweb doesn't carry an Epic I don't believe.

Blake, does that mean you tomohawk and hammer are different names for the same throw which can be hurled using a variety of angles?

Also, any advice for someone who can throw them well with ultrastars (lids) but has trouble with golf drivers zooming right too fast? Should i change the angle and the direction i aim?

....

I've seen guys thumb well over 350+ without a roll...


guess even the throws are bigger in Texas.. :D

Whatever :D

robj:
i'm not really old-school enough to be down w/ a lot of the terminology or the various throws that a lot of the old overalls players are familiar with. however, i was under the impression that they were the same throw with different names.

as for the hammer vs. hook thumber, from what i've been told, the hook thumber has a more consistent and predictable cork-screw depends less on orientation upon the release. the people i see throw long thumber tosses (several guys up here throw them legit 350+ with "normal" discs) are more concerned with generating power with their whole body which leads me to believe they'd rather not worry about the orientation as well.

as for having them dive right too fast, do you mean they are corkscrewing too fast? or not enough?

Krusen's description does not sound like a tomahawk to me, I thought a tomahawk involved making a fist while hooking your thumb under the rim, then holding the disc over your right shoulder with the bottom facing your head, and throwing it like a baseball...In his description he mentions holding over his left should with a sidearm grip, which sounds a little awkward...

adamz:
what you are describing is an overhand hook thumber, which i have also heard referred to as a tomahawk. but i've also heard the 2-finger grip, flight plate facing the other way called a tomahawk. the one krusen describes seems to describe one of the many modifications of that type of throw.

Yeah it's like a tomahawk, but the angle is more overhead. If someone is watching you from behind, during a tomahawk your arm travels at like 12 o'clock or 2 o'clock. The motion I'm describing would be more like 10 o'clock. It is akward, but great for up and over (almost zero glide being the disc is basically upside down through the flight). I'd like to see someone try and throw that one 350'.

Scott Stokley in his book defines the Tomahawk as the two finger overhand. Top of the plate is next to your head. The Hook thumber, or thumber is just the opposite, top of the plate away from your head. The two throws mirror each other in their flight. The Tomahawk slides to the right (the face going down as it slides and then coasts back to the left. The thumber does the opposite. Both of these throws go further for me than the hammer (250 ft vs 150 ft) and are incredibly useful for going over objects like trees.

I guess we really need a Glossary of DG terms on this site so we can all speak the same language. My group of DG buddies has always called the Thumber you described a Tomahawk and we called the 2-finger version a Baseball throw. Don't know where we picked that up?

Hey Theo, I'm sure you aren't too busy ;), so can you go ahead and develop a National DG Glossary so we all know what the heck we are talking about :D

Okay, I think I can picture what you're doing, and why it flies the way it does. I imagine the flight path is similar to a grenade throw, yet the execution is totally different. I also have a question, what is it when you throw a thumber into the ground about 50-100ft in front of you so it skips on its flight plate and then hooks hard right? Is that still a thumber? Up until a few threads ago, I thought it was a "scooby"...Thanks!

isn't that a pancake?

: ) :

krusen:

there are a number of variations on this said throw and i've usually heard them called tomahawks or hammers. there are people who can throw it quite far but you can really get a good variation of distances based upon what angle/disc you choose to release it on. there are a lot of players who also use an overhand hook thumber, which has an opposite corkscrew of the one you are describing.

robj:

i've been told that Schweb is one of the few notables that is able to get a double-corkscrew (for lack of a better term) on an overhand toss and have been told he can hit the 350-400' range. i'm not sure what the record is, but i'm fairly certain it's well over 400'. curt gatlin (footage available on the 2000 pro/am worlds video) can throw a hook thumber well over 350'.

i have heard rumors that people are getting triple-corkscrews with the aerobie epic and that some of these are going over 500' but i have yet to see it with my own eyes.



