Gonna do an experiment

[Smigles]

That's the easy part to dispute. If they do what you want right out of the box, what will they be like when they beat in? They'll just get farther away from being what you want. With Rocs in different stages of wear they're always turning into what you want. Hitting a tree with a Roc is always bittersweet. On the one hand you didn't get the throw you wanted. On the other hand your Roc is now better than it was before.

My discs beat in slowly. And once they beat in to a point where they realy noticabely dont fly like out of the box any more, I replace them. Takes me a year on average for my most played midranges.

That's another thing I like about discraft in general. The discs dont beat in that fast ( well, at least not in ESP plastic. I would never even think about Innova D plastic, it's only for people who desperatly want their plastic to beat in as fast as possible ). And they are realy dependably similar to one another.

 

[JoshEpoo]

That's another thing I like about discraft in general. The discs dont beat in that fast ( well, at least not in ESP plastic. I would never even think about Innova D plastic, it's only for people who desperatly want their plastic to beat in as fast as possible ). And they are realy dependably similar to one another.

Every major disc manufacturer offers durable plastic. Even good DX discs last years.

 

[garublador]

Even good DX discs last years.

Yeah, if you have to replace a mid after a year then you're just proving my point. DX Rocs last a lot longer than a year. I don't think that suggesting that paying more money for discs that don't last nearly as long really helps the argument for buying high end plastic mids.

 

[Triflusal]

So many dx haters on this board

 

[NOStheBOSS]

Yeah, if you have to replace a mid after a year then you're just proving my point. DX Rocs last a lot longer than a year. I don't think that suggesting that paying more money for discs that don't last nearly as long really helps the argument for buying high end plastic mids.

this. You have to replace your mid every year because it stops doing what you want. Roc throwers have more than one Roc that does exactly what they want, and it takes more than a year for a Roc to have to be rotated out. You could argue that you may never need to rotate out a Roc

 

[Triflusal]

this. You have to replace your mid every year because it stops doing what you want. Roc throwers have more than one Roc that does exactly what they want, and it takes more than a year for a Roc to have to be rotated out. You could argue that you may never need to rotate out a Roc

I don't think I have ever seen a too beat roc, but I'm sure they are out there.

 

[Smigles]

DX Rocs last longer than a year because you want them to and adapt to even the most beat up discs.

My midranges dont last longer than a year because I dont want them to and I prefer a feeling somewhat close to out of the box. I could still play them, but I dont want to.

It's all about how you want to play and what you accept with discs and what not. Obviously, there are two schools of thought. You wont convince me, and I wont convince you, it's been like that since the birth of the Roc/Buzzz discussion.

And I replace my main goto midrange gladly once a year. The nice ESP plastic just feels way better than DX plastic. What's 20$ a year for a disc that actualy feels good in your hand ? I find your attempts at arguments rather on the hillarious side.

 

[NOStheBOSS]

DX Rocs last longer than a year because you want them to and adapt to even the most beat up discs.

My midranges dont last longer than a year because I dont want them to and I prefer a feeling somewhat close to out of the box. I could still play them, but I dont want to.

It's all about how you want to play and what you accept with discs and what not. Obviously, there are two schools of thought. You wont convince me, and I wont convince you, it's been like that since the birth of the Roc/Buzzz discussion.

And I replace my main goto midrange gladly once a year. The nice ESP plastic just feels way better than DX plastic. What's 20$ a year for a disc that actualy feels good in your hand ? I find your attempts at arguments rather on the hillarious side.

I think you're right about being at an impasse, and I respect that

However, DX feels great to me, as does ESP and FLX. Not better or worse, just different

 

[MrMayor]

Are we allowed to like them both? I have a Star Sanny & Glow Rancho, both of which I love. But 2 weeks ago I tried out a Buzz at league night, and there was a certain appeal.

Inside 75 feet, the Roc is my goto for everything. I have not carried a putter or midrange in quite a while.

 

[garublador]

DX Rocs last longer than a year because you want them to and adapt to even the most beat up discs.

My midranges dont last longer than a year because I dont want them to and I prefer a feeling somewhat close to out of the box. I could still play them, but I dont want to.

It's all about how you want to play and what you accept with discs and what not. Obviously, there are two schools of thought. You wont convince me, and I wont convince you, it's been like that since the birth of the Roc/Buzzz discussion.

