BIOMECHANICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN A STANDARD FOREHAND HUCK VS.

A “BULLET”
FOREHAND HUCK IN ULTIMATE

DORONILA, PAOLO ANDRES

PADRIGON, MIGUEL NATHAN
SERRANO, NICHOLAS
TUZON, EMMANUEL

Submitting in partial fulfillment for

SS 151 – Biomechanics I
 ​CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION AND RELATED LITERATURE

10 Background of the Sport

In Ultimate Frisbee (Ultimate), every millisecond can be vital in throwing, since the
thrower only has ten seconds to release the disc (WFDF Rules of Ultimate 2021-2024, 2021).
Thus, throwing time can be one that saves a scoring opportunity or causes a turnover. Once the
disc is released, the distance, height, and time it covers can also make or break a turnover, as
when opposing players bid to catch the disc, they can be separated by mere inches or less,
especially in the top tiers in ultimate.
The Forehand Throw, A.K.A the Sidearm Throw, is one of the basic and ubiquitous
throws taught in ultimate, aside from the Backhand Throw (Sasakawa et al. 2008). In Ultimate,
there are different ways to throw a forehand, depending on the situation and the target one is
put in. Furthermore, one has to be more precise as the distance of one’s target increases, as a
farther target typically demands a lesser margin of error. This calls for more strategies of
modalities in releasing the forehand huck, another term for a forehand throw for long-range.
In an attempt to aid in characterizing a standard forehand throw and distinguish one of
these modified types of forehand throws, we will be investigating the “zippy” or “bullet”
forehand huck, as it is commonly referred to in the ultimate community. There are no existing
studies on this specific topic, but this variation is well-known among the ultimate community.
For the sake of brevity, the standard forehand huck and the “bullet” forehand huck will
be referred to as SFH and BFH, respectively. And for clarification, “disc” and “frisbee” will be
used interchangeably throughout the study.

11 Statement of the Problem

The study aims to distinguish key qualitative and quantitative differences between a
standard forehand throw and a “bullet” forehand throw by tracking and measuring the
biomechanical data involved.

12 Objectives of the Study

The study aims:

● to analyze the throwing mechanics of the SFH and the BFH in ultimate through
qualitative biomechanics.
● to determine efficiency by tracking the forces acting on the body, speed of the
disc, distance covered by the disc, and time taken for these two throws to be
executed.
● to identify significant qualitative and quantitative differences in distinguishing a
SFH and a BFH for ultimate.
 ​CHAPTER 2
METHODOLOGY AND PRESENTATION OF RESULTS

13 Participants

The sole participant of the study is a student-athlete and the current captain of the
University of the Philippines - Diliman Ultimate Frisbee team. He has seven (7) years of
experience in the sport, and his main role for the team is a handler in the defensive line.

14 Procedures

The participant was recorded executing the two throws in question. After 15 minutes of
warm-ups, three trials per throw was to be done under maximal effort, and what the participant
deemed best representative of the throw mentioned was selected for quantitative and
qualitative observation.

15 Instruments

The Discraft UltraStar was the disc used for initial warm-up throws as well as the trials
proper. The study utilized two smartphone cameras positioned perpendicular to each other,
with the participant as their reference. One camera was positioned to provide a sagittal view of
the thrower, allowing for the observation of the disc's trajectory along its forward path.
Meanwhile, the second camera, set up to capture a dorsal (posterior coronal) view, offered a
complementary perspective from behind the thrower, enabling the observation of the disc
path’s lateral component and roll angle. Both cameras were mounted on a stable camera stand
to minimize camera movement to a minimum during trials. Analysis of the recorded footage
was conducted using Kinovea. The software facilitated the tracking of the sagittal path of the
disc throughout its flight, along with the disc’s kinematics in reference to the sagittal position.
Additionally, the timer feature within Kinovea was utilized to time the throwing motion up until
its release, as well as the total time the disc was midair, providing valuable data for further
analysis and comparison between different throwing techniques.