One of our local guys Ron Howard can thumber a epic with mad distance... It flips twice then flattens out and floats down... It's unreal if you have never seen it!!!

Many concerns about the Epic have been raised in terms of the PDGA's approval of it. For one its assymetricly weighted rim turns it into more of a projectile than a disc. Second, the potential distance and unpredictability of its flight path when thrown as a thumber make it a serious safety hazard in the hands of powerful throwers -- especially when one considers disc golf is played largely in public parks frequented by children and non-disc savvy persons.

Imo, the Epic (if at all) should be conditionally PDGA-approved as only legal in a special tier of tournaments devoted to novelty type discs. The quintessential disc golf design expert in the world is on record as saying it presents safety and disc definition issues that has historicly pre-empted him from taking disc design in the Epic's direction.

I messed around with the Epic for about a week after I got my first one at World's last year. In a headwind I could get it to double corkscrew and then anhyzer like a backhand distance shot. I am guessing it went well over 375, but I saw it more as a novelty thing than something anyone would do in a tournament. I always thought the Epic is the fastest disc with NO glide I've seen.

Many concerns about the Epic have been raised in terms of the PDGA's approval of it. For one its assymetricly weighted rim turns it into more of a projectile than a disc. Second, the potential distance and unpredictability of its flight path when thrown as a thumber make it a serious safety hazard in the hands of powerful throwers -- especially when one considers disc golf is played largely in public parks frequented by children and non-disc savvy persons.

Imo, the Epic (if at all) should be conditionally PDGA-approved as only legal in a special tier of tournaments devoted to novelty type discs. The quintessential disc golf design expert in the world is on record as saying it presents safety and disc definition issues that has historicly pre-empted him from taking disc design in the Epic's direction.



I disagree with every point you make.

Mass in flight is mass in flight. Every thrown disc is a projectile. Asymmetry of the rim has nothing to do with it.

The Epic is no more unpredictable than any other grip-locked or wind blown disc in a public park. As with any disc, if you don't feel you can control it, you shouldn't throw it. When I throw an Epic, I know where it's going. I'd like to see concrete data that supports the assertion the Epic is any more dangerous than any other disc. Is there any documentation stating more people have been hit by Epics than other discs? Were the injuries more severe?

I've said this before...with all due respect to Dave Dunipace...I have to take any comments from one business competitor about another's product with a teaspoon of salt.

--Mike

I have to agree with Mike on this one. Someone at Rutgers yesterday (not Mike) was throwing Epic thumbers for distance and no less accurate than anyone else that was out there, and he just started playing last year. If anything, I would guess a thumber is generally more accurate (even with the double corkscrew the Epic will do) than a backhand, since a griplock would just go straight into the ground, not 45 degrees off course.

The only potential argument I see would be that the fat part of the rim would flex less on impact than an average driver. The amount of force that is dissipated on impact by the rim flexing is probably minor enough that it doesn't really make much difference, tho.

The problem is that if the definition of a PDGA legal disc is stretched to allow an assymetrical rim, it opens up a pandora's box of possibilities for discs designed for specialty throws like hammers and rollers. And the safety of that type of rim is also an open question. The Epic places us upon a slippery slope. It seems to me we would do well to say a disc must have a symmetrical rim.
To suggest Dave D's take on the Epic is based on pecuniary reasons is absurd. Innova is the number one brand and Dave could easily design Epic like discs. Is it really so hard for you to believe his problem with the disc is based on what he believes is the definition of a disc and that he can foresee where that type of design path leads?

The problem is that if the definition of a PDGA legal disc is stretched to allow an assymetrical rim, it opens up a pandora's box of possibilities for discs designed for specialty throws like hammers and rollers. And the safety of that type of rim is also an open question. The Epic places us upon a slippery slope. It seems to me we would do well to say a disc must have a symmetrical rim.
To suggest Dave D's take on the Epic is based on pecuniary reasons is absurd. Innova is the number one brand and Dave could easily design Epic like discs. Is it really so hard for you to believe his problem with the disc is based on what he believes is the definition of a disc and that he can foresee where that type of design path leads?