And I replace my main goto midrange gladly once a year. The nice ESP plastic just feels way better than DX plastic. What's 20$ a year for a disc that actualy feels good in your hand ? I find your attempts at arguments rather on the hillarious side.

Of course anyone can use, "because I want to" as a counterargument for anything. That's not a horribly useful argument, though. It's obvious anyone can just do what they want. The arguments that are the useful ones are ones that show why something is objectively better or worse. The fact is that DX Rocs are cheaper than ESP/Z discs and they last at least as long as mids that fly well out of the box in those more expensive plastics. That shows one reason why the method I'm arguing for is objectively better.

People tend to throw Rocs so much longer because they contiue to fly well when they beat up. Buzzes don't make that great of turnover discs, even when beat and Comets get too understable and difficult to control. Rocs get more understable and make great turnover discs when beat and stay controllable when really beat. You don't want to use those discs when they beat up because they aren't as good. Rocs are as good, if not better, when beat. Saying you "choose" not to get rid of them as they beat up is just admitting that I'm right, not arguing that I'm wrong.

So while, "I don't want to do that" is a perfectly good reason not to do it, it's an awful argument for why what you're doing is better or worse. I don't actually care what anyone throws or buys. Not in the least. In this case it's even less important because it's obvious that either method can work. It's just that some choose one method either for other reasons (sponsorships, usually) or they do it despite it being objectively worse (but not a lot worse) and are good enough to make up the difference. I do care that people are getting the best possible advice and actual facts so they can make the most informed decisions possible.

 

[xJFK]

that's why you get one buzzz that you throw repeatedly into a tree until one side in tuned down just a little. perfect turnover disc, that buzz will never leave my bag!

 

[Technohic]

I'm starting to like my most beat ESP Hornet as more of a straight flier. it will turn a little bit now but the fade is lightening a lot so I am going to give them a shot at the Roc type stages of wear. If I was trying to gauge durability, I would say the ESP they used on the Hornets are wearing about as fast as KC Pro Rocs maybe even a little quicker.

I have yet to try the Z one but it feels like it won't be as durable as usual Z either. Won't know until I run out of ESPs to cycle in. lol

 

[esdubya]

A "Ching Roc" is flat like a pancake. It is basically a DX Roc with a color stamp on top that makes it flat. If you wear one of these in a little bit it is very close to a buzzz, both in feeling and flight. This is coming from a 10 year Roc thrower converted to a 5 year buzzz thrower.

 

[Smigles]

The arguments that are the useful ones are ones that show why something is objectively better or worse.

The thing is that in this question there is no objective right or wrong.

The fact is that DX Rocs are cheaper than ESP/Z discs and they last at least as long as mids that fly well out of the box in those more expensive plastics.

No, that is not the fact. I could go on using my buzzz. It is not a matter of how long they "last". My most played midrange is a ESP buzzz that I have in my bag for 2 years now, and it didnt even start turning over. I guess I could play it another 5 years before it starts turning over.

The fact is that you WANT to play it longer. Which is a matter of opinion, not a objective fact.

People tend to throw Rocs so much longer because they contiue to fly well when they beat up. Buzzes don't make that great of turnover discs, even when beat and Comets get too understable and difficult to control.

Not realy, I love my beat up Comet for soft Anhyzers. Again, if I replace it, it is because I want a new one, not because I can not play the old one any more.

Rocs get more understable and make great turnover discs when beat and stay controllable when really beat. You don't want to use those discs when they beat up because they aren't as good. Rocs are as good, if not better, when beat.

Rocs are different when beat. You wouldnt use your 5 years old beat up flippy Roc for the same shot that you use a brand new stable one for. It's different. Not better or worse.

Dont tell me why I want or not want to use a disc.

Speaking of beat up Roc's vs. Comets : WHen somebody starts playing and wants a understable midrange, is there even a Roc that will fly understable to flippy right away, or do you HAVE to beat them in first ?

Saying you "choose" not to get rid of them as they beat up is just admitting that I'm right, not arguing that I'm wrong.

As I said, there is no right or wrong, and I dont want to argue with you or convince you or sell you something.

I choose to get rid of my discs because I have a bigger and bigger backup pile at home and it is growing much faster than I am actualy getting rid of discs.