16 Scope and Limitations

The camera setup involved two angles: the lateral view was captured at 60 frames per
second (fps), the dorsal view was captured at 240 fps. However, the sagittal view, essential for
analyzing long-distance throws, suffered from significantly lower resolution, limiting the ability
to track kinetics and kinematics accurately. Moreover, the absence of a camera capturing the
transverse plane introduces a greater chance for observational bias, which could compromise
the accuracy of joint angle readings, consequently impacting the assessment of forces acting on
the body.
Environmental constraints further shape the study, as data collection occurred in an
open baseball field prone to wind conditions, influencing the flight characteristics of the disc.
Task constraints focused solely on a specific type of throw - the "huck" or long-range
throw - further narrowed the study's scope, with the distance being the farthest the participant
was capable of doing. Additionally, kinetic investigation was confined to a single plane of motion
(sagittal), with the exception of roll angle, which could be observed through the dorsal plane.
Data was gathered from only one participant, potentially introducing individual
differences or preferences in throwing mechanics. These limitations collectively shape the
study's boundaries and underscore the need for cautious interpretation of findings within these
constraints.

​
 ​CHAPTER 3
RESULTS, DISCUSSION, and CONCLUSION

17 Results of the Study

QUALITATIVE KINEMATICS
The Forehand AKA as “The Flick” was divided (3) into three phases: (A) the Cocking
Phase, (B) the Acceleration Phase, and (C) the Follow-Through Phase. These phase divisions are
analogous to that of the phase divisions of Sasakawa and Sakurai for their 2008 study on the
Backhand. Furthermore, similar phase divisions were also used by Schultze in 2016. Their study
focused on the biomechanical differences between the Backhand and the Forehand. This
section of the paper analyzes each phase through the lens of functional anatomy
The Cocking Phase AKA as the “Wind-Up” is the initial phase of the Forehand. It begins
with the clockwise rotation of the torso and ends upon maximal rotation to the right. The
weight of the thrower shifts to the right foot. The throwing arm horizontally adducts and the
elbow minimally flexes to approximately 50°.
The Acceleration Phase is the intermediate phase of the Forehand. It begins with the
torso maximally rotated clockwise and ends with the release of the disc. It is “characterized by
the sequential uncoiling of the torso and arm segments”.
The Follow-Through Phase begins with the release of the disc and ends at the maximum
counterclockwise rotation of the torso. When the disc is released, the torso is tilted forward, the
humerus and torso 𝑥 axes are nearly aligned, and the arm is externally rotating at the shoulder.
The forearm is pronating and the elbow not fully extended.

​Figure 1: SFH Flight Path.

 Figure 2: BFH Flight Path.

The SFH peak height is notably higher than the BFH. A larger arc can be seen for the SFH
flight path, as compared to the BFH flight path, which seems to level at a certain height early
into its release.
QUANTITATIVE KINEMATICS
Six (6) trials were done for throwing, with three (3) trials for each of the types of
forehand hucks of interest. The best trial per forehand type was picked by the participant
thrower as the most representative of the throws being studied. The kinetics of the disc and the
time taken for the throw was measured using Kinovea.
Table 2: Kinematics of the disc during a standard long-range forehand throw
(SFH) vs. a bullet long-range forehand throw (BFH), tracked using Kinovea.

SFH BFH

Sagittal displacement 49.12 51.09

covered (m)

Release height 0.94 0.89

(m)

vMAX 20.32 20.19

(m/s)

angle of projection 20.6 15.1

(deg)
 roll angle 24.7 21.6
(deg)

Table 3: Time taken in throwing the disc for both SFH and BFH.

SFH BFH

Tthrow 0.97 0.87

(s)

Tmidair 5.13 3.95

(s)

TNET 6.10 4.82

(s)

The time taken for the throwing motion up until the release of the disc (Tthrow) and the
time the disc spent midair until it reaches the ground (Tmidair) is both lesser in the BFH than the
SFH. Adding these two values up, the BFH total time taken for the throw to land (TNET) is 4.82s.
This is 1.28 s less or 21.0% faster than the TNET of the SFH.

10 Discussion

Between the lower body, the core, and the upper body, the latter is most complex in
terms of the movements necessary for the execution of the Forehand. While most of the forces,
specifically torque, involved in the throw are generated from the lower body, they must be
applied precisely by the upper body, once transferred by the core. Should the thrower fail to
sufficiently rotate their arm, extend their forearm, or sub-optimally grip the disc, then no
matter the quantity of forces generated, they will be unable to maximize the efficiency of the
Forehand. Due to this, it would serve ultimate players well to place greater emphasis on their
upper body mechanics, especially with the “flicking” motion of the wrist itself and the
appropriate technique of gripping the disc with the Forehand. Be that as it may, an Ultimate
player must not neglect the mechanics and conditioning of their lower body and core. The force
behind the Forehand must not primarily come from the upper body, lest these muscles be
exerted beyond what is necessary and be at greater risk for overuse injuries.