Would that be the same slippery slope that led to specialty discs like drivers, approach discs and putters?

Why is that type of rim any less safe than any other rim? Is it sharper? No. Does the Epic have more mass? No.

This has all been discussed here before. Shutting the door to innovation would stifle the sport, IMO. The beveled edge, exotic plastics, and so on and so on... We'd still be playing with Super Puppies if the naysayers had said "slippery slope" way back when.

And, yes, I do have trouble believing at least some of comments are not based on pecuniary reasons. Call me a cynic. If a designer chooses not to pursue a design for personal reasons, that's his business. I don't believe his beliefs should be legislated to stifle the ideas of others.

--Mike

Who cares what you call it. Just make birdies!

Well, let's wait and see how if the Epic plays out. I seriously doubt Innova or Discraft for that matter are scrambling to emulate it. Nor do I see any true pros using them regularly.
In the interest of compensating for high wind conditions, one of the problems that the beveled edged disc solved was that blunt edged discs were becoming too heavy to be safe.
Do you think a disc with five times the weight on one side than it has on the other should be legal?

Do you think a disc with five times the weight on one side than it has on the other should be legal?


yes.

I seriously doubt Innova or Discraft for that matter are scrambling to emulate it.


You're probably right. But maybe seeing the Epic has led them to whole new ideas in disc design that we'll see in the future.


Nor do I see any true pros using them regularly.


I don't see any "true pros" (whatever that is) using Blowflies either. But I don't hear a hue and cry to ban Blowflies.


Do you think a disc with five times the weight on one side than it has on the other should be legal?


If it presents no unique danger and falls within the PDGA's specification for a golf disc, yes.

--Mike

I seriously doubt Innova or Discraft for that matter are scrambling to emulate it.


You're probably right. But maybe seeing the Epic has led them to whole new ideas in disc design that we'll see in the future.



I seriously doubt it. In ten years I'll be happy to say you told me so if I am wrong.



Nor do I see any true pros using them regularly.


I don't see any "true pros" (whatever that is) using Blowflies either. But I don't hear a hue and cry to ban Blowflies.

[/QUOTE]

The blowfly does not present a break from the conventional definition of a disc in a way that raises safety and throwing techniqu concerns. Do we really want to open up the definition of a legal disc to a degree that encourages disc designs which change throws from being backhands and forehands to being primarily rollers and baseball like throws?
The PDGA approval of a disc that has a rim with uneven weight distribution potentially opens up the door to such a scenario.



Do you think a disc with five times the weight on one side than it has on the other should be legal?


If it presents no unique danger and falls within the PDGA's specification for a golf disc, yes.

--Mike

[/QUOTE]


Do you have any vested interest in the success of the Epic?

Do we really want to open up the definition of a legal disc to a degree that encourages disc designs which change throws from being backhands and forehands to being primarily rollers and baseball like throws?
The PDGA approval of a disc that has a rim with uneven weight distribution potentially opens up the door to such a scenario.



What's wrong with designing discs specifically for rollers and overhand releases? And so what if those designs (if they ever come) lead to more people throwing those shots? Mo' options, mo' better sport, IMO.

If it's a danger aspect that is being argued here, then I vehemently disagree. The evolution of disc design over the last 20 years has been intended to get more and more distance on the flight of the disc. That extra distance in and of itself increases potential danger, doesn't it? The further a disc can fly/glide, the bigger its potential radius for damage and the harder it may be to control, especially in the hands of the many inexperienced players who throw them. But I don't see anyone arguing against widening rims and lower flight profiles as a dangerous innovation in the sport. I think that's what mcthumber's point is when he talks about stifling innovation. I'd be willing to bet that Dave Dunipace encountered some oppostion to the bevel-edged disc as "dangerous" when he first introduced them twenty years ago, but look where we are now.