I choose to get rid of my old discs because I LIKE the feel and the look and the excitement of a new shiny disc that I love and look forward to throwing. ( In fact, I replaced my entire bag when I hit my 2 years of playing discgolf anniversary, just as a treat for myself and because I wanted to. )

I choose to exchange my discs because I dont wanna play somethig that looks like a camping plate that my dog chewed on before burrying it in the garden.

So while, "I don't want to do that" is a perfectly good reason not to do it, it's an awful argument for why what you're doing is better or worse.

I do care that people are getting the best possible advice and actual facts so they can make the most informed decisions possible.

As I said, there is no better or worse.

If you care about the facts, then agree with me that there are two different aproaches to disc selsction at work here and that you can not say that one is better than the other. There are no other facts.

 

[garublador]

The thing is that in this question there is no objective right or wrong.

Of course there isn't a right or wrong, but there are more effective, cheaper and easier ways to do things. It's like this in all other sports and most all activities, why would disc golf be the only exception to that?

No, that is not the fact. I could go on using my buzzz. It is not a matter of how long they "last". My most played midrange is a ESP buzzz that I have in my bag for 2 years now, and it didnt even start turning over. I guess I could play it another 5 years before it starts turning over.

The fact is that you WANT to play it longer. Which is a matter of opinion, not a objective fact.



Not realy, I love my beat up Comet for soft Anhyzers. Again, if I replace it, it is because I want a new one, not because I can not play the old one any more.



Rocs are different when beat. You wouldnt use your 5 years old beat up flippy Roc for the same shot that you use a brand new stable one for. It's different. Not better or worse.

Dont tell me why I want or not want to use a disc.

I don't care why you choose to do it. Your mashed potato sculpture could tell you to buy new discs and as far as I'm concerned that's a good enough reason to buy a new disc. None of that makes it objectively better, though. The fact is that Rocs beat in better than most all high end plastic discs. The fact is that not all equipment is objectively of the same quality. Discs themselves can't be subjective. You can choose different discs based on personal preference and work around deficiencies, but that does not change how the discs themselves act. People don't continue to throw Rocs just because they want to. They do it because they continue to fly well, if not better, as they beat up. If your discs were really flying better as they beat then you'd want to throw them longer, too. That or how a disc flies isn't important to you, which would mean you're evaluating disc based on something other than how they fly which removes any objectivity.

FWIW, I carry a Star Destroyer because I like to pretend that there's a little squid guy in the basket that goes "It's a trap!" when the disc comes around a corner. That doesn't mean I think it's objectively the best disc for that shot in all circumstances that I use it for. It's a hobby for me, sometimes the objectively inferior is more fun, but that doesn't change its objective quality.

Speaking of beat up Roc's vs. Comets : WHen somebody starts playing and wants a understable midrange, is there even a Roc that will fly understable to flippy right away, or do you HAVE to beat them in first ?

You can buy an understable mid to hold you over until you have a beat Roc, but any torque monkey can show you that turning over a new Roc isn't all that hard.

I choose to get rid of my discs because I have a bigger and bigger backup pile at home and it is growing much faster than I am actualy getting rid of discs.

And you can do that with DX Rocs for a half to a third the price. How is cheaper with as good to better performance not objectively better?

I choose to get rid of my old discs because I LIKE the feel and the look and the excitement of a new shiny disc that I love and look forward to throwing. ( In fact, I replaced my entire bag when I hit my 2 years of playing discgolf anniversary, just as a treat for myself and because I wanted to. )

I choose to exchange my discs because I dont wanna play somethig that looks like a camping plate that my dog chewed on before burrying it in the garden.

Again, you choosing stuff doesn't matter. Playing a Hanson CD backwards might implant the idea that all black and clear discs make your dog happier so you should use them but it's still a horrible argument for black and clear discs being objectively superior. As far as I'm concerned that's a perfectly valid reason to choose to do it an objectively worse way. In the case of midranges, most people can get to the point where being objectively optimal doesn't matter. It takes some skill, but not a whole lot. Again, I'm not claiming it's a big deal, but I stand by my analysis.

If you care about the facts, then agree with me that there are two different aproaches to disc selsction at work here and that you can not say that one is better than the other. There are no other facts.

Why should I agree that's a fact when the only evidence you have is personal preference for disc attributes that don't matter? The evidence I have is that the discs are cheaper, last as long if not longer and fly as well if not better.