When listing qualitative differences of the two techniques being performed, both were
observed to appear nearly identical from the naked eye's perspective. However the key
differences observed was how if BFH, the thrower begins at a right leaning position as
compared to the SFH which started in an upright position before leaning right in the technique.
Leading to a longer cocking phase in the SHF. Given this, the contact time for the BFH was
approximately 0.10 s shorter. Additionally, the disc in the BFH moved farther laterally to the
right from the white line on the thrower's sagittal plane compared to the SHF which landed
slightly closer to the white line. Marking one of the differences in the experiment.

There are a few theories we can gather based on our observations during the
experiment to explain the further lateral trajectory of BFH. In the angle of release, the BFH had
a flatter release angle. A flatter release angle, combined with the same spin of SFH would result
in less upward lift force and more lateral force due to the disc's orientation and lateral surface
area. A flatter trajectory would have a larger surface area if a lateral wind were to happen in a
given level as opposed to an upward angled disc which would move vertically lessening the time
spent in a lateral wind at a single height. This could possibly explain why the BFH moved
towards the right as opposed to the SFH.
Another, could be due to skill adjustments, experienced throwers may adjust throw
mechanics in order to adapt to wind conditions, making it still possible to perform the BFH to
land along the straight line, but not necessarily following the straight line directly despite wind.
However, this may involve a diagonally angled release in order to execute. Alternatively, it is also
possible that the gyroscopic stability was less in the BFH which may have been caused by less
rotation of the frisbee, in which case, a stronger spin to the frisbee during release may make it
less susceptible to lateral wind force. In terms of skill adjustments to resist possible lateral wind
force, Morrison (2005) reports that a larger amount of spin on a disc offers more stability as
compared to one with less spin, and that a disc with not enough spin would flutter (or induce
gyroscopic precession). As to whether it counteracts effectively to lateral wind force would still
need further testing, but difficult to do so in being able to observe just how large a rotation in a
frisbee throw quantitatively.
Another theory is that although values for gyroscopic precession were not accounted for,
the lower roll angle from the BFH resulted in less precession, and therefore less disc wobble
further influencing the disc to veer laterally towards the right.
The disc path between the BFH and the SFH is notably different, with the BFH having a
flatter shape with a shorter peak height, compared to the SFH. Despite this, total sagittal
displacement covered by the disc between the two throw types differed by only as much as
1.97 meters, with the BFH having a 4% farther horizontal displacement covered. The SFH’s lesser
total sagittal displacement may have been caused by several factors. One may be the SFH’s
larger angle of projection inducing more drag, since a larger face of the disc will be exposed at
the ventral angle, creating a larger force opposing the horizontal thrust force applied to the disc.
A second factor, although not measured, would be the presence of gyroscopic precession,
indirectly indicated by the roll angle at its release, which is noted to be larger than BFH. The
larger amount of gyroscopic precession may induce more drag in the system of the disc,
effectively slowing it down. Other factors that could influence displacement are the momentary
changes in the wind, as well as lapses in execution. With all things taken into account, more
viscosity of the fluid in the system(e.g due to stronger headwinds) might render the SFH, with
the higher propensity for drag, to be more volatile than the BFH. In ultimate application, the
lack in height of the BFH’s path can make it more susceptible for more defensive bids, with it
having a more reachable height for the majority of its flight path, as opposed to the SFH’s flight
path reaching a farther distance before it drops to a height where it can be reached.
As the BFH is both faster to throw and faster to land, the SFH allows for a larger margin
for the receiver to read the disc. Although it is slower to throw by 21.0% as long as one is not
pressed for time in a particular situation, most cases are suitable for the SFH as it has a longer
time midair, allowing for the receiver more time to position himself to receive the disc.
However, there are common situations where the BFH can be the more optimal throw, such as
slightly stronger headwinds, as mentioned above, or when the disc has to be thrown faster as
compensation for an early-timed run by a receiver.

