Quote:
Wow, I stand officially, completely, and 100 % corrected.
I was clearly quite wrong.
I stand by the idea that Nash (or nearly every other NBA player) could not be a 99% + free throw shooter in non-game situations...but it's clear that someone is.
I also still doubt that shooting underhand would be the best method. Perhaps if there were two great shooters, one who shoots underhand, and one who shoots conventionally, the underhand shooter would perhaps have an advantage due to the physics of the ball's path.
I think though, that a normal person (especially one who plays a college sport) would have a lot of basketball experience already (even if it's not organized basketball) and starting from the muscle memory already learned would probably be the most effective method.
Although I was so spectacularly wrong with my last post, maybe everyone should just disregard this one...
Stak
|
I might've came off a bit harsh last night, because you are very right about parts of using the underhanded technique. An underhanded shot is the most effective shot, especially for shooting free throws, and for awhile it was the norm before it became phased out. The reason for this is that the 'normal' shot is not very far behind, and it became apparent that practicing two almost totally different techniques was a time waster when the same form and technique (with very slight variations) could be used for any shot from anywhere in any situation.
So, you make a good point in that if the random guy has had 'any' significant experience shooting a basketball it is much easier to go from there and tweak his shot to the correct form than to teach him a totally new technique.
p.s. This same concept is partially why the two handed set shot became phased out as well.