It all comes down to what you assume the desirable attributes are. In this part of the debate (high end plastic with multiple molds vs. one mold in cheap plastic but several stages of wear) I'm assuming people like discs that fly well and they like having money. Cheaper discs that last longer and fly as well if not better are objectively better. You get the good flight and more money. You're going to have a tough time convincing me, and most other rational disc golfers, that random attributes that either only apply to you, or apply to a small portion of the population, have any objective impact on the quality of a disc. For example, you might like the letter 'B' and claim that the Buzzz is better because it starts with a 'B,' but I honestly doubt most people will share the desire for that attribute in a golf disc.

 

[Triflusal]

FWIW, I like the letter R, and I throw rocs

 

[Smigles]

The fact is that Rocs beat in better than most all high end plastic discs.

I told you why I chose to replace discs because somehow all the posters seem to think that the only reason is that I "can not throw my old discs any more, because they beat in so much worse than Roc's would". Which aint the case.

Beating in to me means only that the disc gets less stable. If that is good or bad is not objective, it's personal preferance. If you like it or not, and therefore if you want this proces to happen fast or slow is again subjective. Hence it is also subjective if you think that DX beats in "better" or not.

If you say that a Roc "beats in better" it means to me that you like your disc to be changing over time and that you like the fact that one disc is overstable one year, stable the next and understable the year after that.

Which is, to repeat myself, only a different aproach to disc selection, and the core of the old roc vs buzzz debate.

If your discs were really flying better as they beat then you'd want to throw them longer, too. That or how a disc flies isn't important to you, which would mean you're evaluating disc based on something other than how they fly which removes any objectivity.

My discs fly different as they beat up. You may notice that I try to keep any subjective values out of this. I say different.

What is important to me : 1 : feel of the disc. 2 : Stability ( in very generalised terms, I usualy carry one overstable, one stable and one understable midrange ). 3 : Replacability. I want my backup disc from my backup pile to fly MORE OR LESS the same as the disc I just lost/tradet/threw into water etc.

I will keep my old Buzzz in the bag, yes. Basicaly for shots that Discraft would like to sell me the Buzzz SS for ( straight with landing straight aswell ). But I will still take a new Buzzz into my bag for the thing I expect from a a buzzz ( going straight with a dependable left fade at the end ).

You think the performance is better. I prefer the feel of ESP plastic. I prefer easily replacable discs. I dont think that 5$ are such a horrendous amount of money. Hence I prefer my ESP plastic.

See ? Subjective.

Why should I agree that's a fact when the only evidence you have is personal preference for disc attributes that don't matter? The evidence I have is that the discs are cheaper, last as long if not longer and fly as well if not better.

Well, as I showed above, how well a disc flies is subjective. How long a disc lasts depends only on how long you want to play it, ergo it depends on you and not on the disc. And cheaper is not always better, specialy if the cheaper product does not have some of the attributes you are looking for.

Hence your "evidence" is also nothing but personal preference. As I said before, there is no right or wrong here, but only personal preferance.

It all comes down to what you assume the desirable attributes are. In this part of the debate (high end plastic with multiple molds vs. one mold in cheap plastic but several stages of wear) I'm assuming people like discs that fly well and they like having money. Cheaper discs that last longer and fly as well if not better are objectively better. You get the good flight and more money. You're going to have a tough time convincing me, and most other rational disc golfers, that random attributes that either only apply to you, or apply to a small portion of the population, have any objective impact on the quality of a disc.

You just repeated what I allready didnt agree with in the part above. Repetition does not make this any better, so I will not do the same.

But I find it amusing that my desired attributes in a disc are random and only my personal preferance, while your deisred attributes are shared ( assumingly ) by all rational disc golfers and therefore objective values. I could do the same, and we could have a flamewar. But I prefer to try to stay objective where I can and clearly state if I only tell my subjective opinion.





All I wanna say is that there is no better or worse, that there are two radicaly different disc selection mechanisms behind this, and that we will probably never agree on this. We dont have to, either.

In the end, skill is a much bigger factor anyway than what disc you chose. I claim that I could probably play the same scores as now within two weeks of field practice if I were to replace all my midranges with Roc's tonight. I'd just have to go play on a street with one of them for a day or two.