11 Recommendations

Two cameras are optimal for tracking the sagittal plane, with one camera for tracking
kinetics of the disc and one closer camera for tracking the kinematics of the thrower and the
pitch of the disc at its release. This is because the tracking capabilities when tracking the
biomechanics of the throwing motion is limited when the camera for tracking the whole disc
path is placed far away from the thrower.
Recording the dorsal view is vital for tracking the disc’s maximum roll angle, but the
optional might prove beneficial for tracking the fine movement around the time period the disc
is released, since the upper extremities are projected at more ventral angles as the disc
approaches release.
Recording data with the use of measuring devices for the distance of the thrower to the
landing spot of the disc would provide more accurate results compared to the data gathered
from a lateral camera view in order to account for lateral wind force.
For more standardized trials, we recommend the trials proper to have a target receiver
with a set run up distance. This should create a more game-like situation that will translate
more in sport. Furthermore, an increase in participants should help identify differences
common to a larger part of the ultimate population.
Furthermore, conducting similar studies on the “Bullet” variant of other passes in
Ultimate Frisbee such as the Hammer and Scoober, may prove to be beneficial for the
refinement of passing techniques.
12 Conclusion

Mastery of the Forehand is crucial to the success of an Ultimate athlete and such
mastery can only be achieved through practice founded upon a clear understanding of its
mechanics. These mechanics are divided into three (3) phases: (A) The Cocking Phase, (B) The
Acceleration, and (C) The Follow-Through Phase. The lower body works in tandem with the
upper body as the former generates the forces that the latter requires (transferred through the
core muscles) for the execution of the throw.
The environmental constraints of frisbee games tend to have varying wind conditions as
such with our experiment. While the biomechanical skills in performing both tasks can be
improved, in-game adjustments to wind conditions is still necessary in order to perform
successful passes. Lateral wind force and varying amounts of rotation are two variables that
could be further studied in order to improve in experimenting with different types of frisbee
throws.
Both projection angle and roll angle were identified to be lesser in the BFH, compared to
the SFH. The BFH appears to gather less gyroscopic precession (disc wobble), but further
investigation is needed to support this. Sagittal displacement, maximum speed, and release
height appear to have minimal differences between the two forehand huck types.
The BFH was noted to have less time taken than the SFH in throwing motion time as well
as the time taken when the disc was midair. While the BFH disc flight path has less angle of
projection and lesser maximum height, it produces enough lift for total distance to cover just as
much distance as the SFH. Application of the BFH is situational, but the BFH appears to be
optimal for a shorter throwing margin or more precise targets, where there is less time needed
for catching up to the disc by the receiver.
13 References

Everything Ultimate. (2011, December 9). The Forehand Grip | Everything Ultimate [Video].
YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02RwxLIpD7s
Luo, A. (2016, June 2). The biomechanics of a frisbee forehand flick. prezi.com.
https://prezi.com/mao4qy5524hv/the-biomechanics-of-a-frisbee-forehand-flick/
Morrison, V. R. (2005, April 6). The Physics of Frisbees.
https://web.mit.edu/womens-ult/www/smite/frisbee_physics.pdf
Sasakawa, K., & Sakurai, S. (2008). Biomechanical analysis of the sidearm throwing motion for
distance of a flying disc: A comparison of skilled and unskilled Ultimate players. Sports
Biomechanics, 7(3), 311–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/14763140802270936
Schultze, B. (2016). Biomechanical Aspects of Throwing A Frisbee: A Review. 2-Fach Bachelor
Mathematik Und Sport Nach LABG 2009.
https://www.frisbeesportverband.de/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Bachelorthesis_Birg
er-Schultze.pdf
Sludge. (2013, March 13). Ultimate Disc Anatomy.
https://sludgeonline.blogspot.com/2013/03/ultimate-disc-anatomy.html
Weisbrod, K. (2015a, May 12). The Forehand: Part I. Ultiworld.
https://ultiworld.com/2015/05/12/the-forehand-part-i/
Weisbrod, K. (2015b, June 9). The Forehand: Part two. Ultiworld.
https://ultiworld.com/2015/06/09/the-forehand-part-two/
Weisbrod, K. (2015c, June 23). The Forehand: Part 3. Ultiworld.
https://ultiworld.com/2015/06/23/the-forehand-part-3/
Weisbrod, K. (2015d, July 10). The Forehand: Part Four (Best Practices). Ultiworld.
https://ultiworld.com/2015/07/09/the-forehand-part-four-best-practices/
World Flying Disc Federation. (n.d.). WFDF Rules of Ultimate 2021-2024.
https://rules.wfdf.sport/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/WFDF-Rules-of-Ultimate-2021-20
24-1.pdf