Maybe I'm challenged in my physics, but I don't see how much more dangerous an Epic in flight is versus, let's say an Orc or a Flash. And I also don't see how the distribution of weight in the Epic affects how much damage it might do on impact. 170 grams of Epic is likely gonna hurt as much as 170 grams of Z or Champion whatever. And in order to get PDGA approval, the Epic had to pass the same flexibility standards as any other disc design or plastic blend. So flex on impact can't be an overriding issue in regards to impact either.

I've seen many people throw the Epic (we sell them in our shop) and I haven't seen a single instance where people, animals, or possessions were endangered solely because of the disc. Any near misses of bystanders I've seen could just as easily been accomplished with any disc of any design and with any type of throw (backhand, forehand, roller, overhand, behind-the-back-with-your-eyes-closed, etc).


Do you have any vested interest in the success of the Epic?


I'd venture to say no more vested interest than another player might have in a Roc or a Cyclone. That is to say, as much interest as he'd have with any other disc he chooses to carry in his bag.

--Josh

[quote Do you have any vested interest in the success of the Epic?

[/QUOTE]

Monetary interest? Absolutely not.

Interest in throwing them? Absolutely.

--Mike

It is more a concern about what PDGA approval of a non-symmetrically weighted disc potentially opens the door to.

Would you oppose my carrying a baseball in my bag and using it in competition against you when I feel it will give me an advantage over a conventional disc?

A baseball is symmetrically weighted, not dangerous, and would fall through the bottom of a basket. Not too mention I can throw a disc further than a baseball. So yes, I would GLADLY pay to play against you in a tourney if you used a baseball...but only if it were a PDGA approved baseball. :D

It is more a concern about what PDGA approval of a non-symmetrically weighted disc potentially opens the door to.


Rob,

Could you give a for instance as to what potential there is through that door? I'm not asking this to be a wiseguy...I'm curious as to what you envision an Epic-influenced disc world would be. We already have dimpled discs, thumbtrack discs and (now) asymmetrical discs....I'm curious as to what could be left to invent that would still be called a disc? We'll never know the answer if we start banning discs that are different but still meet the spec.


Would you oppose my carrying a baseball in my bag and using it in competition against you when I feel it will give me an advantage over a conventional disc?


You're reaching with this one, Rob. Bottom line for me is the stamp on the disc-- "PDGA Approved". If it passed the PDGA's specifications as an acceptable disc, why is there such an argument?

--Mike

What exactly would that open the door to, Rob?

Not baseballs, because like adam said, a baseball is symetrically weighted. Baseballs also fail to meet any of the other technical standards for a disc, mainly because it's a sphere.

To me, that fear is exactly what I was alluding to above...the same things were probably said when Dave D introduced the first bevel-edged disc. And had the PDGA or whoever given into the fears, we still be playing with Midnight Flyers. Being different from the "norm" does not equate to wrong.


Would you oppose my carrying a baseball in my bag and using it in competition against you when I feel it will give me an advantage over a conventional disc?



The simple answer to your question is that if a baseball is PDGA approved (meeting all technical standards), what recourse or basis for argument do I have? I can either decline to compete with you on my own personal principles, or I can go get a baseball of my own if I really felt it gave a competitive advantage.

But for hypothetical sake, let's replace baseball with "Orc". And my "convential disc" of choice is an Ultrastar, which is on the PDGA approved list. Should I oppose you using your Orc against me and my Ultrastar because the Orc gives you an advantage (longer distance, perhaps better accuracy)? From a direct competitive standpoint, sure I might oppose. But your disc, just like mine, has gone through the rigors of the PDGA approval process and passed. If I felt I couldn't compete with you using my Ultrastar, then darnit, I'm buying myself an Orc so I can compete.

The Epic is like any other disc on the list. If it really provides such a competitive advantage, USE it. But I fail to see how it gives any more advantage to a player than whatever your favorite disc gives to you.

--Josh