‌
 APPENDIX A: Qualitative Kinematics of each phase of the Forehand Huck
PHASE 1: COCKING (WIND-UP)
LOWER BODY
● Right Thigh (Femur) abducts
while minimally flexing at the
hip joint
● Right Leg (Tibia) laterally rotates
while flexing further at the knee
joint
● Right Foot remains in neutral
position with respect to the
ankle joint
● Left Leg (Tibia) rotates medially
while extending minimally at the
knee joint
● Left Foot is set into Plantar
Flexion at the ankle joint
CORE UPPER BODY
● Trunk is rotated ● Right Scapula is retracted
clockwise
● Right Arm (Humerus) is
● Trunk is extended at abducted, externally rotating,
the vertebral column and extending at the shoulder
joint
● Trunk is laterally flexed
to the right ● Right Forearm minimally
pronates while extending at
the elbow joint
● Right Hand extends minimally
with some Ulnar Deviation at
the wrist joint
● Right Thumb remains in
opposed position with the
superior portion of the disc
● Right Index Finger and Right
Middle Finger remain
adducted towards each other,
while laterally abducted
together
● Right Ring Finger and Right
Little Finger are adducted
towards each other, while
medially abducted together
● All Right Hand Digits are
beginning to extend at the
metacarpophalangeal and
interphalangeal joints
● Left Scapula is in neutral
position
● Left Arm (Humerus) is
abducted and flexing
minimally at the shoulder
joint
● Left Forearm is pronated and
extending at the elbow joint

PHASE 2: ACCELERATION
LOWER BODY
● Right Thigh (Femur) adducts
while minimally extending at the
hip joint
● Right Leg (Tibia) medially rotates
while remaining flexed at the
knee joint
● Right Foot is minimally everted
at the ankle joint
● Left Leg (Tibia) rotates laterally
while extending minimally at the
knee joint
● Left Foot experiences an
increase in Plantar Flexion at the
ankle joint
● Left Hand is in neutral
position at the wrist joint
● All Left Hand Digits are
repositioned/extended
CORE UPPER BODY
● Trunk is rotated ● Right Scapula returns to
counterclockwise neutral position
● Trunk remains ● Right Arm (Humerus) is
extended at the adducted, internally rotating,
vertebral column and further extended at the
shoulder joint
● Trunk remains laterally
flexed to the right ● Right Forearm is supinating
while extending further at the
elbow joint
● Right Hand experiences
minimal Radial Deviation
before returning to neutral
position at the wrist joint
● All Right Hand Digits are
repositioning/extending
further at the
metacarpophalangeal and
interphalangeal joints
● Left Scapula is in neutral
position
● Left Arm (Humerus) is
adducted and flexed at the
shoulder joint
● Left Forearm remains
pronated, but is flexed at the
elbow joint
● Left Hand is in neutral position
at the wrist joint
● All Left Hand Digits remain
repositioned/extended
 PHASE 3: FOLLOW-THROUGH
LOWER BODY
● Right Thigh (Femur) adducts
further while further extending
at the hip joint
● Right Leg (Tibia) medially rotates
further while extending
minimally at the knee joint
● Right Foot is further everted at
the ankle joint
● Left Leg (Tibia) laterally rotates
further while extending at the
knee joint
● Left Foot Plantar Flexion is
increased further at the ankle
joint
CORE UPPER BODY
● Trunk returns to neutral ● Right Scapula in neutral
position position
● Trunk remains ● Right Arm (Humerus) is
extended at the adducted and fully extended
vertebral column at the shoulder joint
● Trunk remains laterally ● Right Forearm is supinated
flexed to the right while fully extended at the
elbow joint
● Right Hand remains in neutral
position at the wrist joint
● All Right Hand Digits are fully
repositioned/extended at the
metacarpophalangeal and
interphalangeal joints
● Left Scapula remains in
neutral position
● Left Arm (Humerus) is
adducted and extending
towards neutral position at
the shoulder joint
● Left Forearm remains
pronated, but is extending at
the elbow joint
● Left Hand remains in neutral
position at the wrist joint
● All Left Hand Digits
oppose/flex minimally
 APPENDIX B: Start and end frames for each phase of the SFH and the BFH
POSTERIOR CORONAL VIEW

PHASES STANDARD FOREHAND HUCK BULLET FOREHAND HUCK

START START

1. COCKING
END END
 START START

2. ACCELERATION
END END

START START

3. FOLLOW-THROUGH
END END
 RIGHT SAGITTAL VIEW

PHASES STANDARD FOREHAND HUCK BULLET FOREHAND HUCK

START START

1. COCKING
END END

START START

2. ACCELERATION
END END
 START START

3. FOLLOW-THROUGH
END END